Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive248

This is an archive page, last updated 28 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>, <247>, <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)

George Patton could have saved England from ruin...

There are no words.^img --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that Bernard Law Montgomery, I mean what the heck did he ever do? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does homeschooling generally include many lessons on military tactics? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, how did Patton save the US from "ruin"? Did I fall asleep in my liberal history class and miss the bit about Japanese landing craft appearing off Baywatch beach? It certainly couldn't have been the Nazis about to invade New York, they couldn't even manage a trip now done multiple times a day by cross-channel ferries. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

George Patton would have spontaneously generated the resources and well trained pilots required to ensure that Germany never managed to land a single bomb on anywhere in the UK during WW2. Either that or he would've climbed to the top of a tall building and systematically headbutted bombers out of the air, or something. Deny this and lose all credibility. X Stickman (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He would have slapped the liberal out of all of those British gutless bastards.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Britain's greatest general (no, don't argue), Field-Marshall Bill Slim was not only educated at state schools in Birmingham but even taught in a state primary school as his first job. Must be something about Muttfly's homeskooling argument I don't understand... The Real James Brown (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Viscount Slim of Burma was one of our famous old boys; unfortunately so was David ("two brains") Willetts. Генгис^pillaging 03:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Digging up more Conservapedia garbage......

Check this one out: http://conservapedia.com/Vegetarian

This article was written by many users over a 4 year period. It contains all of the following:

• subtle sexism

• bashing of the animal rights movement

• unproven, somewhat unverified critical research

• a Hitler comparison

• fear-mongering directed to conservative, Christian parents

Extra points if you can find quotes relating to all of the above in the article!

(P.S: The "original" article was ridiculously offensive; take a look at a few of the revisions.......)--Lefty (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh.--Inquisitor (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty good. I like keeping note of articles like this so I can concisely show to people who are unfamiliar with CP just how crazy they are. - Jpop (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a CP account to see if I can improve it, since the possibility of averting this wrongheaded view is too great to ignore.--^talk 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck.. RatMaster ^háblame 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good luck. Oh and if you could, make the fruit basket image a little bigger... I'm having trouble seeing it.--Inquisitor (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stick Carmen Miranda under the fruit basket. That would be an improvement.--Simple (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Again with birds and migration

Andy claims the chimney swift bird migratation is without explanation^img, therefore God. It's actually a repeat "counterexample" to evolution. In the past he has suggested that migration could be caused by"intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance"^img (emphasis added). Also, the chimney swift is kinda like a bat, therefore God^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another Rob section

So I was wondering what Rob is up against. He took on Conservative, which exposed the multitude of flaws in CP's hierarchy. First, Andy said and did nothing (as usual, like we didn't see that coming) and showed just how much impunity sysops have, with Conservative even bragging that Andy wouldn't even reply at all[1][2][3]. Being as they are against Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes talk and lack of transparency, the sysops dive into their special discussion group cave to avoid public scrutiny. Rob emerges with the idea that if he can't change the sysops, he'll change the rules and guidelines that they follow... and that's a problem.

The sysops never followed any rules, like the good Christians they are. Ed has writing plans, TerryH spams his website for money, Karajou blocks just about anything that moves, Conservative makes non-encyclopedic essays and plasters them all over the main page, etc. etc. Andy has never done anything to enforce the rules, and the only actions he's taken can be seen as rummaging through the corpses of the dead and removing their medals and badges after a battle is fought (meaning he waits after a huge conflict/fight is over before removing rights) and he's the owner of the site. How can changing the rules possibly ever change Andy's lackadaisical approach, or any other sysop's mentality? It's been four years of a holier-than-thou attitude and scoffing at those silly rules that the lowly peon contributors have to abide by. None can admit they're wrong - Andy will only go so far as to admitting the parodists he gave rights to have "done some good". Of course the sysops would throw each other under the bus, but they'd never admonish themselves, nor would they ever admit to past mistakes and abuses. Hell let's face it, they'd all be banned several times over by now if they were held accountable by the rules (either the site's or each sysops individual "unwritten rules"), including Andy himself. The result of all this: massive ostracization from the world because an editor has to somehow survive the litmus test of each sysop in order to just survive.

TL;DR - What can you possibly hope to achieve? How can you convince Andy to give a shit, increase Jpatt's IQ, or make Ken take his meds? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what Rob is doing is a good thing. Admittedly he's swimming against the stream and the fact that the other sysops are all looking away speaks volumes. If anything is going to breathe life back into a post-TK CP, it's initiatives like this. It's not going to reduce the crazy - Andy and Ken will see to that, but there might be some semblance of a community over there again. Given enough time, they might get some serious editors, and not just a crowd of parodists. However, no matter what Rob implements it's ultimately doomed, for the simple fact that for people like Ed and Kara it's all about teh POWAH and not about building a wiki. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with CP that makes it perhaps impossible to salvage is that the sysops are completely unaccountable. As they have carte blanche to utterly ignore the rules at their leisure they hypocritically demand with authoritarian glee regular users follow to the letter, there is no impetus to fix the fundamentally broken system. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not even so much that they wanted everyone else to follow the rules. The 90/10 rule eventually became the "you're annoying me with pesky facts" rule and even Andy says it's just a vague guideline as to when to banhammer. CP is a total wreck and nothing can save it. I still have no idea why Rob doesn't quit, now more than ever he surely can't believe he can do anything to salvage it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BMcP, were you recently blocked and your user page deleted? Wanna stand up and share that with the class? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, your efforts over the last week or so to make CP more functional are a drop in the ocean. This is the second time in a few short hours that you've tried to argue on this page that it's all better now. It's not, not yet anyways. Ken is still running wild and arguing with in Google-translated Sanskrit, there are still more parodists than good-faith editors, and nobody is taking the site any more seriously, yet. There's still a lot of work to be done. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was blocked for infinity twice over for my high crimes and misdemeanors by known parodist JacobB for attempting to place distances greater that 6000 light years away.. for the location of galaxies. So yeah Rob, the system works! LOL. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is really (and I mean it) a good analysis of the situation. The road to recovery will be slow. I just keep telling myself, "It's George Bush's fault. It's George Bush's fault."

BMcP, Gimme diffs & I'll look into it. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you know the ultimate problem is Andy, who craps on the Wiki as much as anyone else. I'm surprised you feel so committed to a website that is a laughingstock (and embarrassment) in conservative circles. The rot is at the top. I have yet to see evidence that your other sysops want to have their unrestrained power curtailed, so I'm unsure how you think you are going to successful outside of your one man campaign. That, and the parodistseditors that make up your contributor corps don't want to see it changed, either, which is why they support Ken so much (which I like!) --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas Rob, the Andromeda Galaxy article like many of my works, have been memory holed; sysops like to bury their mistakes whenever they can, and pretend things didn't happen lest it be incriminating. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BMcP, you are a user in good standing, best I can tell. Karajou unblocked you and invoited you back months ago. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

By "months ago," you mean "yesterday, right? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And by "best I can tell" you mean you didn't look at the logs and just made that up because it makes you feel better about CP because you know it's a horrible and inhospitable place run by creeps where only creationist toadies or bootlicks like you survive? 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, seriously. There's been some confusion because of evidence of oversight used in the blocking and deletion logs. Coupled with the suspicion everybody's a troll, it's very difficult to peice back together what are and what are not legitimate blocks. And when I go looking for evidence a block was legitimate, the alleged offense itself in discussion or mainspace was deleted and/or oversighted. Another problem is people are just terrified to edit; anywhere they see TK's signature, for example, at the Featured Article page or Andromeda galaxy talk page, bona fide editors recoil from sharing thoughts. So my work is definitly cutout for me. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Only Andy can oversight logs and I'm only aware of him having done it a few times for truly offensive usernames. Ask him. 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No we got the case of NKeaton with links on this page just last week. It might be in the previous Archive. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"However, no matter what Rob implements it's ultimately doomed, for the simple fact that for people like Ed and Kara it's all about teh POWAH and not about building a wiki." Exactly. If Andy puts his foot down and starts enforcing the official rules, Ed and Kara will lose interest and walk away. Ken too. Long term this would obviously be awesome, but short term it would mean Andy is left with a horde of parodists and exactly one useful sysop. I think he knows this. He prefers the stable local minimum the site is in now to the Encyclopedia Dramatica 3.0 it would become if the mall cops left. Mountain Blue (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem, beyond that, is that conservapedia can never be anything but a fringe site now. The reputation it has built up over the years of craziness simply won't go away. You could get all the sysops in line, get Andy to actually behave like a proper site owner and take interest in it, get some editors on board who are willing to add constructive things and have all the sysops actively engage in dialogue over issues rather than randomly banning. But 4 years after that happens, mention Conservapedia to anyone and their response would either be "what?" or "Oh, those guys who wanted to re-write the bible?" Conservapedia simply can't be fixed, at this stage. The best anyone who wants a "good conservapedia" can do is jump ship and start their own. X Stickman (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see of fixing it would be to close up shop, and take it private. Make it what it was supposed to be, a place for homskollars to write about the things they're learning. Once it's established, then you can make it public again. Change the name, carefully limit the editor base to only homskollars. Stop pretending it's now or is ever going to be an encylopedia and stop insisting that everything should have a "conservative" slant and you're golden. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give Rob credit and kudos, the more I look at it, the more I believe he honestly seems to want to reform the place, plus he gets kudos for being the only person of authority there who is willing to openly engage with critics here. If he was actually in charge, CP could be what it was meant to be, because the basic original intent is a decent idea. However, the quite-likely insurmountable problem with CP is three-fold: The fact that several areas are essentially private domains of certain sysops ( Ken is the primary violator here), killing intellectual discourse and betraying the very essence of a collaborative wiki. The lack of accountability among senior-sysops (again this is mostly a Ken problem, although Terry using the wiki as a portal to his own for profit site is pretty unethical). Finally, Andy's unwillingness to confront and deal with these problems (it can also be argued that his authoritarian pride in his own infallibility in all areas of knowledge, and self-appointed guardianship of the very definition of a Conservative, could be the biggest problem facing CP).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say, as RW's entries on CP's history are updated, you guys have some very clear and well reasoned, longterm observations, clearly articlutated on this thread (and another above) that could almost be cut n' pasted into one of those entries. It would even make RW look more rational, and less parodic. Thanks. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me this is Ken...

...because it would be really sad (and odd) if two people out there had a PZ MYERS IS FAT obsession^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be an interesting twist in the tale if it was. Eyeonicr (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought when I read the article. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 04:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, PZ actually mentions Conservapedia when he commented on the site. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's kinda subtle, so I could be misreading things, but it is just possible there's a hint of an ad hominem attack there. 86.173.222.219 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That HHM thing

Department of Health and Human Services: We will give you money if you teach people how to live healthy. Abstinence is off the table [because those who teach abstinence do not teach how to have sex without getting sick with STDs]

Conservative News and Views: "You want our children to be sick with STDs! And you do because you're a bunch of commies that want to destroy America!"

Conservapedia: "The HHM is promoting anti-morality! And discriminates against those with different viewpoints!^img"

That black and white worldview really hits the wall hard once you stop doing any research. --★uːʤɱ sinner 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken WIGO on the BBC?

On the Most popular^img section of the BBC website I see "2: Kenny attacks Vatican over abuse" - what, is the BBC featuring another of Conservative's Catholic-bashing screeds? Apparently not. I must get out more. Генгис^pillaging 10:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no business like show business

"atheistic views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth"
WHAT???!!! Andy's idea of astronomy is "God put all da pwetty sparkly things in da sky for us"? Oh boy, I can't wait for the explanation of this "insight" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh please have a link for this because this I have to see. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't bring myself to add or take away from Andy's quote in the WIGO. It's nearly perfect. Atheistic views can't accommodate the explanation that god put some of the lights in the sky for show. It's fucking brilliang. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, this doesn't seem any crazier than his "Autumn foliage" shit. It's the same principle. Presumably his explanation will be 2+2=4. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the low level that's so impressive. Atheistic views can't accommodate theistic views...and that's a problem for atheistic views. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your linky^img Mr. Moore. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear FSM, what bizarre tortured logic had to be used to possibly come to that conclusion. Andy just must hate the fact that the "Starlight problem" is only a millstone around young earther's necks. How is this a "puzzle" to non-theists? It isn't even an issue for us, there is no "starlight problem" for those who realize through the facts the universe is really some 13.7 billion years old.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How astonishingly egocentric do you have to be to assume that all those billions of fusion powered gas balls millions of light years out in to space were all put there for our amusement? Maybe god might like to "entertain" us with something a little more practical than a supernova now and again. Perhaps with adequate food and water for the world's population? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RatMaster ^háblame 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That whole light discussion is fascinating. I particularly enjoyed the parts where they assert that distances and times to galaxies is not science and Karajou digging Omphalos out of his grave... Danoso (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my personal biggest beef with CP and what made me so leery on continuing there, the very notion that any object past 6,000 light years isn't really that far, and instead claiming a greater distance is based on some sort of "atheistic" bias. It's so patently absurd that virtually no other YEC even toys with the notion but because Andy believes it, it is a de facto rule there (you will not find a distance recorded for any object considered greater than that distance on CP).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what's bigger - Andy's ego or the moon? Meh, silly me, Andy's ego always wins such battles. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy^img is basically saying "OK, I can rationalize the fact that we can see objects billions of light years away, but there is NO WAY the universe is actually more than 6,000 years old." Karajou^img seems to pretty much agree. To me, the explanation that God created light that was on its way to Earth, making it look like things are so far away, just seems so contrived. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is contrived. They have to come up with some overly complex or completely off the wall explanation in the vain attempt to shoehorn the fact we can see objects in excess of 13 billion light years into a 6,000 year old universe and it Just. Doesn't. Work. They can't deny these objects are that far away, as it is so easy to demonstrate how we can accurately measure such distance extra-galactic objects, there is no sooper sekret method in measuring red shift, they can easily duplicate the method. So they come up with goofy explanations, like how distance isn't time; well that is bull, because light has a finite fixed maximum speed in a vacuum and there is no evidence of that constant has ever changed, especially by the order of magnitude needed for such objects to be only 6,000 years old.

We are not seeing 13 billion light year objects as they are now, but as they were 13 billion years ago (they have since moved away and are now some 46 billion light years away). As Carl Sagan so aptly puts it, "telescopes are time machines", because we always are viewing the past (thanks to relativistic speeds). So Andy will backhandedly deny such distances are plausible but cannot possibly explain how such distances are implausible, or somehow claim the starlight problem is a problem for naturalists because..I dunno, stars are pretty? he is backed into a corner on this one and he knows it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The logical hoops that creationists jump through to reconcile the Bible with the observed universe is truly spectacular. I'm an engineer, so I am used to finding solutions to problems while certain external constraints are placed on my final design (costs, time, physics...etc). The more constraints that are placed upon a design, the more skill it will require to find the solution. Literal interpretations of the Bible make it impossible to reconcile it with reality. Yet, undaunted, the creationist slides up to the drafting table and says "I can do this. Challenge accepted!"--Inquisitor (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's a start.

I'm not sure to what, though. I don't think it's worth a WIGO, but preserving for posterity^img. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Kendoll doesn't get on with his therapist. God will cure him of his mental illness if only he has faith enough! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. It's on the front page. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The flag will turn people republican!

first it was the Fourth^imgnow its a flag!--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could this help explain the correlation between low intelligence and conservatism? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Right. There are several flags just outside my polling place, and every time I vote, I proudly vote Democrat. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i don't really get symbolic patriotism, or empty patriotism for that matter. I like living in the US, and there's only a few countries that I think are as good/better. But I don't see any need to wave a flag (any more than I'd wear a cross, or a pink triangle) to proclaim my views. I don't see any need to tell people my views at all, frankly, unless they ask. Course, i think being a patriot also means you question, you challenge, you think, you inquire, you demand better, you push forward, and you don't look back except to insure you are moving forward. most neo-cons and "patriots" i know don't think you should do much of any of that.--En attendant Godot 20:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never quite understood how people like Andy can call themselves patriots when all they ever talk about in relation to America is how shit it is at the moment, and how much better it would be if it were more like their vision. How can you be a patriot if 90% of your views are based on how much your country (currently) sucks? X Stickman (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you squint, you could count that under "My country: When right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right". The same rationale that allows someone to call themselves a patriot and demand universal healthcare or unilateral disarmament. But I don't know much about patriotism. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

CP's position is more extreme than that, though. They don't argue that America is a tarnished beauty, or that America could be the best if it pulled itself together. They argue that America *is* the best already, no arguments. But then they spend half their time complaining about the problems in America and about how shitty those problems are (even if it's in a roundabout way: Andy's constant claims that conservatism is taking over, for example, implies that Liberalism has been in charge for a while, which to Andy is a bad thing, therefore America was bad for a while). It's just... bizarre. X Stickman (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy sees those things as patriotic and American (whatever that means to you) that are conservative (to him). Capitalism=patriotic, Christianity=patriotic, walking around with guns=patriotic, democracy=awesome when Rs are elected acceptable when Ds are elected but still patriotic, a.s.o. we all know the list. Everything else is just liberal influence in a pseudo-American culture that has to be swiped clean of what he sees as evil. Therefor people bcoming "more patriotic" (by experiencing how beneficial it is to be so) become also more patriotic. That that often means that people are indoctrinated left of him (not that there would be much right of him), and so would never consider his ideas on some topics (Libya anyone?). So he not only has a biased concept of what is patriotic/American/conservative, he also completely misses the point of what a nation is supposed to be - at least that's what I'm guessing. --★uːʤɱ kant 00:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Behold!

If Andy were a superhero, he'd be called "ignore-man". How will his power deal with this^img? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he'll invoke talk, talk, talk. Hey, when was the last time that was invoked? Haven't seen it around for a long while. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If Schlafly or any of his goons can read a word of Koine they'll instantly recognize what August said to them in his last paragraph. He's already responded to it (poorly), but it bears repeating. 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that anyone on CP who is vaguely familiar with Koine is a sock of ÑR. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely wish I could take credit for AugustO but I can't. He looks like a good faith editor. Nobody else has his patience. 18:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

wasnt he banned?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked four times^img, three times indefinitely. He blocks were lifted by Karajou and Andy himself. Perhaps an acquaintance of Andy? On the other hand he refers to Andy as Aschlafly, suggesting no personal connection. His ideas for the bible project seem to be genuine, but his criticism of Andy is scorching:

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment." You seem to refer to this entry from July 10, 2011: August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [4], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT) Surely this isn't the review and comment which you were planning for two months? I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --Andy Schlafly 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT) Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed here, I will take a closer look at your statement: August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for any reference, but for a meaningful reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your google count of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on April 18, 2011: Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution! --AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT) Frankly, I expected your comment and review to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too. Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a meaningful reference, neither. With one simple search... this should have been a warning: you have tried simple searches before, and you failed. ...I found that it is translated as "when"... Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as when by the NAS, the New American Standard Bible. Conservapedia states The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online. It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected. ...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular. Yep, when can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment" Summary: On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment". Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you. Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ. AugustO 09:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

The Greek quote seems to be from Revelation-22:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobs, if you really want to fix CP...

...then you gotta do a better job of policing the sysops. I don't know who JamesWilson is, or when he got rights, but this is truly fucked up. Guy NEVER MADE AN EDIT, and got banned for violating the naming convention. Not a friendly note on his userpage saying "Hey, welcome, glad to meet you, BUT, we've got this rule about usernames, so we'd like to ask you to change it. Something along the lines of first name and an initial, but we can be flexible to a certain extent." No. BANNED for two weeks. Now, in all likelihood the guy's just another parodist/vandal/troll, 'cause that's mostly what you attract, but still, if he is a good faith user, do you think he marked the date of the expiry on his calendar and will come back in 14 days as "BruceW" or something? nope, he's gone for good. No way to build a community. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 00:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They should put a vandal brake in like we have. They should also allow banned users to state their case on their talk page. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I gotta admit, when I had block rights on CP, I blocked on sight for username only. Like the time I blocked VenomFangX..... 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

YAWN, yet another "Please recreate your account, (oh yeah, you CAN'T because 'account creation' is blocked by default, harr har". They never have worked out that the people their seeking to edit are going to have "Western" names, (Richard, Thomas, William, Ethel...) And then there's ONLY 26 letters in English...so they're going to run out of available usernames quickly. 01:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Actually, since autoblock is disabled, the IP won't be blocked at all, so the blocked user can create a new account. -- Nx / talk 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Naw, it ain't just Jimmy, it's MaxFletcher (blocked a guy on sight for name today too) and the Sysops as well. I don't think they know how to uncheck ban boxes. It's CP tradition.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

JamesWilson blocks people for "inappropriate" usernames because he's seen other admins do it. It's a vicious cycle... SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking of running a sock. How's AkmedWBush sound? Geez, who do suppose FergusE might be? He's even running a proxy. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to punch whoever is running him in the face. In other words, he's doing a good job. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You could use some of TK's old ones I know that he had a few. Генгис^pillaging 04:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I told you about Fergus days ago. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious both JamesWilson and FergusE are socks who read RW (I don't think any entrenched RW users bother socking anymore - its no longer fun). I have noticed them both making edits after reading something here. Ace^{of Spades} 06:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to sock because I was never given a chance to have an account in this name while TK was around and to out my elevated rights good faith account as the alter ego of Nutty Roux would be suicide. 14:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, seriously...

...I can live with my IP being locked out from CP for hours for accessing more than ten or so pages in a few minutes (though it's annoying and idiotic as Hell), I can live with the CAPTCHA against adding external links (though it's annoying and idiotic as Hell), I can live with not having edit/upload rights (though it's annoying and idiotic as Hell), but seriously... IF YOU LOCK DOWN THE SITE FOR THE NIGHT, AT LEAST DON'T LOCK IT IN A STATE WHERE THE MOST RECENT EDITS^img ARE OBVIOUS VANDALISM, YOU MORONS. I'm literally looking at it without being able to revert because it's the nightly lockdown now (fun fact: it's not night in Germany right now).

God, I forgot how aggravating this Catch-22 "meritocracy" could be. --Sid (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so now it's something bad?

Wait, didn't they just say space travel was waste taxes?^img Or is it just now that this is another negative thing to say about the Obama administration?

Sometimes I wonder how dumb these people actually think their real readers are. I mean how much was that from Ken saying that such useless liberal wastes of money like the Smithsonian, the Department of Education and the NASA, to TerryH complaining about about Americas impotence to send people into space. Maybe it's also that other nations and organizations like Russia, China and Europe still can ("oh my god all of those have commie pasts!"), while America can't. Because you know, the old Cold War logic of "whatever they are good at, we have to be better at" is still embedded into these non-functioning brains. And, you know, if you always have to be the best at everything because you somehow realized that you actually suck at everything, complaining about thing really helps. </rant> --★uːʤɱ secularist 11:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder if that particular breed of fundie conservative ever experience cognitive dissonance.

"Fund NASA! We need to make sure America's space-penis is the biggest!"

"What? Science and government spending? Noooooooooooooo!"

^{ONE / TALK} 12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And of course don't forget which flavour of American administration took the descision to close the shuttle programme. But hey, terryh never otherwise lets mere facts get in the way of one of his moronic articles piles of shit so why should he start now. Here's a hint terry and you other cp sysops reading here, it wasn't a democrat administration that rclosed the programme. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

TK, Andy and Ed Poor have all taken refuge in Emerson's quote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" but like most things they never really understand its true message. Генгис^pillaging 14:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the usual conservative thought process was (in order):

1. During Republican admin: Project X is awesome! Pile more money into it!
2. During Democrat admin: Project X is a waste of money, how dare democrats waste taxpayers money on it!
3. Democrats choose to close Project X: How dare the democrats close this fantastic project that was started by the Republicans!

No? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and stop channelling TK. Генгис^pillaging 15:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• the old Cold War logic of "whatever they are good at, we have to be better at"

Gee whiz, if that's true, why are Tea Partiers opposing a debt ceiling increase? All that crap, NASA & Cold War competition, all of it was funded through government debt & deficits. And you say they got their heads up their asses, they don't know what their talking about? What a bunch of bullshit. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about the content of the news, I'm saying keep your shitty ideasstraight at least on MPR. I do not allow myself and opinion on the American space programm, it's neither my money nor am I in any way inclined by ethics to have an opinion on these matters. The other countries of the world can gain new land for the human race just fine without the USA, just have push more money in there - and hey, if American bankers don't fuck up the global economy again, that might even work! --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps because, you know, to be contrary.

Thing is this debt ceiling "crisis" is completely artificial. There is no reason for it except for political brinkmanship and populism (there's a surprise). Stupid stupid dichotomous partisan bullshit. America, get a fucking grip. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a leak: I said on CP's private discussion group the other night I thought the default crisis would be a ongoing crisis every six months or year until the last baby boomer is dead, and some baby boomers got offended. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Silly Nobbykins. You know that the default crisis will be ongoing every six months to a year until a Republican is elected president. Then it'll be back to slashing taxes for the wealthy and throwing money at bullshit missiles, planes, lasers and everything else that keeps Raytheon in money. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Chain of Events, dumbass

Karajou does it again.^img

1. That's a well known fact, dumbass.
2. Ever heart of the term "chain of events"? (Dumbass…)

--★uːʤɱ digital native 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget, CP loves the next leader, Augusto Pinochet. You know, the guy who (probably) committed genocide, tortured and imprisoned thousands, but CP's article tries to defend him all the way. Bonus points if you read the talk page and see Roger trying to explain away 3000 murders. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not murder if they are commies. Or liberals. Or atheists. Or slightly left leaning. Its only murder if they are fetuses. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obama approval ratings - Gallup

Andy trumpets a Gallup poll showing Obama losing support^img Funny, because Politico has the headline Gallup: President Obama approval holds steady. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts. such bothersome little things when the goal is Truth (tm)--En attendant Godot 20:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a common trend on the right since inauguration day. His poll numbers drop a few points and it's a sign of his approval "plummeting". Whenever they go up a point or two, they don't see anything. It's a good thing they don't use the same reasoning with things like climate change... --Inquisitor (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point outside of making themselves feel better. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Compare it to masturbation, then youll understand. --En attendant Godot 22:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you two are making the same point. --★uːʤɱ pervert 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ace, what is best in life?

Having not paid much attention to Ken's bizarre essay I never really commented on it but now I am beginning to think it sheds a lot of light on Ken's personal life when he declares the best thing for him is sitting around creating silly "essays" and watching RW respond (because no one else ever does). If someone said "User:Ace, what is best in life?" my answer would "Drinking a fine bottle of red wine then bagging my wife." But that's just me. Ace^{of Spades} 21:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Is she free this weekend? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a dream last night that me, you and my dad were drinking in some New York pub. Ace^{of Spades} 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do they have pubs in NY? I thought they just had bars. --Horace (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I love that he refers to himself in the third person as "User:Conservative."

For my money, nothing beats an ice cold bottle of budwiser and a hot summer day and a new comic book. And ken, because I know he's reading this, as you ad what I just said to your essay on atheist nerds, consider that I still get out more then you.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Budweiser? You do have low expectations. Генгис^pillaging 22:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

....unless you mean the original Czech brew of the same name. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My careful reading between the lines had already excluded that scenario. Генгис^pillaging 04:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope so, because American Bud gives you the shitz. And the worst headache you've I've ever encountered. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Bud (U.S. version). Not a big fan of beer snobs.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It also shows much about his character - he's basicly declaring himself an attention whore. For me it is probably Friday afternoon during TV season. The week is over, two free days ahead of you and last season I had at some point 9 shows to go through (roughly six hours) - and all that with a fellow (female) geek wraped around your arms and at least I want to stop time. --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the "Genghis Conservapedia" thing had me looking for a USERNAME template. Also Ken needs to update his hunting metaphors, the Mongols use eagles not piddling little falcons. Генгис^pillaging 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Summer nights sitting in my garden enjoying a beer and a cigarette. Or getting laid. One of the two. SJ ^Debaser 11:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just think if you hadn't rejected my every advance you could be enjoying a beer, a cigarette, and getting laid in your garden. On a summer night. Please don't tell your parents about me. 14:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a supreme irony that Ken spends hours writing a nonsensical essay criticising others for not having a life and then deletes it, forever. Генгис^pillaging 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, did you mean to say "bagging"? As that could be construed to mean something very different and either very kinky or very illegal. ADK^{...I'll abandon your Gatsby!} 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just my mind that works that way. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

These were the memes that Ken was saying could well go viral, right? Yeah, how's that coming, Kenny boy? DickTurpis (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Living Dinosaurs

Hell yes! So it is true. Dinosaurs are still around. Conservapedia even found proof: "What is the Alaska sea monster? Answer: a living dinosaur." And here I was thinking they died 65 million years ago. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And for the record, plesiousaurs weren't dinosaurs. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 04:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

:D It's not uncommon (and not unfunny) for Young Earth Creationists to speculate about the continued existance of Dinosaurs, considering that they claim that dragons are dinosaurs and have no plausible explanation (not that plausibility has ever been a factor in their ideas) as to why they would not still be here. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AiG always has a lot of funny stuff on dinosaurs too. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 04:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They never seem to explain how all the different sorts of extinct reptiles and even large mammals were accommodated on ark (because there were some absolute monsters) in addition to all the other creatures that are still extant. Also it seems like a great waste of effort that after looking after the beasts onboard for all those months that they were then wiped out apart from the odd one that's hiding away somewhere. Генгис^pillaging 04:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could not these creationists explain away dinosaurs by saying they were animals Noah failed to get on the Ark? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry Wobblebottom is officially the most batshit insane of the CPers. This is another guy with a decent education (science and medicine no less) that has gone off the deep end in his attempts to marry reality to his view of the world. It's not his views on the universe, or living dinosaurs either, PZ did a wonderful takedown of Terry's views on why creationism is awesome. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gengis Khant's comment gave me an idea. Can we positively PROVE Noah's Ark to be a logical impossibility, based on 1) the number and size of animals it is supposed to have hosted, and 2) the size of the Ark, as stated in the Bible? Or was it so large that there would have been room to spare? --Maquissar (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean prove it? It is self-evidently an impossiblity for the mythical boat to have been big enough to carry two of every kind of animal so the creatards already lie about it and say it only carried 2 of the kind of dog and all breeds of dogs today are descended from those 2. Prove that it is impossbile for even 2 of every kind of animal to have been carried on their ferry and they will simply invent a new lie to try to prove their myth true. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

God could have helped Noah mak it bigger inside than outside. Stop being silly. Auld Nick (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry's already making shit up as he goes along: "Noah brought specimens of every land animal on board, and every flying animal. He didn’t have to bring the swimmers on board." Seems he forgot the bit where the Big Cheese said, "every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark." Or maybe Terry, like Andy, knows what God meant to say, He just didn't have the words for it. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus there's the whole pH and pressure problem that those fishes (and swimming mammals, I guess) would encounter. Maybe Terry should go get a load of fresh water fish and throw them in the sea, and see if they last for a year without intervention. X Stickman (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you're getting God confused with the Doctor. Actually, I might make that my motto for a while: God is not a Timelord. Mmm, maybe not.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the creationists dual assumption that a surviving plesiosaur or dinosaur would endanger Darwinism and (as a result) the sane amongst us would be anything other than delighted by their discovery. Is there anyone who wouldn't be utterly delighted to find these things? Toffeeman (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they never get that evolution thing right. The whole " if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" argument demonstrates that they can only see it as some sort of train journey from one stop to another. The creatards can only see the world in their own terms, so atheism is a "religion" and the starlight problem cannot be explained by atheists. Генгис^pillaging 12:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maquissar, courtesy of NCSE, here is an excellent takedown of Noahs Ark. Danoso (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawking should mind his buisness!

the proud atheist Stephen Hawking doesn't know a thing about theology or Religion and shouldn't talk about them^img I'm to lazy to find all the times they've put up people unqualified to talk about anything, or Andy's "History" Lectures--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That coming from the guy who will not disclose his expertise, his name, his education, or even his gender? Awesome. --Sid (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It has to be nice when ideals only count for the other side. --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is also coming from a website with a "Best of the Public" approach to knowledge, a website which doesn't accept the importance of academic qualifications and basically argues that, in matter of physics, an astrophysicist and a group of boyscouts wield the same authority. A website on which an attorney wanted to review the work of a microbiologist. Now, all of a sudden, the only people who should discuss religion are those who have studied theology. --Maquissar (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted this a few days ago, wondering if someone should point it out to PJR. If Hawking shouldn't discuss theology perhaps Phil should stop talking about biology. Ace^{of Spades} 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy and starlight

Can anyone even tell what Andy's trying to say here? I am entertained when he says stupid things... but it's boring when I can't understand him whatsoever. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Look three sections up. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ach, I'm an idiot :( Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

God is certainly a rascal, isn't he? Putting light beams in mid flight, burying fossils, putting stuff in DNA, etc. All of it to fool us. If ONLY we had faith, and ignored the evidence. Next we will discover that gravity doesn't really work, darn that God! Dawkins points out that the distance that light can travel in 6,000 years relative to the total size of the universe is at the same ratio as the distance from NY to LA to 7 meters. Jimaginator (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the total size of the universe? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Approx 13.7 billion light years across with an energy density of 0. Ace^{of Spades} 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's fixed, and not variable, or infinite? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is getting older and larger all the time. And current studies suggest it is infinite but bounded. Ace^{of Spades} 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So if it's infinite, it still has a measurable width? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Are current studies true? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant finite but unbounded. I get it confused sometimes. And current studies are mainly based on observation instead of theory. Ace^{of Spades} 22:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

wiki says "The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 billion parsecs (46 billion, or 4.6 × 1010, light years) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion, or 9.3 × 1010, light years). Assuming that space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 3.5 × 1080 cubic meters. This is equivalent to a volume of about 410 nonillion cubic light-years (4.1 × 1032 cubic light years)." but i don't know what a parsect is. Edit conflicts. --En attendant Godot 22:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A parsec is the distance away an object 1 AU in length must be to appear to occupy only 1 degree in your field of vision. It's about 3.5 LY. 67.175.159.85 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, so we're talking about "known universe", or "obeservable universe", and what goes beyond the shadows, nobody knows. Also, we are not talking about truth, facts, or science then either, correct? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, we are not talking about truth, facts, or science then either. The size, age, energy density and geometry of the universe is quite factual and scientifically sound. Ace^{of Spades} 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Finite measurements, in an infinte universe. OK, you get an "F". Next, please. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The universe is finite, Rob. But unbounded. Ace^{of Spades} 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A parsec is about 3.26 light-years (and is a unit of distance, not time as Star Wars would mislead you to believe). It is currently unknown whether the universe is infinite or finite. As WaitingforGodot mentions, the oberservable universe is about 46 billion light years. It's bigger than 13.7 billion light-years (i.e, age of the universe times the speed of light) because the universe itself it expanding. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I typed 13.7 I felt it was incorrect. Not think so clearly morning and confused age with size. Ace^{of Spades} 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen people with degrees science think the same thing. Easy mistake to make. For more info about the size of the universe see the Wiki cares about facts more than ideology. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole infinite vs. finite is interesting though. The universe is finite in that we have the observable universe which we can weigh, measure and observe but, as the universe is expanding it is also unbounded and infinite. Ace^{of Spades} 22:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole universe, even beyond the visible universe, would have to be finite because it had a beginning (the big bang). I guess the unbounded part would mean it can keep expanding forever in hyperspace. In a multiverse theory, a bunch of finite-sized universes could exist "unbounded" (if you use my interpretation of the word) together if they're hanging out and expanding in a higher dimensional hyperspace. That's my take on it anyway. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer the questions above as best I can, the observable universe is roughly 93 billion light years in diameter. When we say observable we mean the total distance possible in for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth. The reason it is 92 billion light years instead of say 26 billion light years is because the universe is expanding, and objects whose light had left some 13 billion years ago (and thus was 13 billion light years away back then) has now moved farther away to around 46 billion light years or so from us today. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the us here on Earth.

Of course some parts of the universe are likely be too distant for the light emitted from there at any moment since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach us here on Earth at present, so these portions of the universe lie outside of the observable universe, making the total universe larger still. Nobs asked what is outside of the universe, or what is it expanding into. That is an excellent question and the honest answer is we don't yet know. There are some hypothesizes such as the multiverse to explain what is "beyond" but no solid evidence to say what if anything is there one way or the other. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow...."one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the Mona Lisa".^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is moving closer and closer to the Omphalos hypothesis. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As quoted by Andy "The starlight problem superficially suggests distances too far for any theory, biblical or atheistic". Whaaaat? What Andy is doing is purposely pulling ad hoc idea straight out of his black hole; there is no "starlight problem" in natural astronomy. We know why they are that far, because to veeeery simply put it, it took light that long to travel at the constant speed c to get to us (and no it isn't a guess and yes we can reliably measure the distance). Comparing the night sky to the Mona Lisa is a nice thought, but it is just a subjective opinion by the observer. Besides most objects beyond 6,000 light years were unknown to use for most of our history until we invented the technology to observe such objects, so such beauty was "hidden" to us for most of our species existence.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BMcP, you obviously don't understand how science works. Ace^{of Spades} 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an essay? Eye on the ICR ^{Quit talking and start discombobulateing!} 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's pulling another autumn foliage, but this time it's "distance artwork"^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how Andy looks up at the sky and sees a magic man making a light show. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now Rob is bad mouthing us^img--Night Jaguar (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)!

Its all over the Andromeda Galaxy^img once again. If Rob wants to challenge any assertions I made about the galaxy, I am happy to discuss it openly here. Bring your objections out in the open in this forum. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole "open-minded" meme over at CP is probably the most annoying thing about it. Andy is easily the most close-minded person I have ever seen. Every time he uses the term "open mind" I'd like to magically appear in front of him and kick him square in the nuts. DickTurpis (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion's been moved, I note. Eye on the ICR ^{Quit talking and start discombobulateing!} 04:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in true Orwellian fashion, 'open mind' at CP has come to mean 'accept Andy's claims blindly'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I really like this.^img (Ignore the upper part of the diff, it slipped in in the middle of the discussion at the bottom) "So I went to this wiki, asked a couple of broad questions of a literally universal scale without doing any research myself, and now I'm not happy with the answers because they didn't go through the entire universe with a fricken ruler, so these observations and resulting theories are not facts, not truth, and clearly not science. Because Creationism taught me that science is only what is always replicable in a lab or written by God in an old book that we're currently retranslating into its true meaning because this omnipotent and omniscient author didn't have the proper conservative terms available back then." Right, that makes sense. --Sid (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid Sid Sid, you're spinning now: I clearly said, "current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science"; you deliberately, that is, deliberately, misquoted when you said, "not facts, not truth, and clearly not science". That changes the entire context & meaning -- and all the evidence is on this here discussion thread, right here, above. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your original post reeked of sarcasm, like "Oh, it's not truth or fact, but according to them, it's science!" If you in fact agree without sarcasm that it's science, I do apologize. --Sid (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I was illustrating cuts to the nexus. The CP/RW war has been over one side saying bible = truth and another saying science = truth. I deftly illusrtated (in the hands of several RW contributors), science = bullshit. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But creationists claim that creationism = science, so you just said that creationism = bullshit. :) --Sid (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Science is nothing holy to hang your hat on, would be my position. People are ignorant, and sometimes deliberately ignorant. A make-pretend universe, where universal truths are decided by whatever the latest scientific fads consider consensus, is willful ignorance. And further, science is just a specialty, like home economics or woodshop. It sure as FUCK is not the search for truth, anymore than the criminal justice system is. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I especially liked nob's "They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears." I don't think he was paying attention... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really! Just how stupid is Rob? He lobs a few dumbassed questions into a thread here and then has no clue what the answers mean because it's like trying to explain it my goldfish. You talk to it and then it just goes swimming around in circles in its own little bowl oblivious to what's going on in the greater world. And this is guy who wanted to be a moderator at a RW and touts himself as Mr. Reasonable? Генгис^pillaging 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Okumene

To be slightly fair to rob the concept of the universe expanding into hyperspace in the form of a finite yet boundless entity is a little hard for most minds to grasp. I've a first degrre in applied physics (1984) and I sometimes struggle with the more out there concepts of string theory, gravitational theory and multi-dimensional space. The difference between Rob and I is I go 'wow, thats amazing. Wont it be great if we ever find the answer to these questions but until then I will simply remain in awe of the wonder of the universe and of physics search for the answers'.
Rob says 'goat did it, no need to know more and if you can't prove goat didnt do it I win by default so there'. It's the difference between a questioning and open mind and a closed and rigid one I suppose. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's a big blob that's growing, meaning it probably has an energy source. Outside the blob, who knows? Meantime, we have a distincion between "known universe" (or "observable universe") and "unknown universe". Ok. Known universe is somewhat close in meaning to the Greek term, "Okumene", which is oft translated "world". However, world does not necessarily mean "earth". The German wiki has a good disambig page on Okumene, which captures somewhat the sense of the term. The Okumene can go beyond earth, geographic and political subdivisions, etc. It can mean what we know and understand about the "world" (possibly "universe"), and how it functions and interrelates with itself. The term "economy" takes in party of this; so do "ecumentalism", etc. More later. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, objects moving through a vacuum do not require an energy source. The rest of your post looks like nonsense. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite lines from the discussion: "God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. " - Karajou - In short he is basically saying the Omphalos hypothesis is the de facto accepted answer in CP dealing with the fact we can see objects greater than 6,000 light years. It could be argued that this is why distances of over 6,000 light years were erased because they endorse the ideas that those objects may simply not even exist, or simply exist in some unknown state because of their distance and the "fact" the light was created ex nihilo en-route giving the false impression of extreme age. This of course leads to the philosophical question of why a God would want to trick people into believing an illusion of extreme age of the universe when it is very young (especially since with this hypothesis he very well could have created the universe Last Thursday).

Also the universe is not a blob that is growing, but connected space-time that is expanding. We also do have a theory of what drives this expansion (and its an accelerating expansion), a force known as Dark Energy.

Rob/nobs I am also curious about this quote from you: "It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, and I fully agree it is junk science designed to serve a socio-political cause" - Rob (Emphasis mine). Exactly what "socio-political cause" am I attempting to endorse by talking about the idea of a Andromeda-Milky Way collision so far in the future?

Why are you giving us a german DISAMBUITION page. just because a word has multiple things it can be used for (one, you will note, appears to be a band (?) - note, my german is VERY bad), has nothign to do with "what it means'. at least you could have selected the one word on that page that was the intention of your meaning. By the by, are you fluent in german?--En attendant Godot 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ps rob, i "love" how you people think. you have a term, and instead of trying to actually find a quality English translation, you type the term (as you think it is), into wiki, and say "oh, look it's in German, i'll post that." as if you are fluent in German and really understand it, vs the rest of us who just use google translate. Why did you not use the English version of the greek word Ecumene (which has an ENGLISH wiki that is far more explanatory than a DISAMBIGUATION page. Do you think it makes you look smart to post in German? Do you not know how to translate Greek into English? do you knot know the greek term, οἰκουμένη?? this kind of short shifted thinking is why conservatives and religious conservatives specifically, and those at "conservapedia" even more specifically are ridiculed.--En attendant Godot 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the Bing translator:

"(Greek η οἰκουμένη "occupied", the passive participle "live" from οἰκέω oikéō", see also: οἶκος oíkos "dwelling"; also transliterated ecumenism) described the whole inhabited world in the Graeco-Roman antiquity."

but I'm going to modify the end of the sentence to,

"described the whole known world" or to "what is known of the world" or "our understanding of the world".

Now, a tale of caution, King James translators use "world" for "okumene" in a few places, they also used "eon" (time, age) and "cosmos" (humanity). So, you're big bang theory, or distance to andromeda, starlight problem, etc. etc. etc., is all covered under the rubric of the New Testement understanding of Okumene. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The BING translation of greek? do you speak any language fluently other than english? cause you can't take a sentance and shove it into "bing" and start an argument based on that machine translation. you would know this if you are fluent in a second langage, and if you try it--En attendant Godot 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't God just say explicitly in the Bible "Hey, the universe is 13.7 billion years old and is expanding. Oh, and here are the equations for general relativity."? An ancient tribe describing these things would be very hard for atheists to explain and you wouldn't have to be playing this silly translation game. Instead, what we have is more like the creation myths of every ancient societies than some supreme intelligence. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Godot, not the Bing translation of Greek, but the Bing translation of the German Wikipedia article on "Oikumene". Which is slightly sillier than machine-translating Greek considering that the language bar contains a link to wp:Ecumene. --Sid (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See here, wp:Cosmos#Theology

• In theology, the term can be used to denote the created Universe, not including the creator. The Septuagint uses both kosmos and oikumene for the inhabited world,

Some of this may be destined for (atehistic/commie/satanic) biases in WP. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're just deliberately changing the meaning of the word from "inhabited world" to observable universe? Good to know. Anyway, I'm sure other cultures distinguished between the parts of the world they knew and the parts they didn't. That hardly proves they knew something deep about cosmology. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The universe is (part of) the inhabited world. The immediate problem I had was several spelling of okumene (oikumene, etc.) and the de.wiki gave some sense (as noted) of the multiplicity if meanings. Now, let's illustrate. The Greeks knew China and India were the oikumene, or inhabited world, yet many ancient documents refer to Alexander the Great (about 300 years before Christ) as conquering the oikumene. Clearly the context does not refer to "inhabited world", all. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you know I do this for a living, right? Look at original language sources, and attempt to translate the dead language into something we can understand today. You don't get to just say "Oh, well clearly Okiumene means observable universe", when the words "observable" and "universe" were not even conceptions of the day. unlike Andy's little "let's retranslate the bible" project, to understand how a term should be translated, you have to actually *understand* the original language, the culture, and the intended context. you can not just look at one word, a dictionary, and your own "feelings" and say "here it is, my new view of what that word means". --En attendant Godot 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the definitions he gives justifies their view of the universe anyway.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘BMcP, here's my point, more fully expounded. King James translators used three words translated "world", they are cosmos, aeon, and oikumene. The problems with aeon have mostly been resolved in more recent tranlsations (NKJV, for example); cosmos is another discussion reserved for another time. Oikumene, the least used by KLV translators, can be understood more specifically as the familiar world, or recognizable world. All these modern definitions of okumene seem to not be able to define it withouting using the term "world", a redundancy. And "world" is often understood, or misunderstood, to refer to planetary concepts, terrain, etc. But most people seems to recognize ("in their own little world") the term has a multiplicty of meanings not related at all to geo-spacial concepts. In this sense, oikumene means, what we know of the world and how it works, which is what the field of economics is, for example. To cut to the quick, the "observable universe" you speak of, is the oikumene of scripture. Both are created and are inhabited by created living beings. Beyond what we know of the observable universe (or dwelling place of God's creatures, the oikumene), what it is and how it functions, is the unknown. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting although it doesn't address my initial concerns. When we talk observable universe, we are not talking the entirety of the physical universe although we cannot say for certain what anything outside the observable universe looks like. The observable universe also has rather distinct boundaries; we will never see any electromagnetic picture beyond the cosmic microwave background radiation from the time of the first photon decoupling during the recombination epoch, before than the universe would have been opaque. It is possible though to see further back via neutrino background, or even gravitational waves. Assuming the physical universe is finite, what lays "beyond" is totally unknown and here is the problem. Because it is unknown (beyond our ability to observe and detect) we cannot claim with any certainty what is there. When you say "dwelling place of God's creatures, the oikumene" there is no way to show such a place or any of those beings exist precisely because we have no way to determine with any certainty whatsoever what is "outside the universe".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You got half the point. The oikemene, or that part of God's creation that man can see, and understand, and inhabit, is the universe. Outside the oikumene, or observable universe, both the New Testament and the version of man's studies (or 'science') you cite, are in agreeement. It is unknown. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken dives into the rabbit hole, frantically calls Andy

The moment people start asking a few questions^img on the talk page, Ken runs to Andy^img to request special protection of his "article" (which is basically just a copy-paste job of a section of another article).

Ahhh, life was so much easier when you could just redirect talk pages to other articles and lock everything so that nobody could ever challenge anything... --Sid (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Ken can't redirect and lock any longer? Don't tell me I missed the promotion of the century. Mountain Blue (talk)

"Fine, given that evolutionists have tried to inject their nonsense repeatedly into this article if memory serves, I did lock it. They hate admitting they get trounced in debates and they have turned into cowards by largely dodging debates now." Irony Overdose! You can almost see his brain "working": They tried to put stuff in their, so I locked it → ^{I always get defeated} → But they hate defeat! So they say they won't debate us anymore → They are cowards → I win ^{seekrily block person I debate with} --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

MB, it wasn't really a promotion or anything, but rather Rob bopping Ken on the head over having a quadrillion mainspace talkpages redirecting to articles and being protected. And Ken said that he wouldn't do it anymore (but that he'd also ignore any complaints raised on such talk pages). --Sid (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"This is an important article", yes, just like everything that Ken writes is "important". All his "see Main article" links which are nothing more than the self-same paragraphs but on their own page because that's how you do your SEO. What a little dick he is. Генгис^pillaging 23:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have this feeling that Conservative believes his "articles" gain more importance by linking them to other "articles", that he made, which then link to others. It's circular logic in the form of a virtual brillo pad. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For someone so obsessed with how strong the Christian position is, and how atheists always lose debates, his list of excuses why he can't even talk to people about it is pretty astonishing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been calling Ken out on this for a while, but he never responds: whenever he talks about Christianity vs. atheism he always mentions solid evidences for Christianity, and always links to this article as proof that Christianity is true. The thing is, there is not one evidence for Christianity in the entire article. I really wish he would address this, because I would honestly like to know what these evidences are. Ken, if you're reading this, can you please address this issue? DickTurpis (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• there is not one evidence for Christianity in the entire article

So Christianity doesn't exist? Nice one, Dick. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have trouble reading, Nobbykins? It's the only possible explanation I can muster for that response. Well, that or drunkenness. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, he's just constantly trolling us. He's kinda like a mix between TK's backstabbing and Ed's "I'm just asking innocent questions!" bullshit. --Sid (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Related: "You and I are a lot alike, tuff skin, able to shake off intemperate and immoderate remarks directed at us, bullets bounce off our chests. Good to see you still standing on your feet!"^img - Yeah, I'm sure the complete lack of accountability helps. How's the reform going, by the way? Or are you still trying to define a good faith editor before you acknowledge that Ken's openly trolling everybody? --Sid (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid, we got accountability. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not accountability, that's forgetting the past ever happened. I don't see rights, blocks, or warnings being given out to any sysops, do you? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fucking hell, Rob, if you insist on being treated like a 4 year old, I'll treat you like a 4 year old. Here we go (I'll try to use small words so you won't get lost): Ken says that his religion is true. He says there is proof that it is true. He shows us an article which tells us why it is true. That article does not say why it is true. It just talks about people who believe it is. He give no proof. Can you follow that, or do I need to dumb it down further? DickTurpis (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick, you can't see truth when it's printed on the page before your face. How dumb is that? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, calling me dumb is like the Pope calling Mohammad a Catholic. What the fuck are you talking about now? Yes, Christianity exists. No one denies that. Evidence that Christianity is the true way? None. Show me evidence to the contrary or shut up. DickTurpis (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you really are a strange man. Sometimes you come across as almost reasonable but most of the time you appear lacking in comprehension, you obviously don't understand half of what anybody writes and that goes for what is written here or on Conservapedia. Ken has been singing about SockOfGod's amazing question which is supposed to dumbfound atheists yet when the tables are turned there is a deafening silence. Is it a prerequisite that to be a conservative and creationist you need to be a complete idiot because the evidence in favour of that is mounting up considerably. Генгис^pillaging 09:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sid, we got accountability^img." - You seriously have no idea what accountability means. --Sid (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I really want to believe that Rob just made a joke which nobody got. If this is not the case, Rob, look up what "context" means and get back to us. --★uːʤɱ soviet 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Playing dumb as a joke only works if you're not already a complete idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I should've wrote "bad joke". --★uːʤɱ heretic 13:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Two mysteries in a week.

it's like Christmas in July. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

...is he.... is he just this stupid? Does he honestly not understand that the Dems control the Senate and the GOP controls the House?--^talk 01:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he's going for why. It really isn't a mystery. The House is more prone to shifting popular opinions because they represent smaller areas, and, more importantly, they are elected every 2 years. So they're generally more prone to extreme views than the Senate, be them liberal or conservative. DickTurpis (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But this is just seriously stupid. I don't often call him stupid, since I think he's fairly smart but just has some enormous blind spots because of a somewhat twisted ideology. But this is a very stupid thing to say. Almost everyone agrees - and always has - that the Senate is far more institutionally conservative than the House. As you say: the House swings wildly back and forth between extremities since it's more responsive to the electorate.

Surprising.--^talk 02:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, necessarily. I'd say the Senate is more moderate, in general, while the House shifts quickly with the tides. There's no denying Andy is right in this current situation, and that the Senate is the more liberal body at present. A quick glance will show that any shitforbrains can get elected to the House. Getting elected to the Senate takes a little more doing. DickTurpis (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the Senate was more conservative since the more populous blue states, like California (pop. ~37 million), get as much representation as the less populous red states, like Montana (pop ~1 million). Representation in the House, on the other hand, is proportional to population. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not any shit-for-brains. Remember Andy's excellent political career? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, even the House of Representatives has some standards! DickTurpis (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the GOP failed to win the Senate because the tea party put up unelectable fuckwits in Nevada and Delaware. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan oil WiGO

Here's the thing, Rob doesn't actually believe that US involvement is for Libyan oil. I've been watching Rob for a while and I have his MO down. In his view, liberals smeared both Bushes claiming their involvement in Iraq was an oil grab, so he uses the trusworthy encyclopedia in a quid pro quo to claim that Obama is doing the same thing. It's about balance and retaliation rather than accuracy. Even he might be able to figure out that controlling oil reserves from the air isn't a feasible proposition. It's all "they said bad things about us so we'll say bad things about them", truth bedamned. He's done this in the past many times. DickTurpis (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, Dick. I'm 100% with you on this one. But I'm trying to look at this not from the point of view of someone who has spent far too much time observing and analyzing CP since 2007. I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of the casual or first (and last?) time visitor to the site. What would that headline/photo do for that guy's perception of CP? I'm more and more convinced that Rob is a second rate TK, sharing his desire to work from within and destroy CP, but none of his skills in doing so. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 03:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to criticize the WiGO; Rob said it and its fair game. Just trying to give some further commentary to the issue. I doubt Rob will even bother denying that it's a retaliatory smear. DickTurpis (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you, except . . . Rob seems to keep track of left-of-center websites, and there is one prominent commentator who has claimed that Libya is about oil. I can't help but think that updates like these are attempts by Rob to bait RWians so that he can turn around and say "So we're in agreement that your side is crazy, hmm?"

Of course, I may be giving him too much credit. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 04:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Every political gesture by the West in relation to the Arab world is about oil, and is mostly centered on keeping shit stable so that the oil flows -- the Libyan intervention is no different. It's just bloody hypocritical to deny that in the case of Iraq and embrace it for Libya. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[EC] Oil is a factor in US foreign policy in the Middle East; there's no denying that. That is different than saying every US action in the Middle East is an attempt to grab oil. DickTurpis (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (ec) As that article shows, it sure as fuck ain't about humanitarin relief. But Joaquin may hve taken it a little too far with stuff that sounds conspiritorial. Nonetheless, it's good to get a less Angelocentric and Amerocentric multicultural perspective our good neighbor to the South brings. So after we take complaints about user:Conservative crapping all over the front page, revitalize the Feature Commitee, and come up with this timely collaborative work, you guys still bitch. Can't satisfy everyone. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"different than saying every US action in the Middle East is an attempt to grab oil." that's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that the priority of the West re: the Arab world is making sure the single most important natural resource in the world except maybe water keeps flowing. You can't leave that out of any analysis of Western relationships with the region. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm saying. It will always be a factor, but that doesn't mean it is the only factor. DickTurpis (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So do you agree (1) the "humanitarian" cover story is/was complete, utter bullshit; (2) Obama's War in Libya is/was illegal? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Since stability is the best thing for oil prices, if that were Obama's sole concern it would have made sense for him to back Quaddafi against the rebels, as he had the upper hand, and with US and NATO aid he could have quashed the rebellion and restored the status quo in a couple weeks. That would stabilize the petroleum market faster than our current stalemate. As for legality, show me why its illegal. C-in-Cs have exercised their right to instigate military action without a declaration of war for quite some time. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it illegal either. I'll freely admit I'm not expert on this, but if it's illegal show me the basis for that claim. DickTurpis (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Rob, can you even read? Where the hell do you get that out of what I wrote? Show me where I said something that would even make you think I said that. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wow, Rob, can you even read?" If by "read" you mean "form words from letters put those words together" then clearly yes, he can. If you mean "understand the concept those words convey when strung together" then the answer has always been a resounding "no". DickTurpis (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

EC “Nope. Since stability is the best thing for oil prices, if that were Obama's sole concern it would have made sense for him to back Quaddafi against the rebels, as he had the upper hand, and with US and NATO aid he could have quashed the rebellion and restored the status quo in a couple weeks.” Nope, Nope. In the post R2P/W2I era,humanitarian military intervention against genocide/mass atrocities has a lot of pull in the international community, and there’s no way that NATO/the EU would have gotten on board with taking Qaddafi's side, and no concievable way that the US would’ve/could’ve acted on its own. “As for legality, show me why its illegal. “ I said nothing about legality, thanks. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My point wasn't about what is feasible so much as what would have been theoretically best for oil prices. A quick end to instability in the region is generally going to satisfy the markets, regardless of who comes out on top (unless the victor favors an embargo or something, which isn't the case here). If that were the only factor (it isn't), Obama would want to end the fighting there as quickly as possible. It hard to say, but if that were his sole aim, he probably took the worst course of action. Aiding Quaddafi, while diplomatically disasterous, would have been most likely to end fighting fastest. Doing nothing and letting Quaddafi put down the rebellion on his own might have been the next best choice. Aiding the underdogs and drawing out the fighting into a stalemate seems to have been the worst choice for oil prices, but perhaps the best for humanitarian reasons, though it is hard to say for sure. That's my only point. Besides, if it were that important, all he'd have to do is try to tie the rebels to al Qaeda and no one would touch them with a 100 mile pole. The legality is a different question altogether. Just another Rob non sequitur. DickTurpis (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The question is not stability of prices, it is the use of oil revenues. Secondly, national security is the only cause to commit US forces, not humanitarian crisis (oh yah, the Yemeni's, Syrians, Somali's and people on the Ivory Coast can go fuck themselves as far Obama is concerned, I forgot). Third, "military intervention against genocide/mass atrocities has a lot of pull in the international community", yah, sure as long as they don't pay for it, and the US goes deeper in debt to foot the bill with money it borrows from China. But that's coming to an end real soon. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Commercial oil companies do not like instability as they cannot make long-term investment plans. It takes years to explore and develop an oilfield, especially offshore, so all that "drill baby drill" nonsense spouted by Minnie Moose is just so much bullshit. Генгис^pillaging 10:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As the article shows Ghaddafi was getting ready to boot out the Exxon's Mobils & BP's, and bring in Chinese, Russian & Brazilian oil drillers. And he already was refusing dollars & Euro's as payment, forcing customers to convert to African Dinar's. And Gaddafi had a large following in other African energy rich states he was encouraging to do the same. And Gaddafi had the resources to lend them form the Libyan Central Bank in the form of Gold Dinars. And if all Africa finally was able to throw of the yoke of white European colonial racist exploitation, they wouldn't need the IMF, World Bank, BIS, UN or all its subsidiary NGO organizations that keep them on welfare and down on the farm. Why that greedy capitalist Obama stood up for western oil interests and bankers who just plundered the planet in the Crash of '08, I can't figure out, other than he's just their toady and needs their cash to buy the White House all over again in 2012. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No day is quite complete without a Rob rant. DickTurpis (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are "African Dinar's"? Does Rob understand that Africa is a continent with several different countries, each with their own currency? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yah, it's imperial racist scum who wanna keep Africa divided and subservient to NATO aggressors. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to the Africans, who want the entire continent to be one big nation, right? DickTurpis (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're looking for Rob to make sense? Get with the goddamn program here. DickTurpis (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I like how you sound in the above post. Positively leftist, anti-corporate, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, good for you (a little hint of conspiracy theories, but that's ok). What I don't get is how you could think W. Bush or any other president was any less of a tool of the bourgeoisie oligarchy (while at the same time CP claims Obama is some kind of radical leftist). What you have to understand is that capitalism breeds this kind of imperialistic shit, it is an integral part of the system, from which no politician is immune. These guys say you don't make sense, but I think you might just be a confused closet leftist. --Marlow (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did I ever imply W Bush was any less of a tool of the bourgeoisie oligarchy? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia WIGO

Seriously? How andy can link Wikipedia to Amy Winehouse is quite a strech, but to link it to Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix among others is insane considering they died BEFORE wikipedia came into exsistance. Thats it, Andy is a parodist. Some one tell mama schlafly her boys a liberal.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken

I like how Ken finally blocks me as a parodist but doesn't bother deleting or even really changing any of the articles I wrote for CP in the spirit of Poe's Law. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 18:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

However, thank you, Rob, for bringing me back to life a couple times. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me specifically what the problem is? Where did you, in User:Conservative's understanding of CP's Commandments and Guidelines, violate CP site policy? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

oh please, rules? those are for liberal vandals--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't really give a crap about the Conservapedia Commandments anyway. His understanding is that if he doesn't like something, then it must be against the rules. I don't believe I necessarily broke any of the CP commandments if you take them literally. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As User:Conservative tells it, he doesn't like "Naturalism's worldview is particularly arrogant and asserts that "natural forces" that can be measured empirically are desired over religious dogma and faith" on your user page. This appears to me to be ideological blocking and violation of an editor's user space. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that such a thing as "ideological blocking and violation of an editor's user space" would ever be tolerated on CP. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

-gasps in shock---Mikalos209 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I linked the Definition of Naturalism page to my user page just as part of my contributions. I didn't actually write that sentence on my user page - I don't know how he got that. Calling naturalism "arrogant" seems pretty in-line with CP thought to me. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a blockable offense, and that's what User:Conservative came up with. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So writing like a typical Conservapedian and linking your work to your user page are blockable offenses now? SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 19:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to recreate the User page so other sysops can see the offending material. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

$5 says they won't give a damn--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is busy mopping the deck of the Titanic. And I mean the Titanic as it is now, sunk and 4 kilometer underwater. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Split in twain after the TK iceberg nailed it? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken continues his ancient Asian secrets

yep^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm leaving now, because I'm losing and it's so obvious that even I've noticed it, which takes some doing. Also, 'So victorious, non-good of those who have; the enemy without fighting the soldiers, the good of those who have.', only in Chinese, which makes me look mysterious and haha you don't even know if I'm a man or a woman. Am I Chinese? Who knows! Not you, or anyone else, ever." X Stickman (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I read "My argument is so good, I don't even have to reveal it. I win!" Jesus, but Kendoll is a loser. I don't think he even realise how much of a moron this makes him look. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting." It's sort of tragic that a nerd who is so incredibly ineffective at nearly everything he undertakes would quote Sun Tzu so much. Bowing out under these circumstances makes his use of this particular quote pretty ironic, but then again Ken projects so strongly that one's rarely in the dark about what's gotten under his skin for very long. I'd feel sorry for anyone else acting out and suffering so publicly, but not Ken. 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is like a dog that hasn't been housetrained. When TK was around he used to send Ken whimpering into a corner but now he just craps wherever he wants and bites everyone whom he doesn't like, then whenever he feels frightened he runs away with his tail between his legs. Генгис^pillaging 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, Ken is getting confused between 'winning without fighting' and 'running away so you don't have to fight'. 86.164.9.40 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news

User:Conservative just put me in his spam block filter and still deletes his user talk page. So, I've tied my best to help him/her become a more responsive sysop to the CP Admin Community and the CP Community at large, but he just goes, "LALALALALAL I can't hear you." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can now understand why we like to point out Ken's antics at CP, not because we are quaking in our boots at his attempt to defeat atheism on the internet, but because of how ridiculous he is and how ridiculous he makes CP look. You may have done your best to clean up the carpet at CP but the question now is what is Andy or any of your lily-livered fellow sysops going to do about Ken riding roughshod over any standards that you might care to try and enforce. Генгис^pillaging 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou want's me to resign for allowing Sid back in. Evidently he thinks me & Sid want to destroy CP from within. Of course, Andy is watching all this. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm back too, but under another name. You gotta watch us cabalists. sterile^talk 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope you guys can learn to behave yourselves. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't vouch for Sid, but I always did. sterile^talk 02:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

With Ken around RW needs not do anything to bring the site into disrepute. Ace^{of Spades} 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jebus, why don't you just resign? It's clearly hopeless. Kendoll beat you, that's all there is to it. He gets to continue to destroy CP, you get to run around yapping ineffectually at him. As much as it must hurt to admit defeat to that dribbling simpleton, you've got to bite the bullet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves has a point. Not so much about being defeated, as you can still fight on, but, really, why bother? It's not like the site is worthwhile in any capacity except for laughs. You do realize it has no standing, no credibility - it's nothing but a magnet for ridicule. Associating yourself with it just makes you look bad. Honestly, Rob, you are aware it is not an encyclopedia in any true sense of the word, don't you? Be honest. You've wasted enough of your, um, "skills", or whatever you want to call them on this cesspool. Give it up. There are other sites out there. (Not Wikipedia. They need fewer wingnuts.) DickTurpis (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A storehouse of knowledge is always looking for a few good men. How are you with train timetables? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of Ameriwiki. I gotta go talk to them guys about a repository for my anti-communism work. Most all of it's intact in both Wikipedia and Conservapedia. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobs, you did all anyone could do. All thats left is to kick back and watch as CP is destroyed by the vortex of stupidity it started back in '06. Its like an oil fire, all you can do is watch it burn. Grab a beer, and watch it burn--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The nobster is pretty demoralized, not my usual chipper self. I've been on the end of a lengthy, unfair block at Wikipedia, and know how it feels. I've fought this arbitrary blocking policy since day one. TK made it worse. Now it's part of CP's culture and institutional memory. Karajou might as well go back to blocking the planet, for all he's learned. His blocking skills reminds me of that scene in the Terminator, Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also like the terminator, he doesn't do anything except kill. Maybe you can 90/10 block him for unproductive activity. I have no idea why Karajou sticks around, except that perhaps it's the only place that's ever going to give him power. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Both those guys crap all over the wiki, and leave others to clean it up, Ken with his double redirects and Karajou with his range blocks. It's just not fair. And you can't even discuss it with them. All they want to do is play cat n' mouse with your guys socks. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense Rob, but I told you so. The problem isn't Ken and it isn't Karajou. The ultimate problem is the bizarre Andy Schlafly. He writes ridiculously stupid things that make no sense on their face and comically can't defend them. I give you a lot of credit for this attempt, but really it was a fool's mission for you to try to salvage a website considered satire by your own movement (as I demonstrated here). --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Tonto, I think our work here may be through. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!}

Most of the CP sysops have become creatures of ego. They defend their territory with slavering jaws, be it their pet articles that they "own" or CP itself from perceived "threats." This ranges from the raving madness of Ken to the quiet intractability of Joaquin. They have become their own cause, instead of whatever purpose CP might have had. It's a caution to us all, and you seem to have heeded it.--^talk 03:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mh, it's a pity, really, but it would take a lot of work and a leader who realizes that there's a problem in the first place to salvage CP. That's why TK and Ken can get away with everything: Andy just doesn't care and leaves these things to whoever promises him the most glorious results. You tried, Rob, and we appreciate that, but just like Philip, you've now reached a Matrix-like point where you realize that your happy little world is in fact a hellhole with pretty wallpaper. Looking for alternatives should be your priority, regardless of whether you end up fully leaving or just falling silent. --Sid (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Evidently (Karajou) thinks me & Sid want to destroy CP from within"-Rob

Well, I mean, I can't speak for Sid, but he's at least partially right, no? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a certain level headedness about Sid. In many ways, he reminds me of Andy. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Woof. That's one hell of a backhanded compliment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this is the same Karajou who happily sits back and watches Ken smear his excrement all over CP's main page and doesn't lift a finger? Then again, given that Andy has endorsed Ken's drivel, it's understandable that Koward wouldn't dare speak up. Methinks the man needs to get his priorities sorted out. Then again, this is the man who thinks that ALL Germans were Sid, so go figure. --PsyGremlinFale! 08:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou of course thinks that I want to destroy the wiki. I'm a first-generation member of this site, after all, and this is what we do, right? *sigh*

Of course, parts of CP need to be "destroyed". The rampant culture of "Me sysop, you nothing!" needs to die, and we need to close the power gap a bit. Right now, the sysops have all the power (including editorial authority, meaning that even their opinions are more valid than a hundred reliable sources!) while at the same time standing above the rules, while the normal editors have actually fewer rights than on Wikipedia or most other wiki projects. No wonder few people stay around (if they don't end up being banned for giving a sysop a funny look or something).

That being said, I have done very little on CP so far and tried to play nice. A few mild suggestions here and there, maybe a little snark, and now this Talk:Evolution thing, which only ended up being an issue because Ken decided to fully revert me without discussion. And even now, it's a terribly minor issue. --Sid (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This "editorial control" business is the worst aspect of CP and the major reason why it could never work. I remember back a few years ago when I and a couple of other editors negotiated a compromise on the talk page of some article, only for all our work to be completely overridden by the sysop Learntogether with the comment "thanks for your efforts but I have decided it will be...". It says a lot when even the saner admins don't understand how a wiki works. Damo^Hi 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Credit for trying Rob. Unfortunately nothing's going to change unless Andy does something, and the man's not fit to run a lemonade stand. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And don't get on the wrong side of Karajou or he'll see you in court! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy sure knows how to pick 'em

Anyone else getting the distinct impression that Andy's latest round of demotions were all bugler-style socks? What are we up to now? Fool me once shame on you, fool me for the 25th time and I really ought to stop pretending to admin a wiki. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Example (for those that don't pay much attention anymore). Ace^{of Spades} 03:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure about SharonW, though "she" does give off that certain stink. Jcw and JamesWilson are getting in some damn good blocks with their new rights though, looking to curry favour through ruthless cruelty. The surest route to CP success. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

IS Iduan still sitting at wherever?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He still lurks around.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that SharonW received blocking rights before skipcaptcha - in other words, it's more important for Andy that editors be able to drive off other editors than those selfsame editors to have a more pleasant editing experience. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The CAPTCHA is aggravating - vandals can blank a page without it, but undoing that action requires you to squint at distorted letters. Though that reminds me to ask for at least a mild whitelist expansion (once the nightly lockdown ends and I'm at a computer again)... --Sid (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also noted that SharonW has added crap about wives of Presidents who are not significant (who gives crap about First Ladies)^img and Jimmyboy grunted out this masterpiece^img that was actually a hotbed for parody before. I'm not sure if Jcw made any "substantive" contributions. I think Andyfool should do it like this if he's gonna do right packages: SkipCaptcha, Edit, Upload, Block. But no, it's moar important to drive off possible good editors.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Predictions. Where does CP go from here?

The death of CP has been predicted on these pages many times, but, to paraphrase Frank Zappa talking about jazz, "Conservapedia isn't dead. It just smells funny." With Rob's attempts to inject a measure of reform to CP all but a failure, (...and remember folks, I called it), what sort of developments will we see on our favorite website in the weeks/months to come? The promotion of a new crop of Buglers? An epic Parthian shot by Rob? Or will it just plod along with more epic fat jokes and dancing on people's graves? Where do you see CP going? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob won't burn his bridges behind him, if he does leave - and I'm not convinced he will actually leave, since Andy might be roused from his torpor enough to give him some assurances that things will change.

CP will not, by and large, change. It will continue to function as a strange sort of blog for Andy and the top sysops, with the larger wiki function enduring continual attempts to drag it into further extremism by parodists and the sincere extremists. More of the same, in other words.

It's not ever going to become seriously different because Andy rules it as an autocrat, and any deviations away from what he wants it to be are just a function of laziness.--^talk 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly on some sort of death spiral. The amount of "trusted" admins continue to decline, and the activity levels of those who remain are dropping rapidly. At some point, Andy is going to have to do something to keep up with the wandalism. Either promote from the rapidly thinning flock of people who appear to be serious contributors, in which case 90% of them will turn out to be deep cover parodists, or go in to a hard lockdown mode. It'd be most sensible just to shut it down, but I can't see Andy ever admitting to the world that CP was a failure. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is convinced he's winning something or other. I haven't a clue what it is, though. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? He's won CP. It's his now, and nobody can stop him unless Andy chooses to assert himself. That'd take some sort of divine intervention, though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's too oblivious and too into his own little world to notice anything going wrong. As long as Ken and company have any significant power, it's going to keep going down hill. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 03:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be curious to know exactly what Ken thinks he is getting out of CP. I know he feels that his articles and "essays" have some sort of real world effect but I am not sure what he thinks the end result is. Ace^{of Spades} 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

THE END OF ATHEISM ON THE INTERNET! Have you not been paying attention? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 04:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

shut up.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the essays get atheists all in a tuff. (What ever happened to the deadline with Penn?) I would edit more on CP but the lack of templates I need cripple how much I want to add to the articles (Templateless articles look ugly to me). --Mikalos209 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Ken has been at it nearly 5 years now and atheism looks just as strong as ever. So what next for DeMyer? Ace^{of Spades} 04:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt User:Conservative thinks that objectively about his actions. Nevertheless, CP isn't ending. It will probably just come down to Ken v. Rob, and since CP is apparently Ken's full-time job, he can't afford to lose. — Doppelheuer (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only admins who aren't parodists would never risk Rob winning; that would mean they would be targeted next or be forced to actually do the job of a Wiki Synop. --Mikalos209 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is Ken's equivalent of World of Warcraft in full cheat mode. Генгис^pillaging 04:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CP will eventually die. I mean, Andypants' activity has dramatically decreased, the homskollars ain't there no more, we have parodists with banhammers running around, Bobertnobs trying to make a "community", Ken posting rubbish, Karabird being Karabird, and the peasants either getting banned by sysops and sysopliteodists or adding content in ignorance. I think even Ameriwiki has a better chance. He's gonna kill it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The death of CP would have a pretty big effect on this site. It's obviously not the only thing RW lives for, but it would be a whole lot different (and admittedly less interesting) without CP and its gang. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It would only be less interesting if that is only what interests you. Генгис^pillaging 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be joking. One of theie core contributors believes there's a 'pod' of dinosaurs in Vermont, and the other believes in unicorns. AngerBear Karajou's blood pressure has him headed down TK's way and AngerCub Jpatt is stupid and angry, and therefore funny. Jack Martinez is openly endorsing Libyan mad man Qadaffi (but then again, so is Rob^img. And at the top is the wonderfully weird Andy Schlafly, failed teabagger attorney whose only notability comes from his name. Who says this circus will fail? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that CP is going to die at some point relatively soon. "Soon" can mean anywhere from months to years, but I don't think it's going to last another 5 years. Two would be pushing it. It's pretty clear that Andy's interest is fading too, for whatever reason, and it's ultimately him that keeps the whole thing going. What's interesting to me is wondering how it will end. Will there be a ceremony and a "we've accomplished what we set out to do" thing? Or will Andy just pull the plug one day and leave everyone hanging. X Stickman (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that closing CP means Andy concedes defeat. He'll never do that. And he'll never give a farewell speech; he'll probably just shut the entire site down without any warning or acknowledgement. — Doppelheuer (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CP might well become a stagnant backwater of the internet (if it hasn't already) but it won't die. Not as long as Andy, Karajou and JPatt especially have chips on their shoulders and a place to vent. Ditto Ken and TerryH. Even if a competitor site emerges, Andy will claim that CP is the One True Conservative Source and he is the One Voice. Until the US is a theocracy, hanging evolutionists from lamp poles, Andy will keep CP going. In afct, if the GOP wins in 2012, it might see a resurgence in CP's fortunes. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If Andy does shut the site to all new users, he and his rag-tag gang of bigoted shitheels will still blog about liberals on MPR. The "encyclopedic" "content" of the site will be declared Perfectly Conservative(tm) by Andy and ineligible for improvement. CP will officially enter full-on blog mode. Only Ken will be left to run around crapping on the rubble while it still burns and searing his bum to the amusement of everyone still watching. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's clearly getting bored - I don't think he likes his current sysops much, and the only users he really liked (homeschoolers) are gone and not come back. I can't find the courses advertised anywhere on the main page. They're not getting any well-intentioned conservative editors, and editing on actual articles that aren't political attacks is practically zero. The Norway article, for example, mentions nothing about the recent bomb attacks, while Wikipedia has it covered extensively over multiple pages. Who do they think they're kidding when they say it's an encyclopaedia? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. People go there looking for a "conservative encyclopedia" and all they get are polemics and blindingly obvious propaganda that doesn't even fit the conservative message anymore^img. Then when any reasonable person who is slightly left of Andy Schlafly or doesn't believe the Earth is 6,000 years ago is tarred as a liberal and/or shown the door. It's fun to watch how offensive they are, and Rob's expected failure was amusing to watch. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, CP has become slightly more open since TK's death. The kind of criticism (both about content and sysop behavior) that we're seeing now, much of it going unpunished, would have been unimaginable while he was still around. The far more important step would of course be to actually heed that advice and implement changes, which is apparently not going to happen. And there could always be another TK - my money's on Karajou, although an obvious parodist and lickspittle like Jcw could also rise to fill that role. So unless Andy overcomes his strange aversion to exercising hands-on leadership and sides with the reformers, the recent flowering of dissent will just be a blip, and CP will continue its slow starvation. Even the most conservative among the serious editors will give up once they see that their efforts count for less than Ken's gibberish. Röstigraben (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that TK's gone, all that has changed is the manner in which it drives away users. With TK, CP drove them away with heavy-handedness and rangeblocks. With TK gone CP drives users away with it's crazy face (MPR) and the only users who sign up are mischief-makers. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CP does have another TK, and it's User:Conservative. TK actually did have some leadership skills, occassionally did listen to others, sometimes willing to negotiate, could persuade and was willing to be persuaded, at times. Ken combines the worst traits of Ken & TK, with zero leadership ability, and zero tolerance to even listen to others. It would be a mistake to say he's ideologically blinded, cause to have an ideology you would be able to discuss and defend it, and he can't do that. He's demonic. Even the demons believe in God, and tremble, as the bible says. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we quote you on that for the Kendoll article? "Kendoll is a demon" - Senior CP Sysadmin. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I told him that twice and he just doesn't listen.

• Who are you arguing with when you argue with atheists? the demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19). You could be a demon, for all I know.
• What difference does it matter if he's an atheist, the demons beleve and tremble (James 2:19). And you seem to be using atheist in a pejorative sense. CP does not allow incivility and personal attacks. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken has no reason to listen because Andy is too chicken to actually intervene in any disputes between his sysops and the other sysops only care about their petty power trips. The only chance for Rob to make any headway is to approach Andy directly make a case for reform and standards and ask Andy to back him, TK always claimed Andy's authority for doing stuff and now we see Ken doing the same. Rob needs to circumvent that if he hopes to rein in Ken's madness. Генгис^pillaging 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What's needed is a whole set of policy proposals that need to be implemented at once. It's not a clash of personalities or vendetta between sysops. It's reform of a system in need of reform. Take for example, CP's defintion of Vandalism; and if your listening Karajou, Good job. Good job. You blocked 10,000,000 IPs and 30,000,000 potential users because of 2 vandals. And in four years you never once attempted to even define vandalism. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it up, liberal. It isn't a system in need of reform, it's a system that's in need of a nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure of getting rid of Kendoll. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even-handed Ken blocks himself for edit warring

Blocking can be such a confusing process.

After a brief edit war with KennyD on the Talk:Evolution page, Ken blocks himself for 5 years.

You've got to laugh. You can understand the confusion though.

Ken: "Should I block KennyD or Conservative? I think I'm Conservative but KennyD sounds awfully familiar too". His mouse hovers over one and then the other. Suddenly BANG! He blocks Conservative. Pause... Oh no! --Horace (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes more sense than most of his actions, though. X Stickman (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your hypothesis sounds plausible but it is more likely that Ken is totally inept because this is now the fourth time^img that he has done it. Генгис^pillaging 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative and KennyD fall to the floor, embracing each other with a deathly grip, pained expressions on their faces, each trying desperately to gain an upper hand in what they know may be their last moments. The gun lies just out of reach. KennyD makes a swipe for it, but Conservative yanks him away. The gun is merely nudged slightly farther. The duo roll over one another, their grunts echoing throughout the empty warehouse. Suddenly a blur of motion, and the gun is in Conservative's hands.

But there's a hesitation.

"I... I don't know who to shoot!"

^{ONE / TALK} 10:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"You're finished, KennyD." --Sid (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So this is how you can confuse Ken even more, use a name that reminds him himself. KennyD - or was it KennyBoy himself and he forgot as which he was logged in? --★uːʤɱ atheist 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, back in the day I had a go with User:Conversative. Sadly, it was during Bugler's reign of terror, so I got banhammered. So sad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, Robbo?

You want to try defending this block by Brian Macdonald? "Inserting false information"? User had three contributions, one CP friendly original research new article, one category addition and a talk page comment. The only thing Brian could object to is the fact that the user is an atheist who finds something offensive. I thought the official party line was that CP didn't block on ideological grounds? You've taken on Kenneth and won, fancy a go at someone further up the food chain? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When did Rob win?--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When Ken profoundly apologised in one, eloquent and moving paragraph that he wrote all in a single edit. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)