Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive249

This is an archive page, last updated 31 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>, <248>, <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)

lolwut

Is he blaming liberals for homophobia, or is this another case of trying to associate liberalism with every negative thing possible?^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything evil ever is because Liberals existed.--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's even more confusing than that. The article linked to is about an Islamic cleric taking a somewhat hard line on same sex relationships. The article ends up "The conference noted that Ghanaians could not afford the luxury of time any longer but must take bold and swift action to purge the country of the menace in order to get the pleasure and blessings of God, rather than wait and incur His wrath as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in the scriptures." so I guess they're on the same wavelength. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And, along the same lines, on Thursday Ghana’s Western Region Minister, Paul Evans Aidoo MP has ordered the immediate arrest of all homosexuals in the country’s west. Nice. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really can't figure out what this big dummy meant on MPR. I can't tell if it's homophobic, or if it's trying to say "look what the Muslims are doing now, liberals!" As we've seen with his essays and other writing, Jpatt has trouble communicating cogently. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect JPratt is deeply confused right now. It's a news story about Muslims (EVIL!) referencing the Old Testament (AWESOME!) to persecute (AWESOME!) the gays (EVIL!) For someone of JPatt's modest IQ, it can't be easy to juggle that sort of discordant information in your head. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he means that both are liberals and the acts they call for are also liberal, maybe he's thinking that they are interpreting the bible stuff wrong? So both "versions" of liberalism (=not what we believe = evil) clash at each other and one calls for violence (at the moments this = liberal), therefor: The spread of liberalism never brings about peace. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Moar EdStubble!

Behold!^img --Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

nothing compared to what the original stub was^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dropped on his head as a child^img. That's the only explanation. --P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 16:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ed's been pulling pud to Jennifer Beals in leg warmers (isn't she too old for him?). Here's a theory to keep you awake at night: Ed was actually watching The Full Monty, and the Flashdance insert caught his eye. PsyGremlinSprich! 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And he knows all about Lola^img wait... in what planet is WP CP's "sister" project. Does Ed want Andy to have kittens? --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't WP both CP's sister project and mother project? That might help explain things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedes take over CP!

[1]^img Oh noes! What will teh Karabird do bout it?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Sanders, read this. You're becoming a parody of a parody. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I...really wish I hadn't clicked that. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wannabe is a member who desperately wants to be part of the in-crowd, and may even think that they are part of it, but is only just tolerated by the Regulars. The Wannabe's problem is a lack of imagination, and they exhibit symptoms including the unironic and excessive use of internet slang, a childish understanding of other people and situations, and an over-eagerness to report their own petty, unoriginal vandalism on WIGO. Wannabe: "Assfly used teh range blockie! Assfly thinks that statistics works like this. It actually works like this. He doesn't understand statistics. Many women are abused by husbands like teh Assfly. They are good christian wives." [That's not paraphrasing. That's how he/she talks] Everyone else, externally: "...That's nice." internally: cringing, wishing he/she would stop

. Pretty much describes what Sanders did here. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lay off the Colonel, he makes good chicken. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Conservative deletes a user page c ause it's in Swedish, and thinks nothing of trolling and incivility with a foreign script in discussions he's not part of. Nevermind the blockable offense of MYOB. Blatant hypocricy. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the Second Heribert Nilsson Day coming up, it's no wonder that Ken

is especially sensitive to everything with regards to Sweden...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Robert.

Fix this^img. Goodnight now. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway

Andy moves the goalposts^img and gets called on it^img. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see he's doing the "Liberals claim with no evidence that he's a Christian" - hello, the frigging police said so. And now he's onto video games again. Seriously, as sick as it is, it's going to be fun watching Andy claim that right-wing fundies couldn't possibly do this. PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Psy, if he did it, he's neither a Christian nor a conservative. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All I could find was "suspect posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies." However that isn't enough to certify he was a fundamentalist Christian himself, nor that religious belief played a part in his motivation to murder so many. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

'Young Mass Murderers'. What an abhorant article. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, MassiveGay-san. What an abhorrent man. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a shameless fucktard. So, the three items mentioning Norway, one is any excuse to talk about gun control, one is a knee-jerk denial that the guy might have political or religious affiliations and another is just a fucking shameless plug of his hatred of video gaming. ADK^{...I'll explode your microwave!} 16:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He set up an excellent escape hatch. No evidence of him reading the Bible. So even if they find a Bible, without ironclad proof to Schlafly's personal satisfaction that he read it, it's irrelevant. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, he probably read one of those liberal translations, like the King James, and not the Approved Conservative Bible (tm). P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 16:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine the defense Schlafly puts up when conservative finally snaps and murders PZ, Dawkins, Penn and/or Ace. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's funny 'cause it's true. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.}

Kinda despicable/funny how Andy proclaims the "lamestream" media is calling the Norway killer a fundamentalist Christian for political purposes, then his very next edit he's raving about how the guy liked to play violent video games. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the tragic events, the young mass murderers talk article will be fun to watch when more evidence is released on the shooter's religion and ideology. Andy will squirm hard and just keep defending, or just hope a sysop will butt in and start abusing to protect him. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

THE ONLY way somebody can be led to shoot down people is to play video games!^img and then More of that, but on the MPL now^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fucks sake that slimy little cunt. ADK^{...I'll forsake your dyslexia!} 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy predicted this incident one month ago on USA today; "Conservapedia: A window to the future". Stay classy, CP. --Tlaloc (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"This is beyond just poor logic now, this is downright sickening. Mr Schlafly, you have just made a post on mainpageleft using the mass murder of innocent men, women and children to promote this site and your own views. You are repeatedly ignoring the evidence that the alleged shooter held extreme right-wing views on a number of matters, and instead focusing on video games. "Game addiction is a symptom of something wrong and not a cause." [18][19]. Even if you believed they were, how do you explain the targets selected by the shooter? Stop using an atrocity to promote your own views and your own website. It is absolutely sickening." QFT^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Holding off judgement on the reasoning behind the murders until I hear more myself. I do wonder though, is Andy still angry over being on the losing side in that recent case involving restricting video game sales by retailers and he is venting his frustration here?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He's tied facebook into it as well now. Btw, video games, they teach you how to use real life guns via those buttons and analogue sticks on the controller!--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is also claiming the shooter was addicted, while the article cited merely stated Modern Warfare was among his favorite games. Andy doesn't understand the difference between having a favorite and bona fide addiction. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

what a reasonable person would draw from this

Although it's also using a tragedy for political goals, a reasonable person would see this and ask "Why not make guns harder to get to?"--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK Guns were already difficult to obtain in Norway. The suspect appears to have had legitimate reason to have access, albeit not necessarily to all the weapons used in this tragedy. One of the hard things to face is that sometimes there aren't any lessons. If you have enough people and enough time, some bad things will happen that were simultaneously foreseeable and could not be prevented by reasonable means. It may be that Norway should mourn the dead, imprison the guilty then shrug and get on with life. Politically it's very difficult to do that, doctors will have seen the same thing. You tell the patient what's wrong - and they say, "So, what happens next?" and the only answer they can't accept is "Nothing". Doctors even have a bunch of clever phrases to disguise "doing nothing" so that it seems less passive. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related (non sequitur thanks to Andy) note

What is "sickening" is how violent video games lead to the slaughter of innocent people, again and again. Regardless of what the killer believed, it takes training by violent video games to massacre so many victims.^img Because you can really do that with a joystick or a keyboard and not pick that stuff up at, sheesh, a shooting range maybe. Yeah, more guns will prevent shootings! JMFC is Andy out of touch with reality. --★uːʤɱ pervert 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason why Andy is a universally reviled human being. Even Rob can't be bothered to defnd him half the time. DickTurpis (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The news story cited over at CP also says the killer listed hunting as one of his interests. Playing MW2 obviously teaches you far more about using guns than, say, using an actual gun. Also, that news story carefully says that he listed "video games like Modern Warfare 2" amongst his interests. The Google cache of Breivik's Facebook page (22 July 23:52GMT) doesn't mention MW2. alt (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone screenshotted his fb page somewhere. Modern warfare 2 was on there, a few pages down, or in, or whatever facebook does. I'll fish around for a link. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it (PDF). See page 2. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll just state the obvious: Andy is repeating VIDEO GAMES VIDEO GAMES VIDEO GAMES because the only other (and probably the main cause)y reason the killer went on the rampage was because of his fundamentalist ideals, and he can't accept that under any terms, even if it can be drawn off as extremist views. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Until we know more, I would say that the only other (and probably the main cause) reason the killer went on the rampage is completely unknown to us, and to speculate on what his "fundamentalist ideals" were based on no more than a handful of words is as bad as blaming the video games. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you got me there. I was trying to word it to Andy's point of view: either it's video games, or belief system, and the latter is unacceptable in his mind. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm going to jump to any conclusion it's that the guy is nuts. Don't know if it's true, but I think it's the most fair conclusion to draw, if one must be drawn. DickTurpis (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys. It's common knowledge that all people who play video games go on to become mass murderers. It's equally true that all historic mass murderers have played video games. So point proven.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know who else played video games? Hitler. Vulpius (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Something just came to me: South Korea. South Korea has the exact opposite of what Andy wants to be realized. (Violent) Video Games are a part of pop culture as much as movies and owning a gun if you're not a police officer or some other official that requires one is illegal. I study the country and have not heard of any problems with a high number of shootings. America on the other hand... --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering when South Korea will declare Starcraft its national sport. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, soccer and baseball are still big. The national sport is de jure Taekwondo which wont change so fast considering that South Koreans are in constant desperate search for identity. --★uːʤɱ socialist 21:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So here's what we know (I get all my news from reading wigo & CP MPR); (a) Norway is a European-stye socialist country with free healthcare; (b) Norway is still marginally tolerant of the free exercise of religion; (c) Norwegians have been infected with video games. Now, can anyone tell me what's going on? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Rob, you probably know the names of several newspapers and TV Station, go on their websites and you will probably get a good picture. Shortest version: Crazy guy in Norway blows up a car in the governmental district drives an hour and kills 92 (AFAIK) teens on youth camp of the social democrats party. The Norwegian police says he's a right-wing extremist that described himself as "Christian Conservative". Andyboy ain't liking that and blames in on the video games (which almost everybody plays anyways).

Now, to debunk your bullshit:

1. Norway has healthcare systems because like all European countries it gives a fuck if their people are dying because they couldn't pay the hospital bills. It's called called social democracy, not socialism European-style - now stop using smear words only because they work back in good ol' America.
2. Norway is according to Democracy Index the most democratic (as in democracy, not as in Democratic Party) place on earth, scoring a 9.80 out of 10. That includes religious freedom. Norway does not have laws against hate crimes, has alsmost no used restrictions against free speech and Norway would not have been invited to the EU if there were any restriction of religious freedom - other than not being allowed to force your believes upon somebody to "save their souls".
3. Video Games, violent or not are played all over the world.

But what do I know, I'm just a European that had socialism forced upon all his lifetime. --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything I know I learned from nobs. Now I know Norway is not a European country, but a "European-style" country. (This post should probably be followed by a "The More You Know" star and logo panning across the screen.) DickTurpis (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, Norway restricts religious expression. *fingers in ears* LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!! Carlaugust (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Arghhh.... really annoying when Andy doesn't address his critics' points, just merely repeats his earlier assertions^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Really?? Now Andy thinks it could be liberals' fault why the Norwegian terrorist is Christian and conservative. He's off the deep end... SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BWHAHAHAHA!!!! The dark fantasy violent video game "World of Warcraft"^img is to blame! --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how any quotation from the (lamestream) media is missing, I think Andy found a private leak in the investigative efforts of CP. Beware BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera the people that make stuff up as their ideology fits them journalists are coming! --★uːʤɱ federalist 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jebus, that's spooky

Normally, I wouldn't. But tell me this doesn't remind you scarily of something Kendoll would say. Right down the "operations" and obsession with Dawkins. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda scary.

I wonder how Andy is going to spin the praying to God, the making abortion illegal and limit birth control. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it? Or does he only ignore what happens under his own roof? I'm still new at this game... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 02:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"There are no atheists in foxholes." That's User:Conservative, chapter and verse. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, my belief is the opposite: there are no true believers in foxholes. In foxholes people are afraid. What are they afraid of? Is it a fear that they will soon be in paradise, spending eternity in heaven, an utterly ideal situation? Why fear that? No, they are afraid because they aren't completely convinced that the story they've been fed is true, and they really don't know what will happen to them. It could well be a complete state of non-being. That is scary. That is why people in foxholes are afraid. DickTurpis (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The true believers aren't in foxholes. They're charging the enemy. So what if the enemy have machine gun posts with interlocking fire? So what if they've set barbed wire and mines? You just run toward them, firing, and if you die you'll just wake up as a glorious hero in heaven along with your colleagues, right? As a result true believers are to be feared. Remember, they will never find out that they were wrong! 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole argument is not only non-factual but also moronic. So you want to prove that your religion is true? You don't deliver anything for it you just say that all people are too weak not to believe in the danger of their appearant death. It's really an argument against human will not for religion. Yes, humans are coward and have no machismo. Stop projecting. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 10:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My great-uncle Tommy was a god-fearing man and fought in the World War I (or the Great War as it used to be known). He carried a small Bible around with him and kept it in his chest pocket next to his heart. When the Lancashire Fusiliers went 'over the top' he got a hit right in the chest but the Bible saved his life as it stopped a bullet from entering his heart. He should have had more Bibles as the next bullet took his head off. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Talking about the Great War, in the TV mini-series Mussolini - The Untold Story there is a scene set in the late 1920s in which Mussolini's daughter asks her father "What did you do in the First World War, daddy?" Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is human to be fearful when faced with impending death, or the grave risk of death. I don't think whether one has religious beliefs or not necessarily makes a huge difference. Whatever your beliefs are, being faced with death is a very high pressure situation, which might cause you to change or doubt your beliefs, or then again might not - depends on the individual and their circumstances. That is true whatever you believe. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is not ok to change your believs in the face of death, I'm saying the argument is bullshit. Many religious people (especially Christian) hold up bravery and courage, but at the same time one of the most used arguments - which also lacks factual relevance - is based on the exact opposite of what they are preaching: cowardice. So one of the reasons why people believe is something that the same religion wants to be eliminated. I mean sure a coward in a religious war will be awefull, but a coward on the other side is awesome. Doublethink in progress, please wait till brain arrives. --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "there are no atheists in foxholes" is a rather stupid argument. Yes, many religious people will make it, but I think the smarter ones see how silly it is. If we are going to criticize an idea (e.g. religion), we should try to criticize the best version of it available, not one of the versions with obvious holes. To do otherwise is to commit, something like a strawman (although whether or not it actually is one depends I suppose on exactly how we define strawman) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Except one of the criticisms of religion is that any religion has numerous 'versions', amainly because of the lack of solid evidence in favour of it, which allows people to interpret the 'holy text' in numerous different ways, including deciding that particular parts of it are no longer important, or superseded by other parts of the same text. This means if you criticise one, and point out the numerous flaws with it, another religibot pops up and says, 'but mine is exempt from that, because it's different', and each religibot is convinced his own particular version is the 'best'. Sometimes you even get religibots that quite blatently redefine their own religion on the fly, or define their religion in very ambiguous, vague, amorphous terms, so that it is, essentially, impossible to disprove their claims, then challenge people to disprove what they say, and take any failure to do so as 'proof' that their religion is true. 86.164.9.40 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't you make a similar criticism of ethics? "one of the criticisms of ethics is that ethics has numerous 'versions', mainly because of the lack of solid evidence in favour of it, which allows people to interpret it in numerous different ways". I think it is fallacious to reject particular religious views on the basis of broad oversimplified generalizations about religion. And your generalizations are oversimplified, e.g. because you assume all religions are based on scripture ("interpret the 'holy text' in numerous different ways"), when that is only true of some religions. Some religions lack scriptures; others have them, but pay far less attention to them than what say an evangelical Protestant would to the Christian Bible. I used to be involved in (westernised) Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism has heaps of scriptures, hundreds of thousands of pages, most of which few read, much of which had never been translated into English. The focus was not on scripture, but on the Lama's teaching. The authority was not scripture, the authority was the person of the Lama, and their claim to represent an ancient tradition. The scriptures were acknowledged, and then largely ignored. So, you falsely generalize from your experiences with one particular type of religion (e.g. Protestant Christianity), and ignore that other religions (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism) are very different. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I point out how you can criticise a religion, then someone comes along and says, 'but there's this religion that's different, so your criticisms are not valid', and what do you do? Come along and say, 'but there's this religion that's different, so that's not valid.' Thank you for proving my point. 86.163.112.222 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, shit...

"I see MW2 more as a part of my training-simulation than anything else. I've still learned to love it though and especially the multiplayer part is amazing. You can more or less completely simulate actual operations." From what I can tell, he specifically used COD as "training," i.e. he already had set plans, and used COD to act them out. He wasn't a saint before playing COD and became a nut afterwards. Bonus: he played WoW with the handle Conservative. — Doppelheuer (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Freaky. Also possibly a grim warning of things to come. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He reports playing MW2 'casually' though - not addiction as Andy claims. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

uhm...

I could get this wrong but I don't think "Christian" or "conservative" are positive words in most European countries^img. Actually in my circles "conservative" is not really nice to say to something who doesn't identify as at least social conservative - and even they don't wanna hear that. It's only in America that Christian is used to describe something good.

Andy also fails to identify basic facebook site design. At least we now know he isn't a hypocrite about facebook. But let me help you there: picture 1: normal, picture 2: expanded. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 13:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignorefest 2011 continues

Iduan: ACKNOWLEDGE MEEEEEEEEE!^img
Andy: lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!

How long until Iduan quits in disgust? Can't be long now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a glutton for punishment. If he hasn't quit yet he's not about to. He'll just suck up even more. DickTurpis (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For some weird reason, Iduan emotionally NEEDS to get sysop rights on CP. This isn't the first time he's tried to get them, and it won't be the last. As Dick says, he'll just try even harder. I've a theory that Iduan is Andy's unrecognised bastard son and he's trying to get Andy to acknowledge him. I'm right behind you Iduan! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What can I say? I really want to be a CP sysop. I'm just a bit POed that JacobB beat me to it. DickTurpis (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I'm really enjoying being a sysop. Your turn will come soon. We can be sysop buddies then! P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the old first RW parodist to be made sysop race was quite a good one. Bugler had it in the bag years ago, but had to fuck it up with the old "Brian Ugler" nonsense. What a waste. Your TK-lite plan is clearly a better track than my well-meaning suck-up path. So be it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense? Humph! I don't think this chap thinks it an unbelievable name. http://californiayellow.net/California/La-Puente/A-AAA-Drain-Patrol/profile-6268399272.html Fretfulporpentine (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody call for a CP sysop? --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A parodist's take on Norway

How long witll the "false flag" explanation be the official CP line?P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a paragraph. To be expected from a parodist, but it would still be a fun little project to tally up all the logical fallacies in it. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, indeed! Holy cow. Phiwum (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been taken down. MDB (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do Conservapedia and Anders Behring Breivik have in common? Lots!

Note: The following is considered by some members of RationalWiki to be in very bad taste, and anyone reading it should be aware that the content is not endorsed in any way by the RationalWiki community at large.

Some quotes from CP juxtaposed against the writings of Norwegian white Christian nationalist Anders Behring Breivik:

• Multiculturalism

Breivik: The problem is that many [multiculturalists] actually care very little about religious freedom and human rights.... They have however, spent much of their time attacking Christianity.... Kulturmarxism has for 40 years been hiding behind humanistic principles when their real agenda was to crush the European tradition, culture, identity and sovereignty of nations. All in the name of human rights …

CP^img: "As a concept championed by liberals, multiculturalism has been noted for having a subversive element. It has resulted in pluralism, which has given way to a particularism which then exalts foreign culture, language and national identity over historically American values and identity. Liberals have also used multiculturalism to excuse illegal immigration, avoid confronting radical Islam and terrorism, impose atheistic views on the American public, and censor Christian worship Conservatives in the US hold that multiculturalism is an attack on America's traditional Judeo-Christian culture."

• Political correctness

Breivik: "Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behaviour on all Europeans and is therefore totalitarian in nature...Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state."

<capture>CP^img: "The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of totalitarian regimes. Political correctness can trace its origins back to the world of 1920's Germany, where Communist academics sought to impose their Marxist views on students. It is now acceptable in many Universities to have courses on gender, homosexual and African American studies, which, in fact, encourage the mainstream public to become different to avoid criticism."

• Ideological violence

Breivik: "I do not understand why cnn mention the extreme right and the National Socialists? I have never ever heard of a right extreme or NS terrorist attacks of importance on European soil. This sounds like [liberal multiculturalist] wishful thinking."

CP: "Recent increases in tragic mass-murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Below is collected evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly atheistic or liberal, or driven by hatred of God."

If CP dared to write an article about him--notice how quickly Jared Loughner received an article, but not Breivik?--they could do so as insiders into his thinking (some on the right are already defending him). --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy at this line of thinking. Nobody from CP has killed anyone, and this effort kinda mirrors people who quote-mine the Qu'ran to show how Islam is violent. That said, CP [does have a (parody) article on the guy. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Evidence for this includes a Muslim terrorist organization claiming credit, the unlikelihood of two separate attacks in two distant areas being carried out by one person on the same day, the fact that this attack has all the hallmarks of Muslim terrorists, and the fact that Christian conservatives never do this sort of thing. " - this is pretty much the same thing Breivik said, I just didn't see this article before I wrote the comparisons. Saying they believe the same things isn't the same as saying they will mass murder. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Three of the four examples (2 of your plus mine) were written by editors who were probably parodists and not CP regulars. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You checked the origins of those statements within a few minutes? You're fast! Pretty much all of them have been repeated in one form or another by multiple editors on CP. I know; I spent some time researching. And none of them are hardly "shocking for CP". --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually just checked the permalinks you put up under the assumption that it was the version with the introduction of the text in question and that the editor listed at the top of the permalink was the guy who put it in. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's your point Phil? This line of reasoning is fallacious, and in very bad taste. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It's called comparative political studies. That you have to ask for the point is indication that Leo doesn't have one and is only comparing what both side say. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@P-Foster: We're merely playing CP's own game, except we know better than to take it seriously--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a very pertinent Slate article about such things.--^talk 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The comparrisons (assuming they are fair and accurate) are legitimate. They illustrate how the thinking of people like Andy and his socially inadequate sycophants helps fuel the hatred in people like Breivik by providing what they see as popular support for their cause. If you preach hate, don't claim that it has nothing to do with you when someone does something hateful.^{— Unsigned, by: Auld Nick / talk / contribs}

Its come to this

Even andy would have a tough time pinning the "Liberal" tag on this nut, so he opts for a different route: DARWINIAN. How long before we see "Atheist Evolutionist Anders Behring Breivik?--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He's reminding me of a guy who mixed up all his puzzles and now tries to put one of them together, sadly he's pounding them to make them fit. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He'll say "atheistic" so he can wriggle out if called on the fact that Breivik is a Christian.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a CINO. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WND are saying the same thing - also that he "hailed Darwin." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the source, a random blog that in turn cites... WND. But his manifesto also says he's marriage and anti-feminist and also seems to hate Marxists. Enjoying the cherries you've picked? ADK^{...I'll break your jelly!} 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've actually been through the manifesto looking for mentions of Darwin.^{(self promotion warning)} Suffice to say, nowhere does he "hail Darwin" and nowhere does he proclaim to be a Darwinian. PsyGremlinTal! 10:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, JPratt's a lunatic.

JPratt finally explains himself...^img and... er... well, I have no words. "Gay UN" "perverse rights" "children of the west." Wow. CP really has a great crop of absolute lunatics, doesn't it? Andy has an excellent distillation process going. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, he hates the homos enough to be okay with something that Muslims are doing. Typical closet case, if you ask me. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 00:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he got the definition of gay wrong, it doesn't mean "all the people that don't want to kill all the people that don't agree with them". --★uːʤɱ socialist 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The stupidest thing I've ever read.^img I agree with P, he is a closet case. They want to kill gays = liberals, the same people who support gay marriage. Yeah, makes lots of sense. Idiot. RatMaster ^háblame 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The gay UN? There's a gay UN...? Well it does have a flag. Where's the straight UN? I call reverse discrimination! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure they're just not super-deep-cover parodists out to make fundamental Christianity and ultra-conservatism look psychotic with their insane little blog? SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That theory is getting so long in the tooth that it's not really plausible any more. If they were originally parodists they have now gone completely native. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some days when it does feel like that. There's Ed's substubs, Joaquin's art in to international-jewish-conspiracy play, Kendoll's monumental, obsessive editing sprees, JPratt's incredible stupidity, Karajou's itchy trigger finger and to round it all out Rob's inability to make any sense 50% of the time. Andy really has put together a real all-star stable of misfits and weirdos. You'd like to think they're all play acting, but sadly the evidence suggests they're all quite genuine. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Kendoll's Theorem applies to Andy, JPratt, Ed, etc. as well: even if they were parodists they'd still be crazy just by the amount of effort put into the parody. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I like that. We should create a new article for internet laws: the DeMyer Principle:

“”A sufficiently dedicated parodist is no less crazy than the genuine article.

^{ONE / TALK} 09:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the whole Ghana thing, I knew CP didn't like the gays and all, but I thought they stopped short of saying we should we should all be locked up. That sounds harsh even for these pricks AMassiveGay (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. Ghanian Muslims call for a crusade against homos. The government wants to institute a death penalty against them and in the face of international cries that such a policy would be a sure violation of human rights, the Minister of Ethics and Integrity (seriously) says “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.” The whole thing is spurred on by some American fundie dirtbags who only tried to distance themselves from it when they got negative attention in the international press. Of course Conservapedia's going to get this right. 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever JimmyRa is, tone it down a little, please. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What Does Andy Have Against America's National Treasurers?

Sure, it's conceivable that the U.S. government might have to sell some of its assets IF no agreement on the debt ceiling is reached in time, but Yellowstone and the Washington Monument^img are hardly the government's most liquid assets. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious, what assets do you think are more liquid? Maybe the land pointless military bases are on? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Yeah, we got this big stone phallus thing. Want it? Three bucks and a Charleston Chew." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort Knox...? Dendlai (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't, the gummint sold it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He must've read Pratchett's "Making Money". Time for the U.S. to adopt the Golem Standard. Dendlai (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say the most suprising part of that story is that the US federal government still has gold, I thought they would have sold it years ago. I am pretty sure Australia did not long after the dollar float. - π 03:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or do they? Isn't Ron Paul calling for an audit of US gold reserves to make sure that it's all still there. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy was making a point about the government's relative lack of liquid assets. He wasn't suggesting it would be a good idea to auction off the Monument, but rather mocking the idea.--^talk 03:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They couldn't easily sell the Washington Monument. They could, however, rent it out for proms!

(Credit where credit is due department: that's something of a steal from an old Dave Barry column, where he took reader suggestions for what to do about the deficit. One of the runners up was "rent out the stealth bomber for proms." As I remember, the winner was "tax businesses based on unnecessary letters in their names. 'Ye Olde Shoppe' would pay $3000/year." My personal favorite was "I have a secret plan to eliminate the deficit. Make me President and I'll tell you what it is. -- Richard N., California") MDB (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy hates football

I would have thought good strong Christian men enjoyed football^img. Ace^{of Spades} 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There must be so little joy in that man's life. If he wasn't such a prick we should pity him. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's because collective bargaining, labor agreement, and players union are all socialist concepts. Ateafish (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And they play on sunday when they should be in church. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's a *team* sport. Practic'ly communism, I'm shure.Dendlai (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet he makes such a fuss about team prayers before games. I wouldn't be surprised if Andy doesn't harbour some resentment against football because the jocks at school got the best looking girls. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Waddaya mean - Andy spent most of his freshman year locked in his locker by said jocks. In addition, you statement implies that Andy likes girls. Outside of being forced to breed to carry the family name (and to make up for his brothers) there is no evidence of such. In fact: gays like dance music -> editors on CP claim Christians like dance music -> Andy claims to be Christian and the founder of CP -> Andy is gay. Deny this and lose all credibility. PsyGremlinPrata! 10:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, if Andy really hates football, that means there's something I agree with him about. I think I need to go wash.

Insert old joke about gays only being interested in football because of tight ends and wide receivers. MDB (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy (and these baptist sorts) are upset because of what the Superbowl reveals; If your religion is competing for attention with overgrown boys throwing a lump of rubber around, then it must not have much to offer. 184.145.85.126 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The NFL is growing more conservative because they are playing more Thursday and Saturday games. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody believes you anymore, Ken

Oh surprise, surprise. Ken gets his ass handed to him and suddenly he has a very busy schedule for the short term^img In fact, he's not going to be very active for the next 45 days regarding blocking.

Ken! Ken! Where's the ma-CHEESE-mo? --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Like +1. Ken talking about Rob wasting his time is priceless after all these months of challenging people to debates then chickening out when they accept and try to make arrangements. SJ ^Debaser 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely impossible that he will manage to do less than Karajou as he said - if you compare him and ken you find that Ken has taken longer to fill the last page of blocking by a few days... I wonder if we can get him to formalise the challenge? :D Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An amusing pattern:

• everytime anyone critizised Ken

, he claims that he is attacked by atheists/Darwinists/evolutionists.

• furthermore, he claims that cp:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates
• nevertheless, Ken

runs from every discussion. Why not just win one?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob:Thanks for appreciating my attempt to drag CP back into the realm of reality.

Ken:Cool, but just to let you know, I'm blowing you off for the following reasons...

• 1. I gots shit to do.
• 2. Don't call me, I'll call you. If you got beef, then pass it through Andy. See you in September!
• 3. Y'know, on second thought... kiss my ass!

--Inquisitor (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is so full of shit. He knows his tissue of bullshit comes crashing down any close enquiry so he must avoid any and all questioning no matter what. He is no man. He is a sad little child. Ace^{of Spades} 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"WHAAAAA! ANDY, DO SOMETHING!"^img --Sid (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Rob would like to demand evidence that he "just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via [Ken's] talk page"? A glance at the logs would reveal that no such event occurred. If it had occurred, it would surely appear in the logs, as its removal from the logs would be simply inexplicable. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Wow... just wow. "Demote him, so he can't post on my user page anymore!" Lol - a tacit admittance by Ken that he deliberately locks his talk page to prevent the common folk from talking to him. The man is a complete pussy. Also, TK must be spinning in his grave at all this public airing of the sysops' disputes. Probably just another sign, that Ken is totally ignored behind the scenes. I wonder if Rob will be the next leak source, if Andy demotes him? PsyGremlinSprich! 10:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "conditions for a September meeting" were that Rob had to donate 20,000 dollars to a Bible-believin' charity? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

People probably block Ken from their emails. Can you imagine it? 20 e-mails in 5 minutes, each one a tiny bit more readable than the last. He's left with no recourse but the site. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now there's an interesting concept. As Rob gets slowly stabbed in the back by all the CP sysops, will he be inclined to leak the SDG? Everyone petition him here, he must download the data for they twist the knife! ^{ONE / TALK} 11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He really should. If Andy doesn't engage nuclear-powered ignore mode, then this is only going one way. Rob has got a wicked promotion coming his way. The appeal to Karajou is pretty smart, since Rob is already on his shit list for letting Rats back on the wiki. History tells us that whenever two sysops clash on CP, it's always the worst one that comes out on top. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Ed I'm - the - voice - of - reason Poor to chime in: then Rob will be really doomed - he may get the whole PJR - treatment... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The relationship between Rob and Karajou is an interesting one though. Karajou has previously voiced concern over Ken's motives, and Ken's behaviour hasn't really changed in a qualitative way, so surely Karajou must sympathise with Rob's attempts to do something about him. But then again, Karajou did defend Ken's rubbish and even based a cartoon on it, so maybe Karajou likes his work afterall? It could be some sort of echochamber effect. In any case, we've been applauding Rob's efforts, and I imagine Karajou's primary motivation for doing anything is "whatever the Rats don't like". I'm sure Rob's hand in letting some Rats back in contributed to the growing animosity. Rob is doomed, thus saving Ken, thus dooming CP futher, and Karajou has had his hand in it. Excellent. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look beyond content: Rob, just like Philip before, is advocating sysop accountability and a few sanity checks regarding sysop power. But unlimited sysop power is one of the main selling points that keeps Karajou interested. --Sid (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget: Rob is still a far right conspiracy theorist. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Pippa (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou could easily be dumb enough to convince himself of Ken's utility. Ed's silence is almost as interesting as Andy's. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Pippa - Yes, but he has redeemed himself a little. He's proven that he can be rational (about some things). Senator Harrison (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You know I could almost sense the tears running down Ken's cheeks as he posted those two messages. What a gutless wimp. Machismo? LOL. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Karajou thinks that this^img is incivility.^img Hilarious. --Sid (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Less me-centric: Everybody in this discussion^img is currently blocked (1 day for me, 3 days^img for TerryB, 5 years^img for Spencer) except for Ken. Good to know where you stand, Karajou. --Sid (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I never get tired of how angry Karajou is. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He's truly amazing. --Sid (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou will never take Rob's side... until Andy does. You have to remember that Andy has endorsed Ken's gibberish, therefore it is in Karajou's best interests to support Ken and stay in Andy's good books. When CP is the only bit of authority you've ever had in your life, you don't care who you have to grab your ankles for, in order to keep it. Karajou has the integrity of a perforated douche bag. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't rob winning this change the dynamics of power at CP? Thats why he won't win, infact, that makes him far to liberal to last long at CP if he keeps it up.--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course he won't win. Rob lost the moment he started. This was all just ceremony, or a play if you like. Starring Ken as TK, Rob as Noble Sir Triesalot, Karajou and the Silent Choir of Sysops as Dumbasses Who Help Ken Because They Think They Will Profit From It, and various low-level users as People To Be Axed When The Plot Demands. --Sid (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And to drive the idiocy up to 11, Ken clarifies^img that he's only asking for Rob's demotion in order to make him unable to communicate with Ken. Seriously.

Interestingly, it's a good thing that Kara gave me that 1-day block because it wisely prevents me FROM POINTING OUT WHAT A FREAKING MORON KEN IS AND HOW HE COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT A WIKI SYSTEM IS ALL ABOUT: COLLABORATION! THIS. IS. NOT. YOUR. FUCKING. BLOG! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO COMMUNICATE, TO COLLABORATE, AND TO COOPERATE. USING YOUR POWERS TO BLOCK PEOPLE FROM COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ON A WIKI PROJECT IS ABUSE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE ABUSE. There. That's better. --Sid (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Y'know I still don't really trust what Rob is doing (don't know why, I'm just paranoid I guess, which is kinda ironic now I think about it), but watching Ken actually have to defend himself in some way is absolutely hilarious. He literally can't form an argument in any sense. 1) Do something stupid. 2) Get called on it. 3) "No I'm not", "anyway I'm going away for a while", "please stop the people talking to me!", "I win." If Rob ever finally feels the need to give up on CP, I would love for his last act to be oversighting all of Ken's articles. X Stickman (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Kendoll uses random sysops' talk pages as his own red telephone, and then deletes them entirely when he realises how much he just embarrassed himself, it seems just a tad hypocritical to demand that nobody be able to use his pristine talk page for its actual intended purpose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is getting his ass handed to him. Looks like Ken has Karajou on his side about demotion. This is going to be awesome. Still not a word from Andy. I love it! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to love how Ken, who's been the single biggest disruptive influence on CP since TK left, now whines like a bitch^img about how Rob is pestering him. Ken, I do hope, however, you aren't looking for help from Ed, because as he said to Jessica when she made a case against TK: "it is useless to "make a case" for his dismissal. That is not how we work around here." PsyGremlinZungumza! 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob quotes an email^img by Ken:

''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month.

The question: may Rob save his precious Ken-time for Juli and August - and perhaps even borrow against October, November and December 2010 to get half an hour for an audition with Ken in September?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How would you even measure that? If Rob sends a mail to Ken going "Hey, you got time to chat?", and Ken stares at the mail for five minutes, does that mean that the monthly time is up? And dear God, this farce is happening ON ANDY SCHLAFLY'S TALK PAGE, and Andy let's Ken get away with it all. --Sid (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's got a screenshot of the offending comment on Conservative's talk page? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion reaches new levels

First time I noticed it at least: TerryH promotes^img both his new site and his Examiner site in a single MPR news post. --Sid (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In for a penny, in for a pound; as we say in Britain England. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, as much as we laugh about Terry needing the Enquirer to pay the rent, he actually seems to be better off than Andy. PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Rob... you've done it now.

A long time ago, a young, sweet, virginal sysop made an edit to CP's block reasons, combining all the vandalism (moronic and liberal) into one.^img For this, she was demoted, with Andy citing "deletion of the often-applicable "liberal vandalism" reason for blocking" as one of the reasons.

Now I see Rob has done the same and so much more.^img Now, this is interesting - either Rob needs to be demoted, or if it's acceptable, Jessica needs to be reinstated. Which is it to be? PsyGremlinPraat! 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They could take the middle path and say Jessica was far to rash and shouldn't have had that power anyways, you know, being a woman and all. Rob doing it is ok because he's got something she didn't.--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if JessicaT got re-promoted (remoted?) her ban still stands: Sockpuppet is still a block reason after Rob's cleanup. Nice try Psy ;) ^{ONE / TALK} 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reinstated. I feel that's the best word.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rob is male and Jessica female. Clearly CP isn't going to treat them with the same standard. It's called chivalry.--Night Jaguar (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It will work the other way round: Rob becomes the next Jessica... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I was a big fan of the liberal __________ block reasons. Put 'em back in, please Rob. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oi!

Don't steal^img my shit, bitch. I'll slit yer face. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MIND. BLOWN.

I already filled my daily capslock rant quota, so here, just have a link. :)^img --Sid (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I was just gonna post that. I guess that's Ed Poor coming down on Ken's side too, then. X Stickman (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course he's on Ken's side, just like he was firmly on TK's side. He's only on CP because he craves the power to push people around without anybody being allowed to ask why. Why else would an Old Earth Creationist hang out on a site that claims it disproved an old Earth? --Sid (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Damn it I wanted to post that, I still want to give my version:

SharonW: Let's make the blocking policy more democratic and transparent, and stop people form inserting pure gibberish in our project.^img

User:Conservative (in only one edit!): I'm against dialogue, but if we have to have it, I want my enemies excluded from that committee!^img

Ed: I see nothing improper, I hear nothing improper, I say nothing improper, I do nothing improper. And my name is Hase.^img For all who don't get the reference.

Get some popcorn ladies and gentlemen the ignorance machine is on. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With minor tweaks, UHM's version should make a good WIGO. --Sid (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Make it so (and feel free to tweak whatever you want). --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving it all I can, Cap'n!</Scotty> --Sid (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Is someone supposed to apologize to Ken? Or the other way around. What about that weird situation with whoever it was that complained about Catholic shit? What evidence does Ken have that BobSherman is an atheist and parodist? Jesus that place is an alternate reality. 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The apology part is an old Ed thing. You see, in Ed's world, if you were banned despite having done nothing wrong, and you can prove that you were banned despite having done nothing wrong... you should still apologize to the blocking sysop. --Sid (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

CP becomes more Kafka-esque by the day. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool stuff indeed. And although it will flag me as a communist/socialist/atheist/deist/agnostic/facist/Doper/librul/RINO/Muslim/Hindu/Brit/Movie Star, it seemed like SharonW was actually being REASONABLE. Fancy that. Love it. Jimaginator (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For the love of Hurlbutt

Terry "Coke Eyes" Hurlbutt has a new inchoate piece of linkspam on MPR^img. Our beloved believer that dinosaurs still walk the Earth uses Nicholas Purpura, a former "managing director at Bear Stearns, so he knows how Wall Street works." wp:Bear Stearns collapsed in 2008, but somehow that is supposed to make us want to listen to him on economic matters. Purpura is an interesting guy: He's a birther, a tea partier, and he is "known" for the longest running divorce case in New York's history. Four of the judges died before it was over. Here's a quote from this story: The once-wealthy Purpura — who's spent more than $100,000 on six different divorce lawyers — has appealed so many times that he is now representing himself. "This divorce has destroyed me financially. I lost my job because of this, and my second marriage, too," Purpura said. "But I won't stop fighting, even if I have to live in a pup tent." Yes, Coke Eyes, sounds like someone with sound financial judgment. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the guys from Long-Term Capital Management were busy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Put their money where their mouth is

This idea occurred to me in light of the efforts to enforce the rule of law at CP; what if CP were run more like a business? Donations to fund the project would buy the user specific rights, and the greater the donor, the greater the sway in matters of policy. If they don't like it, they don't have to continue donating, and their influence will fade. Donations could purchase the unblock of an account, but users could also be fined for blocking other users inappropriately. Of course, this method would lead to a nearly instant demise of the site... Unless all of their 'managing board' decided that they would be the joint owners of the project. This setup would ensure that contributors were seriously interested in working on the project, and it would be a clear example of the power of the free market. -Lardashe

I think they realise that us RatWikians have more money than they do, so CP would last about 5 minutes under that system. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not going to happen. Andy cares more about ideology and his ego than money and most of the sysops only care about their power, even if it is pathetically small. Maybe that's what really separates CP from the mainstream conservative movement. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually that would be quite a conservative way of doing things. It would mean that the richer you were then the "righter" you were.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They are Conservatives, not Objectivists. Conservapedia is not Galt's Gulch, but rather the City upon a Hill.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A trip down memory lane...

A year ago Ed Poor asked on talk main:

And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of "describing all viewpoints fairly". It doesn't require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

I was happy to oblige^img on Ed Poors talk page. Ed and Tk sidetracked the discussion and got the whole incident erased^img - and not surprisingly, I was blocked: TK looked through my clever disguise ("RonLar is Larron backwards!") - which was no disguise at all, but well known to Aschlafly.

I was pleasantly surprised that I could edit Conservapedia again, so I thought to reopen the discussion^img. The rationale for this is simple:

• Ed asked for an example where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth
• JacobB was a senior editor at his time. He clearly censored something which didn't please him.
• Therefore, I don't have to stop saying that they are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia.

But wasn't JacobB a parodist? Perhaps - but Ed Poor was informed about this censorship a year ago and did nothing - while PhilG got banned by JacobB...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what is his point

here^img? I don't get what point he is making other than possibly the fact his father is a liberal who despises everything his sons believes in and stands for. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

His father opposes murder, like a conservative. Liberals are anti-life, which is why they murder people. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"who took drugs before the rampage to be "strong, efficient, awake."" becomes "The son reportedly took drugs prior to the killing rampage.". Way to quote-mine Andy. --★uːʤɱ pervert 18:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just this once there isn't really an editorial point here. Maybe he is just reporting the fact that the father doesn't want anything to do with his son. Andy and co are crazy enough without us importing craziness into their non crazy statments. --Damo^Hi 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All things are political, so that's impossible. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

his father left his mother when he was 15 months old, I read. The contact since has been minimal. Pippa (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That means his father was liberal too. If broken families lead to mass murderers, we shouldn't censor that. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "the tide has turned" means that there has been a reversal of circumstances, not that there is a trend towards a reversal. Sometimes, I swear they don't even understand English over there. Sheesh. Jimaginator (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DirtyWhore

How did "she" get through the spam filter?^img And four minutes until "she" gets stopped?^img --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're walking a fine line here. Rationalwiki does not condone vandalism of other wiki's and does not allow vandal attacks coordinated from here. [2] If you persist in this, I will request Moderator intervention. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So questions about why "WHORE" is not in the username blacklist or how a vandal can waltz across the wiki for minutes is condoning vandalism? Yeah, right. --Sid (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

EC) For commenting on a vandal? McCarthy's dead, Rob. Shut up. Pippa (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

{ecx2}He's not encouraging or propagating it. He's just wondering why the vandal got through and why it took so long to get rid of the vandal.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Knock off the concern trolling. This is about as likely to require moderator intervention as you are to survive your dust up with Ken with any pride and moral authority at all. 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Rob, really? I'm not saying go and vandalie CP (as one could do any more damage...), I'm saying your fence has a whole and your guards are sleeping. Get that fixed. Anf if Andy doesn't allow you to play with sharp things, ask one of the older guys to do it. --★uːʤɱ sinner 00:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's the Scunthorpe problem? Does anybody know of a name containing "whore?" Whoreson? Whoreowitz? Whoresville? O'Whore? MacWhore? DuWhore?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WhoReplies? Probably it's just a word Andy forgot to include. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec, didn't see GK's post)Nah, the sysops only occasionally update the username blacklist in bursts, and only to react to names instead of predicting them. So apparently "whore" simply hadn't made it yet. --Sid (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe its the word? Dirtywhore was one word, maybe it didn't recognize it because of it. Much like im sure "ass" is banned, but "assassin" is not.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I was trying to make an account a few days ago as "KenIsADick" and got stopped. (I don't see that a vandalizing, I wouldn't have edited anyway). --★uːʤɱ pervert 00:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But how did a page called "Fuck User Conservative" get through? I remember trying to edit a page of some Japanese fellow whose surname started with "Fuk" and I couldn't make the edit due to the filter. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the filter is just fuked up then? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they were planning an article on the fine website listing celebrity agents? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, jeesuz

Appearantly, saying somebody "has been described as" is now euqal to sayin somebody "is"^img. My guess is, the only way to satisfy Andy is to take any metion of Christianity out of every Christian's article that has ever done anything bad. But beware of liberal censorship! --★uːʤɱ soviet 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that standard direction on the SS. Conservapedia from day one?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And also remove any mention of positive traits from liberals and atheists. I can't remember who they were (and the article history has been burned by Ken) but I added the names of some more notorious people who had been homeschooled to their cp:Homeschooled celebrities page. Needless to say but Andy himself hand-picked those sour cherries. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The odds

So, who wants to place some odds on what Andy will do now that this issue has blown up on his talkpage...

• No response and a "trim" of his page?
• Desysop Ken?
• Desysop Rob?
• Desysop both of them?
• Absolutely nothing?

I want some predictions! 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the dispute, which will go unresolved, further emboldening Ken, and/or remove Rob's sysop bits and, like the little bitch he is, have Ed or Karaturd block him. 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My money is on "Nothing, but implicitly allow Ken and Kara bully Rob both in public and behind the scenes and wait for Rob to resign; then act all surprised and sad." --Sid (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No response and a "trim" of his page?/What Sid said. The man has no leadership abilities, so he can't really do anything else. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything happens at all, which I would doubt, nobs is for it... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about Rob going down. But if Andy cannot see what a a liability Ken is, how badly he brings the site into utter disrepute then he is a stupider man than I thought. Ace^{of Spades} 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rob will be blocked by Ken or Karajou
• any of his protestations will be seen as: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
• he will be permabanned and desysoped by Andy, because he wasted Andy's precious time

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll hedge the bet and say Andy WILL respond, and yet still does nothing. It will be some short comment, maybe a non-sequitor like lambasting a lowly editor in the section. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd laugh my ass off if he gets banhammered for being a Member of a Known Vandal Site. --Sid (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken brings internet attention to the wiki. Rob does not. Therefor, more people are exposed to the truth of Conservatism if ken keeps on going!--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ECx4)For four years Ken has suckered Andy into believing that he is a master of SEO and that CP is widely rated because of it. So I don't see Ken being pushed. Whether Rob goes depends on how the other sysops respond. If it's just Karajou and Ken then Rob is probably OK. However, if Ed and JohnnyXRay join in then he's a goner. Andy will of course do everything he can to look the other way because he is not a leader. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How ken can sucker anyone I just don't know. You'd have to be more fucked in the head than Ken not to see what a joke he is. Ace^{of Spades} 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you're talking to him during one of his bursts of lucidity, and you don't talk to him for very long and you don't talk to anyone about him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace has got to be right. I've been thinking about this for like 2 years and can't come up with a better answer than that Andy's got a screw loose if he truly thinks Ken's bringing the kind of traffic CP wants. There are literally NO critical positive reviews of the site. The full extent of positive comments come from absolute nobody buffoons like Schlockofgod and Mariano Grinbank. Not even Denyse O'Leary says nice things about the cesspit. The other 99% of comments are along the lines of "wtf," and that includes mainstream conservatives and fundies scratching their heads and saying "these guys don't speak for me." Andy's got to be a major fucking moron not to pick up on this after 15 seconds of vanity searching on Google. 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Ken slipped in during the early days, when it took even less flattery and promises to become sysop. Remember that Ed and TK got in around the same time with "I'm User 188 at Wikipedia (which is nasty and biased), so I know stuff!" and "I worked for Ed Meese, Ronald Reagan was my neighbor, I once met your mother, oh and look at all these awesome edits which I copypasted made!" respectively. Ken made grandiose claims about being able to make the "Evolution" article a page-1 Google hit if only he was able to make a few edits without being disturbed. Basically the exact same thing he later tried on aSK: "Can I have sysop rights so I can protect the article against liberal vandalism while I work?"

And Andy bought it. Of course, Andy never gave a shit about Ken's SEO antics, which included trolling several evolution/atheism related forums and comment sections under fake IDs to spam his links, or making special deals ("You mention and link to my articles, and I will ensure you an extremely positive encyclopedia article about you and your site!") with people like Mariano, Shockofgod, or Peter Labababababa. Ken then presented dubious results, and Andy was happy.

And if anything, then people like TK, Ken and Karajou further fueled Andy's impression that millions of liberal vandals will wash over the site and seize control of it the moment they're not around anymore. --Sid (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But even a cursory glance of Ken's essay should be enough to make a Harvard educated JD with degrees from Princeton cringe. Ace^{of Spades} 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking about a man who wrote that Obama's a Muslim because he doesn't dance. It clearly takes a lot to make Andy cringe. PsyGremlinHable! 07:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Key word: should Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But I'm sure Andy doesn't read half the stuff. As he said in that on the hour video, CP has all the biblical quotes about homosexuality so he supports all Ken's quote mining. Also he has defended Ken's "satires" when other editors have complained about them. In over four years Andy has shown not one jot of interest in quality at CP,he is interested only in the ideology. That's why CP is so cow butt ugly.

He also seems more interested in hits than quality.

Andy has defended Ken's stuff in the past, but he's also "trimmed" some of his crazier shit too. Honestly, I think a combination of laziness, an attidute of "Ken's on the same team as me" and the fact that his user name is 'Conservative' is why Andy doesn't do anything. Also, as mentioned by others, perhaps he thinks Ken is actually bringing in hits and he doesn't care/realize that the people visiting leave thinking 'Ponies v. Fat Atheist? WTF?!'My money is on Andy doing nothing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

From Conservapedia:Schlafly Trimming:

Most of this trimming is aimed at content added by user Conservative, who insists that the main page be a one-stop shop for his vast amounts of utter crap.

Andy must be somewhat aware of how bad much of Ken's stuff looks if he keeps removing from the mainpage. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Sid called it: "Nothing, but implicitly allow Ken and Kara bully Rob both in public and behind the scenes and wait for Rob to resign; then act all surprised and sad." This is only true because Rob contributes on RW, and in the last week or so has truly sold his soul. This is verboten for Andy. So, what Sid said. Had Rob kept to CP with his crusade, Andy would have addressed it behind closed doors, spout out some platitudes, and "In Christ" his way out of it. Then it would become like "The Warriors" with Ken and Anger Bear playing the Rogues. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My money's on some variant of 'Folks, we're here to learn'. It's escalating so much he can't ignore it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 23:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative: The Man, The Mystery, the Eyes-Op

Hey, just for the record, and I swear this is true, User:Conservative cannot even pronounce the word "sysop". He pronounces it "siessop" (rhymes with "eyes-op"). Like most people, I didn't know what he was talking abou when I spoke with him on the phone. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did he insist you address him as User Conservative on the phone? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing Rob, I can only assume then that Ken doesn't even know what "sysop" is an abbreviation for. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an abbrev. for something?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes; system operator. Although its meaning has morphed a little from its original usage. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thought that might fit somewhere in the subject's RW bio with the demon links. Go ahead, quote me. On the other question, User:Conservative asked that I not I not reveal if the subject is a he/she/it/other/no opinion sex wise, which I feel bound to. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor point Rob. Do you not think in the above where you refered to Ken

3 times using the masculine term may be a slight give away as to what his born sex is?  I make no comment on kenny's sexuality or asexuality. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mispronounces it? Meh. That's how it's spelled. Hell, that's how I pronounce it in my head most of the time. Don't know how I pronounce it out loud, as it's one of those words which only ever comes up in online chats. I think I pronounce it "admin" most of the time. DickTurpis (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So DickTurpis admits his mind works the same as User:Conservative. Figures. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, in my BBS days I always said it to myself as S-aye-sop, even though I knew what it stood for. As for the international man/woman/thing of mystery, I understand that Rob, fair enough. But did Mr Kenneth David Demyer insist you called him/her/it "User Conservative"? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. He/she/undecided always said, "Hi, Rob, it's (first name)". We usually spoke at least 90 minutes, sometimes longer. Nothing revealing on my part, I asked once about the Atheism/obesity thing and told subject I was not familiar with any of it. The subject seemed to think it quite comical, and basically conceded it the motivation was only to tweak his RW & Youtube critics, the latest "kick" so to speak. Subject believes atheism and atheists are the scourge of the planet, civilization and society, evolution is just a offshoot or manifestation of atheism, as evidently President Obama is, too. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what does his voice sound like? Does it lack ma-cheeese-mo? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's how I pronounce sysop...--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so he/she/it said "Hi Rob, it's Peter Ruy here"? I'm afraid I'm going to shorten your odds, it's not looking good for you mate. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just figured it was a random word they put together haha. And I always pronounce it see-nop. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, did User:Conservative refer to his/her/itself using a long form or diminutive of their name? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Early prices

If you'd like to place a bet, add your sig to the selection and paypal me your stake.

• No response to the situation, and maybe a trim/archive of his page to pretend it never happened. 4/7
• Desysop Ken. 8/1 12/1 14/1 16/1
• Desysop Rob. 3/1 5/2 2/1 3/2
• Desysop both of them. 25/1 33/1 40/1
• Show some leadership skills and intervene constructively, resulting in no desysopping. 16/1

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No way he'll desysop both of them. He has almost no active admins (or other editors) as it is. DickTurpis (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Odds adjusted (and I've considerably reduced my very greedy overround, although it's still pretty bad) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we make this a proper book? All stakes are placed with the RWF, and they keep the profits? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to clearly specify the difference between the first and last choices, as there is little distinction. He will at some point archive his talk page, which could be viewed as a trim or as an eventual and inevitable result of doing nothing. Also, there is a chance he will actually show some leadership skills and address both of their concerns, working out a compromise proposal, without desysopping anyone. And monkeys could fly out of my ass. Should still be a choice, though. DickTurpis (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's ultimately gonna be a discussion moved to Community Proctal and devolve into a policy reform discussion. Right now I'm trying to convince the admin cabal to stop blocking editors who want to engage there. We're not ready for dispute resolution with user or between sysops, we need blocking policy and sysop conduct rules in place, first. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point Dick. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And that discussion will go absolutely nowhere rob. Even if it does, they will simply say "I don't care". Short of purging the current leadership and finding all new real conservatives the site is doomed forever--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a dawning realization and begrudging admission everything we've tried failed. We can't re-invent the wheel. We can learn from experienced wiki editors. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same wiki. Because things seem to be pretty much the same thing from my "looking from RW" and looking from my "Wanting to actually help CP" viewpoints. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RobSmith, but this pathetic creature is beating you up and down. What hope do you have of turning Conservapedia into a respectable project where Christians are welcome and this brute isn't around slandering the Catholic Church, atheists, "evolutionists", and fat people? What is your honest assessment? Nate Keaton (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't really care Nate. All Rob cares about CP is that it gives him some kind of platform on which he can spout his ever-so-slightly-out-of-date communist conspiracy bollocks, and play at being an 'intelligent operative'. He's obviously bored of that now. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, I just don't think that's goign to happen. I've yet to see an instance of Andy admitting that he's wrong. Even when faced with exposed parodists like Bugler, or people overtly undermining him like TK, he's never admitted error in promoting them or undone any of their harm. You're challenging Conservative, yes, but the fact is that you're calling into question Andy's continued support of him. If Andy reads things this way, you're likely to face demotion. Stile4aly (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's super powers of ignoring what is going on right in front of him is put further to the test. In addition to Conservative bitchin' about Rob on Andy's talk page, now SamHB has asked that Conservative be stripped of his sysop, block, and administrator rights^img there. Ken's response is very Ken^img. Will the Super Ignorer be able to overlook this new challenge? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Especially if the guy's not a sysop SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is the perfect combination of hubris and laziness: he will always take the least demanding action and will be sure that God told him to do so. And he gets really pissed if people expect more of him. These days I'm often reminded of the fate of CPAdmin1/TimS... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How can Andy be so monumentally spineless?

Pretty much all his remaining sysops are bickering, on his talk page no less, yet he's still pretending not to notice. How is any human being capable of ignoring problems to this huge extent? I just don't understand why he hasn't done anything to intervene. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He's letting the free market correct itself? I'm just guessing. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, didn't you see him on Colbert - in his oversized shirt and baggy suit he has the look and charisma of a ventriloquist's dummy and is operated by whoever sticks their arm up his backside. It used to be TK but Ken has now taken on the role of puppet master. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Becuase he is in reality a spectacular failure at everything in his life and he damn well knows it. The ONLY thing that give his meaningless exisatnce any validity if conservapedia. It is virtually the only reason his name ever gets mentioned, outside of his occasional fuck ups in court for the teabaggers and his meaningless AAPS mob. The only reason anyone ever wants to interview him or acknowledge his existance, as opposd to his mother, is about cp. And now cp is melting down around him as people he relied on bicker and fight. If he does anything to ken then his blog will die as kenny walks off in a huff and starts bad mouthing him. So he closes his eyes and hopes and prays it will all stop and the world will look rosy again.

Andy, it won't. Your project is a failure, just as you are. Accept it and learn to live with your inadequacies and you will be much happier. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually nothing new for Andy, where his sysops are concerned. We saw it with PJR, where Ed even threw him out of the ZB, without Andy raising an eyebrow (in fact he might have agreed with Ed, seeing as PJR was going toe-to-toe with Andy over being called a liberal because of his views on gun control), with TimS being ruthlessly hounded by TK and Bugler (ditto Helpjazz) - in both cases, when they eventually walked away in disgust, Andy was happy to say "Oh, look, they were liberals anyway." Even worse was when he did nothing when TK was verbally abusing Jallen (and Jessica) behind the scenes, resulting in her initial hiatus and finally abandoning the project. Ditto Learn Together, who also left because of TK's antics. Andy has his favourites and he's quite happy to let them run roughshod over anybody else, until the latter finally throws in the towel. Only then will he react - removing rights from the departed user. That way he doesn't have to think. That means that Ken, Ed, Kara and Jpatt are untouchable at the moment. PsyGremlinSprich! 09:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If TK were in Ken's position he would have gotten rid of Ken's enemies on CP several days ago. The path to victory is clear. Recruit a sysop or two to your side, label all your enemies as liberal atheists and speak in Andy's name. Ken has done some of the last two, but not enough. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In a way, I understand Andy's lack of testicular fortitude when it comes to dealing with Ken. Whether you think Ken is a troll or a lunatic, you have to admit that he has a nearly unrivaled determination and an apparently unlimited abundance of free time. These are great attributes for an ally, but ones you pray your opponents lack. I presume (though I may be wrong) that Andy is smart enough to realize this. Slapping down Ken would only create the most epic enemy Andy (and by extension, CP) has ever known. You know that if Ken ever felt jilted by Andy/CP, his quest to bring down Andy/CP would be absolutely tireless. Andy (and most of the CP community) relishes in attacks from the "Left", as it only serves as a means to "test their faith" and an example of "I must be right if liberals hate it", but dealing with an unending, ceaseless, and unwavering juggernaut from the Right is a nightmare that may be too much to bare.--Inquisitor (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine: Conservapedia and Obesity, Conservapedia is a clown and it never knew, Conservapedia vs. Leprechaun: Leprechauns Win!.

Come on - all publicity is good publicity (when the bad is all you've got). What difference would it make? More incoming links. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But where would Ken put those essays? Youtube? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Kendollopaedia? A Storehouse of Homophobia? Conservative's news and (mostly) views? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative's news and views4views. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative's news in regards to Conservapedia and views in regards to Conservapedia. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Has the Assfly ever intervened between bickering sysops to any degree, nevermind demoting/blocking them? (excluding obvious parodist-outings and parthian shots) As others have said, the problem for Andrew is that to become a sysop you need his personal approval, thus any sysop has been de facto selected by him, he is never ever wrong, all sysops must be 100% on message, so if there's a disagreement between two (or more of them) then one must be wrong - yet that can't happen because Andrew promoted them so they must always be in the right. It's quite a quandary. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I believe Andy's logic is as follows:

P1: conservatives don't air their dirty laundry like this

P2: the CP cabal are all conservatices

C: therefore this isn't happening.

Occasionaluse (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy played some role in ridding the site of PJR, didn't he? I don't really remember that incident all that well. DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The airing of dirty laundry is made worse by Andy's disabling of the Email User function. How much do you people want to bet that he was just bumbling about server side and accidentally disabled it, and that his "spirit of wikis" crap is just him trying to save face?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here is TK's updating me after my prolonged absense:

TK to Rob Smith (6/19/09, major excerpt)
My being gone for the election cycle allowed Andy and I to smoke out that horrid Fox again and the other one, BrianCo. Philip left to make his own nut wiki, a showcase of YEC jargon and explanations, and not a moment too soon. It had devolved to endless arguing and reverts between PJR and Andy. Gun Control and other such issues. Most of the range blocks you (sic), Karajou and I had instituted were removed by Rayment, DanH and TimS. Tim got an account at RW, ended up blocked, and accepted job with Rayment on his wiki. Dan got pissed off, evidently, by Andy’s take on Obama, and left. After him telling Admins that I suggested he look at porn, back in 08, I haven’t had much use for him. The ploy we used was useful in smoking lots of the co-conspirators out. Thanks to you and your CONINTEL, information, we operated a pretty good scam on them.

nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

and?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did BrianCo do and why was he so horrid? TK certainly had a downer on him. Fox was actually a good sysop and rooted out masses of parody until he got fed up with all the stupid "liberal ______" articles and started adding his own. Of course the fact that he had crossed TK was never going to end happily. And despite TK's so-called evidence Fox and BC were two different people. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeb Bush, still # 3 most likely to win

Exactly what it says on the Tin^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well other than Bachmann and Romney, it's not looking like anybody else will win the primaries. So I can see if they lack interest in updating it. Which reminds us that CP acts as more of a blog than an encyclopedia or learning tool.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep up. Rick Perry is fast becoming the favourite. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That theory only partially works, since they actually take a man who isn't running and has a crippling last name as a serious possible winner. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see he forgot to read most of the article he linked to, which seems to contradict his point. Hell, even the headline does. I know, Andy is usually really good when it comes to reading, which is why this is such a surprise to me. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"I see he forgot to read most of the article he linked to" - er, Andy never does, have you not been following this page? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he's so hung up on Bush. As the article says, he's not exactly the kind of hardcore conservative that Andy could be expected to like. I get why he's salivating over fellow wingnut ideologues like Bachmann and Rand Paul, but this guy could just as easily qualify as a RINO by his standards. Röstigraben (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He isn't Obama or a Democrat. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is Agenda 21?

I couldn't tell you thanks to the only trusworthy website^img (sarcasm) not having an article on it--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On a wiki, a redlink is a request to create an article, or a reminder to create an article. Generally, though, placing them on the front page is bad form. Also, you could just click his link and find out for yourself--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That would involve caring enough to learn what that site wanted to say. I wasn't asking a question either. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is Agenda 21? Forgive my confusion--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Was a unclear reference to the fact it was a red link. i apologize--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's TOW on it. I skimmed a bit of it -- looks like your usual UN pipe-dream filled with vague nostrums and glittering generalities. It hasn't been ratified by the US either, making it essentially worthless. No doubt a magnet for Birchers and NWO nuts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

July broke the Record visitors!

And its not even near the end of the month yet!^img nevermind its july 27th--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Death is nicer to Christian musicians says Andy

Everything has to be politicized at CP, including death^img. From Andy: "Dan Peek, a Christian rock star, lived to age 60 -- far longer than the church-avoiding rock stars who died in their 20s." Obviously the statement "person who died at 60 lived longer than person who died at 20" is true, but if you want to see how real Christians respond to death, it's not with such smugness, it's with sadness over a tragedy.

But is 60 really that old? The average lifespan for American men is 75, for women 78. If you Google a variety of search strings for "Christian rocker [musician] dead [dies]" you quickly discover that all the top hits have young Christian musician deaths: Rich Mullins (41)[3]; Derek Loux (37)[4]; Wayman Tisdale (44)[5]; Dana Key (56)[6]; Mark Heard (41)[7]; Larry "father of Christian Rock" Norman (60)[8]; Ron McClelland (33)[9]; Walter Hawkins (61)[10]; O'landa Draper (34)[11]; Timothy Wright (61)[12]; Loleatta Holloway (64)[13]; Marvin Sease (64)[14]; Tony Greene (41)[15]...the list goes on.

So why does god not want Christian recording artists to live long lives? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, your average churchgoer is a few rungs down on the evolutionary ladder. I regularly went a few churches over the first 14 or so years of my life. I've never seen such a group. It seemed like everyone was afflicted, diseased or dying (and ugly and stupid). Religion attracts those who are beat down by poor breeding and wretched social situations. It's offensive because it's true. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Keith Richards, Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy Kilmister must be really devout then. Vulpius (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me of my favourite BBC headline: How is Keith Richards still alive? --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your average "Christian Rock" is so crap that gOD probably keeps them out of heaven as long as possible. Pippa (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenny boy wakes up (once again)

To Rob. So on July 25th Rob says this^img to the ken. After 2 days ken notices^img and promptly spends 18 minutes and 12 edits^img to tell Rob that (amongst other things) that rob is petty, ken doesn't want to allow Rob to 'suck up' his valuable time and that Rob is an egoist and should grow up^img. Sadly Rob, in a nutshell that is why cp is fucked. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I like his defense: the Bible says I can call them fat cows! --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) It was pretty awesome. "You need to grow up so I can get back to comparing Penn Jillette's dance moves to those of svelte Indian Christian male dancers". Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody go add the Template:Personal remark removed template in his/her response (not over the whole thing, only the parts that personal attacks); I can't cause of the obvious COI. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Capping this before it's gone^img. Rob is apparently a ""useful idiot" of an atheist website". --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him."

"RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website"

"RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call "a useful idiot" and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist web"

*grabs popcorn* The Super Ignorer faces his greatest challenge. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will come to your rescue Rob. I would if I had a sock but can't help you I am afraid. Ace^{of Spades} 21:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So Rob is a "useful idiot" now? Would Ken prefer Rob join him in the ranks of "useless idiots"? Their numbers are very large. DickTurpis (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And Iduan makes a feeble attempt^img to intervene. Shame he doesn't have any influence whatsoever. Röstigraben (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have they stopped yet?

Ken's antics are pathetic. TK was not exactly the King of Subtle, but dear Lord, Ken is really trying to get his way with pure, brute force there. The worst part is that people like Ed will wonder a few months after Rob's departure: "Odd, why are we not attracting new good-faith editors? Must be the fault of liberals!" --Sid (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When oh when will Andy start paying attention to all this? Ace^{of Spades} 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ten minutes after Rob posts his parthian shot. --Sid (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's hiding in the sofa until it's all over. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony, Conservative calling someone a useful idiot. We hold your strings! DANCE, KEN, DANCE! The lulz comes from you, not Rob. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

TK's death left a power vacuum at CP. As recent events have shown, Andy was mostly just a figurehead. With TK gone CP is now much more open, but it's also quite chaotic and obvious that many liberals *shock* have descended to the place. It's like Conservapedia only knows two modes: chaos and petty bickering or an iron fist dictatorship. Conservative principles at work! (IMO, the chaos and bickering is way funner.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how ugly this has gotten - and all because Ken has absolutely no idea how to collaborate with others. Not just that, but he's willing to throw other people under the bus, rather than amend his ways. If anybody is trolling CP at the moment, it's Kenny boy. Sadly Rob does carry the taint of the Rats, so the chances of him coming out on top of this are very slim. Ken is very much the new TK. PsyGremlinSprich! 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understood, Andy couldn't care for anything at all regarding RW, and doesn't give a flying fuck whether Rob is here or not (I actually rather respect him for being here - I don't care what his ideology is but by acknowledging that there are contrasting viewpoints and understanding them actually him the only Conservapedian that I believe is justified to have right-wing views). Anyway, what I believe is that the more Ken brings up RW, the more Andy will just get pissed off and ignore the situation. He can't de-sysop Ken because otherwise who else would bring up CP at the top of Google in Cuba and Hong Kong for strings that nobody searches for? --Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh this is rich

Ken "I am going to be very busy for the next 45 days so I cannot answer now let me just lock my talkpage and burn your talkpage" DeMyer accuses Rob of trying to dodge issues^img. He sounds like he is getting desperate. Ace^{of Spades} 03:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

kens TP was unlocked again?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh at this point it's just obvious as fuck that Ken's throwing his weight around and trolling. He's got Karaturd pissing in his ear about how disloyal Rob is and is taking Andy's utter silence as support. If Karaturd needs Ken to herald his intention to get involved in that discussion, he's got an even smaller dick than one would expect. I can't wait for the lack of fireworks. These guys are the biggest lying pussies I've seen in a long time. 04:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Da-yam^img, he was ok with the demon thing but if you insult his "articles" he gets pissed. It's so on now^img! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I still bet Andy's going to ignore it SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There be some converting going on!!!

Oh No! I have received an email! THEY ARE CONVERTING ROB!^img Ace^{of Spades} 05:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, kenny's getting vicious as hell. This feud is really heating up. Sooner or later, Andy will have to step in, but I have a hard time imagining that happening.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken could be bluffing about the email. It wouldn't surprise me. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

bluffing → lying? Pippa (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He might be on to something. Just the other day, I saw Rob at Starbucks, sipping some ice-blended concoction while nodding silently over Maureen Dowd's latest column. If there are any others who want to leave the conservative lifestyle, just ask him about the success of RW's reparative therapy. Röstigraben (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, better start copying all those secret discussions. If Ken is successful in branding you a Trotskyite 'liberal' !SHOCK! !HORROR!, you're toast. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that branding Rob as a liberal would be like calling Pol Pot a humanist. He's more chance with the "atheist" label. Pippa (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

At CP 'liberal' and 'atheist' can be used interchangeably. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now my article on wp:Deviationism dominates Google, [16] problem is, it's on Wikipedia. Is this the ateist website he/she/it's talking about. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, wikipedia dominating the charts of search engine results is nothing surprising. Infact, 99% of the time it;'ll be the 1-3rd option. And you know well what site he means--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well how come when I cut and paste a Conservapedia contribution to Wikipedia, the CP version doesn't show up in the top 10? In t he past, this has worked. Is Ken falling done on the job and getting CP blacklisted at Google, again? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the things he does are considered black hat and get punished by Google. But since Ken very clearly has no idea how to do things correctly and it's impossible to reverse engineer it from the perspective of someone who does, there's no way to know, Rob. You'd think that Andy would have some idea of what SEO magic Ken's working since it's his website out there on the line. Why don't you ask Ken what his SEO strategy is yourself? 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Black hat? lol, not quite. Actually, I think Google has some sort of deal with TOW. Which makes sense, since they're the place to go for quick information. Articles that are never linked to anywhere on the net still show up on top.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rob, Google does not return the same results for every person making the same search. Besides the many country based versions of the place they also skew the results depending on what you have searched for before. They are clever like that. Unlike Conservative. Sphincter (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The trolling continues

Ken's issuing writing assignments^img now. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed must be so proud. --Sid (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken gave me assignments all the time as Bob Sherman. Soviet atheism was one of them. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 19:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Soviet atheism is pretty much the only one he hands out. But lets be real, it is not really a writing assignment in the Ed Poor sense, it's a thinly-veiled jibe at the person he's addressing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And so it ends. Yet again.

Good thing that Rob recently spelled it out that trolling can lead to a ban^img since it makes^img for a handy ban reason. For one of these^img comments, btw. The irony is tangible as usual. Even more when you consider that I hissed at the lack of a clear definition of trolling way back when Rob introduced the "trolling comments can be removed" rule, fearing that this lack of a clear definition simply gives the sysops yet another tool to get rid of unwanted comments and editors.

Ah well, I'm not sad - Andy chooses to simply ignore the uproar, so ultimately he gets the sysops he deserves. --Sid (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As you are me, I have my deepest condolences... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I am Germany's entire population, I should maybe petition the EU or UN to do something... "In unexpected news, Germany has declared war on the United States of America for being blocked on a stupid website. President Obama merely groaned when he realized who runs said site." --Sid (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, to play Skat we (the royal we) have to ask the Austrian and the Swiss one, too.

I think that Obama remembers Schlafly from his time in Havard, but prefers not to mention him ever...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You said what you thought there, I guess that was your mistake. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(ex x 4 bastards!) But... but... your sin was to dare to correct the grammar of a sysop who mocked another editor because of his spelling. Karajou can't have that - even if it means protecting somebody that he himself has called a troll. He's been wanting to punch your card ever since you returned. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I was running on a fuse the moment Rob unbanned me. Karajou knows that I'm quite familiar with CP's history and that I readily speak my mind, so I just had to go. --Sid (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, Ed and Karajou are all showing their true faces and none of them are pretty. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Ed is waiting until RonLar is blocked, erases this section^img from his user-page, and then feels free to block everyone left and right as no one will tell him that he is a hypocrite anymore.

Just one question: I don't think that Andy enjoyed the leaking of the various sysop discussions. And he must be aware that any of the older sysops has much more material up his sleeve. Won't he try to keep further leaks from happening by keeping any old sysop on board of his sinking ship - difficult as this may be?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While the three stooges are showing what chumps they are it is Andy who ends up looking the worst. All of Ken's tantrums and pooh throwing are happening on his front lawn so he cannot but help to know what is going on and yet he keeps blogging to MPR as if nothing is happening; just like Dilbert's pointy-haired boss. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please. The pointy haired boss has at least some self-awareness and sometimes is aware they are taking the piss out of him in some vague unspecified way. andy is oblivious. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy fails hard as a boss. Nobody is fired, nobody is hired, he just silently cleans the desk of whoever leaves and pretends that person never worked there. Philip never existed, Dan never existed, Tim never existed, TK never existed, and very soon, Rob will never have existed. --Sid (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Time tables for Rob and Ken

Here are the log entries for Rob and Ken over the last seven days.

Rob ( block delete move patrol (i.e., comment) protect upload)	Rob has only time to post during pauses at work/school/daily occupation and in the evening. He can't compete with...
Ken ( block delete move patrol (i.e., comment) protect upload)	... Ken who obviously has no need to attend courses or Sunday's services - or even to sleep at night. And yet Ken says: I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. Bullocks.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem a little sparse for Ken? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a day-of-the-week heat map for all of Ken's editing for as far back as you can go. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be pretty neat. Reminds me of a roommate I had. We called him Schrodinger's roommate because you couldn't predict with any certainty whether or not he would be awake at any given time in the day. The only way to find out was to observe. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken has no need to attend Sunday services? Perhaps I'm reading the table wrong, but looks to me like Sunday morning (the traditional U.S. time for church services) is wide open. Phiwum (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing some activity though in the area, though. So unless he uses a laptop...Well, if you think about it, no church uses the only true and faithful translation of the bible: the CBP, nor do most go on about the evils of fat atheists or homosexuals or... -goes off into a mind rot thinking about kens rambling-. Therefor, any church ken WOULD go to is far to liberal. --Mikalos209 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no activity at all from 6:00am to noon in Larron's image. Maybe I'm missing something. Phiwum (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

6:00am GMT and 12:00 am GMT. I'm afraid didn't state the time-zone....

@Genghis: I'll see what I can do.. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding the weekday heatmap! Maybe we'll spot a five-minute window where he never edits, perhaps because he has to go upstairs to take a pill. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! GMT! That explains your comment then, thanks. Phiwum (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Weekday Map

I'd be interested to see a day-of-the-week heat map for all of Ken's editing for as far back as you can go.

Well, it's not exactly what you wished for:

• I didn't use heat colors, but variations of gray, indicating the average number of edits per hour of the week using the following legend: no edit

one edit two edits three edits four edits five edits six edits seven edits and more

• I didn't go as far back as I could: the most interesting log for our purpose is the "patrol log", which was introduced at Conservapedia on Jun 16, 2008. But for the following diagrams I used only the data of 2011
• as for the other diagrams: the timezone is GMT - and I didn't correct for light saving time.

Rob events per hour	Rob moving averages
Ken events per hour	Ken moving averages

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus. He's a machine. "I've been editing Conservapedia. I don't sleep." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a dark graph Ken

has.--User:Brxbrx/sig  18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

17700 events that are still viewable? In 2011 to date? Wow. I wonder what his page view stats look like. If he's edited homosexuality article x 2,000 times, how many times has he looked at it? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You won't find the edits anymore, but each edit by a sysop leaves an entry in the patrol log - even after being deleted! Isn't that fun? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks again! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing and frightening. Either Ken has serious health issues (I'm not going down the "Hurr hurr mentally ill!" road, but Jesus Christ, human beings need sleep, or did I miss a memo?), or his account is actually shared by many people, like one of those Chinese WoW Goldfarms. --Sid (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's on TV 9pm Wednesday that seems to make a significant hour-long dent in Rob's edits? :p ADK^{...I'll agree your disaster!} 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff LArron. I'd be hard-pushed to identify when Ken actually finds time for church, certainly he is not a regular 9:00am Sunday which would probably take 2 hours out of his busy schedule (I mean he can't go to church in just his underpants, he must a little time in preparation). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think he doesnt go to a church, since none that i know of preach his "ATHEIST FAT HOMOSEXUAL FAT GRAHHH" message, that and hes never mentioned it in the question evolution things--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2010

Here are pics for the year 2010, this time for Aschlafly, RobSmith, Conservative and the late TK:

the unhealthy
TK	Ken	TK was ill in 2010: he doesn't get much sleep, he has no structure during day time, and there is no difference between the week-end and the other days. The same holds for Ken: he's restless and his days and week are without structure.
the healthy sane less unhealthy
Rob	Andy	Though Andy edit each day of the year - and doesn't show any sign of regular work away from his internet access - he gets his sleep. Similar Rob who shows signs of a regular job - he seems to edit during his lunch-break...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's crystal clear that Rob isn't pulling his weight. Speaking of pulling weight, I'd love to a graph of actual mainspace (non-template) edits by Karajou. Aside from his copypasta bonanza, he doesn't actually do anything other than block people.

Occasionaluse (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is one of the biggest problems for the site, the fact that a sysop just sits there full time and routinely blocks virtually all new accounts, most before performing an edit, and the virtually all within two or three edits, with absolutely no accountability or review of his actions. TK engaged with some editors, and even tolerated dissent within limits, but I believe Karajou has done more to kill CP's hopes to ever become an internet community more than Rationalwiki or TK has. Ken's problems are only because on occasion somebody evades Karajou for a few hours or maybe a day or two. At Wikipedia, Karajou managed to get himself confined to his own talk page quicker than TK did (Spring 2010 Offensive). Neither has ever mastered WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, despite being prodded and warned by WP sysops. IOW, what fails the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia editor qualifies one as a Conservapedia sysop. This is blatantly obvious. No wonder three CP sysops don't want their domain challenged. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I might have missed it, but who is the third? Ed Poor? Jpatt? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute..."Ken's problems..."? Don't you mean "mystery editor user:Conservative who may or may not be male's problems..."? DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I like you, but you're going down a dangerous road here. Karajou is a good editor and attacking him does not help you. You are headed down a road that leads to your banishment. Check your email Rob. DMorris2 (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you remember all the lovely birds? With those he fulfilled his quota for this year... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about civil war battles! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's graph seems to give credence to an observation that's been made here before: Sunday is the day he's most likely to produce his more zanier shit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear.

I don't see this^img ending well. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NY Times / False Bible politics / Conservapedia Bible

Today in the New York Times an essay from Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Gary Gutting, who has gone toe-to-toe with Richard Dawkins:

There is no honest line of argument from what the Bible says to substantive conclusions about the size of the United States government, the need for a free enterprise system, the right to bear arms or the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Family Leader (and many other religious groups with a conservative political agenda) are disguising partisan political positions as religious convictions. This cripples efforts to have meaningful discussions about their political views. Proponents of conservative views that require sober argument from empirical facts and generally accepted principles, instead merely assert them with religious fervor.

And obviously the CP dorks came to mind. Sure enough, in the comments to the essay:

There is actually a Conservative Bible Project (featured on a Stephen Colbert episode) that translates the Bible with a "free market" conservative ideological slant. For example, in the passage in Matthew where Jesus speaks of separating the sheep from the goats, the conservative translation discusses goats as liberals and sheep as conservatives!

I love how the Conservapedia Bible is one of the things they were so excited about, and one of the things that continually trashes their reputation. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is funny because other people have gotten away with doing the same thing for quite a while. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but average Joe doesn't get how the economy works, what he get's is that rewritting a Holy Book to justify your own believs with it is pretty stupid. --★uːʤɱ kant 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett once expressed the difference between sheep and goats, goats need to be led, sheep must be driven. Mark me down as a goat. Sphincter (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like neither of those are that great? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I see sheep and goats. Sheep are led, traditionally by a bellwether - that's a wether (pope castrated male sheep) with a bell round its neck. (Some stocks are known as bellwethers, i.e. their share price indicates the direction of the market.) While you can also have a goat wether, goats are inquisitive and get all over the place climbing trees and sheer rock faces they are also very hard to pen. Sheep tend to graze in clumps while goats are more individual and will graze separately over a wide area. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Did... you look that up or do did you memorize the intricacies of goat and sheep herding?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)