Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive251

This is an archive page, last updated 8 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>, <250>, <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)

Andy will not intervene.

This is now my prediction. He will simply ignore the shitstorm on his talk page and all over his wiki. He will not demote anyone, he will not give his judgement. Eventually, one or more of two things will happen:

1. People will leave, fed up with the situation
2. Conservapedia will share a characteristic with RW, and have semi-regular bouts of vitriolic exchange between certain users should they ever stumble across each other.

This is what I see happening.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is hoping the situation will resolve itself without him ever having to exert himself. I'm sure he's sitting there hoping Rob will piss off so he can demote him and be done with it. The thing is though if Rob continues to be stubborn, it's just going to drag on and on because Andy is the only one with the power to break the deadlock. I just wonder how many days of continuous flamewar is Andy going to be able to keep his ignoring up through. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO the flamewar will die down, and occasionally sputter up again. That's the way these things work.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Let's see, I've got about 300 new messages, maybe I should go check my talk page...oooh, INSIGHT!^img" Of course he won't intervene, he's been letting this go on for a week, despite how much he hates disunity. Röstigraben (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes andy, the rest of the planet being malnourished outside the western world doesnt exist--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

'Actually, actually' the problem is ... podpeople are taking over Conservapedia (or the editors are showing their true Reptilian character). Slightly more plausible than Conservapedia going into meltdown as participants realise *nobody really cares about them* (apart from the 'recreational rearrangers and rubbishers'). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think…

…that I might have a handle on why Andy has been even more silent about this than he normally has been. Of course, just as easily, it could be bollocks, but here we go:

Forget about the crumbling of the dream and editors daring to Question Authority (which has got to be a slap in the face to an arch-conservative to Andy), I think it goes much deeper than that. Up until now, Andy has had plausible deniability over Ken's actions. If any potential or current client ever asks him about the nonsensical arguments appearing on Conservapedia, Andy could always argue

“”I run a conservative wiki which doesn't seek to emulate the censorship of Wikipedia. Personally I don't believe that Conservative's arguments are well made, well thought out, or even the actions of a mature person, but I believe that everyone has the right to speak their mind freely and, unlike Wikipedia, I won't censor him even though I don't agree with him

Of course, anybody who actually knows the site knows that is bollocks, but it's plausible bollocks, something you could just about get away with.

But now, Catch 22. What does Andy do? I get the feeling that he instinctively supports Conservative, and certainly doesn't want to be held accountable to the rules that other editors have to follow, and so the instinct isn't going to be to back Rob up. But the problem with that approach is that it's professional suicide. The moment that Andy backs Conservative he takes ownership of all those wonderful flying kitties, pony essays, and hur, hur, you're fat and so wrong approach to arguing. Now I'm sorry, I don't care how right-wing an organisation or client is, they ain't going to be retaining or hiring any lawyer who shows that level of debating strategy.

But, on the other hand, if he supports Rob, he's going to piss off at least two of the inner-circle, which is pretty much a guaranteed way to end up with a few more knives in his back to join the ones planted there by PJR and TK.

So what direction does Andy go? He's kind of fucked either way.

I also wonder if Andy is still harbouring ambitions. We know that he's tried politics, and got shot down. He's tried education, and been shot down. He's tried being a player in the conservative movement via Conservapedia, and failed. So now I wonder if maybe Andy's delusions of grandeur stretch to hoping to be nominated to be a judge if the right people get into power (the nomination itself is just a process of who you know, not what you know, unless it happens to be where the bodies are buried). Of course, having the nomination confirmed is a different matter, but I think Andy is delusional enough to think that, as it stands, Conservapedia isn't enough of a millstone around his neck to stop his nomination, but if Andy gets to be known as the Flying Kitty/Fat Pony lawyer who can't get a client…well even Andy's got to realise that would enough to sink him for good.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He can always rely on mummy's money.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because he's got it, I don't think it's money that Andy is really interested in. It's reputation, prestige and acknowledgement of his achievements (all of the things that his mother got), things that he just can't claim on his own merit.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, Andy already has supported and pushed kens crap before, so he can't claim to not "own it"--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, true. But the support wasn't whole hearted and could be backed away from ("I don't agree with what Conservative was writing, I was just trying to stop Conservative from being censored." is the kind of argument that could be used to backtrack from it). Getting rid of Rob to support Ken however, that really is a different level of support. It says to the wider world, I'd rather support flying kitties, ponies vs. and hur, hur, you're fat, over accountability and responsibility.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone who Andy might possibly work with actually care about conservapedia, though? I mean, if he ran for a serious political office, his opponents could have their entire campaign simply be conservapedia's URL with "Want this?" written under it, but for the type of organisations Andy works for, I don't think it matters. Andy's been making ridiculous arguments on CP since almost day one and he still manages to find work. Also Andy's definition of "censorship" is vastly different to reality's definition. He could easily take Ken's side and claim he was defending Ken against liberal censorship being imposed by Rob, and it'd be consistent with all of his other claims of "censorship" (which, in andy's mind, simply means "calling a stupid idea stupid"). Hell, say a company does check up on his little project, they won't even see this battle between ken and rob. As soon as it's over, it's going to be wiped anyway, probably no matter who wins. X Stickman (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is being silent because he has no leadership skills and is a bit cowardly. It's not enough that a site he participates on is rioting among itself and its leaders are in a nasty public conflict, but this is a site that he personally founded and maintains and controls, and those leaders were appointed by him. But he doesn't step in because he's afraid to try to sort it out, because doing so would mean making big changes. The man is the basest coward.--^talk 01:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Oh dear. Maybe it's just one of CP's many instabilities, but wouldn't it be hilarious if Andy shut down to wiki to avoid dealing with the drama?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so not really but it would be funny if that were the case--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been having trouble getting in the past hour, too. It's usually that way on weekday afternoons for me. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, what would be funny is if we had another "week that never was" where all the posts magically disappear and we were transported to back to how CP was in June 2011. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge

A break from the CP Civil War. I'm just going to quote Andy^img, cuz it's just mindboggling:

“” In the late 1960s and early 1970s, intellectuals insisted that the world's population would grow larger than the food supply, resulting in mass starvation. Yet there are examples in both the Old and New Testaments of food being more plentiful than people expected. Indeed, by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger.

Maybe in rich countries obesity is a bigger problem than hunger, but worldwide this is not the case. About a billion people are malnourished. Hell, there's a famine going on in the Horn of Africa right now. And how is more food being available than expected in a story even close to being "scientific foreknowledge"? Arghhhh, there's so much wrong with this. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe if they had chosen conservatism and Jesus over Satan and Communist liberals things wouldn't be so bad for them. --Mikalos209 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the UN just declare a famine in East Africa?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is rush's favorite line. How can there be a world wide food problem, if there are fat people and i can buy any food i want at 3 am? He also talks about children with pot bellies in africa as signs that they have eaten too much.En attendant Godot 20:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As my AP euro teacher liked to say: The Miracle of Hyvee--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. What's particularly sickening about that is that the swelling of the abdomen in children is a symptom of famine. --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

IS that what that actually is? --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have put a smiley after that because some people obviously can't detect sarcasm. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's a very serious condition. Of course, it were were to truly believe in pure conservatism, Africa should be left to starve and not a single penny government money should be put into relief efforts. America has all the food because they "earned it" from working hard, unlike the lazy...</Ken>. Wingnuts truly do disgust me. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's Objectivism (related, but not the same). The conservative way would be to not allocate any government funds but to let private charities pitiably fail at doing do the legwork. Which would amount to a bunch of starvelings with all the Bibles they could possibly want. Yay.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As i said earlier: Well maybe if they had chosen conservatism and Jesus over Satan and Communist liberals things wouldn't be so bad for them. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I know they're hardly secretive about the US-centric thing, and I understand and accept it for the most part, but that statement just plainly and simply takes the piss. ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your eel!} 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What statement?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The one by Andy: "Indeed, [worldwide] by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger." (Word inserted deliberately) Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘andy really is a wankstain isn't he? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the ways politically conservative Christians rationalize the Christian duty to care for the less fortunate (and it's one of the clearest commandments Jesus made: care for the poor) and the "screw the poor" attitude of today's Republican Party: "oh, there aren't really that many poor people!" MDB (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Next on MPL

"July 31, Conservapedia's best day yet! 3,000,000 visits and 2,000 edits!" Pippa (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Three MILLION people visited today?--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a slightly above-average day. --Sid (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Must be all those facebook users abandoning the liberal bias in droves--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The future is going to be awesome. All CP. All the time. No other form of entertainment or education will exist. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, 2 million of those were Ken moving Full Stops around and having Rob's user contributions page on auto-refresh every 5 seconds in a state of paranoia. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 23:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I long ago gave up monitoring CP page views but 3m in a day looks like a lot of page bumping going on. I'd be interested to see which articles are getting the attention. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably all the talkpages where this little conflict is going on. I know I've been paying far more direct attention than I usually do. X Stickman (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense, CP's server can handle at most 13 requests per second, which, assuming they actually achieved that, would give 1.1M views in a day. Once again, the Assfly is lying. SHOW US THE DATA! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anger bear boils over

Unblocking Human was just too much for him, poor dear. Human gets another one for his memoirs and Rob gets the smackdown too. He really doesn't like us, does he? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just like this over there now. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE CEASING YOUR ACTIONS! This is pretty epic, but at the same time squirm inducingly embarrassing. When is Andy going to step in and put a stop to all this.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL^img:

23:16, 31 July 2011 Iduan (Talk | contribs) unblocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) ‎ (again. stop wheel warring both of you)

23:15, 31 July 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Incivility: You are ceasing your actions)

23:15, 31 July 2011 Iduan (Talk | contribs) unblocked Karajou (Talk | contribs) ‎ (stop wheel warring)

23:14, 31 July 2011 RobSmith (Talk | contribs) blocked Karajou (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 hours (account creation disabled) ‎ (cease your trolling actions now)

23:14, 31 July 2011 Iduan (Talk | contribs) unblocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) ‎ (stop wheel warring)

23:13, 31 July 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Incivility)

23:13, 31 July 2011 RobSmith (Talk | contribs) unblocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) ‎

23:11, 31 July 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Incivility)

23:10, 31 July 2011 RobSmith (Talk | contribs) unblocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) ‎

22:44, 31 July 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Incivility)

--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Koward has never got the military "do as I say, not do as I do" out of his system. And typically the lower ranking they are the more petty. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't call them petty officers for nothing. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

RobS unblocked me in mid-May. I only finally went through all the hoops to bypass my IP 403 block today. I was just, um, what do they call civilian casualties? Oh, yeah, collateral damage. No big deal until I get my IP changed, really. Since no one at CP can figure out how to undo an IP read block. ħuman 07:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken's leaving for "2-3 years"

He'll have input on the new CP power structure in 2-3 years.^img Pathetic. PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

When did he imply he was leaving?--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely all the time. He is terribly busy, you know.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

He didn't. He did make another weird remark to support the laughably unlikely possibility that he's doing anything but sitting on his swampy obese ass in a filthy apartment without air conditioning obsessively refreshing recent changes with absolutely nothing better to do than lie about all his unspecified off-wiki obligations, which at most consist of finally taking a shower and going shopping for more Cheetohs and hot dogs. 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's leaving, I think it's just the usual "I'm going to be incredibly busy pulling shit out of my arse for the foreseeable future so I won't be able to answer any questions about my shit-pulling antics or have any input on how such shit-pulling might be subject to oversight" ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you know how Leaving And Never Coming Back is a 'thing'? Is there one we can use for Ken, something along the lines of Leaving And Immediately Coming Back With No Perceptible Change In Regularity Or Contribution, All The While Claiming To Be Away? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's shorter just to say he's insane. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An more truthful. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. Let's go back here for just a second: "I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways." (Unsuprisingly) I don't think Ken understands what the kind of "mob rule" we had here means (as our kind of mob rule is explicitly not working with people being silent about something) and if he wasn't going for our mob rule, as what should we understand "mob" then? I would guess the majority, the normal people. Equally unsurprisingly Ken has admitted himself to be a fascist or authoriatarian at least, although looking at how he debates "totalitarian" may be the word to go. On another note which will cost you another second: Just because Ken doesn't believe in "mob rule" (a.k.a. democracy) doesn't make any point moot... --★uːʤɱ heretic 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Rob parodying Conservative?

Rob's spelling flame, while written in Conservative's style, was pretty embarrassing. The proper phrase, as I understand it, is "without any further ado", just as Conservative wrote it. (Maybe Rob was trolling by correcting an already correct spelling — I'm no good with subtle humor.) Link^img Phiwum (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you have User:Conserative dressing down an editor with the same trademark sysop bullying here, replete with the not so sublte hinting of blocking for spelling errors (which the offender did not commit). The response is classic. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ado" and "Adieu" are two totally different words. Whilst the latter is French the former appears to be Scandinavian in origin. --Horace (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken's view of li'l ol' England

Ken, as you are in the USA have you met Barack Obama?^img (I know it's four days old, but it's funny) Pippa (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling: "Oh, you are from Germany? I know another guy from Germany, he's <insert random description here> - do you know him?" - Me: "There are more than 80 million people in Germany..." --★uːʤɱ libertarian 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're German? Do you know a guy called Jürgen Müller? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the US, and I've met Dawkins. Very nice guy. -Lardashe

Karajou cleans out socks

Good one^img Terry! --Horace (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"I am sysop, hear me roar!"^img --Sid (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Respect the Assfly's authoritah, even if he never actually chooses to exert it. He's behind my angry blocking streaks in spirit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just glad he vents his anger through Conservapedia, and not something that actually matters. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, Kowardjerk is brilliant! His 'warning' highlights exactly what Knobs is trying sort out. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh heh! There's a few Seffrican IP addresses there, so they're all obviously socks of Psy!^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the welcome template needs an additional instruction to read Karajou's talk page. I mean, really, it's so childish. If you want to issue an edict to everyone then you need to say it on the front page not in the inside of your bedroom door. Of course it's hilarious because you can almost hear the steam emanating from his ears. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who abuses this website; anyone who abuses the authority and ownership of this website by ASchlafly...

- Does that include you, and other sysops? Start with Conservative.'

...anyone who comes in this website out of the blue and demands changes to the site like they own it...

- Rob didn't come "out of the blue", unless you mean socks voting. But hey, who's gonna stop you anyway?

...anyone who harasses others within this website...

- It's only harassment if you say so, right? Your attempts at RW users in the past count as what?

C'mon Koward, keep true to your word. Throw out Conservative unless you want people looking down on you like a hypocritical drooling fool. Must suck, yelling in the mirror at times telling the person on the others side they're a moron. Your anger sustains us. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Karjou is a piece of shit. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who EdwardJS is. I really don't. He's not a sock of mine. Karajou is either mistaken or a bold face liar. Terry Benny (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SIGHHHHH, nevermind, EdwardJS was an account a friend made and used for one day. KJ needs to understand that more than one person can edit from the same IP. Terry Benny (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised everyone who voted for Rob to keep his Admin. rights^img hasn't been blocked yet. It would have been a good trap to purge Rob's supporters. Btw, Rob is winning right now by 26 to 4. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers, who needs 'em. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

CP Block Log

The CP Block Log is just fab right now. It's like one of our block wars, except they're taking it very seriously. There's almost as much blocking of CP regulars as there is wandals and parrots. DogP (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

" It's like one of our block wars, except they're taking it very seriously." -> Lol. Good description. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, nintendo has had its worst sales in 27 years!

Nintendo having worst sales in 27 years = abandoning of Video Games!^img nevermind that this was an inevitability given how everybody owns a Wii and the handheld market is already oversaturated, that theres a recession going on, and totally ignoring that Historically Nintendo has been the most Family-Friendly of the consoles--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that Nintendo's consoles tended to have the more family-friendly games on average than Sony and MS. Also never mind that the sales drop is (likely) also because of the sub-par 3DS launch (WHERE THE FRIG ARE MY MUST-HAVE GAMES, NINTENDO?). --Sid (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, Nintendo is giving away 10 free GBA games and 10 NES games for anyone who bought the 3DS before the upcoming price drop, so now we'll actually have games to play on the 3DS...10 and 20 year old games, but games nonetheless... ~SuperHamster Talk 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Implying something is wrong with old games? The first decade after the crash gave us the best games ever.--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm real excited for it. It made my day when I heard about it. New games (when I say games, I mean Nintendo's big ones like Mario and Zelda, because I'm a nerd like that) would be nice too, though...waiting for the holiday season takes too long. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the giveaway is a nice nod at early adopters (assuming that Nintendo manages to pull it off properly - so far, I've been less than impressed by their Online Strategy track record...), and I'd love to play Metroid Fusion and oldschool SMB again. If they throw in a NES-era Mega Man, I'd be practically ecstatic. --Sid (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They said video games were over and done with back in 1983 too, look how that turned out (well for everyone who wasn't Atari).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell, even a bastardized, rump state version of Atari is still kicking around taking good game franchises and killing them and selling nostalgia consoles nobody knows exists--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the sort of stuff that keeps them in the conservative backwater. First, lots of conservative people like video games; Second, there is probably not one person who isn't buying games right now who has "walked away" from playing/buying because of the senseless violence. MPR items like this are what tell people the site is a loony bin. Andy dreams up a reason, no matter how silly it sounds to everyone else, and then reports it on CP as fact. His own source says it's because of crappy games, not a shift in consumer preference away from games. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On another note, Nintendo's president just cut his salary in half due to the losses that Nintendo has gone though. If only American banks and corporations could follow suit. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I never expected to hear a discussion about the 3DS on Rationalwiki. I agree hearing about the 20 game givaway made me glad to be a first adopter, some of the games their giving away look really cool. If only America's CEOs could follow Nintendo's lead and cut their pay when things go tits up. Protoman (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The true reason for falling handheld console sales is because there is another manufacturer of handheld consoles that also take pictures, go on the internet and take calls. It is called Apple. And last time I checked they have more money than Andy's nation. Sen (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's pathetic sockpuppeteering

Does Kendoll really think nobody knows that his socks are really him? Gosh, why would I create an android app if I were a sock? Er, maybe because it took you two clicks on some stupid site to do, and you thought it would make you look genuine, you dickhead. At this point, cruel as it might be, I'd really like to see Kendoll desysopped but all his articles remaining in their locked state just as he likes them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Me, I think they're parodists.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're a boring idiot. ħuman 07:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, likely just bandwagon trolls/parodists. Fergus is putting marginally more effort into it than the rest, but that's it. Though Rob losing CheckUser just in time for the Ken-supporters to show up is indeed a fascinating "coincidence"... --Sid (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Which, of course, makes Andy complicit to the whole affair. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that Fergus was a Ken impersonator more than a Ken sockpuppet. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, looks like they have started picking off your supporters one by one. Incivility.. my ass--Buscombe (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's two leaks: (1) I lost checkuser after I told Andy I had trouble accessing the site in the afternoons and was using a proxy; (2) in private confidential phone conversations with User:Conservative I explained in great detail what a wp:Strawman sockpuppet was; subject showed extreme interest in the phenomena and apparently never heard of it. Also, please note CP now allows functionaries to use sockpuppets and single purpose accounts [1] which brings it more inline with Wikipedia policy. And a note to Karajou, I am leaking only that portion of a discussion I told someone else, which in no way can be considered an ethical lapse. I am not discussing anything a second party told me in confidence. Do you see the difference? Oh, I see you just blocked me. I'm sorry, I repent, I'll never do it a again, whatever it was. How low do you wish me to grovel, Sire? May I Please Please Please Pretty Please come back? May I please, my good sire and lord, return from you banishment? Did you blocking stop me? did it make a point? Do you feel better now, or do feel you're a more effective CP sysop? nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowing Ken, once he learns something he tends to use it over and over again. He's pretty much just a three-trick pony. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is "one-trick pony" but yeah whatever. Ken is really only "good" at ctrl-C/crtl-V. ħuman 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what the phrase is. How about a bit of artistic license? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

'three'? I say you give him too much credit... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FergusE never needs more than one attempt at an edit, how could conservative fake that? Besides wouldnt an Android app hurt his precious web stats? ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.167.224 / talk / contribs}

a) The apps that stupid site produces are just a browser control pointed at the site in question, and b) No fucker is ever going to download it anyway. So, no. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, even an browser control wouldnt have Alexa installed. But i didnt realize it was so easily made, I assumed it was some clever plan to steal phone numbers of conservapedia users or something. Still, dont think it his sock, especially after http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ADebate%3AShould_RobS_lose_his_Sysop_rights%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=895713&oldid=895708

1) I wasn't about to blow a weekend writing a real app, and I figured the people over there would be easily impressed. 2) 4 people downloaded it, so it's only almost no one. :-P --Roofus (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How old is this guy? He has to sockpuppet on his on website which virtually no one reads except him, and the few who do do so just for a good laugh? He's either a 13 year old virgin or he has a really, really boring life.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He is a 47 year old virgin. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction, he'll be 49/50 now. And still a virgin, obviously. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And what a month it was!

monthly edits at CZ	Alas, not for Citizendium where the number of edits dropped for nine months in a row to a new low
monthly editors at CZ	though the number of editors was only the third worst in CZ whole history (Oct 2006 and last month saw less editors)
monthly edits at CP	No, Conservapedia is nearing the mark of 10,000 edits per month
monthly edits at RW	(a mark which RationalWiki missed only three times BTW)
monthly editors at CP	The reason for this: the number of contributors per months is increasing since TK's politic of repelling any newbie died with him...
IP blocks at CP over time	... and Rob opened the gates to former forbidden parts of the Internet. The problem: many parts of the world are still 403ed - for instance, I can't reach CP using my ISP.
I'm nearly willing to believe that the number of unique visitors at Conservapedia in July 2011 was greater than in July 2009 and July 2010, and perhaps even July 2008 - but I'm really surprised that it should beat July 2007.
editors at CP last month	Less than 60% of all edits (still in the database) were made by the top 10 editors, Rob has a strong second place - no surprise here.
editors at CP last month	The influx of new editors is showing. And some familiar names make a - more or less welcomed - comeback.

But August 2011 will be quite different: Most of the actions is due to Andy's abysmal lack of leadership. He lets his palace guards fight without even interfering when those are soiling his little castle. No doubt he'll crown the victor - and punish the defeated party - when the outcome gets clear. I tried to infuse some spine into him^img, but without any luck, I'm afraid. Without a competent deputy, Andy is certainly lost. And TK has shown that Andy is even in need of a deceptive incompetent second-in-command.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your number-crunching! Is it possible to see a breakdown of Talk versus mainspace edits on CP in the last few months? I'm curious how much the recent sysop battles have contributed to the increase in edits. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As CP approaches completion & perfection, it is only natural that the number of edits will go down. Essentially, nearly all possible entries have been made. At best, you can just tweak a word or two here and there. I think the only thing left is an Ed Poor upload of a picture of Hello Kitty panties & the last touches on the Really Good Bible (RGB). Jimaginator (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@CowHammer: the shaded area in the first pics show the number of edits made in namespace main - sorry, this information was somehow lost from the legends... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah I was wondering what that meant. Thanks! (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt, feminist

*sigh*^img Once again people that normally have no problem with oppressing women, jump in to safe the poor women from being exploited. DAMN YOU SEXUALITY! OUR NOT ENTIRELY 2000 YEAR OLD BOOK FROM SOME DESERT COUNTRY SAYS YOU ARE EVIL! --★uːʤɱ libertarian 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Worse, Jpatt is immediately contradicting his own headline and news article:

Reality: "Porn profits are dropping because people are getting stuff for free."

Jpatt: "Porn is a profitable business model!"

Liberal translation: "Porn is a $6 billion dollar market despite one liberal millionaire CEO scratching his cranium." (talk)

In fact, if you need to twist this headline, we'd need Andy-Logic: "Give it up liberals! America is becoming more conservative, and the liberal porn industry is feeling the sting!" --Sid (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wheres the figures that show Conservative states have higher porn buying?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Even private enterprise is liberal now. I guess to be a Conservative CP style you have to live in a rude shack, trapping and grubbing for root and tubers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything that does anything that might be perceived as bad is liberal, but furthermore didn't you know that conservatives have always been against oppression? That's even where the word comes from: conservare from good ol' Christian Latin meaning "to preserve [those that are oppressed]" in fact there is an ongoing fight of the majority of Conservatives against the liberal leading elite that only wants to progress their power! But one day, a glorious day will come when the conservative masses take over society and ... and ... um… change absolutely nothing at all. --★uːʤɱ federalist 18:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have always felt that treating women as chattal & forcing them to have 14 kids, is far superior to them being seen in the nude. It's the natural order. They prefer it that way. I think the blacks liked their servitude too, they made up all kinds of fun harvesting songs. Yes, I am being sarcastic. Jimaginator (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that today's porn is generally not "exploitative of women" (which is a misogynistic concept anyway). Porn has gone mainstream, and you can see 10s of 1000s of free amateur videos made by couples trying to liven up their sex lives. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Porn is one of the few industries where women are paid more than men. Feminists should all in favour and hold it as a bastion of their cause! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is such a thing as feminist porn. That interesting little aside brought to you courtesy of a debate held on Newsnight. Got to figure it was a slow news day that day.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How does that work exactly? --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a schism inside feminism between AP (anti-pornography) feminists and SP (sex-positive) feminists. I sympathise with the SP feminists personally but no doubt an AP feminist would say that's just because I am corrupted by pornography. Anyway, for an SP feminist making pornography - perhaps as an actor but more likely as a writer or director - is a perfectly acceptable career in which they can help construct more healthy fantasies for other people. SP feminists also tend to be behind things like blogs which review (women's) sex toys. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Now for something totally different...

anonymous contributors to cp-wigo	anonymous contributors to cp-wigo-talk
So that's where we live, or our proxies are coming from, or from where bitter Conservapedians pester our most popular pages (or where ducks quack...).
anonymous contributors to wp:George W. Bush	anonymous contributors to wp:Talk:George W. Bush
There isn't that much difference to the typical wikipedian community, here represented by the edits to one of the most popular pages at wikipedia. nota bene: wp:George W. Bush doesn't get much input from IPs as the article is partially protected for the last few years.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No Seffricans? What about Psy? P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, "anonymous." P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Psy never forgot to log in... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked ranges and IPs over time

Conserapedia	wikipedia
bigger version	bigger version
Conservapedia: all blocks	wikipedia: all blocks

I hope this works! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Exposing parody gets you scolded on RW and BLOCKED on CP.

• Karajou: "Arrrr, William made accusations that FergusE is a parodist! If he comes back, I'll make him produce evidence! And if he refuses, he's out again!"^img
• Sid: "Are you blind? Here it is."^img
• Karajou: "Arrrr, thanks, but you weren't nice about it!"^img *1 day block*^img

Apologies to whoever is controlling Fergus, btw., but Karajou's UTTER BLINDNESS was aggravating (and to be fair, Fergus wasn't even trying to be subtle anymore). --Sid (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You know if it was anyone else KJ wouldn't have reacted like that. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"...then you're going to present them in a nice, professional matter". Er, just like Karajou's talk page? He really is a buffoon. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Because nothing says professional like the way Karajou communicates with others. Ultimate hypocrisy. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You know the best part? I Fergus still hasn't been blocked. --Roofus (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be laying it on a bit thick with that last edit Roofus. --Horace (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be, but at this point I'm just seeing how far I can push it until I get blocked. :P --Roofus (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You might as well. You've already put Karajou in an impossible position. Having failed to block you to date (for no apparent reason other than the fact you were supporting Ken) your increasing obviousness as a parodist makes him look foolish, but in blocking you now he will look worse. Well done. --Horace (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At last! Not sure why it took so long. I guess he forgot to run checkuser over the editors who voted in support of demoting Rob. Easy mistake to make. I note that Bclough is still there though. --Horace (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked... for being a sock? Karajou shows the oddly misaligned focus I'd expect from Darkwing Duck. If anybody doubts that CP is utterly unable to deal with parody, here's a textbook example. --Sid (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bclough thing reminds me of when a bunch of parodists signed up to egg Schlafly on in the Lenski affair all using the name of British footballers. Fun times. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Back then, Andy had made up his mind anyway. He openly turned down or ignored Philip's advice (to align CP with AiG/etc. there and simply dismiss the results) right from the start, both in public and in the Conservaleaks. All the parodists (and that Holocaust denier) did was accelerating things. This is a pattern that can be found every now and then with Andy: He'll make a "suggestion" and ask for input, then he'll summarily ignore all input and go ahead with his initial plan. See for example the times when he asked the sysop mailing list about letting TK back or about giving Bugler sysop rights. --Sid (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic? A Lenski letter XI would've had a pretty decent midfield. I'd've been worried about the lack of a top class striker, but none of them seemed interested in exposing Lenski's deceitz. :( --Robledo (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, my point about the footballers names was that Andy eagerly gobbled them all up as support for his call for the release of the Lenski data. I don't think any of them made any other edit but it showed how ideologically driven Schlafly is and those people were performing the role of the tailors in The Emperor's New Clothes. Far too many sysops are prepared to go along with the how wonderful is Mr Schlafly and are as guilty as any parodist in not challenging him. The ones who did call him out such as Philip, DanH, TimS are sadly nowhere to be seen any more. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou can have the shit-hole he created

I'm taking some time off. See you at Ameriwiki. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 03:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little hot right now; I've spent years wanting to reform that project, and that worthless little cocksucker who contributes less than 1.2% of edits on site with 10 people editing can just go fuck himself with a carrot stick. What a worthless piece of human excrement. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 04:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But I'm the guy who made him famous in Wikipedia, "Brian McDonald says, 'people think Conservapedia is just whacko'"; what a fitting epitaph. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 04:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Go bitch somewhere else. you know it wouldn't have worked anyways.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, this is probably the most appropriate place on the internet to bitch about CP--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bitch about it with more class then atleast. Not like a child who got grounded.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He's complaining in the same fashion as us.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What tipped the scales? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling him out on it more because he constantly says he wants to reform it, says he wanted to for years, then acts surprised when it fucked up in his face.We all knew this was coming and if he honestly thought he had a chance in succeeding he's at best delusional.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He's frustrated that in spite of all his efforts so little has happened. --User:Brxbrx/sig 04:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He should have known after spending all this time there nothing would have anyways, and was foolish for getting his hopes up he would do anything--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If Rob had listened to you negative nancies in the first place, the fun we've seen the past few days would've never happened. Now you're bitching about his bitching, ironic eh? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I bet Karaturd is literally sitting at his desk redfaced and trembling. 04:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Ken and Angry Bear win the Great CP Flame War of '11. I for one welcome Conservapedia's new batshit crazy/mallcop overlords. Go, go forth and make CP an even bigger laughing stock than it already is. Let the reign of error begin! --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to make my small edits until i get banned, nothing is changed from my expectations--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we all need to say a big thank you to Robbie for what he has achieved: A more crazed Ken and an even more pathetic and enraged Koward; the result of which is that those people with a (what I assume to be) genuine concern about CP falling apart have been shouted down and/or blocked, and sycophantic parodists are on the up! Well done Knob Smith! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Delta's dead right. And the beautiful thing is it was possible to have good faith hope in either outcome: Rob was doing the right thing but was bound to fail from the start, with the result being an even more megalomaniacal assemblage of fucking batshit crazy assholes. Ken is going to go on the biggest flying kitting and fat atheists bender you've ever seen, oversight every single critical reference to his sharticles from the last 8 months. Karaturd's going to get some release from blocking all the "parodists" and "sockpuppets" (forgetting of course that millions of potential editors would have to use proxies, and hence share IPs, because Schlafly the dope 403'd the planet earlier this year). It's beautiful, and I don't feel a lick of shame hoping for CP's speedy decent into heretofore unplumbed depths of insanity now that Rob gave reform the old college try. Fuck yes. 05:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have loved for Rob to succeed and would love to see CP reformed, i just didn't want to lose my... i think fourth account since late 2008/early 2009--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Karajerk has also locked down his talkpage, al a Ken. Good to see the spirit of openness is alive and well at CP. I've been e-mailing the big douche bag to get his off-the-record opinion, but of course he's too much of a COWARD to respond. I for one look forward to Ken spouting his nonsense all over CP now - he's untouchable. 10-1 says the featured article suddenly vanishes, like it did last time. PsyGremlinSprich! 13:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeez I take a break from RatWiki and CP and when I come back the sysops are at each others' throats. But on the other hand Andy is using the fact that there are no "Atheist Hospitals" as an argument for... um... I'm not sure. - Jpop (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, if you want to reform CP then the best solution would be just to nuke the whole thing and start over from scratch, and get Andy off the site while you're at it. Most of the articles on that site are either parodies or half-parodies, or just crap that was cut/pasted from fringe sites like WorldNutDaily. Plus no one's going to take a website seriously which has headlines plastered all over the front page such as "Bruce Springsteen didn't sing "Born in the USA" at a concert because he secretly knows Obama is from Kenya!" or "Heathen Germany lost the World Cup to Christian Poland and Brazil because Germany doesn't allow religious homeschooling". Even if there was any good content on that site, it's wasted on them. You'd be better off just writing your own articles and starting a blog or something, because that site is too far gone.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no shame in being beaten by the best

And let's face it Knob, KowardJerksOffOverMen and Ken are true intellectual giants and men of great integrity. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

more ancient asian secrets?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

wtf is Marathi? Also, I'm slightly ashamed at having indulged this manchild and attempted to translate whatever it is he picked up somewhere on the web--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marathi (मराठी Marāṭhī) is an Indo-Aryan language spoken by the Marathi people of western and central India. It is the official language of the state of Maharashtra. There are 90 million fluent speakers worldwide.[2] Marathi has the 4th largest number of native speakers in India[5] and is the 15th most spoken language in the world.[6] Marathi has the oldest of the regional literatures in Indo-Aryan languages, dating from about 1000 CE.[7] --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Pam is a buddy from his local Methodist church. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So he is able to put 'crush atheism' in English-Hindi translation program and copy&paste the result. Wow, we've obviously underestimated this great mind. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Curious that capturebot can't take good shots of it... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So CP is literally turning into Babel. Brilliant work...oh, excuse me: tốt công việc, bảo thủ! Röstigraben (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, that is Hindi. There is some evidence, to suggest he is a (?second generation) immigrant from South India. Did he/she/it have an Indian accent Rob? --Buscombe (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be going down this route should we? Fine to speculate imo but perhaps hold back on the confirmation? But then maybe I'm wrong on this. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Anupam volunteers a lot about himself through his user boxes on CP and Wikipedia and publicly linked the two accounts when he copy/pasted his WP articles to CP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about Ken--Buscombe (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And he was talking about Anupam. Do you really think Ken would be such an ignorant moron if he had a cross-cultural perspective?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He is a moron in spite of the cross cultural perspective--Buscombe (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not satisfied

I appreciate that pricks like Karajou might begin to grind one down and wear one out with their base stupidity and belligerence after a while. But for Rob to throw in the towel at this point seems a bit much. After garnering 24 nay votes on the "Should RobS be ceremonially disemboweled?" page he has effectively hung his supporters out to dry by conceding and buggering off to Amerowiki or wherever he said he was going. If one didn't know better one might almost suspect that this was a successful counter insurgency operation. I think that Rob is genuine so I do not suggest that seriously, but it may nonetheless have the same effect in the end. Get back in there Rob! --Horace (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He told Karajou to fuck himself with a carrot stick. I think Rob is done. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Rob did not have the support of the one vote that really mattered, Herr Schlafly's. Frankly its his silence in all this that has interested me the most. It speaks volumes about the kind of shop he runs and people he gathers around him. Now that the sound and fury of so little significance is over I can only imagine him peaking his head timidly out from his pillow fortress with a softly whimpered "Haz da bad man gone nowz?" As for Rob, that he has finally wised up and moved on to greener pastures is encouraging. That he is heading over to yet another conservative POV wiki is...not. C'est la vive I suppose. You can lead the horse to water, etc, etc, etc.

What will really be interesting though is how things move from here. Kara and Ken have now slipped nicely into Co-Dragon positions, splitting the dearly departed TK's aggression and insanity between them. Any takers on how long it takes them to finish mopping up Rob's supporters before casting a squinting, suspicious eye at their remaining fellow sysops? "You know, you didn't openly support Rob, but I didn't hear you decrying him either. Vhat are you hiding comrade...?" --Tygrehart

Yeah, Andy's near complete absence in the fight over his own website was astounding. Anyway, the purge should be starting any time soon.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No one who voted there expected anything good from it - they all knew that he was taking a stand and so were they.--^talk 11:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou boasts 20,000 edits, but seriously, I haven't seen one that would not have attracted the attention of a Wikipedia Administrator and a possible warning. He's reminds me of wp:Luca Brasi in the opening scene of the Godfather presenting a gift "on this the day of your daughter's wedding"; even the Godfather looks at him cross eyed cause he's a little scary. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 12:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But why did you throw in the towel now? I don't see anything that happened on the site overnight that explains your sudden capitulation. You seem to have given up your noble quest for no reason at all. Phiwum (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find that Karajou has already taken those who voted "nay" out back and shot them. Amazingly I apparently had 4 socks accounts there. Who knew? Just goes to show what a dishonest cunt the man is. PsyGremlinSermā! 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Karajou's claims about checkuser results were bogus? Surely, Rob still has an ally there who could've run the same checks, no? Phiwum (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well what do you expect if every German IP is Sid, then every Seffrican IP is PsyGrumbling. Me, I like to keep them guessing; this week I'm editing from Guatemala, let him try and find that IP with his manly checkuser extension. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He's unearthed at least two socks at time of writing that belong to Rob apparently :P--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, those socks are also from South Africa, they can't be Rob they must be Psy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn it, the truth is out! I confess, I was RobS! (Hey... why do you think Rob wasn't around when Jessica was... just sayin') Honestly though, I plead ignorance. However, it is fun to see Rob become the new prime evil. How long until Andy strips his rights? More importantly, how long should we wait before asking for the next instalment for Conservaleaks? A week? PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Look what you did now. The man is dangerous behind the wheels of a tricycle. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, is there anyone here at all that believes that some unfortunate conservative in South Africa has lost a sincere opportunity to contribute to Conservapedia? Karajou's claims of sockpuppetry may be ill-founded, and it sure seems like the rules there are mere excuses for various sysop abuse, but to be honest, there aren't really all that many honest victims from the recent purge. Chances are pretty damned good that any contributors from Germany or South Africa don't really intend to benefit the "project" in the way intended.

I don't think I'm missing the point of the outcries entirely, but I sincerely don't think that there are many legitimate victims here in the past twenty-four hours. Rather, it's mostly a bunch of RW-inspired accounts being purged, unless I'm mistaken. (I get Rob's point as well — if they really do say the right thing, then who cares about their motive. But in determining victimhood status, motive counts.)

That's not to say that previous abuses didn't drive off legitimate contributors, nor that the current atmosphere won't do the same. I imagine there are a lot of sympathetic parties that get blocked for no good reason and that's a damned shame for CP. But Karajou's recent blocks? I can't get all that upset. Sorry. Phiwum (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the same logic, you might as well ban all non-sysops and even some sysops. Or do you really think that people in the US think "Why certainly, flying kitties and the beauty of fall leaves do disprove evolution, and I also had many doubts about General Relativity! Indeed, I believe that homeschooling is the answer because it teaches our children that boys won't ask girls out if the latter get better test results. Also, the Bible is filled with liberal bias, and atheists are fat!"? CP is so far gone that I honestly think that all current editors other than the Fab Five are at least reading RW. Every. Single. One.

Because nobody else out there will bother to contribute unless bribed with promises of immunity and of absolute editorial freedom to pimp their crap. And even then they will likely go "Uh, no." Even Ed noted in the Conservaleaks that CP fails to attract conservative authors and wondered why that was so. Liberals laugh and move on, conservatives distance themselves, so only we remain.

CP has become a giant stage where people can go to try random shit. Some choose to play honest blokes, some play assholes, some sit in the corner and quietly analyze, and the core sysops stand in the center without realizing that nothing they say actually matters.

Do the blocks matter? In the big picture, they don't. CP could block literally the entire planet, and only we would notice. But like I said, the sysops believe in their little fantasy world, and they believe that they do the correct and smart thing. So if you dive in and look at it inside the illusion, it matters. And most discussions on (T:)WIGO implicitly do just that. We pretend that CP is not just a lone stage in the middle of nowhere. We are a part of their illusionary world. We give these people meaning. --Sid (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What I enjoyed in the debate were boot-licking schmucks like Jcw, who wrote^img in defense of Ken: "I assumed that the sysops were accountable upwards, to ASchlafly. Isn't that the point - to avoid mob rule by having a clear chain of command with a definite leader at the top?" No, you idiot, there is no definite leader on the site, as if you needed any more evidence of that then this whole fiasco of Sysops run wild. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly WND column

Phyllis Schlafly column on Whirled Nut Daily. This is just syndication and she probably doesn't even know she's appearing there, right? I mean, she wouldn't knowingly work for an editor who thinks her son is nuts, no? Mountain Blue (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is hilarious. Does anyone else talk about "Edison light bulbs" (as opposed to those nasty ones from Communist China)? We can't wash our dishes! We can't give ourselves an "efficient body wash"! And "cars and light trucks will have to be lighter weight and thus more dangerous in accidents" - WTF? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The shit doesn't fall far from the bat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure Mama Schlafly is a regular contributor.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Her name is on the list of regular editors, heck it's even in own list of contributors. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that morons like mamma asfly and her son are all in favour of governmnet staying out of our bedrooms right up until I and a consenting adult partner fancy a little anal sex. Then they are all in favour of the government geting HEAVILY involved, and not in a good or fun way. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the government getting involved in sexual acts EVER good or fun? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"While the ban on Edison light bulbs was passed before Barack Obama became president, we can blame him and his energy secretary" - that'll teach for not letting her little boy be Harvard Law Review president. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

I wasn't interested in this section until I read about anal sex. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know she's a "regular contributor," but does she know about that or are they just using syndicated material she writes? When I was living in Austria they had a nativist/nationalist wingnut tabloid whose list of regular contributors included Hillary Rodham Clinton, if you get my drift. Mountain Blue (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a baby-step forward for the wingnuts -- at least they now understand that the light bulb secret police was created by arch-commie Dubya. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bangs head on desk. Hummers on my highway. cause those people need to be more safe in their huvees when they push us little guys out of the way. and damn us all for using more efficient and light weight technologies with better research to make more safe cars, when all we should have done is just put armor plating on them and eaten up all the gas. and Fuck the birds, the elk, the wolves, the elephants and rhinos. if i want to hunt, or eat fish to extinction that's my right. but it's NOT your right ot kill you baby, damn it.En attendant Godot 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's far worse than that...they'z comin' for yer toilets! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The headline alone boggles the mind. "makes connection between abortion and toilets". um... HUH??????--En attendant Godot 16:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Bill Maher pretty much nailed this one:

“”When you go down the list of useless distractions that make up the Republican party agenda -- public unions, Sharia law, anchor babies, the mosque at Ground Zero, ACORN, National Public Radio, the war on Christmas, the new Black Panthers, Planned Parenthood, Michelle Obama's war on dessert...you realize that the reason nothing gets done in America is that one of the political parties puts so much [energy] into fantasy problems than real ones. Governing this country with Republicans is like rooming with a Meth addict; you want to address real-life problems, like when the rent is due, and they're saying, "How can you even think of that stuff when there's police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioner unit??"

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that awesome clip! Mama Phyllis has all the histrionics of baby Andy. I liked this: "...and he warned we can no longer set our thermostats at 72 degrees." That hysterical assertion comes from this on the 2008 campaign trail: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Irony meter *poof*

Oh dear. When Ken starts running around, informing^img people^img how to "create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps", you know his trolling his nipples off in celebration.

This is the man who drove off another CP sysop who wanted Ken to be more collaborative. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

hehe...be more collaborative by creating a group within a group within a group. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken nicely sums up why Conservapedia utterly failed to become a collaborative project: "(1) Everybody should find a free niche and stay there. (2) Nobody gets to challenge my stuff." Because we all know that "collaboration" means "look away and edit something else" on CP. --Sid (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad Rob failed or I'd need to find a new dumb hobby. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A concise summary of my own position. --Horace (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Acknowledgment

I didn't check who wrote the wigo, but "manchild and mallcop" is as apt as it is pithy. Well done, good sir. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't claim all the credit. People have been calling Ken "manchild" for at least a few days now (I don't know who started it) and "mallcop" I got from our TK article (describes Karajou just as well). --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen manchild before myself, and I think the mallcop is ultimately due to Richard Jensen, of all people. Anyhow, aphorisms are like theorems; credit goes to the guy who ultimately puts the pieces together. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So, how bout that GW is fake

Cause, apparently records were broken--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Think again, libtard! Roy Spencer just got a new PEER-REVIEWED study published definitively debunking AGW...or not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I read this and wondered how Bush might not be real. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ME TOO! Senator Harrison (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The wise monkeys

So looking at the riot on Andy's talkpage and wondering how he sees no evil by completely ignoring it, I checked his edit history to find his last contribution was 26 July now over a week ago. But looking at the total history of his talk page I see his first edit was 23 January 2011, ah yes that was Ken deleted and recreated the page thereby wiping out the prior edit history. One day we will find that Ken has been the only editor on CP as the contributions of every other editor will have been memory holed just to save Ken's face concerning his own ineptitude. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nvm, but, dont forget, oneday all that will exist will be CP, and therefor, the only human will be Ken.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Spooky. I was actually just thinking to myself, with no snark or supposition at all, "Where exactly HAS Andy been during this main event cage match?" After all, CP is his (helmet wearing, shot bus riding, window licking) baby and such a blowout could not truly be escaping his notice. Was he really ignoring the whole dustup and hoping it would just go away or has he legitimately had something else occupying his time? Then I did a quick trip back through the WIGOs and saw he personally removed Robs check user rights on 7/28. That bit alone was enough to convince me he's well aware of what's been transpiring, has given his quiet support to Team Kenajou and evidently had no problem tossing Rob to the wolves. --Tygrehart

Andys been just as active the entire time. Just without talking about the civil war--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, I meant that he hadn't edited his talk page. He has of course been blogging the whole time on MPR. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Never fear, we'll always have american history terms x. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So, a scary thought about the Future of Humans according to CP

They think they are replacing all "Liberal" things at a glorious rate, right? Well, that means all humans will have oneday is Conservapedia, all day every day. If we go with that, then go with the fact Ken is slowly pushing people out as he takes over... One would assume that in the future the only thing left of our race will be Ken writing how he destroyed the fat atheists, Homosexuals and other Vile threats to Humanity on a website hosted by a fast failing server next to him. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That server will be in a state of perpetual suspence, located with the Gods Of The Furtherest Ring LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken's blog is getting corpulent. ħuman 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll filter

I forgot to ask, what is that thing someone wrote that removes the spam from recent changes at CP? And will it work via anonymouse, and better yet, tor? Perhaps pmail as well as post here, since I check irregularly. ħuman 05:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have asked this question (and got an answer) a year ago. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"I think of my beautiful city in flames."

I think it's fitting that the Idiocy Singularity hits CP right as Rob is pretty much ready to move.

Penn Jillette looks at Conservapedia and Ken's "essays" and seriously concludes that it's a troll site. Ken's reaction is basically to jizz in his pants and to feel encouraged to create more "essays".

Seriously, this is brain damaged. There is missing the point, and then there is missing the PLANET the point is located on.

And Andy is sitting there in his little echo chamber, seriously believing that the opposition is either cowering in fear or being converted and that conservatives will rally behind his glorious insights. In the meantime, out in the real world, the opposition is actually unwilling to believe they're serious while conservatives try to put as much distance between themselves and CP as possible.

On a certain level, I care for CP. I've been watching the place for more than four years now. I guess I developed a certain nostalgic bond, yeah. And now I see... this. A blathering idiot either doesn't understand or doesn't understand that he is completely undermining the site's last shred of credibility, and Andy sides with him. *sigh* I think I may need a vacation before the week is over... --Sid (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be the Stockholm syndrome, Sid. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Either that, or Fremdschämen - the kind of emotion one experiences while watching the catastrophic castings in the first round of American Idol and such. --Sid (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fremdschämen can be explained as feeling embarrassed about (not by) somebody without having done anything youself. Just throwing that in to clarify. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy enjoys vigorous duicussion (a flame war), and really hasn't kept up with it. It's when user comments get redunant, etc. that 90/10 gets invoked. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think from the get-go Conservapedia was doomed because of Andy Schlafly. If you had a Rich Lowry, David Frum or even--blech--a Tucker Carlson the site would have been a robust place where various strains of conservative thought would be explained, as Rob proposed. The rot is at the top. What I don't understand is why any users on this board still have any nostalgic for what was always a mistaken notion about what CP would be. I also don't understand why people are so invested in something named Conservapedia being that compendium of conservative thought. It's not going to happen, and it never was going to happen. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Who left?

"Conservapedia is proven right, again: the reaction was angry and one editor even left Conservapedia^img when we linked the Norway massacre to violent video games. But look who just joined our side: "Norway Retail Chain Pulling Violent Video Games in Wake of Breivik Killings."" Is he talking about Rob? --Roofus (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be WilliamB1, who placed an abrupt message on his user page (since deleted by some lackey) criticising Andy and saying he wanted no more to do with the place. --Horace (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The same editor is taking his que from User:Conservative: deleting other sysops comments from his talk page. [2] nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. From CP's own source: "Now, given the nationwide mourning that's gripped Norway after the killings, pulling certain games from store shelves isn't a big hardship. But it's exactly the kind of fumbly gesture that continues to make games (and other creative media) an easy scapegoat when something ugly happens in society. Stokke's remarks portray a bit of ambivalence, which is expected in the wake of an event like the Oslo/Utoya shootings. This token gesture demonstrates sympathy but arguably doesn't do much to prevent such a tragedy from happening again." And the link at the bottom of that article leads to 'Norway Attacks: Killers May Play Video Games, but Video Games Don't Make Killers'. So they couldn't even find a source that agrees with them about the alleged link between video games and violence to highlight some retailer deciding to pull some games off their shelves for a while. Oh, but, I forgot, that's due to reality the media having a liberal bias. 86.162.88.181 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Penn Jillette

Ugh. Ken keeps shitting all over Penn Jillette, i mean, could someone please tell me what this "Essay^img" is supposed to be about? Whats really annoying to me is that Ken starts refering to himself in the third person, then quickly switches to first person. MAKE YOUR FUCKING MIND UP KEN!!! LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And of course, this recently made piece of shit is now the Featured Article. EDIT: haha, Kendoll is being mocked on the talk page. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?}

Honestly, I think Ken is going mad after his great victory. He seems to have made 5 (possibly more) "Essays" all saying the exact same thing about Penn. And of course Ken is referring to himself in third person, that's what psychopaths do. He's even referring to himself as he/she. What's even more troubling is that Ken is referring to himself and Conservapedia interchangeably. Ego trip, perhaps? Beck (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What!? A sniveling shit emerges. Let's beat him down with words. To arms, lads! 06:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Definately. And i think its hilarious how Ken is denying the "charge" of calling Penn "A stupid athiest". I mean... really Ken? Really? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All Penn needs to do is say that he will gladly debate User:Conservative providing that he reveal his real identity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He would just write 600 essays accusing Penn of being another Liberal that's obsessed with him and then claim that he'll be busy for the next 5-6 months. --Roofus (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken just made an entire category called Penn Jillette. This is bordering on obsession Beck (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's way passed obsessive. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever takes care of Ken must have the patience of a saint. You know the whole time he's rattling his keyboard, you just know he's rocking rhythmically back-and-forth, lips mumbling barely audible repetitive nonsense, only occasionally interrupted by peels of maniacal laughter. It must be a sad sad life. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, nobody is taking care of Ken. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, with his victory in the Flame War and the response from Penn, he's definitely gone on a spree^img (close to 175 edits in 24 hours). --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

GIVE IT UP SCHLAFLY! Just change the name to Kenservapedia.com Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought. I know I do not post often, but I have monitored the idiotocracy of CP for sometime. Has it occurred to anyone that Conservative's "rise" may give us an opportunity? Look at some of the personalities over there. We may be able to turn them on each other.

--Franklin (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You must be new. "We" don't expressly want to destroy Conservapedia, just point out when it's misleading or unscientific. Conservative is just acting how he always acts. And sysops have turned against each other before, but these days Andy never intervenes so the winner is whoever spends the most time editing and reverting (ie Conservative).--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Atheist trying to stop christinaity"

Content: The horribly underthought picture of a firefighter watching helplessly as the all consuming destructive wildfire of Christianity destroyed a home... then some quote about Atheism dying^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

and then this jewel on the talk page^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Antheist? Is that the worship of the creatures from this classic film? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

>.> didn't notice that--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As a trained search and rescue volunteer, i've worked around firemen most of my teen and adult life. what does he mean this firefighter looks "lazy" and "slothful?" How, exactly, should a fire fighter look when staring at a fire of this magnitude? god ken is a first class fuck. I'd love to see him say that to the actual face of ANY firefighter. and then expect they'd ever help him.En attendant Godot 14:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He knows half the nasty shit he says from the safety of his unintellectual internet bunny hole would get his ass kicked in real life. 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a real firefighter could beat the fire down via his axe--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i figured it was teh fire fighter's stance. if you lean back slightly, on one leg, that's clearly sloth. if you lean forward, that's not sloth. and your hands should never be at your side - again, sloth.En attendant Godot 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I like how Christianity is represented by a roaring fire of destruction, burning down the labors of man's intellect (the home), as the atheist looks distraught at the raging destruction of religion on civilization. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A real firefighter could have Ken mouth off to him face to face, and then still rescue him anyway because it's the right thing to do. I don't think Ken understands that concept. X Stickman (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If that firefighter chose not to save ken he'd get flak, no doubt legal problems and no doubt be fired and a brief 15 minutes of shame thanks to him being a prick and not doing his job.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost definitely a Parthian Shot

NKeaton's head is about to explode^img. A slightly amusing, but quite lengthy, rant.Tielec01 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That rant. its beautiful. *Sheds a single tear of black, liquid sorrow* LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He had to look up what 'troll' meant? Wow... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

At least he actually looked it up. Ken has displayed no knowledge that HE knows what a troll is? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would grade it as a solid B. Too much time (for my atheistic tastes) was spent defending Catholicism. Also, there was too much lip service paid to CP being a "worthy" project. And it wouldn't have killed him to toss in standard usage of paragraph formatting. But all that aside, his takedown of Ken was concise, accurate, and mildly humorous. Bravo. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Liked this one a lot. It says it all about how harmful Conservapedia, and Conservative particularly, are to the causes they try to promote. And that sincerity would be hard to fake.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) He hasn't been blocked yet but if he tries to continue editing he probably will be. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

NKeaton: A safe life is not worth living.^img UPDATE: MaxFletcher: I like to live dangerously too!^img Conservative: I like lamp.^img MarshallF: This thread is not wierd enough.^img JamesWilson: No-one seriously supports conservative, ergo you must be 1) intimidating or 2) a troll. Either way - BANNED.^img Tielec01 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Did The Best NEW Conservative Songs Help Bring Down The Berlin Wall?

Andy bravely asks the question^img. Maybe he thinks the construction worker from the Village People^img helped tear it down? --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Reagan was singing along to some of the Best New Conservative Songs as he tore down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 07:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can totally see it: Gorbachev sets down a huge Soviet era boombox in the middle of some conference room table deep within the bowels of the Kremlin, presses play, and utters "Comrades, once you get an earful of this infectious toe-tapping melody, you will realize- like I have- that we have been bested."--Inquisitor (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute... where is this money coming from? The Government? If so, I find it greatly amusing that Schlafly ignores this pesky fact just because the money is being used for something conversative. And isn't all rock music of the devil anyway? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the extent to which US rock was circulating in Soviet Russia was that there was a lot of tape trading. I'm pretty sure it was mostly Beatles bootlegs, and I've actually heard that Frank Zappa tapes were highly prized. -Lardashe

The US government was aiding and abetting that circulation too, and even before Zappa and the Beatles, it was Satchmo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is praising a Federal arts grant? I now expect to hear a news report that winged swine are being denied permission to land at the infernal regions' airport due to extreme icing conditions. MDB (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows that The Hoff brought down the Berlin Wall. X Stickman (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's what I call the "conservative blind spot": While you are in government do as you wish, justify it with fighting the enemies of your country. If you are not in the government there is no justification for certain things - if they do not benefit you. Or in other words: if you are in government you act pragmatic, if you are not, you are an idealist. --★uːʤɱ atheist 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, it was the Falcon Punch REAGAN SMASH!!111!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SchlockOfGog is weighing in on the "debate"

SchlockOfGog is weighing in on the Penn Jillette "debate" HEREEDIT: guess where the video description links to? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is ShockofGod stating it was him the Penn was calling a troll, like this blog here when it was Ken? Weird. Ace^{of Spades} 07:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

does anyone know who this swiftfoxmark2 guy is? one of Ken's socks perhaps? EDIT: this swiftfoxmark2 guy is a moron, he mentions Shockofgod instead of Ken. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have long suspected that conservative and shockofgod are one and the same, but my suspicions were dashed by this very site. Tielec01 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

People have long speculated that shock and kenny are one and the same. Personally I don't think they are for a couple of reasons. 1/ I SERIUOUSLY doubt ken could pass a motorcycle test and I certainly wouldn't want to be on the same continent were he to be riding a motorcycle. 2/ kenny spends far too much time editing cp to ever be able to make the rather silly shock videos. I suspect they know each other rather well but they are not one and the same. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OG, I misread the start of your paragraph as "People have long speculated that shock and kenny are one and the same. Personally I think they are a couple." I made me happy. --Opcn (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

^ 13:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You people don't realise who you're dealing with!!!

Ken is no ordinary anonymous internet troll^img. --Horace (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice how Ken doesn't provide any links. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What, did Ken do a phone interview with News of The World? i hear that's all the rage these days. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, he mentions that his work is mentioned on Penn Gillette's website. the VERY SAME Penn THAT KEN IS TRYING TO DEGRADE!!!!! LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, he's definately no ordinary troll. Remember^img as of 31st July kenny was going to far too busy to spend much time or be very active at cp. So somewhere in the region of 200 edits in the past 24 hours is being too busy to edit at cp.
Damn right he's no ordinary troll, they need sleep. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is even worse than Andy's delusions of grandeur. Ken, your material is mentioned for the same reason Time Cube guy's is. The fact that the number of people laughing at you is in the hundreds of thousands isn't something to boast about. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy fuck, over 200 edits in the last 12 hours^img. Definitely no ordinary troll. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the real fallout of reality TV culture. People who can't tell that there is a difference between being mentioned at all and being respected, or effective. Dear Ken, If they hold up your work as a sign of how terrible your entire side is you're not helping, If I started carving bible verses into childrends foreheads at preschools yes there is a chance that someone would pick up a bible and be converted, but the damage I did to christianity as a whole would unconvert many many more than I managed to convert. --Opcn (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Ken. His birthday was the 1st, so I'm sure Penn's response was a nice gift. Anyone want to check if he left CP for any amount of time on his birthday? -Lardashe

Leaving would imply anybody wanted to spend time with him--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that Ken is the new, undisputed troll of CP, we can expect many more outpourings of this nature (at least until his keyboard gums up anyway). Ken is officially untouchable, and free to smear his excretement all over CP, with Andy's blessing. I see he was so busy screwing up the main page again, that he's completely fucked up the formatting. Let's see just how long it stays that way. Lol, and Ken talking about intellectual bunny holes... the man has room to talk. He can't even respond to comments on talkpages. PsyGremlin講話 14:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)On the 1st his last edit was at 10:19 AM, so hopefully he had a good birthday. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Ken as a troll in the best sense of the word. There is genius in him... or he is mentally insane (the line between the two being quite blurry when it comes to art). I picture him as a disabled man, unable to leave his house, who found in Conservapedia (and A. Schlafly) a venue to express himself, see how much he can get away with, and make people laugh as they enjoy the crazy antics of his internet persona (and Schlafly's abnormal reactions to it all). I think that he's acting the whole time, performing for us. Enjoying himself as he mercilessly -and deliberatedly- twists and tortures logic, maturity, rationality, common sense and sane behaviour itself. I see him as a dedicated artist performing at the cheap global stage of this series of tubes, laughing at the world and allowing us to share in his enjoyment. A troll, in the best sense of the word... and probably a little insane. :-) God may have deprived him of mobility, but not of his hability to laugh at His creation. Xyr (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone got angry...

:-o^img surely no-one here is so immature? Foobarraboof (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope not, suspiciously-new-user-who-has-never-made-a-single-contribution-anywhere-except-just-now-to-mention-that Foobarraboof. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, good point. It wasn't me though, honest. I'm CPfan, a slightly-less-suspiciously-new user who's forgotten his password and didn't give an email address. Foobarraboof (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That thought had occurred to me as well Mr 1. Why do people troll cp and immediately come here to crow assuming everyone will say well done? It's tedious and will never match the long terms efforts of people like Bugler and Ken Dm to undermine and destroy cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And yes, quite. Exactly what smart people are doing right now, no doubt. Foobarraboof (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Likely some bored teenager or \b\tard, no one here cares. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so. It interested me because it's a rare demonstration of someone even more stupid and misguided than Ken himself. Foobarraboof (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We had that TerryB/Terry Benny do the same thing and then say that he doesn't expect to make any more edits. Well, thanks for nothing. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheistic England is doomed! DOOMED I say!

Many British kill harm themselves! Because they got atheism!^img Because, you know, the United Kingdom is really the epicenter of European atheism. So stop bein' an atheeist now, 'cause, 'cause - I don' like it when you think different than me!

But here comes the icing on the cake:

“”The best available research indicates that in the United States up to 4% of adults self-harm with approximately 1% of the population engaging in chronic or severe self-harm.[70]

—Wikipedia

Now, the source Ken quotes says:

“”Self-harm statistics for the UK show one of the highest rates in Europe: 400 per 100,000 population

Now let's do some meth math kids: 400 in 100,000 is what persentage? Let's do it very easy and just adjust the position of the decimal point so that it's a percentage: ahh... wait… just a sec... - a there you go: 0.4 out of 100, which is 0.4%! But wait a minute! In the US 4%, in the UK it's 0.4%. Now well, the US is only for the adults, but as mostly teens engage in self-harm, this percentage would even have to be adjusted upwards if we were to seriously compare the two on a nationwide scope. So, the US is more religious than the UK... and especially more Christian than the UK.. wait, let me get the "Ken DeMyer-logic simulator" up and running (I mean it often fucks up, needs several times to do something and sometimes I can't turn it off, but I think that's how it ought to be...) - Ah! There we go: CHRISTIANITY MAKES PEOPLE HARM THEMSELVES! --★uːʤɱ digital native 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You were able to do that in one edit; you clearly don't have a working DeMyer-logic simulator. Mr. Swift (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well their hero had himself nailed to a wooden cross and had a crown of thorns embedded into his head, and told people that if their hand causes them to sin, they should cut it off. So they're likely just going by example.--94.76.233.42 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You know I have usually associated self-harm with those of a religious disposition, all that self-flagellation because you are told that you are not worthy of your maker. And if you start going through the book of saints you will find all sorts of daft things people do to themselves for their love of Jesus. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people self harm. Its pretty simplistic to blame it on Religiosity or the lack there of. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of this one ADK^{...I'll exterminate your heretic!} 11:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is aware his talk page still exists.

So why hasn't he stepped into the debate?^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Because saying what was wrong with an Elvis picture is far more important than a several day epic flame war between YOUR sysops over effective control of YOUR site. Priorities! --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Week-long epic flame war--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Whole thing will be memory-holed soon enough, at which point there will never have been hostilities between Team Kenajou and Rob. Andy's just a little ahead of the game in that regard. Does begger the question though of what he promised Rob for his capitulation. --Tygrehart

We have always been at war with Rob Smith. ADK^{...I'll vitiate your Audi!} 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"If disengagement disappeared from the agenda, we would be forced into endless skirmishing over broader issues on which I knew we would not be able to deliver quickly." nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy and free speech

"No, I don't think an employee can say whatever he likes if his employer disapproves. If the CEO of Microsoft harshly criticized the company publicly, the Board of Directors would probably fire him."^img Hmmm isn't this the same Andy who said of McChrystals firing "McChrystal's "criticism" was so mild and removed from matters relevant to military operations that Obams's removal of him for non-military reasons seems awfully self-centered."^img Ace^{of Spades} 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The teacher who wanted to pray, should have a right to pray. but what about muslims, is that true for them? Of course not, schools have a right to make teaches say what they want them to say. They just don't have a right to make then not say prayers..... does ANYONE get his logic?En attendant Godot 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly. Inconsistent. LOL. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's stance is that majority rules, and protections for the minority are irrelevant in the face of the majority's desires. This is part of why he likes to frame all his views as widely popular, even if they aren't. -Lardashe

Actualy Andy only agrees with majority rule when the majority is on his side. Then it becomes "the will of the people". When the majority is not on his side, it's "mob rule".--Inquisitor (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

^ This. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Nah. The difference is public/private employment--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is a little more consistent than we give him credit for. He's not saying the (Christian) teacher should have a right to pray, he's saying the parents should have the right to have the teacher pray. Thus he'd technically have to agree that a Muslim-majority school district should be able to institute school prayer to Allah. If I weren't blocked over there, I'd be tempted to ask about specifically Mormon prayers - I'm pretty sure there are Mormon-majority districts in Utah, while Muslim-majority districts are probably much more rare. Yoritomo (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right regarding Andy's consistency, but I doubt it. I suspect that, if there happened to be a Muslim-majority area, Andy would revert to the Christian nation myth. It's a shame that we don't have an actual Muslim-majority area at hand, but at least one could ask him to explicitly state whether or not he agrees that in such a school district (or, better, in the area belonging to one particular elementary school), he would advocate Islamic prayers in the classroom and if not, why not? Pin him down as clearly as possible: which group matters most? The locals attending the school? The area funding the school? The nation? The nation's alleged history as founded by Christians? Phiwum (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC somebody did bring up a question about what if Jewish or other children in the class wanted to pray in their religion, rather than Andy's "teacher-led prayer" I think his response basically came down to "No, it will be Christian prayer in my schools, if they want to pray otherwise, they can either do it quietly, or attend their own classes." PsyGremlinTal! 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My wife taught at a charter school for Somali immigrants (we're in Minneapolis, which has a surprising high Muslim population, particularly East Africans), and there was a shit-storm because the school had some religious-themed activities (prayer sessions on Fridays were the big thing) Now, I think the school was in the wrong; but if this had been a Christian prayer session at a Christian-majority school, Andy would have been stumbling over himself to praise it. But I'm sure a Muslim prayer session at a Muslim-majority school would send him into a frenzied, hypocritical rage. Carlaugust (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

CP's robots.txt

Here's CP's robots.txt:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /index.php
Disallow: /skins
Disallow: /Special:Search
Disallow: /Special:Random
Disallow: /MediaWiki:
Disallow: /Template:
User-agent: dotbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: baiduspider
Disallow: /

The first few lines block all search engines from indexing the special wiki pages. That's pretty normal. The next one blocks the DotBot from every part of the site. They want to index the entire internet for research purposes. Apparently, it sucks up a huge amount of bandwidth, so it makes sense to block it.

The one I found interesting was baiduspider. That is, of course, China's own special counterfeit version of Google. I can't quite figure out why Andy would block that search engine, and only that one. Doesn't he realize that by depriving China of the Greatest Conservative Songs, TV Shows, Movies and Words, he's really keeping them under the control of a liberal atheist dictatorship? --Roofus (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

RW's, on the other hand, is far less liberal about what it blocks. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol. How does it feel, Ken. How does it feel to know that your A E H articles are being actively blocked from a 5th of the world's population? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

now, i wonder what would happen if we were able to 'hack' into that .txt file (nice encryption btw) and slipped googlebot into there... *evil laugh* LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 10:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhhh... robots.txt is never encrypted, on any site - otherwise how would the search engine crawlers read it? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter, baidu got them through bing. Yes, Andy Schlafly, uber-conservative, got tricked by some commies and some hippies at Microsoft - who made a business deal. Ah, the picture... --★uːʤɱ structuralist 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TALK, you do know that Baidu is not the only search engine available in China, right? There is another rather well-known search engine beginning with "G". Phiwum (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My... my name's not talk ^{ONE / TALK} 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, you sure? Cut and paste don't lie, man. (Sorry for the mistaken snip) Phiwum (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if CP is blocked in china... Ateafish (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than countries blocking access to CP, CP has tended to block itself. I think that some commercial internet filters block CP as a hate speech/racist site but I don't think that any countries do. Whereas, when I was in Yemen last year RW was blocked under category 'pornography'. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not blocked in the PRC, and I can't personally recall any time that it was. On the other hand... 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would love to ask the Chinese government why Conservapedia isn't blocked and get the answer "Not even people in a dictatorship are so stupid". --★uːʤɱ sinner 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rationalwiki was not blocked as recently as late June. I was in Shenzhen and other parts of Guangdong at the time. In fact, aside from Youtube and Facebook, it was hard to find any blocked sites, but I'm not a user of social media (I only checked out Facebook to test the firewall), so the firewall doesn't affect me much. U.S. traditional media sites were not blocked at the time I was there — at least none that I checked. Phiwum (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy Ken's bitch?

I only ask because I remember my Jack Russell bitch used to think she smelled a lot better after she had rubbed her neck in Ken's fox shit. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is naturally submissive - wouldn't you be, growing up under Big Phyl's claws? Thus he instinctively defers to the alpha male on CP - despite his token presence as Brother Leader - hence his rolling over on TK and now Ken. That probably also explains a lot of Andy's projection. PsyGremlinFale! 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On the concept that Kenny G is CP's alpha male, I will the entire day howl with melodious laughter and the table thump repeatedly. DogP (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone at CP is spineless and submissive. There hasn't been a true alpha male since TK. Ken is trying to fill that space, but he really can't. Andy is Ken's bitch, but I think its fair to say that Ken is also Andy's bitch. Beck (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If it turned out the TK was actually still alive and kicking and he returned to CP, do you think Ken, after all he's said and done this year, would take a firmer line against him? Grumblejaws (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that Andy sometimes "trims" Ken's more embarrassing items and that Ken went crying to Andy during his squabble with Rob. Ken is more like Andy's neglected child who effectively controls the house and can get away with nearly anything.

The fact that CP is Ken's Blog in all-but-name is due to three factors: the reluctance of those at CP to criticize one on their side, the laziness/disinterest of nearly every other sysop and the clinical obsessiveness of Ken. Ken was able to wear down Rob. He certainly didn't defeat him due to any skill. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peace in our times

Apparently Rob has been talked in to an armistice agreement^img whereby he'll go back to pretending that Kendoll doesn't exist, just like everyone else at CP. Presumably there's a reciprocal agreement whereby Kendoll and Karajou have to pretend to forget that Rob called them a demon and a piece of shit respectively. Is Rob completely delusional or is he just a masochist? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What? He spends one day in Conservapedia re-education camp and already comes out completely spineless? Vulpius (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Rob, you spoke with Andy^img, and you decided to ignore Conservapedia's problems together? Great! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So, anything good we said about him is taken back i assume?--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Lotsa folks still think Rob is a tool. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A tool yes, but he's still one of the more rational people on CP. Beck (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is about the same as saying the leg breaker isn’t as bad as the loan shark because the leg breaker didn't personally give the order to cripple you. Whatever. Be sure to put a little more spit shine into that turd your currently buffing Rob and don’t forget your mantra: “Thank you Mistress, may I have another…” --Tygrehart

I never really said anything good either, I meant we as in anybody here--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is somehow more pathetic than it already was. Rob, your life must suck. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Rob was suppose to be taking a break from CP. He who fights monsters demons....--Night Jaguar (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Peace or otherwise, it's now apparent Rob is branded and will resemble the nations of Korea. Who pays the price? Everyone else but them, just the way they like it. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I loved that show as a kid; now I see it as the Hollywood Screen Writers/Kremlin directed communist agitprop it was, intended to demoralize U.S. troops and kin during the Vietnam War. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It must be a strange world inside your head, Rob. Don't forget to check behind the curtains for commies before you retire to bed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

rise and fall of range-blocks at Conservapedia

Ah, back to normal: Rob shows again that he is always able to follow the tangent if it pleases him... Dear Rob, at least at RW try to stick to the topic, this thread isn't about *M*A*S*H*, it's about you making up with Andy behind the curtains. What did Andy say when he turned off the internal emails?

It's turned off for now, but could easily be restored in the future. This feature seems contrary to the spirit of a wiki.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

But telephone calls aren't? And I guess that the sysops are exchanging emails all the times, they just don't want to be pestered by footsies or - horrible dictu - allow the unwashed masses to talk behind the back of the Obrigkeit...

And what have you accomplished? Well, the range blocks are down, congrats! That is somehow an hollow victory, as still there are all these 403-blocks in place on the server: Human and I have to jump through some loops to be able to edit at Conservapedia: but theoretically we can, at least for the moment.

And beside this? Well you have disappointed the users who thought that a change of some of the more obnoxious practices (deleting pages, not using the fricking preview-button...) could be changed.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As Poskrebyshev said, "there is movement." [3] nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He must be eating the same new cereal that my wife bought. "Movement" indeed. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 16:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Moon over My Hammy

This MPR item^img is hysterical for its irony:

• "Here's the latest "scientific" theory to explain it: there was somehow a second moon that collided with the real Moon precisely to make one side smooth and other jagged. Even Time observes, "A new theory in science isn't worth much, however, unless you can test it somehow." [10] No kidding."

No kidding, Creationists. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just jealous because these guys actually came up with an original idea. ADK^{...I'll revolt your bazooka!} 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If Andy read the very next couple of sentences, he would see how such tests would be carried out to see if the theory is valid. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear f'in goat. "like what an artist would paint; but the opposite side is jagged, like what an astronomer would expect." Did this moron SERIOUSLY graduate from Harvard or did he just bribe the lecturers so he could lie about it? If I had written anything like when I was at university the lecturers would have thrown it back unmarked. Oldusgitus (talk) sometime, 4 August 2011 (UTC) My keyboard is playing up........

It's pretty simple. One side is smooth because God made it that way. The other side is jagged because God made it that way. Scientists don't realize the truth because God made them that...oh, rats...Jimaginator (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The near side of the Moon is smooth like sandpaper is smooth. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know with certainty why one side is smoother than the other, therefore god. Checkmate, atheists. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My best guess would be that the near side is smoother because since it's the side always facing the Earth, it's less likely to be hit by meteors. --Roofus (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the moon is stationary - it actually spins on an axis, so that idea wouldn't hold up? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The moon rotates on an axis. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It rotates, but it orbits the Earth at the same speed it rotates. The result is the same side facing us all the time. The smooth, God-painted side. In His great wisdom He made sure the smooth side was always facing us so we could appreciate its beauty. Rather than, say, making the entire thing smooth. Because that would have been silly. «-Bfa-» 18:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Because of tidal effects celestial bodies which are circling around each other will become locked. The Earth's rotation is slowing down and sometimes in the future, the Earth will show the Moon always the same side (well, it will be wobbling a bit because of the Sun..)
• a question for our astronomers: wouldn't one expect the side of the Moon which is facing us to be somehow shielded against impacts by the Earth?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an astronomer, but: It doesn't seem to be very interesting which side of the moon faces outward. It seems to be more interesting which side of the moon faces forward, ie. in the direction the system travels around the sun. Every side of the moon will do that at some point, obviously. Another thing is that impactors hitting on the near side will tend to be faster than impactors on the far side due to the gravity assist from the planet they will typically have received. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, blue, due to the tidal locking, the same side of the Moon is always "the lead side". That astronomy guy has a point, the side facing the Earth is more protected from impacts than the other side. And of course Andy is as usual a moron in general. ħuman 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. At first quarter moon, the near side points in the direction the Earth travels. At third quarter moon, it's the far side. Just look at this diagram. Mountain Blue (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suspect a little, but not by much given the still large distance between the two worlds, relatively speaking. Earth's gravity does influence NEOs significantly though, so it is possible. The near side of the Moon is also likely smoother because it suffered one or more major impacts in the deep past that cause lava to flow to the surface creating the lava filled basins called maria ("seas") that we see today. We do know that the crust on the near side of the Moon is thinner than the crust on the far side of the Moon, which may have made it easier for lava to flow to the surface from such huge impacts in the deep past. These days the Moon's interior is no longer active, having long since cooled off. Curiously, the Moon's center of mass is actually slightly offset towards the near side from its geographical center, so in addition to a thinner crust, the near side has slightly more mass.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

While you all were discussing "science", you were not praising Him. The moon is the way God wanted it to be. Stop trying to figure things out. Where will it lead? Inventions? Knowledge? Worldwide communication? Praise Him, and stop wasting time. Jimaginator (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"The side of the Moon that faces us is smooth, as an artist would paint; but the opposite side is jagged, as an astronomer would expect". Yeah, painters can't stand painting jagged stuff. They like smooth stuff. That is why they have always painted the side of the moon facing the Earth and why you will see very few landscapes showing the far side of the moon. --Horace (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What is annoying about that is that it isn't smooth by any stretch of the imagination. Look how ridiculously cratered the near side is[4], especially in contrast to our own world, but no one is on the Moon admiring the artistic beauty of Earth. If we humans see the near side of the Moon as artistic it because it is utterly ingrained into our collective historical and cultural psyche. After all up until a half century or so ago, it was the only side of the Moon anyone has ever seen, and about every human has seen it, making the near side for all intended historical, cultural purposes, the "entirety" of the Moon. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This. Also wanted to add in a comment about 'the same side always faces the Earth'. That's broadly true, but can be a little misleading, as it implies that the bit facing the Earth is static (relative to the Earth). That's not quite accurate, as due to libration something like 59% of the moon's surface is visible from the Earth at some point. There's quite a good graphic on the Wikipedia page for libration to demonstrate this. Worm (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

Unless someone has some other explanation for this^img. --Horace (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect Karajou to receive it with the love and affection with which it was so obviously bestowed. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This smiley face would have been more appropriate for Karajerk. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

did anyone else read that as "BANstar" as apposed to "BARNstar"? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's a good one. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's already got a banhammer... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the "do not poke the anger bear" sign fell off his cage. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the banhammer one also a pisstake by Rob then? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is Rob on about?

For some truly incomprehensible advice, see Rob's recent conversation^img.

What's the problem? --Roofus (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that he's trying to steer a conversation and point the bannables into the direction of the data he wants them to present without violation the terms of... lets say his 'probation'. Rob, if you are indeed trying to do that, you might want to go with [5] and then assume that obesity is evenly spread between all political backgrounds for that given state. You can find a partisan voting index at [6] . For example, Alabama (a nice first in the list) has 32.2% obesity and 39.1% democratic vote. On the other hand, you have something like Vermont which has a obesity rate of 23.2% and voted democratic 68.9% in '08. So maybe you've got some data to work from there. Or maybe someone will try to twist it around to suggest that every republican voter in vermont is thin. If this isn't enough data, you could go by county [7] and [8] though I'll admit you'd have to do a bit of work to map the congressional district back to counties. Still, you'll have those wonderful blips like Dane County, Wisconsin that has a 25% obesity rate (lowest in the state) and elects Tammy Baldwin (a lesbian!) in a district with a D+15 index. Whatever case, the data is all there for you to pass along to have people try to figure out what percentage of the population are overweight republicans. Just make sure you stay far, far away from any actual studies [9] [10] and news articles [11], they're either by liberal schools of higher learning or publicized by the mainstream media. --Shagie (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem? Well, all of his advice just seems to miss the point. The claim is that atheism is correlated with obesity. The fact that there are more obese persons than atheists would not refute the claim at all. And adding political affiliation just makes things that much more complicated and confusing. What one wants is clear evidence that there is no such correlation. Now, there probably is no such evidence, so what one needs to do is the next best thing: simply point out that there is no study that supports Ken's claim. There is no evidence of the correlation Ken wants. (Of course, Ken doesn't really care, so this argument will have no practical consequence.) Phiwum (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK OK, have you considered trying cp:Voting characteristics of obese Americans, for example? It could be ground breaking. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia, where the K stands for "quality."

Now here's^img an example of a quality wiki project. Five hundred spots on the list of pages that have no links to them, and you're still in the "A"'s. That's some good wiki-maintenance they got going on there. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T)^img links to a "This Page Has Been Deleted" page. lol --Roofus (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, a bunch of those are to American History homework pages, which should not have mainspace links to them. That it is obvious to anyone that they should be in a different namespace seems to have escaped Andy, however. I really don't know why he's adverse to other namespaces so much of the time (except for things like those contests - man do I miss those). I guess a separate namespace sounds like the sort of thing Wikipedia would do, therefore it is bad. I believe he has similar feelings for disambiguation pages. DickTurpis (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, a bunch of those are to American History homework pages The next group of 500^img takes us all the way into the "C"'s. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 03:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Assfly has previously commented on why he doesn't use namespaces and it is something to do with Wikipedia doing it. Of course, it's clearly a cover for the fact he doesn't know how or simply can't be bothered. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a debate about creating new namespaces on this site a few years ago. The convenience of a wiki is partly due to its centralized location, and splintering off separate namespaces is contrary to that.--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

I stand corrected! ^{ONE / TALK} 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually a better link than P-Foster offers is this^img; because by editing the URL you can get up to 5000 entries per page (this applies to RC and user contribs as well) and find with just one click that there are 5586 orphaned pages. So the homework ones are a mere pimple on CP's ugly visage. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the orphaned pages a couple years ago. There were just too many obscure pages that couldn't possibly link to anything, like "Atheism and Huffing Paint Fumes" Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 10:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to find something more obscure for your example. "Atheism and Huffing Paint Fumes" as a Ken article would be cross-linked to a dozen other pages. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Such as 'Atheism and Sniffing Glue', 'Atheism and Shooting Smack', 'Atheism and Harmful Addiction'. All of which would have exactly the same content. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm noticing a large amount of bird-related pages on the list. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of which are stubs created from one of Karajou's recent cut'n'paste spam adventures. Worm (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See also User:Conservative.

That's what you wanted to write^img wasn't it, Nobbykins? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

^Like. ħuman 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's collabrorative. I've been trying to explain to Karajou for years, "Look, we know PsyGremlin runs a sockpuppet farm from South Africa. Now, we know User:TracyS is a PsyGremlin sock. TracyS has not violated any site rules. Just block the other PsyGremlin socks, and leave TracyS alone. That way, while he's behaving himself as TracyS, he's not running a sock. If TracyS gets abusive, we can handle him when that happens." nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Psygremlin's South African Sockpuppet Farm!!!