Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive250

This is an archive page, last updated 4 August 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>, <249>, <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)

Damn that evil obama being pragmatic

How DARE Obama change his opinion after 5 years and different circumstances happen!^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the new information! Oh I forgot, how's that again with invading other countries that have dictators? --★uːʤɱ pirate 14:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really different circumstances, it would've still been terrible to not raise the ceiling in 2006, but back then it was just posturing and "shame, shame, you ran up this huge debt", whereas now...I think it's the same thing, but Republicans are going crazy with the brinksmanship. All Obama is really guilty of is being a politician. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned, the number of house republicans who voted to RAISE it in '06.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative == Disney?

I think I've figured it out. CP's User:Conservative is actually the reanimated frozen head of Walt Disney. Or the creation of the Disney corporation. Or something.

Look: Disney (the corporation) made their money re-interpreting public domain works (such as the happy ending Hunchback movie), and then works to retroactively extend copyright protection so that none of their work falls into the public domain.

Conservative's essays on Atheism consist largely of poking fun of particular atheists by linking to their images, etc., all the while hiding behind a pseudonym so that no one can attack him similarly.

Okay. Maybe not. Maybe the world is filled with hypocrites, all of them different. But maybe, just maybe, Conservative really is Disney reincarnate.

Makes you think, right? Right? .... Right? Phiwum (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Difference is Disney was able to make something of himself.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's Block Reform suggestion

Buried in the shitstorm that once was Andy's talk page is this^img little gem: Ken made a framework suggestion regarding block reform. Since I'm banned, I'll just post what will undoubtedly be a minor wall of text here:

• I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks
  • Well, shit, I'm already agreeing with Ken. This is going to be an interesting ride! =D
• I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking
  • Well, of course not. However, mechanisms can and should be put into place to override and undo such obvious abuse. The foundation of which is putting into place a few binding guidelines regarding block lengths, for example. Let's call it... I dunno... a blocking reform.
• 1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.
  • I... don't even understand what Ken is suggesting there. The more I look at it, the less sense this paragraph makes. In my eyes, it shouldn't matter how many vandals are blocked in any period of time if the blocking policy is well defined: (1) Make clear rules that outline what is an offense and what is not. -> (2) Give at least rough guidelines for block durations per offense (5 years for replacing a dozen pages with "LOLOL CP SUXXXXX" is not controversial (though slightly overkill), two years without warning for 90/10 less so, and I won't even get started on Kara's new 5 year block of me...). -> (3) It's possible to notice and classify abuse, which can be handled as it pops up.
• 2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.
  • I guess he meant this^img comment, where he wrote "If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up strawman arguments and/or purposefully using churlish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence)". Which... isn't TOO bad as a guideline, but could instantly be applied to ban Andy, Ken or Karajou. I "outlined" my issues with defining parody on CP earlier.^img
• 3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board
  • The sound you are currently hearing is Ken's current best friend Karajou cursing loudly. :) Ladies and gentlemen, Ken just suggested that users should be able to question blocks! Sure, he quickly tries to limit the amount of questioning (which... makes no sense - imagine Internal Investigations having a set quota beyond which all investigations are defaulted to "Did nothing wrong"), but the fundamental suggestions is SO COMPLETELY against the status quo that Karajou and the others are trying to defend, I can't help but laugh at Ken effectively backstabbing his current supporters. Oh, you can also kiss MYOB goodbye while you're at it. ;)
• Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.
  • Oh, wait, nevermind, all cases will default to "Did nothing wrong" anyway. =|
• I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board.
  • Start with this^img one, where you gave a 2-year 90/10 ban right after said user made this^img edit.
• I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of think he should lose his Admin rights.
  • Why yes, this makes perfect sense. A block review board shouldn't include the guy who has been questioning unfair blocks or your own behavior. That certainly explains why you have no problem with having your blocks reviewed - you insist on staffing it with people who support you. =|
• I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :)
  • Not quite, but you at least started some discussion... if you ignore that you and your friends created an atmosphere where speaking up is considered ban-worthy behavior, thus silencing people one way or another.
• I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework.
  • Hahaha. =|

Wall of text... end. --Sid (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Touché sir

...to whoever is running Bclough^img. Nice work. --Horace (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I felt it was a bit to obvious. --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly pushes all of the well known buttons, doesn't it? --Horace (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very obvious. But so was Bugler. DickTurpis (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I still like how all these new accounts pretty much reveal themselves by saying "Hey, i know all about this situation, despite being a new guy who would have no real knowledge of the situation" kinda lazy really--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why, there are millions of people who read conservapedia every day. Of course most of these people are going to be lurkers with no accounts. Because of the high quality of content present on conservapedia, all of these lurkers are going to read as much of it as possible and stay up to date with the internal politics of the site, so when these long time lurkers *do* make an account, their first post is going to demonstrate knowledge far beyond that of a new visitor to the site. X Stickman (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that it is suspiciously common for conservapaedia editors to say that they 'have been reading conservapedia for a while'... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow,

Andy has time to reply to a comment on Nintendo Wii, but he can't be bothered to fix the shit storm going on on his very own talk page?^img At least he's admitting to being wrong in that post (sorta). --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RobS Conservative and Andy's Talk page

So I don't really post here often nor do I post at CP but both RobS and Conservative are acting like Andy is there dad and they have to permission to do anything. Here's an idea for both of you since I know both of you read RW.

RobS: if you don't agree with the edits that Conservative is making then revert edits or delete the pages, etc. but crying to Andy isn't working for you. I do admire you trying to make things better but sometimes you need to just get things done rather than talking about getting things done which is all that is happening on Andy's talk page.

Conservative: Same thing here. If you don't agree with the policies that RobS is putting in place either rewrite them yourself or revert them but posting a letter to Andy isn't helping your case either. You might also try to help rewrite the policies rather than telling the world you hate Atheism.

Honestly I don't blame Andy for staying out of this sysop tug of war since there isn't anything good to be said. Quazywabbit (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is the site's owner, and the only one empowered to do anything. Rob reverts and restores Conservative constantly, but the only meaningful solution lies in Andy's intervention. This is not some tug of war, either. Boiling it down to the issues (regardless of how you feel about their ideologies), RobSmith is in the right. --User:Brxbrx/sig 06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I get that Andy is the site's owner, but the other sysops are empowered to do things to help including rewriting policies. Waiting for Andy to respond hasn't been working for the past few weeks and its pretty safe to say Andy is aware with everyone using his talk page. Quazywabbit (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop addressing either of them as if they were reasonable human beings. ken is a whole picnic basket short of a picnic (he's insane!) and Rob is upset because ken's getting all the kudos while the site should be concentrating on those awful lefty communist marxists who are trying to create the Soviet of Amerika. Pippa (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken's just giving it everything he's got now to punish Rob. Even if he doesn't have legit claims it looks like he's just going to continue to whine and make it a huge deal until he gets his way. The guy's spoiled rotten with his unchallenged power. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 07:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How is Robbo losing this? He's a member of the original Gang of Four and should be using history in everyone of his posts. Namely Kenneth was only given sysop rights to edit a protected article, he never earned them in the normal manner nor was the intention ever there for him to be deleting talk pages or blocking users. He has buttons so he can edit protected pages and that's it. The other angle he should be taking constantly is that Ken has nothing left to add at the site, nothing. Since he's 'finished' his opus, all he's 'added' is 'satire' and endless projects that have always fizzled out in less than a week. He adds nothing to the site but amusement for its detractors.

Therefore I hope he maintains his power and continues his spiral past madness. It's cheaper than a movie and the seats are more comfortable. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I get served beer in my seat while watching as well so double plus good for me. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, "RobScentric" is quite witty... ADK^{...I'll suffocate your magnet!} 12:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, I'm just picturing how Andy is as a father. His two kids fighting, yelling at each other, about to tear each other apart right in front of him and he just ignores them and goes on the computer to complain about the "liberal bias" in every form of media. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So I'm wondering why no one has even mentioned Andy's absence on his talkpage (or elsewhere, Community Portal, Abuse Desk, etc.) when users AND sysops are clearly looking for a reply. Most of what I see are parodists doing a piss-poor job and the usual newbie joining and adding a comment before being blocked. Come on, someone who's got a "clean" (meaning if you bring it up, you won't get reverted/blocked) reputation needs to just say it outright: Andy is avoiding the whole issue and that's exactly why RobS is calling for accountability. The longer it drags on, the more his point is made. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Look who came to play!

"Demons" Bradley even wades in to the affray^img, apparently forgetting that CP isn't aSoK. He's probably frantically trying to block them all for incivility right now, but mystified as to why he doesn't have the rights for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how LowBrow removes a "personal remark" that Rob made about himself. What a twat. Other than Bradley though all the other contributors being "reasonable" are undoubted parodists just helping to stir the shit. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Daniel1212 weigh in or remain silent? Burndall (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Up to him really I guess. Personally I'm sitting this one out for a while to see how it unravels. I copuldn't even begin to match ken's level of parody, even if I wanted to. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Bradley's comment here^img "Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished". Really Brad? What about if they have two accounts? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a different Bradley. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right. I assumed it was the same demon bradley no? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley edits as LowKey on CP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I edit as LowKey everywhere. Crundy needs to look a little more closely; I asked for a name change here, which Nx kindly provided. Click on User:Tricksy and see where it takes you. Seriously, how does any of your criticism have credibility with this kind sloppiness. Regarding CP I got tired of watching Convervative and RobS both moan that someone else should do something, and everyone else moan that somebody should do something, so I waded in and at least DID something in line with site policy. Genghis noticed my small shot at humour while I was at it, but completely missed the point. Jeeves is still apparently obsessed with demons, and the rest of his humour comes off as sloppy and lame, to me. LowKey (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if I understand your post in a manner of "im the most important bastard ever, how DARE you not know my history of usernames or the appropriate links."--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it was in the manner of "You already saw my CP userid, then assumed a different CP userid was ALSO me; and how DARE you accuse of something without even bothering with a rudimentary check." Yet another case of "never elt the facts stand in the way of a good story." LowKey (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you fantasise about gay demons? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Everybody hates Rob

Apparently Terry Cokeeyes^img, they guy who only uses CP to spam his own websites, has joined the committee to kill Rob Smith. Your reform efforts aren't going down so well, Rob. Just resign already, it isn't worth trying to push that boulder up the hill. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I can't wait to see Ken's ejaculatory joy splattered all over CP when he wins this battle. It will truly be a sight to see. X Stickman (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I really hope he wins. Kendoll with a grudge against CP would be terrifying. Worse, he might come here to live it out. We'd be up to our tits in "Rob Smith's Sysopship and Homosexuality" articles. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually have real concerns about Ken losing his position at CP. As much as I enjoy seeing him be called on all his shit, and watching the master debater (hah! It sounds like "Masturbate". Decades of jokes suddenly make sense) defend himself with such arguments as "No!" and "stop talking to me!" is very funny, I don't want Ken removed or otherwise slapped down on CP simply because I worry for his health. Seriously, what *would* Ken do if he lost CP? It's literally the only thing he does. X Stickman (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to Rob's impending martyrdom at the hands of Ken and his neo-Pharisees. I can only hope it leads to another Klassic Ken Essay on the main page. DickTurpis (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Rob the pharisee in this picture, insisting that the people stick to rules handed down by god Andy. The rest of them are Christians insisting that, while they still worship Andy, the rules were fulfilled in the death and resurrection of TK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob's position half way up Calvary makes him not a Pharisee. DickTurpis (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

At one point, Robs efforts were noble. Now he's participating in a kangaroo court and it's just pathetic. Give it up, liberals Rob. CP is a fucking farce. It reflects poorly upon yourself to even be associated with it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, the current drama is needed for a good narrative later on. I guess Rob mentally moved on beyond CP already, but he likes having a handy story of abuse to tell. You know, like all those TL:DR Chip Berlet stories. Next time when somebody at WP or so doubts his sincerity, empathy, or whatever, he'll recount the tale of how he was hounded out of CP by power-hungry sysops who opposed his attempts to make the site more community-friendly. I don't doubt that he is merrily compiling copies of mails and talk pages as we speak. --Sid (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know I sound like a stuck record, but seriously.... when is Andy going to say something about the pages and pages of drama on his user page... WHEN? It's getting way past absurd now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If I learned anything from CP it's that Andy is comfortable in "way past absurd" territory. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No snarky reply this time from me since you make a good point. Almost 220 (visible?) edits^img to Andy's talk page just since the creation of the "User: RobS" section. --Sid (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's funny that Terry Coke Eyes didn't have the balls to go to Andy's talk page himself to give his reasons for having an issue with Rob. The little pussy only has time to spam. Be a man, Hurlbutt! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's what you'd expect from the united editors behind Andy. Karajou, Coke Eyes and Ed are all silent. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nahh, kenny baby wrote to chuckiebum and said 'do you support Rob or me', chuckie said not really bothered. kenny baby misread that as 'I agree with you' and so kenny lied about reported what chuckie said. All imo of course. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Never forget that Terry is the guy who explicitly advocated that Andy's unsourced opinion is objective truth (->Conservaleaks), so imagine if people told Andy that he needs to source his "insights", his Schlafly Statistics, or his truisms. Oh, and Terry might also mildly worry about people taking a closer look at his habit of selling his own opinion pieces as Reliable Sources. --Sid (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's funny what all this drama is about: effective control over a website no one takes seriously, including and especially conservatives. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hurlbutt is a pussy who can't voice his own opinion on record, and so is Andy, who can't step in and lead to resolve a major problem in his sysop corps. Ken is afraid of his gender. And conservatives say that liberals lack machismo? These guys are the biggest bunch of pussies I've seen. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For me it's about keeping the funny coming. That's why I'm on Team Ken. I know Rob, even if victorious, would never be able to actually make Conservapedia a reputable forum, but even the mere suggestion of it should be fought tooth and nail. DickTurpis (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Team Rob's failure is the only way to keep the good times rollin! Go fat atheists! Go flying kitties! Go unicorns and dragons! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing that has surprised me during this whole showdown is that Rob showed he was capable of arguing fairly reasonably and without giving three non sequiturs about every sentence. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence that Rob is not a complete retard and is only trolling us when he acts like one. DickTurpis (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's what you're looking for, Ken. You're welcome. Also, if this is such a major website linking to you, at least get the goddamn name right in your own article. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather curious about why it's Ken who's informing Andy that 3 sysops (Ken, Chuckarse and I assume Karajou) was Rob removed. Don't the other two have the balls to speak up for themselves? Or could Ken be lying? PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

They probably don't have the balls. They'll speak up after this battle is over, but probably not before. As for Ken lying, I don't think he'd completely lie in such an obvious manner when the people he's lying about are as powerful as him, but he's probably exaggerating their response a bit. Like he's sent TerryH about 50 emails along the lines of "How about this RobS, eh?!" and Terry finally responded with "Yeah it's a bit excessive" or something, which Ken reads as "I fully agree with you and hate RobS now", just like he reads silence as explicit approval. X Stickman (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Temperature rising

The edit summary^img says it all. --Horace (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you've got to admire the mind that can produce an edit summary that in a mere six words can create such a monumental hypocrisy. --Horace (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob refuses to go down quietly^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Max? Have you been reading a certain atheist website^img? --Horace (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is beginning to get interesting... :D Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to think MaxFletcher is the only user who is not a parodist. The guy has been around for sometime now - if you look over the contributions anyway. Everyone else though, jeez, there are some lick-spittle's hanging about, Jesus fuck they are easy to spot. Ace^{of Spades} 02:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Temperature still rising^img. --Horace (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oop! It's back now. Not sure why it disappeared. Ken? Help me out here. --Horace (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AH HA! I get it. He has removed Rob's comment that he attempted to remove previously (but Rob reverted him). Nice one Ken! (Clearly I have taken to live-blogging my own stupidity) --Horace (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes he did, the sly bastard... Rob, I think you have more ammunition. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With Andy too much of a pussy to actually lead his website, it allows for open war. For the few non-parodists, it will be clear how abusive the power structure is there. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious he deletes and recreates just to brake the links, as above. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gasp--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New Article

To cover this battle how about Conservapedia:The Great War? Ace^{of Spades} 02:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of Great War fully encompasses the viciousness we're seeing here. Maybe Antietam? I mean, it looks to me as though shit has hit the fan. I've followed CP for maybe a year now, and I have to wonder if it's ever been this bad.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Too early to tell. Could just end up being Conservapedia: The War of RobSmithian Aggression or Conservapedia: The Night User:Conservative said "I have to go now. My planet needs me". . Anyway, hope you guys are chronicling all of this, because these pages are most likely being soaked in gasoline as we speak. This exchange will be burned, deep-burned, oversighted, restored, burned again and eventually buried under soft peat in an unmarked grave in the countryside of one of the former Soviet Republics. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia: The Great Block War? Or some variant of that--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope people are using their screen capture functions. Ace^{of Spades} 03:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Conservapedia: The Ken-Rob Conflict? Or Conservapedia: The Conservapedian Civil War (or Uncivil War?) or Conservapedia: The War of TK Succession? --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia: The War of Schlafly's Ear or Conservapedia: The 45 Day War. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrax, it's been miles worse than this before. TK, Fox, various people's struggles against Ed Poor, the Helpjazz/Bugler fiasco all made this look relatively insignificant. Which it is, and will remain unless Andy takes Conservative's powers away, which he won't.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia:War of Wingnuts. You'd have to include earlier scirmishes like the 2007 TK-Rob Kevin Conley episode. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really partial to naming it after a notoriously bloody historical conflict. That's why I proposed Antietam, though I feel a single battle doesn't reflect the drawn out simmering that led to these last few days.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Breivik article just gets better over time.

Here's the contents of the section titled "The attacks":

The Foreign Minister had visited the Labour Youth League summer camp on the island of Utoya Thursday, and was met with claims that Norway must recognize a Palestinian state.

That's all you really need to know about the attacks, evidently. (To be fair, Daniel1212 is in the process of editing the article, but still...)Phiwum (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do we think Daniel1212 isn't a parodist?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because he's got several years of internet hatemongering and peculiar biblicism against homosexuals under that username. Just look around. He's easy to spot. 03:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think his own description was that he is an uneducated trucker who spent too much time reading the bible/tracts. The guy's obsession with homosexuality rivals Ken's (or at least it used to). His fundie apologist vocab is good for a laugh though. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In the smouldering ruins of the Community Portal

There stands Robert "Knob" Smith, [1]in tears, dreaming about what could have been.
Rob, you have been defeated by a dribbling moron. I don't know whether to laugh mockingly in your face, or put a friendly arm around your shoulder. I think I'll go with the former; Ha ha ha ha! You fucking tit! You've been beaten by Ken Fucking Demyer! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Ken's just recreated it. I did leave at a few minutes, he's normally quicker than that. I'll save the mocking laughter for now, sorry Rob. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Ken, Massive Fires are a piss poor way to hide what you don't like^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:D :D :D 'accidentally' Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's some quality shit stirring, yes siree. I sense a banhammer incoming. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't he just oversight it instead of drawing attention to himself with a public deletion? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it was like a million edits back. There wasn't any way to stealthily get rid of the horrible, bad message that clearly had been disturbing him for days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He can get rid of it that way now though, can't he? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Andy chase the kids off his yard? Who doesn't Rob just grow a brain and give up, Your question is unanswerable.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved from talk:ASchlafly^img. I think I'll have to put that page into my feed reader. This is getting good... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't that capture work? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC) (ED: Oh, wait, it's just the thumbnail. wow that's big...)

The page is too big. Ace^{of Spades} 04:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a random capture

Because I like it when Ken mangles the English language^img while still believing that he is some great writer. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have you know Ken is paid for his writing! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in delusionville...

Rob is setting up the courtroom^img. Does he mean to put Kendoll on trial for his wiki-life? This isn't going to end pleasantly. Any attempt to bring Kendoll to book is only going to result in him overturning chairs, mooning the judge and calling the jury atheist evolutionist traitors. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If he doesnt just burn it down beforehand or finish it with a wartrime tribunal.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not too sure where Rob thinks the plaintiffs are going to be producing these incriminating "[difs]" from. "Look what Ken did to me! I have the proof right HERE! Wait a sec... it was just there. Well okay then, you can find another example-*poof* here... Say, what's going on?" Yep, this will end well.--Inquisitor (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots of User:Conservatives misuse of CP Oversight can be re-uploaded to CP as imgs. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Plaintiffs would be stuck having to resort to RationalWiki's preemo quality screen caps. Then they'd be banned for referring to a vandal site.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken would just claim that the screencaps are photoshopped. It worked for TK. --Sid (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Did it work? I mean, I don't think anyone actually believed him, though some may have pretended to. DickTurpis (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't matter. TK posted that "disclaimer" the minute he received over-sight from Andy. Nobody here believed it and nobody there cared. I think even you were too used to TK's "forged screenshots" excuses. PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because most of us have grown up under the rule of law it can be difficult to remember that jurisdiction is a practical matter as well as a theoretical one. If a court lacks the ability to enforce its judgements they are worthless. The only person who can effectively sanction Ken is Andy, and he's shown no interest whatsoever in doing so. Anyone other than Andy might as well be trying Harry Potter spells, or the power of prayer for all the good it will do in getting rid of Ken. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the site owner understands the deterent effect misuse of Oversight has on good faith editors. A few solid examples of an Oversight abuser covering his other indiscreet sysop abuses, rather than what the tool is for could suffice to either get the abuser to stop, or the site owner to act. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, andy wont back you up. If you think he will your an idiot--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no denying Andy has been silent on Conservapedia itself, but has he said anything behind the scenes? I can see how he'd not want to air dirty laundry in public, even on a wiki, but if he hasn't done anything behind the scenes to settle this then he really is pathetically impotent. Has he done anything off-wiki, Rob? DickTurpis (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd at the history of that page. It was originally Sysop and Admin Abuse, but TK had protected it. What, you have a complaint? TOO FUCKING BAD! Oh and sweet mother of Fluttershy, Andy actually appeared on the page (only to revert someone, though). Does TK's protection still apply when the page is moved? If so, still nobody can file a complaint. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys bitching about now?! There hadn't been a single complaint on that page for more than 3.5 years. You sure won't find any other publicly editable wiki that can say that. I'd say CP has a sterling record. You're all just haters. 18:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Ken leave about 10 messages across the wiki saying "I'm done with this shit, Andy is going to take care of it for me" --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken says all kinds of junk. Remember how many times he was going to be leaving CP and be too busy to pay attention to it? That said, if Andy is going to intervene, it has to be on Ken's side. What happens if he sides with Rob? That means he's against Ken, Ed Poor and TerryH at least. Supposing the worst, siding with Rob means he loses 3 sysops, and who does that leave him with? Getting rid of Rob at this point is the path of least resistance. It'll fuck the wiki up even worse, but Andy's repeatedly proven that he doesn't give a damn about CP being a wiki. X Stickman (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets involve the Panel!

The student Panel, that is^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

YAY! The Student Panel, whose only ever significant act was to hand over the evolution article to Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in perpetuity and whose last edit was 1 June 2007. --Horace (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know the Student Panel is just another of Andy's sock accounts. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Panel had 9 edits and 8 of them were on talk pages^img, very close to breaking the 90/10 rule. It would be funny if someone brought up the Ken-Rob issue to the Panel's talk page^img (the last comment on there was from October 2007). The Student Panel is a hilarious failure. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Student Panel was a failure even way back in 2007, mostly because it was overriding the "meritocracy" concept even more than all the sysop promotions combined. We were trying to build an online community, and Andy suddenly presented us with an anonymous council that ruled over all of us simply because he said so. I think the reaction of the entire community (including the sysops!) was basically "...wait, what?" Nobody (except maybe for Ken, though even he must've been nervous) liked the fact that all discussion was suddenly frozen in place because The Shadow Council was reviewing this case in private. Hilariously, a short time later, the sysops made their own secret Shadow Council in the form of the SDG, but that's another story. --Sid (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob

Whatever the ideological differences you have with most of us, I admire you for what you are trying to achieve. Most likely you also knew that it wouldn't change anything even before you started. Most of us here support you not because we would like conservapedia to be a better place, but because of a sense of fairness. Why don't the powers at CP think like that?--Buscombe (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironic isn't it that the majority of people supporting Rob here tend to self-identify as 'liberal'. I think it's fair to say that many of those supporting Rob on cp are possibly parodists also, so they may tend to be 'liberal'. Whereas his conservative fellow travellers are lining up to either ignore him or actively oppose him. I leave others to draw their own conclusions from that. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the 'conservative fellow travellers' are actually little more than fascists, they do not want to engage and debate but only exercise authority without responsibility. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Although looking at a couple threads above, some of us appear to want Ken to win and have the place walk further down the road of madness. Personally I would like to see rob prevail and bring some sanity back to the site and open it so the place can be brought a little more towards a fact based track rather than one of pure ideology. However I am not sure how he can accomplish this with so much authoritarian opposition and indifference there.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If Conservative wins it won't get any madder, it will just be business as usual. If Conservative ever got de-admined, which won't happen, Conservapedia would have a chance to eventually become an actual right-wing reference source rather than the shambles it has been for the last few years.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It will never have any chance of anything while the likes of Karajou, Ed Poor and Jpatt have space to wave their dicks. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And the All-Time Powerful TruthTeller Andy Schlafly himself. His "insights" alone are enough to make Conservapedia look crazy. ~SuperHamster Talk 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see the crazy consolidated and concentrated. A perfect echo chamber for Andy would really ramp things up, lol-wise. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if/when Ken wins, we're going to see a massive increase in crazy over there. Purely because he will see that as tacit approval of his tactics and thus he'll ramp up his efforts to the nth degree, in order to destroy atheism on the internet. Firstly, all the talkpages of his pet articles will be re-locked, all his essay talkpages will be redirected again, the Community Portal will be burnt to the ground, we'll see several dozen essays on how trhe good Xian weeded out the deep-cover atheist in their midst, these will fill up all of MPL, Ken will remind all the remaining sysops on a daily basis that it was he who fought the good fight. The sysops won't know this, because Ken will burn their talkpages every 2 minutes. There will be more red telephone messages, especially if Rob stays here, and Ken will be like a 5-year-old, going "neener-neener-neener!" And then... one day... Karajou will say something that Ken doesn't like... and it'll all start again. PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean by "business as usual".--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough, of all CP's past stuff, I find the act of those admins siding with Ken one of the most disgusting thing I've seen. This isn't even some kind of issue of OH NOES HE'S TRYING TO INJECT LIBERALISM BY CORRECTING SOME OF THE SHIT IN THE EVOLUTION ARTICLE, it has nothing to do with the liberalism/conservatism stuff at CP which has cost so many people their heads. Rob is just suggesting some accountability, while Ken is being the usual and obvious childish prick. I don't see how anyone could pick Ken's side and still be able to look at themselves in the mirror without vomiting in disgust.. GTac (talk)

Imagine the Shame parodists must endure knowing they defended Ken, even falsely. --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

They support Ken because if he is forced to be held accountable, and to a fair and consistent standard, then they all do. Power corrupts... --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ammo

I doubt it will help, but it's worthwhile pointing the sysops towards these discussions: [2][3][4]&[5] - proof that Conservative is internet troll kdbuffalo, and it's worth reminding Karajou that that was his initial reaction to Ken. Also, posts from TK and PJR which indicate that Ken has been a disruptive influence on CP since the early days. I'm sure a search of the various chat groups would reveal more information. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TK explaining to HS that Ken could be taken out by a range block, simply because he doesn't know how they work to undo them is pretty awesome. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

August's stick is getting bigger

As he continues to poke Andy over the bullshit claims of record visitors.^img

Show us the data Andy!! --PsyGremlin講話 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder what percentage of bandwidth Ken takes up... - I do hope that Andy starts charging him for bandwidth some day, after all the bills for a site if it had as many pageviews as Andy claims it does, must be huge. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else get the feeling Andy is reading the cumulative column and thinking "woah, the number just keeps going up every month! suck it, liberals!"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

August has the single-mindedness which is necessary when dealing with Andy:

Unique visitors: Show me the data - and even more amusing IMO:

Translation of idou: Give me a scientific source^img

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken points out the Obvious^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in Andy's reference to "Conservapedia continues to grow in quality traffic." Quality traffic? Ken's shit and a list of Conservative Songs that includes the YMCA? I can't think of anything quality (by CP standards) that's been added in the last few months... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Open your mind you Fat god hating bomb making america killing Atheist liberal and let the truth in!!--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

John Mccain, now a Possible RINO?

Being listed amongst the likes of Pelosi and Reid...^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, up until about March of 2008, McCain was frequently described by both sides as a RINO. Then everyone either realized he wasn't or decided it was politically inconvenient to describe him as one. For the record, while he certainly fit Andy's definition of a RINO, he was no Lincoln Chafee--Willfully Wrong (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, his big campaigning point was that he was a "Maverick" RINO. I really do wonder what kind a candidate the Republicans will field for 2012. In any way, be prepared for a whitewash of said person's CP page by Andy the moment it's announced... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mh, I wanna go out on a limb with this. Let's say the Teabaggers actually make it till the government shuts down. I'm pretty sure even FauxNews wouldn't blame everything on Obama if that happend - after all FN seems Republican but not fundie style. Of course the other media won't do the same and blame it all on Obama. So if most of the media straightens out the story and report that Obama needs the money but the Teabaggers just wanted something to blame on Obama, wouldn't that make the Teabaggers look really really bad? I mean they have harmed the country long term just to win the next election. And with only 15-20% of Americans coming from that direction, the probability of another 2008 - a RINO and a relatively normal Democrat being the canidates - would rise, wouldn't it? Because if the Teabaggers are unpopular I can't see the Republicans letting a Teabagger make the nomination, therefor RINO. so everything the Teabaggers are doin' is shooting themselves in the foot... Am I getting this right or did I miss something? --★uːʤɱ digital native 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy threw McCain under the RINO bus terminology long ago, I think right before or after the presidential elections. I don't remember what one, insignificant reason Andy had to blast him, but that's the usual way CP runs. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Conservapedia's official^img statement is that he is not a RINO.Ateafish (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

John McCain had been concidered a "Rhino" a long time now, judging by the comments I sample here and there (ie Free Republic). It has been quite amazing actually how quickly the republicans made a U-turn and threw this man under the bus once he "lost". I remember during the election campaign comments about how he has "experience" and he is a "war veteran" and "mature" and stuff and suddenly... "stupid mccain this" and "should shut his mouth up that". My personal theory is that republicans, being a bunch of ego-less collectivists of cource, suffer from a kind of anxiety where if some member of "the party" shows weakness then he must be cut off. I have come to this conclusion observing the responce to Katrina, whereas a normal people would be talking about logistics, leaves, reconstruction etc, they actually just started bashing New Orkeans as if it has somehow "shamed" America by getting flooded and its a bit of a typical behavior of that mindset. Similar to the one informing thought processes like "if he is poor then its his own fault therefore doesnt deserve any help" So in a similar vein, McCain "lost" therefore he should go commit sepuku or something. The fact that members of his family are also quite libera-ish (his daughter and gay rights etc) also rub them the wrong way, presumably for his failure to beat her up into submission or something. Sen (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party does have the potential (and already has to an extent) to make the Republicans unelectable. Even Andy has acknowledged that. In primaries, the most extreme candidates tend to do better, but then in the proper elections where they're not just seducing Republicans but also Independents and the odd Democrat, they must gravitate back into the centre. Hence Andy admitted that almost Mitt will probably be chosen, he would like to see a more Conservative candidate (like Bachman) but worries that they'd have problems being elected.

In the end, it boils down to the fact that... in a stupid 2 party system, Tea Partiers will ALWAYS vote Republican, whether that be Palin, or Fred Karger. But Independents can sway either way, so the best strategy is to field a moderate Republican. If the Tea Party get their way and put a wingnut in, the Tea Partiers will be over the moon but they'd lose the voters who really matter. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 04:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He's always been a RINO. Ann Coulter, for example, said she'd vote for Hilary Clinton if McCain won the nomination. Conservatives just wouldn't admit it once he won because they wanted to put up a unified front. Afterwards McCain completely lost it and rebranded himself as a staunch Conservative (am I supposed to capitalize that? It's getting tiresome to do so all the time), going so far as to claim he never posited himself as a maverick. He does still, however, show a willingness to compromise which compromises his new image as a stoic unyielding bastion of Conservatism.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, he has what the Tea Party doesn't have: a willingness to compromise. Hence why the debt-ceiling crisis is currently toxic for the Tea Party because they just can't accept that not everything goes their way all the time. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But the teabaggers are getting what they want, you see, because they want a default. It's a brilliant plan, in its own batshit crazy way. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Boehner isn't a Tea Party candidate. Neither is McCain. They don't want a default.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, yeah, I know that, I'm talking about the 'baggers. Boehner is a hack, but not insane like the 'baggers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sry, I just looked at the link and saw Boehner in the URL--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Little People

What I find most amusing about this whole altercation is the minor players: the crew of second-string and new members jockeying for position. It reminds me vaguely of the "Mirror Universe" Trek episode where Sulu claims that if he kills Kirk, everybody else moves up in rank. So who, out of the current crop, actually stands a chance of moving up a notch or two in the pecking order? SharonW, maybe? Anyone else? --Phentari (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly none. --Mikalos209 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SharonW is about one more sensible post away from the banhammer. There's basically no one left there except the sysops, so there's no one to promote. DickTurpis (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Get your recording stuff ready!

A Conservapedian debates a director of "American Atheists," airing at 6:30 p.m. tonight airing at 6:30 p.m. tonight, Friday, July 29, on NY 1430 AM and DC 1390 AM, available online here - click on the "USA Live"

Praise be to Odin that the lulz may flow like the mead from Heidrun's teats. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pleasepleaseplease let the director of American Atheists to publicly humiliate Andy Schlafly be Frank Zindler or David Silverman. Thanks. 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

YESYESYES the current shitstorm is over the WTC cross - and it's David Silverman's issue. Oh thank goat this is going to be good. 18:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a timezone was a little bit too much to ask for. Doubtless some kind of good murican time. EST perhaps? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, why did it have to be about the WTC cross rather than an issue of substance. I think this won't be nearly as good as it could have been. But, you know, it does say "s Conservapedian". If only there were a real chance it were Kendoll and not Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Voice of Russia? Ateafish (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When he says "a Conservapedian," does he mean himself or will we have the pleasure of hearing Ken's oral excrements dropping live?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Andy is Conservapedia, a Conservapedian is normally someone with nothing to do with CP (a la "March for life") DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At 6:30 p.m. Conservapedia time (22:30 UTC) tonight the Voice of Russia will broadcast Press Review Russian Sports Daily, while the same timeslot on Sunday is occupied by Religion and Society. So, how correct is Andy's announcement - or VoR's schedule?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone who is going to catch this please capture it, and upload it?

Legacy

TK's legacy was an absurdly high number of blocked IPs, Rob's could be a record-breaking low number:

Number of Active Range Blocks at Conservapedia on July 23, 2011

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	591
# ∞ Blocks	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	222

How long with this last?

CP

Here is the number of blocked IPs over time at CP: when TK was made sysop (again) at the end of 2008, he immediately went on a blocking spree of unknown proportion. In Sep 2011 he became ill, and the number of blocks decreased. He tried to get back on track, but failed. Without anyones intervention, the number of blocked IPs would near 9,000,000 over the next years - those were the infinitely blocked. But Rob changed this dramatically!

wikipedia

For quite a while there were more IPs infinitely blocked at CP then being blocked at all at wikipedia. The quivering lines of the graph indicate a rapid fluctuation, caused by quite short blocks. Please be aware of the different scales of the y-axes!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA! Are you saying that there's currently not a single range block active at CP? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

yep: have a look here larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob gaming a graph

Rob just put up a percentage change graph on Main that makes it look like federal outlays have grown wild with Obama. In reality, if you look at that graph for a hundred years, you'll see that the percentage change is minuscule in an historical context; it actually barely registers. You have to redraw the graph by switching under "units" to "percentage change". Rob might be trying to do the right thing by CP's community, but he's still a propagandist at heart. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to cut n' paste the url for the graph (it won't take the part after "graph/?2" as you can see): http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYONET | Funny, the first graph you come across is spending in millions, and what you see is that spending grew wildly under Republicans. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you can click the link to the graph in absolute numbers instead of using the % change. Old news -- conservative media outlets have been using that figure since Obama's first budget passed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Rob's goal is so in sight

I don't know how to capture the block log so i can't make a dif, sorry. But Yep, reverting a synop is still a valid block reason--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not an absurd concept. Reverting someone that's been vetted by the community is usually asking for trouble. However, it's likely best to give a warning and a short block instead of CP's 5 year blocks.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

True but, the edit was Douglas removing a list of games because "They are filth", which was met with a 2 week (short) block, no warnings or anything--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been vetted by our community, but if I claimed in our mainspace that Christianity is to blame for the recent Japan earthquake/tsunami, even a random IP would and should have every right to revert me. If Andy claimed in the CP mainspace that the Earth is circling the Moon and not the other way around, normal editors wouldn't have an actual right to revert him without prior discussion. --Sid (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid, what the fuck is your endgame? Letting people revert Andy? Are you just doing this for lols, or have you gone completely insane and think there's a chance? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Having an endgame implies a certain desired outcome, which in turn implies that I should give a fuck and worry about developments that might run against said outcome. And in the more than four years that I've watched CP, I learned not to worry. Instead, I just do my thing by poking and prodding the stuff that irks me, and then I lean back and watch what happens. Because ultimately, it doesn't really matter if Rob manages to reform policies or if CP gets a Blocking Foreman or if he loses his admin rights - every development makes CP more interesting in its own way. --Sid (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Douglas: he should've been watching over his shoulder. Rob claims the ruling was repealed by Andy, but alas, that must have been behind closed doors where only a few sysops can actually read his ruling. He can't be arsed to change the rule so people can see that the fabled Conservapedia has a faulty rule and that all with blocking powers can actually see it. The rule is still there. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, as Rob's next comment shows Andy did change the rules, but he couldn't grow a pair and do it himself, so Rob edited the rules. However, discuss it all they'd like... in the end, Douglas can just ignore all inquiries and let the next rule stand: Undoing someone else's block can result in a loss of blocking privileges. Hooray for abuse! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Listening Live

Andy just said there was no such thing as seperation of church and state. Nice. Ace^{of Spades} 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, "Atheists don't build hospitals". Ace^{of Spades} 22:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I woke up from my nap just in time to listen. Must've been by the hand of God. I can't believe he's still pushing his "atheists don't build hospitals" garbage. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I just woke up from a alcoholic slumber, just in time. I actually have a hilarious tale to tell of last nights misbehaviour but I'll wait until this is finished. Voice of Russia? WTF? Ace^{of Spades} 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Atheism is about censorship! Atheists need to build hospitals! Dawkins wanted to arrest the pope!" Hahahahaha. Ace^{of Spades} 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Christians fund the government!" Ace^{of Spades} 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's over...same old Andy arguments we've always heard, now just broadcasted over the radio. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dammit I had to run an errand. Did someone rip the m3u stream? 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here at the last minute, and then I couldn't get the software to work. FFFUUUUUU-- Please, any recordings? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't catch the entire thing. There was some discussion going on when I tuned in, then there were headlines, then another 15-ish minutes of discussion. I caught that second part - uploading now. --Sid (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And here it is. 128k encoding was quite likely overkill, but whatever, I'm no pro and just played it safe. If there are stray sounds in there, I'm sorry (though I doubt it). --Sid (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You rock, Sid. :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

...yay! =P --Sid (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sid :)--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Andy sounded so familiar... SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the top 2 comments from this YouTube video with Andy:

"He sounds like a diarrhoea gargling muppet."

"Andy sounds like a gay robot"

--Night Jaguar (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It;s hard to understand them. The host is loud and clear. Also, "Atheism is censorship?"--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably one of Andy's better moments, I say. Not like when he was in front of the New Jersey Supreme Court. And the host was kinda biased. Honestly, I don't care if a cross is there or not.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading this. Who was the assclown debating Andy? He managed to make the softest target I can think of seem lucid and reasonable. What an embarassment.

I like how Andy starts to nitpick his opponent on a made-up technicality (Andy asking if he was ever actually in a foxhole) before being quickly shot down and having to be reminded that nowadays, that's a symbolic statement. Either Andy doesn't know that (unlikely) or that's the best way he can think of to discredit his opponent. How sad. άλφα^Talk 17:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy really does have the most awful voice. When I first heard him (on Colbert) I thought it was an impressionist doing a shit job. It's just awful. I'm glad I'm not a court clerk or one of his homoschoolers. He sounds like John Major on Spitting Image. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Who gives you the right to sit in judgement?

This section has been moved her from the Saloon Bar --★uːʤɱ heretic 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new member of conservapedia.

As you know we get a lot of hate directed at us from this site. The hate is based on the basis that you are superior to us because you are oh so clever and smart. You think conservatives and christians are dumb and naive. You think parents concerned about liberal indoctrination of their children in public schools are fundamentalist. You thinking being a patriotic American in 'extreme' and makes you a lunatic. You think all these things, are ever so mean about us, yet you can't stop obsessing over us and charting our every post, thought and deed. Liberals are far more obsessed with conservatives than vice versa. Its like you can't tolerate that someone thinks differently to you and that not everyone likes to think they are the children of apes. I love Jesus Christ and have been saved by him. I am not stupid. You people are stupid and mean. I think you should take a long look in the mirror sometime and stop being so mean. I really like art and flowers and music. There is more to me than my conservatism or even my religion. I have some friends who are liberal, but once I went to college most of my old liberal friends drifted away. I made new friends but they are all conservative and christian. I think this is sad. I make an effort with people and don't judge them. Yet liberals judge conservatives all the time and hold them in contempt. I think you lot are really sad and stupid and mean. I don't know why you take such pleasure from this. I think you really need to re-evaluate yourselves because you all resemble schoolyard bullies the way you stalk conservapedian users and write such hateful and hurtful things about them. Try to think about the person behind the computer screen next time, douchebags. Conservagirl (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? There's nobody behind my computer screen. Just a wall. You can check if you want. --87.5.101.234 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tolerant, non-liberal obsessed conservatives. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I literally want to become a member of RationalWiki to mock her headdesk logic right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7ZDSUvB6E

Yep, pretty much as I expect. A hate filled screed that succeeded in not hitting the mark in anyway. You smug 'intellectuals' write nasty things about Mr.Schlafly and other base slanders against upstanding people of the right wing, and then get so uppity when you are called out for it. You have no shame. Go on, I challenge you, make me a liberal, try to convince me. I'm open minded. Conservagirl (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So who gives YOU the right to shit in judgment? Huh? Huh??? --87.5.101.234 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 87-Anon! Who gives anyone the right to shit in judgement?! We are a civilized society! HollowWorld (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm always amused when people decry haters with hate. You want "a hate filled screed that succeeded in not hitting the mark in anyway?" Reread what you wrote in the long screed at the top of this thread. Blue (is useful) 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey loook, a sock puppet or troll. That's awesome. You can't be very open minded if you're calling us smug and demanding us to make you a liberal like it's some kind of prize. You clearly aren't obsessed if you made an account for the entire reason of insulting us either. HollowWorld (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't judge anyone based on creed, religion or politics. I judge people on their actions, statements and how they treat others. People like Karajou, Jpatt and Ken come across as hateful, hypocritical and nasty scumbags who'd rather hate the world around them than understand the different view points it contains. Hence I'll judge them on that rather than their beliefs. Which I believe is a valid reason to be critical. Ace^{of Spades} 22:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

CP's conservatism and religious outlook actually has very little to do with my dislike of it - several editors come across as plain nasty people who'd rather block the entire world from editing or viewing their website than allow any outside input that contradicts their views or actions. I've always judged people on their character - their opinions are their own, even if I don't like them.

Also your first sentence explains your thoughts. Do a few edits around one of the bigger or pet articles and see what happens. SJ ^Debaser 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't criticise it because it's conservative. It makes a mockery of conservatism. We criticise it because it brooks no dissent or criticism of itself, is staffed by power-tripping hypocrites, sycophants and trolls while good constructive users go unnoticed until they invariably step on someone's toes and get banned (see AlanE). I don't look at CP because I'm a conservative-obsessed liberal. I look at it to see what happens when ignoramuses with persecution complexes are given unrestrained power. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the subject got brought up, here's another Free Republic thread I am particularly fond of. I especially like the images of 9/11, the rather uncontested calls and implied postings regarding nuking a western 10.000.000 population metropolis and the callings for "Allah Akh..." oh, my mistake. I meant "God is lord" in all capitals here and there. Sen (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Conservagirl. I disagree and agree with you. I reject a lot of conservative viewpoints on a lot of issues, I am much nearer to being a "liberal" than a "conservative". That said, in a society where peoples of different opinions live together, people need the ability to calmly and politely negotiate the issues. Hence, I disagree with conservatives, but I don't like mocking them (maybe I am on occassion guilty, because mockery is a tempting vice, but I try to avoid falling to that temptation). This site often does like to mock them; on the other hand, Schlafly & co. like to mock liberals too, so that is a criticism of them as well as a criticism of this site.

I think there are legitimate criticisms that can be made of Conservapedia's management style, and other aspects of it, which this site makes - but not just this site, quite a few conservatives make them too. See e.g. this page by a former Conservapedia sysop. Another example would be how many conservatives attacked the "Conservative Bible Project" (Joseph Farah springs to mind, but quite a few more mainstream conservatives opposed it too - rewriting the Bible is not a very conservative thing to be doing.) Look at sites founded by conservative refugees from Conservapedia, like A Storehouse of Knowledge or Ameriwiki, to see it isn't just this site, or just liberals, that criticise them.

At the same time, some people here seem to me to have an obsession with certain Conservapedia sysops which is approaching stalking, especially User:Conservative. User:Conservative has his flaws, even many, and I think there is room for legitimate criticism, but the constant mocking and microanalysis of his every deed isn't right.

I think to some extent Conservapedia(CP) and RationalWiki(RW) are a mutually reinforcing negative influence on each other. RW brings out the worse in CP, and CP brings out the worse in RW. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When the Sysops over at CP stop equating Homosexuality with murder, disease, child molestion, and nazis (to name but a few) and Liberals and Atheists with every evil under the sun, I'll stop viewing CP as little more than a fringe hate site. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Parodist/Concern troll, trying to win brownie points over at CP. Nice try, Sharon, but the very fact that you posted here, shows that you're doomed over there. Also, if you're so worried about hate, you should read some of the articles your "decent" conservatives have written over there. PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This chick's not me and I'm curious - what edits of mine over at CP gave you the idea that I would act like this? I don't believe in ad hominem attacks and try to be polite even if I disagree with someone. Thanks. SharonW (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Psy realised that it was our old friend Marcus. I apologise on his behalf for the assumption. Actually as you appear to be the only female with a position of responsibility at CP it wasn't unreasonable until the language was analysed. Of course there's the chance that you're another Marcus sock. Pippa (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize - I was just curious. As for a sock, nah, I can't be bothered. I prefer to run around barefoot. ;-) SharonW (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so full of hate. Liberals are supposed to live and let live yet are often the most intolerant people in the world. You hate that people think differently to you and have embraced Christ. The hate I've read here particularly from Psygremlin leads me to believe that you are consumed by hate, and have no love whatsoever. 'Shows that you're doomed over there'. Mr Schlafly is an honourable and decent man and my father is friends with his family. How dare you? You people have no respect for the persons behind the computer screen they are just targets for you to destroy. I've read some of the articles you've written here and they come off as stalky, creepy and downright mean. You are realy mean. I mean so what if we're conservatives you should just tolerate us. You make me despise you even more with your conduct. Douchebags. Conservagirl (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't talk crap. You know nothing about us here other than that we point at cp and laugh at the bile filled hatred that currently drips from it's every pore. Personally I don't hate christians or conservatives. I do however hate their bigoted small minded attitudes towards others, in particular towards homosexuals and non-xtians. Sort out the cess pool that is cp, go and remove the hate and lie filled articles about homosexuality, about muslims and islam. Go remove all the manifest lies and distortions in the Obama articles. Go remove that moronic Obamas Muslim Agenda article. Go and do something about ken's dribbling insanity and lie filled articles about atheism and obesity.
Then AND ONLY THEN can you come here and lecture me about hatred. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How dare I? How dare you make assumptions based on what I said. The very fact that you posted here means that you are likely to be blocked for doing so by the Conservapedia sysops, Sharon. That's the "tolerance and love" they preach. In addition, I'll forgive your other comments based on ignorance (or that fact you're a victim of Andy's home-school brainwashing) - these are not good people you are hanging around with. They are bitter, egotistical, in some cases creepy, in others mad and they will throw you under the first bus that comes along if it suits their cause. (That's a metaphor by the way). Have you not seen how they turn on their own? Now, I'd love to debate you some, my little trollette, but my time is precious, so I can't give you more than 5 minutes a month of my time. See, I too can debate like a conservative. PsyGremlin講話 09:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Schlafly may be an honourable decent man in real life. On CP, however, he's nothing more than a weak, fearful, small-minded, green-eyed ignoramus who will stop at nothing to promote his idea of 'conservatism' (i.e. anything he likes). Do you believe beauty is subjective? If so, you're a filthy liberal, according to Andy. As for the rest of your post about us having no respect for those on the other side of the screen, well you've just perfectly described sysop TK, who was #2 at CP until his death in December. Did Andy bother to find out what was happening when his right-hand man suddenly disappeared and cut off communication? No, which was why Andy only found out about his death over a month later - from us. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Despise? Douchebags? (btw, how does a good Christian girl even know what that is?) Anyway, Sharon, here's a thought - if you're the Christian you claim to be... then forgive us. Or doesn't the Lord's Prayer apply to fundies? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that, putting aside your desire that I die, good xtian ladies should never EVER use this word either. Not to me or to anyone else. Besides, I can sit in judgement on you in the same way your god imaginary friend judged me guilty of a sin he created in the world for which I have no responsibility. When your god imaginary friend stops judging me then I will stop juding you, is that a deal Sharon? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Hello Marcus. You really are too stupid to keep the mask on aren't you? PsyGremlinHable! 11:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, regarding Ruy Lopez

This was the first hit when I Googled "Ruy Lopez." It makes perfect sense that Ken would name himself after a chess opening, being as he thinks he's brilliant. --Roofus (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is it's a fairly amateurish opening, too- it's mostly played by club players and <1600's. It's pretty much been done to death in grandmaster games, so most really good chess players tend to disregard it in favor of more tactical openings. So it really is the perfect fit for Ken. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 06:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to point out parody, but since no one reads aSK anyway I think I can make an exception and say that their article on Ruy Lopez is hilarious. Vulpius (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are the obsessed^img. (<- Just for you, Ken: that's irony) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully accept that I will never understand Ken. How could I possibly hope to understand someone who feels the need to delete and recreate that page six times in an hour? On a related topic, can you imagine playing chess with Ken? He'd keep insisting on undoing his own moves, would randomly declare checkmate when it wasn't, and when losing would suddenly declare that he had a flight to catch and would be away for the rest of the year. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

when losing would suddenly declare that he had a flight to catch and would be away for the rest of the year... just to go to a board on the next table and start loosing again. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how the chess games ended cause that guy closed the restaurant. --Mikalos209 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy I don't understand Ken. It's a sign I'm still sane. On the other hand I really hope Ken is a bunch of parodists, that way I could congratulate them for making one of the best villains in the wikidom. --★uːʤɱ socialist 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken noticed me! :D --Roofus (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein." larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did Mr. E.Nigma admit that RuyLopez and User:Conservative are the same? The veil drops a little more. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou tells rob his place in things

This community at CP? It isn't being done how Rob wants it^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. It's the strikeout that hurts the most. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no community at CP. Period. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that Rob probably has the silent majority behind him, until I remember that there's basically noone left at CP outside of the Sysop-ring except for Sharon and Iduan... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 08:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I commend Rob for his attempt at CP Glasnost (or as I like it, Glasnobs). However, it's doomed to failure. To borrow a phrase from our TK article, some CP sysops are mall cops, not encyclopedists. They're there precisely because they want wield power over others arbitrarily (even if it's pathetically small power) and it's not like there are too many other sites dumb enough to trust them with authority. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Game over Rob. You tried to salvage something worthwhile but it's obvious that karajerk now regards you as the enemy and has taken kenny's side. cp is dead. The lunatics have TRUELY taken over teh asylum. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the clearest indication yet that CP is all about teh POWAH and not community for Karajerk. Rob, it's time to go. Karajou, who's done nothing for community building over there, knows exactly how it's going to be done - not Rob's way. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm touched and a bit sad that this throwdown is about me. =/ And sheesh, Kara hates me. Someone should lock me and Hitler in a room and give him a gun with only one bullet, just to see who he'd rather shoot in the face. =P --Sid (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much Sid, Kara would do what all good CP sysops do: shoot himself in the foot. PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I fucking love it. The strikeout is so childish. The CAPS are so angry. The whole thing is so childish. I'm starting to imagine Karajou as Cartman. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Glasnost is perfect. That's what we should call this. At least the first part where people weren't turning on Rob. Thanks Night Jaguar--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob: Well Excuuuuuussseee me^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This planet is warming rapidly...

Just a thought provoked by how the WIGO on record shattering was written. So these visitor numbers going up means CP is getting more popular, but the temperature records going up doesn't mean the Earth is warming. Just thought I'd point it out. ADK^{...I'll taste your tennis racket!} 09:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken trolls Camillet

This^img after this^img.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WIGOing yourself again Brxbrx/Camille? 200.93.182.18 (talk) 11:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

Brxbrx... How was the entry you deleted "personal information"? Pippa (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Directly observing human evolution may be impossible but so is studying any past events of the Bible, including the concept of Creation, or the Flood. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

non sequitur²=?

Brx already posted it but, this^img has an extremely high density of non sequiturs. "Atheists/evolutionists/liberals struggle to figure out generosity." (No, we don't) → "The Economist writes "Studying human evolution directly is obviously impossible." (in Ken's mind: BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!1!!) → Built more hospitals liberals (so you can show us that your idea is right through being better people)! All the while taking his on articles on Conservapedia as a source (!).

*taking out his scorecard*
Non sequiturs: 2
Ad hominem: 2
Falsifiability: 1
Using yourself as source: 5 in 1

All in all: 6 logical errors in 3 sentences

Yeah, so, I … think this is even worse than link-crapping all over the mainpage - now he/she/it is actually writing his ass-backwards delusions on MPR. --★uːʤɱ soviet 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Telephone

Ken's frantically deleting and moving one of his red telephone pages in order to try and get anyone to pay attention to him. I'm not feeding his need. Perhaps Robbo should be bringing up this odd behaviour at the community portal, undelete some of the classics for evidence Rob and let CaptureBot get the screencap for you. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny what happens when you scrolls up the page a bit

--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Marco Rubio, the future leader of america

Jpatt is calling a future election in favor of Marco Rubio^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago he was over here telling us how Michelle Bachmann would be winning the next election. He certainly wears his heart on his sleeve, that man. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to stick with a candidate for more than a week when you're twelve years old. Corry (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

But but but but but but...his FATHER is from CUBA.--Thunderstruck (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And BANG

The karajerk steps in^img, smears Rob and it finally looks to be all over.
You tried Rob, you really tried but karajerk is a vicious small minded powerless individual in his real life and will weald what little power he has in his miserable existance with wanton abandon. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

ABANDON REASON FOR MADNESS! LOL Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that TK lives on in Karajou. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What a bitter, bitter little man. --Horace (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof once again that CP was never about community, but people like Kara wielding power. At least Angry Bear has the balls to speak out, unlike the other faceless cowards in the Star Chamber. However, what's funny is that Kara can't look past his petty prejudices at the bigger problem - for him it's ALL about Rob being on RW and nothing to do with Ken crapping on his wiki. Seriously, the man is uncapable of rational thought. Nice try Rob, but it's time to pack it in.

What is interesting is that now the spineless curs have set a precedent - Ken is untouchable and any attempts to try and calm him down - and let's face it, after this he's going to be out of control, will result in a smackdown for the protesting sysop.

Ken has officially inherited TK's crown - let the ridiculisation of CP commence at full speed. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on psy, now that kenny boy is untouchable CP is over. It will become a parody of itself in no time at all as ken shits at will wherever and whenever he wants. Nothing TK could have done would have come close, although TK set this whole thing in motion. I wish he were still alive to see how well his plan to destroy cp has succeded. I doubt even andy will have the balls to revert even kens more lunatic crap now. This is going to be fucking hilarious.
karajerk I know you're reading this, which makes your lies about having 'looked at' Robs user page here all the more shit and crass. Well congratulations. Your quest for power in your tedious bitter little life has destroyed what little power you have. ken reigns supreme and you are DIRECTLY responsible. You sad lonely little reject from humanity.Oldusgitus (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For Karajou I think it goes like this: there is no problem if no-one points it out. Therefore if someone points out a problem, remove them and you remove the problem. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit on CP at all anymore, not for a long time now, except for a few recent edits to their vegetarian page. But it's tempting to come back just to support this move - very ballsy of Rob to stand up for what is right, and it's kind of heartwarming to see a CP sysop compare us positively with them.--^talk 11:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's times like this I really appreciate the double standard of CP, and how much laxer it is now that TK's gone. You couldn't initialise "RW" without getting blocked for five years for "liberal trolling etc," but sysops are now allowed to use it openly on the site founder's talk page. Props to Rob for acknowledging that we are "an open, thriving, talented and successful wiki project", albeit one that "started from nothing but foul-mouthed trolls" - he has a point. SJ ^Debaser 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob's really right that none of those guys could even hack it as a Wikipedia editor. In his own way, despite his fleeting integrity problems, Rob is the gentleman people imagined Philip to be as the only other CP admin to have the scrote to stand up to the abuses of these small minded, hate filled, and truly stupid tyrants. Philip sabotaged his image by letting the mask slip to reveal a base liar some of us have come to know on arSK. But Rob has admirably risen to the occasion and should be commended for making an honest effort to reform the unreformable. Good show Rob. Despite our differences, I'm not above saying that I've got a lot of respect for you right now. I wish you weren't so weird about the commie stuff and completely incoherent sometimes, but I now know that in your heart you're a good guy and I'm happy to have rubbed elbows with you even if it was sometimes in a tussle. It's time to call a spade a spade and finally address Schlafly for the lying coward he is, and just move on. You can walk straight with your head held high. The rest of those assholes will always be the same power-hungry chickenshits completely obliviously to the miasma they emanate. Peace. 11:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, Rob, what is your opinion of Philip Rayment and aSK? Beware of those who will love you now, while you disagree with CP, but come to hate you as soon as you disagree with them (as you inevitably will at some point). If you give up on CP, and then dare to disagree with them on something else, in that moment you will be the new Philiip Rayment. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No he won't. Rob's not a career liar for Jesus like Rayment is, he's just a little weird. He is and will always be a better man than Rayment. 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Be he or not a better man than Rayment, I don't claim to know; but of one thing am I quite certain, they are both better men than you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't judge me, or the rest of us, by your own low standards. Until this all started I thought rob was, quite frankly, a dick-head. His behaviour in this has caused to me to revisit my opinion. I will still disagree with him on muc hof his politics and religion, people do that with each other. However I have grudgingly gained a tremendous amount of respect for Rob and would quite happily take him for a drink should I ever make it to the US or he to make it to the UK. Currently I doubt I would give you the dew on the leaves outside to be honest. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Maratrean: I sure wish you'd finally fuck off and go find another website where you can get even more negative attention and mentally masturbate over your fake religion and whatever philosophical bases you've rationalized to prop it up. 12:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, right, what has this discussion got to do with my religion at all? Absolutely nothing. The fact is, I am sick and tired of the incessant Rayment-bashing. Philip isn't perfect, but he's a much nicer guy than you are. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're so sick of it, why don't you go be his butt buddy at aSK and leave us alone? You're a fucking turd, Maratrean. And internet turd. Go fuck yourself. 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You prove my point by your very response. Rayment is quite likely mistaken about many things, but at least his level of conversation isn't stuck in the gutter like yours is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Describe me as you like; I sure as shit don't aim to please a tick like you. 12:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you don't know when to stop, do you now? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This amazes me quite a bit, there I was thinking that the opinions of somebody do not constitute a picture of their character, but that their actions did. What amazes me even more is that some people here seem to believe that everything somebody thinks makes their character. Psy even says it out right, a little bit down from here: "That doesn't mean I forgive him the bullshit he's spouted in the past." and Nutty keeps constantly attacking peoples integrity not by what they did, but by what the believe to be the truth (brx is an exception). There is Maratrean being a worse person - and even wished he would leave this project - not because he did attack somebody personally (until now), but for the sole reason that he believes something he mad up himself (I question whether Nutty hates Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and - well - every other philosopher that has ever worked in the branch of metaphysics). I will say it clearly: You behave like children. As rational people we shouldn't dismiss a person's opinion on the account of one of his being wrong (Oh yeah you don't do that - but, Nutty (expecially you Nutty), keep spouting of bullshit about Mara and several other people not because they are anti-social dicks, but for the whole reason that you want them to go away, because you don't want to read them anymore.

And what do we have also? People telling other people to shut up because they are annoyed with them - so instead of being reasonable people, listening to new arguments and ignoring the already dismissed once - we have a bunch of raving dickheads actively trying to TROLL people off the wiki - that these mostly belong to the old guard does not constitute a characteric of RW, but only the question if it wasn't time to change from a project that was only their to say bad things about bad people because one got kicked off a wiki. Not because they are damaging, but because they are annoyed with them. Are you serious? Your own "wellbeing" (if we can even "not being annoyed by someone" call that) is worth more than another one's right not to be trolled by anybody? If these people annoy you so much, how about building up a little strength and taking a little look - I swear it wont take you longer than split second - at the sig of every post? And if it is somebody that truly annoys you, just scroll right over it! How hard can it be?

Can we for the sake of goat and all this wiki tries to represent, stop personally attacking each other all the time? It is not that I'm annoyed about it, actually I find it quite enternaining if people I don't give a fuck about troll each others brains away, it is that it makes you look like pitty sorryful idiots that are so desperate to get their will (whatever it might be) that they are willing to cause people to leave the site for the goal of making their metaphorical ass-cushion just a little bit more softer. GROW UP, stop making ad hominem assaults on other people and try to be more rational and better people than you were 5 minutes ago. --★uːʤɱ atheist 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn.--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

TL,DR. boring. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting TracyS for truth^img: "it's more important for them [sysops supporting Ken] to have abysmally written articles about flying kitties and Indian Christian dancing girls (even if the accompanying picture is of a Hindu!) on their main page, than to have accountability." --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here, have a headline!

(EC2x)I wouldn't go out for a drink with Rob, guy comes off as a little unstable. Maratrean has a good point, this latest Rob love-fest is because he is sticking it to Andy, not because anyone has a genuine admiration for the guy. The moment he is off CP and back to being the usual Rob everyone is going to hate him again guaranteed. - π 12:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with 3.14 - we do tend to be mercenary like that. I think what Rob is doing is great and should and have been done ages ago. That doesn't mean I forgive him the bullshit he's spouted in the past. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, but it will at least let me have more patience with him... ...for a little while. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't have admiration for Rob, but I have the baseline respect for him now I have for anyone who actually cares about something. Ken does what Ken does because he's mentally ill; Karajou does what Karajou does because he's a bitter failure; Andy is in a coma; Terry just wants to linkwhore his content farm... Rob on the other hand genuinely wants to build a conservative encyclopedia. I still don't like his politics and he's still my enemy, just like the rest of them, but you can't be a worthy opponent without trying to be an opponent first. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rob wants to build a conservative encyclopedia, I think Rob just enjoys politicks be they "real-life" or on a wiki. That is why Rob is far less concerned with the truth rather than perception. - π 02:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

BOOM!

Rob fires back^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Racial undertones on debt ceiling article/commentary

It may just be me, but I sense ever so subtle racial undertones on Conservapedia's debt limit commentary. Do these guys see Obama as a black guy who just can't pay his bills? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a racial undercurrent, but it is funny that the article pretends Obama is the spender and Congress the prudent credit card company. That big deficit has nothing to do with Congress's previous actions, no sir! It's Obama who has been spending like there's no tomorrow. Phiwum (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there was, and I trimmed some of it; it had been in there for more than a month before I found. Where the hell was Karajou with his checkuser tool? How did a racist scum (a) get past him, (b) edit mainspace with blatant racist overtones? Maybe User:HP is one of Karajou sockpuppets, no one else get's past him. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read the whole section. I hadn't seen the reference to "inner city culture". That's not very subtle racist overtones at all. Phiwum (talk) 17:49, 31

July 2011 (UTC)

Glad I took the time to read that article. I never knew that Obama was solely responsible for the debt. Thanks CP! --Inquisitor (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For more edification, check out CP:Deadbeat President (by the same guy who explained Obama is just another inner city credit card abuser). Phiwum (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that both GW Bush and Clinton had been called "deadbeat presidents". Pretty silly term. Phiwum (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lining up for the slaughter and everything

Yep. I'm sure this will go over so well--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why you silly man, Loose or Lose, the world awaits your correction. P-Foster

So many votes from new accounts! Surely, it won't help Rob that so many of his RW comrades are showing support. (Maybe not all of the new accounts are from RW members, but I'd have to wager that a good chunk of them are.) Phiwum (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don';t understand why Rob thinks this will do jack shit. Andy himself isn't going to do anything for him--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this is an attempt to beat down mob rule by having a majority vote? --Mikalos209 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called "making a point", Sherlock. ;) --Sid (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the only point he's making is that the peons' opinion doesn't matter at all at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A terrifying dream

Last night I dreamt Ed Poor was a contestant on Hells Kitchen. For some reason he kept wandering around shirtless and flexing his muscles for the camera. Awful. Ace^{of Spades} 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OH GOD WHY. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It was really weird. Then when laying half asleep before work this morning I thought my wife was an i-Phone. To wake her up I tried sliding the slide bar across her belly. Odd. Ace^{of Spades} 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not as Terrifying! Strangely arousing. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

{ec}How peculiar. I don't remember a slide bar from my anatomy courses... :D --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Like the i-Phone slide bar you use to answer the phone. Ace^{of Spades} 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, sounds like you need to lay off those rubbing alcohol nightcaps.--Inquisitor (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Far too many people love their iThings more than their family members. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Rob doing?

Seems to me he's just running around with his arse on fire, yapping ineffectually at Kendoll. I can't imagine how he thinks he's going to get anything done with only peons on his side, and every other sysop now pissed at him. If he could get Andy to support him, that would be a good play but I don't see that ever happening. It just seems like he's found a really long, drawn out way to commit suicide over there. At least the other sysops who had got to this point had the dignity to get it over with quickly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He knows he's lost and he's just letting out some of his frustration, I think. Imagine if you had been "working with" people like Ed Poor, Karajou and Conservative for years and now you're leaving. You'd lash out a bit too, I imagine. I know I would. X Stickman (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong but I get the impression Rob has all but given up. He will continue to fight, because fundamentally I think he's a nice guy who happens to have fallen in with morons on cp and he can't do anything else. TBH I would feel the same in his position. he's seeing something he thought was good collapse and he wants to try to save it. Sure he has a commie paranoia and some other strange views but equally there's an otherwise intelligent bloke I know in the UK who think news corp did nothing wrong in in hacking milly dowlers phone. I genuinely feel sympathy for Rob, I think many of his views are crap but fundamentally I think he's simply a good guy whose political and religious views I disagree with. And I know hundreds of those. I was even drinking with many of them last night at a wedding reception. I do wish Rob good luck, I think he has failed and will end up walking away. But he will do so with his head held high imo, knowing that at least he tried. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob shouldn't give up, the lulz keeps coming. They can't confront the issue in the public eye like the pussies they are, and Rob made changes to cp:guidelines recently by Andy's blessing/laziness/caving. Now the other sysops are crying like little children and acting out like the one hated most, TK. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, even though I disagree with most of Rob's views I kinda feel sorry him as well. He has wasted so much of his time and energy on that shit pile of a website. And now he's dragging his inevitable expulsion out. Best he go out in a blaze of glory I say, blocking Karajou and Ken, erasing all of Ken's silly "essays", leaking all secret info and posting his Parthinian shot on the mainpage. ¡Viva la Revolución! --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here. It can be extremely frustrating to have a discussion with Rob, but I've never seen him engage in the kind of bullying his fellow sysops seem to live for. But it's time to go out with dignity instead of launching yet another futile attempt at reforming the site in opposition to every single one of the other admins. Rob, these guys don't care about rules or accountability, they simply want their tiny online empire to rule as they please. Don't waste your time sparring with them until someone kicks you out, just write up a heartfelt parthian shot and let these idiots wallow in their own mess. Sign up at ASK or Ameriwiki, and stop by here whenever you feel the need to share a laugh about Ken and the others. Röstigraben (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Best to quit before they fire you. Glasnobs (PeRobStroika?) isn't going to work. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, when he goes, the leeway a lot of us have had will go to. -makes preparations for that---Mikalos209 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like martyrdom. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What I find incredibly sad is that the only place poor little nobby can get any sensible help is from the liberal vandal trolls that the place he is trying to save despises. Sphincter (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"whitewashed"

I got behind a little bit and couldn't keep up with all of User:Conservative's trolling Andy's talk page. He referenced twice that his comments on my talk page were being "whitewashed". If any of his posts were oversighted, it had to have been him cause I don't have oversight. So I spent some time trying to understand what he was talking about. At best, all I can figure is, the comments on my talk page proceeded without any reference to him. That's what he means by "whitewashed", he was ignored by the whole CP Community on my talk page. Later I called him on his cp:Last wordism, and he's been silent ever since. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"cause I don't have oversight. " - you really should rephrase that, Rob. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that Kendoll is really hurt by anything negative said about him. Either it causes him to sulk, or sends him in to a frenzied counterattack. He also tries desperately to hide the comments after the fact so he never has to see them again. He'll be back in a few hours, and he probably won't be pleased. Expect another couple of days of him crying about how mean you are to him, and how you're an atheist evolutionist backstabber who should lose his sysop rights. Eventually one or other of you is going to get kicked off CP, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be you. Why not just go now? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He just loves the attention, whether it's positive or negative. He throws a big fit and everybody ignores him. Last wordism say's it all, "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." $50 says he part the part about sin in. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't accusing someone else of "last wordism" itself last wordism? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy also craves attention. He'll even go on Voice of Russia for it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, if you have to go, you can walk away with your head held high. I cannot say the same about your co-sysops at CP. I think you are a good man and I don't think you belong in with those anyway. --Buscombe (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob doesn't have oversight? Can you say "Junior sysop"? By CP Law, Ken, having more rights, dictates the rules. 00:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) I THINK that the whitewashing was me following site rules and replacing the more egregious personal attacks with the "personal remarks removed" template. It didn't last long, which is probably why reference to it may seem a little baffling. Nothing has changed; CP still has rules that the Powers ignore with impunity. LowKey (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The committee to kill RobS reaches critical mass

According to Kendoll^img the committee now consists of Kendoll, Cokeeyes, Popeye and a shadowy fourth member. I have to assume it's either 188 or JPratt, since I doubt Joaquin gives a damn about all this intrigue. I'm betting JPratt. That means that more than half the remaining sysops are in favour of the ousting of Rob. If they all get vocal about it, even Andy's famed ignoring skills will be sorely tested. Oh nobbykins, you're pretty much done for. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, Thanks for letting us know that at least 2 sysops (if it's not just a bluff) are a bunch of caitiffs, Ken. To be so ashamed as to want to hold onto your power and not be named is quite telling! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Ken said he was walking away from the matter he's certainly being very lethargic in going. No, the fourth sysop is probably DouglasA. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He's only a sysop lite, so probably doesn't count. People who only have block and edit are effectively still peons, and most of the sysop lites are doubtless parodists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, SkipCaptcha, Administrators, Oversighters and Siteadmin is sysop lite? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh damn, you're right. My bad. When did that happen? We should probably add him to our list. Considering his mass deletion sprees, I'd been kind of assuming he was a parodist who found a novel way to destroy CP. I guess he must be a personal friend of the Assfly to actually get promoted these days though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Only sysops get to delete and move at CP, so I suppose you should have tumbled that. I think he was one of the homeskolars who made his way up. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's a parodist - he came around the same time as JacobB and did much the same thing - suck up to Andy and translate his bible. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me quite how nasty all these supposed Christians are. There doesn't seem to be one jot of compassion in the lot of them. Every thing they espouse is selfish. Climate change is fake so it doesn't matter if they drive their Hummers to the shops. The environment doesn't matter because they're all going to heaven next week. Social care is evil because they are all right Jack. I think I'll start an article about General Butt Naked, there's a Christian worth his salt. And breathe. Sphincter (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

From the TVtropes page on Conservapedia: "As several people have pointed out, a quick look at Conservapedia will show that it's much less about conservatism and Christianity, than of the power-crazed televangelist fundamentalism. And, for the last few years or so, about hating Barack Obama."--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So why did Andy take away Rob's "checkuser" tonight? Is this a compromise to those that want him removed, or what? Curious. Refugee^{talk page} 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad sign. As you fall out of disfavour Andy strips your rights bit by bit. Of course it might be due to lobbying by Ken being afraid that Rob might give out his IP if he is cashiered. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

That is a weird one. Of all the rights to remove, that makes such little sense. Template:Ken's IP addresses are in conservaleaks anyway, and so what if anyone knows them? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

People would then know that he lives in B______, __ (personal information redacted). The real humiliation would be to remove his team membership rights. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, he lives in Buffal_, __? We don't even know if Kenneth Demyer is a man or a woman, such is the great mystery surrounding this giant of the internet. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more related to all the sockpuppets Ken's running, like FergusE. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 03:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And Bclough! I assume you've checkusered him (or her) before and know that he is using these socks? Interesting stuff indeed. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely not Brian Clough! I'd be heartbroken if that was a kendoll sock. Totally FergusE though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine Cloughie speaking like Ken. "Now listen here young man, regarding football with regards to Nottingham Forest concerning the defence..." Nah. Not Cloughie at all. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It boggles my mind how anybody could side with Ken/RuyLopez- he's an embarrassment to a blog that makes WND look sensible. That's saying a lot. At the same time, seeing Koward talk about a community is like seeing an arsonist talk about how to fire-proof a house. Hilarious. Corry (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because those in power dislike change. Are you honestly surprised the Establishment is supporting the man letting them keep unlimited abusive power?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've having trouble accessing the site daily between 2-4 pm MDT and told Andy I can load the page using a proxy, but can't edit. It's probably related to that. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 05:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, this is almost parthian in it's clarity and simplicity. I salute you - once again.
Tell it how it is^img Oldusgitus (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Do like. Well done Mr Rob, once again Full Respect! Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you deserve better than this^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Great post Rob, but that's the one that'll get you killed. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, is Rob saying FergusE is Conservative, or just implying? Or is he just making it up? Not sure if troll... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this issue but I just want to offer my support to FergusE. I think he his hilarious and contributes many great things to Conservapedia. Also he is not Conservative or me. --Roofus (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's up to five sysops now!

Bets on who it is?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You've got to wonder if he's just making it up now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't matter. It could well be User:Elvis and User:LordLucan. I hope Ken keeps increasing the number until it goes past the number of sysops they even have (which is what, 7 or something?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think so, it may be the snowball effect of sysops wanting to safe their asse(t)s. Just like nobody wants to have known anything about a putsch right after it. Or in other words: "Look all the rats are fleeing the boat! Let's be good little lemmings and follow!" Why this list is not published on the other side... --★uːʤɱ pervert 19:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the main (community) problem Ken's two anonymous sysops caused: People are going to suspect potentially innocent sysops of secretly hating Rob. Personally, I'm surprised Karajou wasn't among the anonymous sysops so far (unless he decided to de-cloak while the new guy requested to be anonymous?), but my current bets are on Douglas and... Ed or Jpatt. --Sid (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For all his faults, I don't see JPatt as the kind of guy who would even give a shit about these children popping off at each other. He's pretty workmanlike on the wiki and friendly to everyone on the lists that were leaked, as well as TK in IMs even when TK was being TK. My money's on Ken, Karaturd, TerryH, Ed, and Douglas (who was pretty bitchy when Rob went to his talk page and seems like a dick who gets off on causing suffering). 19:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have sympathy for Rob if, say, Conservapedia had just been up for a year and this whole shootout of petty craziness was the first of its kind, or if Rob was a decent good faith editor trying actually improve the quality of the information on the site, or if such a dressing down might actually provide the impetuous for change. Unfortunetly, the answer to each of those conditions are, in order: Its not, he isn't, and it wont.

We have seen time and time again the Sysop abuses and insanity, and Rob has been a more than willing participant each time. He was perfectly happy to stand by during the reigns of terror from TK and Bugler, to do nothing of substance to stop the massive clusterfudge that was the Lenski affair. He has been personally present (and contributed) to the various purges, the hypocritical edit wars and even stopped by RW (which is supposed to be a no-no onto itself however that's another matter) to derail discussions with non-sequiturs and concern trolling. Its is only now, when he is officially in the cross-hairs himself, that we are supposed to feel bad for him?

I'm sorry but the "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times, thank you mistress may I have another" clause kicked in a while ago for him. He has known what CP is for some time now, known exactly what kind of "Good Christians" populated and ran it, and has demonstrated not one lick of contrition or regret that would justify a kind word in his regard. PJR, for all his (many) flaws, did try to curb Andy's crazy and when he finally quit out of protest one could get a sense of a legitimately decent human who failed but at least made the effort. RW itself was founded by former editors who caught on pretty quick to Andy's theocratic megalomania and have worked since then, for better or worse, to show how little the Emperor is wearing. Rob's recent downfall has been brought about, not by an act of internal conscience or outside malfeasance, but by rubbing a fellow Sysop the wrong way and getting into a pissing contest with him.

Now, is this all broad strokes? Of course. Am I missing details that could possibly mitigate the situation? Perhaps. However here is what I have seen: Rob has been just as much a tit as any other Sysop on CP up until a few weeks ago and is now getting a first hand taste of the same abuses he, either directly or indirectly, participated in over the course of his time there. From where I sit that is not injustice, that is reaping what you have sown.

I may be but a humble lurker and outside observer but Rob, if you are listening (and I know you are), the point boils down to this: Your ideology is, at its base, flawed. It predicates its premises on willful ignorance at best and outright, bald face lying and bullying at its worst. The truth needs nothing to prop it up, support it, or make excuses for it. If nothing else your experiences at CP should demonstrate this. How you commune with the higher power of your choice is your call. However to stand beside those who, by their actions if not their words, fly in the face of what you claim to be the guiding moral light of your life, is not only hypocrisy, but foolishness.

Your downfall at CP is self inflicted and deserved and I do not shed a tear of sorrow for it. However I do hope this chapter makes you take a moment to reflect on the last few years of your life, give a hard re-evaluation of what it is you really believe, what it is you really hold has true, and who it is you really wish to be counted among when you stand before your god for judgment. --Tygrehart

--P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 19:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, and I don't know this for certain, but I suspect it has made Rob reconsider his standpoint. It's hard not to reconsider when you are in a stand up fight and the people who punch on your side are the people who you have spent years condemning. Will Rob turn left tonight? Not a fucking chance. Will Rob EVER turn left? Not a fucking chance. Will Rob realise that not all of us on the left are satanists who want to rape his cat and drink his blood? I think he now knows that. I stil think most of his views are dick shit. I now think he may not be a totally bad person. There is a HUGE difference and that descision is mine to make for me. You make yours. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)A lot of what you say is true, but in fairness to Rob he has not been a constant editor at CP, unlike Karajou or Ed, and so may not be aware of many things - for example he claimed to miss the Lenski Affair. But yes, I agree that he should have realized what CP was a long time ago and I think it's only Ken's unfettered ridiculousness which is making him realize. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he realized a long time ago, you don't get to the position of synop at CP and NOT know how fucked up that world is--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was inactive during the time of Bugler. Never saw him, never heard of him til I got back. I didn't read any farther of this bilge, but somebody will let me know if there's merit in this uninformed user's opinion. Thanks. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 19:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Prick--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I love how the war on CP is spreading to RW. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken opens yet another section (seventh, I think) on Andy's talk page about Rob^img (but he's so moving on). Congrats Rob. Ken's pathetically silly smear machine is now focused on you. You've join the ranks of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and John Maynard Keynes. Perhaps you'll get an essay detailing how you're fat and unattractive to minority females. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, Rob isn't into minority females. He likes the all-American blonde type. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 20:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for us to bicker over this. Most of us have ideological differences with Rob, but we support what he is doing because it is the right and fair thing to do. It is not a case of supporting the person, but supporting the actions. Personally I have never found him much unreasonable. --Buscombe (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the enemy of your enemy is your ally. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. You just let the two of them fight it out, let one wipe out the other, and while the victor is still shagged from the battle, stick a proverbial knife in his back. It is, after all, the CP way.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm just campaigning for votes in the next Mod elections. I'm a really deal-maker-negotiator-problem-solver. This looks good on my resume. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tygrehart

• I was inactive during Bugler, know nothing of the episodes other than hearsay.
• I was inactive during Lensk; the Wikipedia Spiring 2010 offensive to purge Lipson & RW was an attempt top also purge Lenski from WP's entry, however I was only learning the details during that affair and it was contingent on success of the two other objectives (Conservaleaks supports this);
• I blocked one editor during the Knight of the Long Knives, as best I recall, and a few socks; I unblocked Sid several times, and AmesG as well. No other "purges" have I ever participated in. My opposition to arbitrary and unfair blocking is apparent in (a) my actions over several years (see block log); (a) Conservaleaks; and (c) cp:Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Arbitrary_and_unfair_blocking
• Bull to "stopped by RW to derail discussions"; I've always come here with discrete purpose in mind.
• Rob's recent downfall -- you're a blind idiot with the analytical powers of Ken Demyer. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I must admit Rob, I am impressed. Your rebuttal is clear, concise, makes your case in neat points with a few footnotes to back them up...and completely misses my point. Don't worry, I don't fault you for that. You're a detail man, a "deal-maker-negotiator-problem-solver" in your own words. Allow me then to restate the root problem that has you in your current mess.

CP is, to put it bluntly, a joke. It is a vanity project started by Andrew Schlafly intended to be a "conservative alternative" to Wikipedia. It predicates itself on the basic idea that there is "liberal bias" in all other forms of media. In response to this it hopes to insert a "conservative standpoint" in what can be presumed to be an attempt to balance the books and report "the Truth." Fair enough. Its a free country and people have a right to thier opinion.

However, where it all falls down is that Conservapedia does not report "the Truth." While it could be argued that sources like Wikipedia have "liberal bias" if one defines such as having to take multiple perspectives on topics, weigh them on the available evidence and draw the best conclusions it can, Conservapedia actively and knowingly inserts bad information, heresy, unsupported assertions and outright lies into its articles. From creationism to birtherism, to homophobia and beyond, it has backed psuedoscience, crank, and logical fallacies at every turn. Attempts by anyone to correct this, or even discuss it, are thwarted with insults, threats and bannings. It has not ever been about reporting an alternate view, it is about recycling the same demonstrably wrong and repeatedly refuted "facts" over and over again to prop up its own narrow ideology. It is not, as Wikipedia tries to be, a cataloging of the world and history as we presently understand it but a view of the world and history as seen by one man, Andrew Schlafly. Anything that does not fit that world view is decried, denounced, and demonized.

Unfortunately, this is really nothing new. CP has ALWAYS been like this. Its unofficial but well enforced mission statement has been to support the views of Andrew Schlafly. To this end its hand picked staff is made up of sycophants and suckups, those who agree with him or support his assertions unquestioningly. This has led to the collection of individuals with the same flawed perspective and willingness to forcibly silence anyone who dares challenge them or whatever tripe they choose to put on the Main Page. User:Conservative didn't suddenly wake up one morning a week ago and decide to start posting pictures of flying kitties or creating "atheists are fat hur hur hur" articles. He's been doing things like that for YEARS without a single complaint from the headman. The abuse of blocking authority did not start overnight, it has been a constant and necessary practice since day one. Even if you succeeded in making the blocking policy more transparent and accountable, even if you were able to silence or get rid of User:Conservative, the fundamental flaw of CP remains; it is an intellectual and informational sink hole that tolerates no deviation from its party line and does not feel it requires one lick of accountability. Put as many layers of varnish on it as you like, but the turd is still a turd.

So how does this all relate to you, you might ask? Well, here's the thing. Up until a few weeks ago, you have been actively supporting and helping to propagate its intellectual dishonestly and well defended delusion. To say you were not personally there during Lenski and Bugler does not change the fact you did indeed know about them and STILL turned a blind eye. To say you did not personally block as many users as others does not change the fact you saw it happening and, until a few weeks ago, said or did nothing of substance. True TK and Conservative haven't made it easy to speak up, but even PJR knew when to cut his losses and leave. You've been a member of CP's inner circle for a good while now. You've been privy to its inner workings, in direct contact with your fellow sysops as well as the boss himself for at least a couple years. You KNEW very early on exactly what Conservapedia was at its core, you knew there was no real way to fix it, yet continued to willingly and without scruples assist it in its mission to spread willful ignorance, intolerance, and in some cases, outright hate. Now as the bell tolls and you gaze about at your once colleagues circling the wagons and sharpening the knives, the best you have to say in your defense really "I didn't know?" or "I wasn't as bad as the rest of them?" Had the winds of fate blown the other way and Conservative ended up being the odd man out, would we even be having this discussion right now?

Now again, in the end I do hope this whole experience has taught you a few things and made you really think about whom it is you choose to associate yourself with and what it is you really believe in this world. Please do not mistake my professional apathy toward your plight as personal malfeasance either. Truth be told, you are but another misguided soul who threw in his lot with the wrong crowd, did so willingly, and his getting what you deserve for it. All I will ultimately say is my analytical powers told me CP was festering shit-hole years ago. Not really sure why it took you so long to realize it. --Tygrehart

Nice, Tygre, but he'll just TL;DR it so it's wasted effort, I'm afraid. Pippa (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, to quote a wise Minbari: "When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be." --Tygrehart

Here's the plan....

Since Ken crapped out, and next year's a general election year along with Rationalwiki Moderator elections, I figure my constituent base here would rather have me moderating disputes at Rationalwiki rather than at Conservapedia managing the Main Page Left in Ken's place. I don't know, it's up to you guys to decide. Either way, I win. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Btw, no, Nobs, you can't pull off a Feel Face Turn, you already damned yourself--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are a little deluded there Knobby. I don't think that anyone here likes you, we have just been praising you for trying to do a good thing in bringing some form of community cohesion to s shit website. You are, lest we forget, a bible-bashing communist-crazed conspiracy nut, with such a hatred of Obama it's just not healthy. I don't like you. I think you are a weirdo and a twat. Don't let my respect for you trying to rein in Ken spill over in to me liking you. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I still respect Rob, merely for being here and understanding why other people have views that might be different from his. Hell, I'm a Christian and go to church every Sunday, but I still find the pro-Atheism articles here far more interesting than the anti-Atheism ones at CP. I don't think bad of anyone for having X or Y view, I think bad of people for thinking their view is 100% perfect and everyone who doesn't follow it is utter scum. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 10:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)