Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive253

This is an archive page, last updated 19 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>, <251>, <252>, <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)

RobS loses admin rights.

It was only a matter of time. [1]^img Mr. Swift (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy picks a losing horse.

I know that Andy has to love this guy because he's a raging homophobe, but he must know that Mr. Frothy Mixture doesn't stand a hope in hell, right? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your link was cut off too soon, but I guess you meant this?^img --Sid (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, sorry. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Adams: deep cover sysop?

It seems like DouglasA only ever turns up to nuke articles or stir the shit between RobS and Karajou/Kendoll. Is he in fact a parodist? If so, what's his strategy going to be now he's climbed to the pinnacle of CP powah? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Doug seems to have a brain. He doesn't fit the mold. nobs^{put down the toilet seat}

He's a parodist of the same vintage as JacobB. Used to be active, but now he's bored and doesn't really do anything that would require any real time, just some minor troublemaking. --Benod (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest deleting the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles as a fun endgame. Articles with vast edit histories are an absolute nightmare to restore. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is that? 05:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the deletion and restoration plays havoc with your database; cf. our own TWIGO:CP Deletion Incident. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus PHP has a built in execution timeout when operating in CGI/mod_php mode. A sensible precaution against malfunctioning scripts clogging the system with processes stuck in infinite loops or otherwise deadlocked, taking up CPU time and preventing the server serving other clients. Unfortunately, the restore is a time intensive operation for many edits, and tends to exceed the execution timeout, so you have to go temporarily reconfigure the server just to restore big pages. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

With a name like DouglasA, does anyone seriously doubt that he is a parodist? Damo^Hi 07:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles with vast edit histories are an absolute nightmare to restore. But Ken has no interest to restore the histories: it would be a much appreciated opportunity to get rid of those which are still existing... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. He'll just briefly cry about the lost pageviews, but other than that, he'd do a happy dance. --Sid (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Open Revolt

Kendoll, brave as ever^img, lays the smackdown on Rob. When Kendoll gets to call you a loser, your life has gone very wrong somewhere. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Rob actually sock up, or is that his wife editing, or is Karajou just squawking bullshit? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at her block-log: TracyS is the sock of Psy, too, I'd say that she and Rob shared a proxy once - and then there is this suspicious letter S in her surname. Case closed! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob said he had trouble editing without using a proxy, which gives Koward n' Ken excellent excuse. Blocks based on IP like this aren't questionable, because only they have the evidence. Since Andy does nothing... ball is in their court. FIGHT, ROB, FIGHT! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No point in Rob fighting. grima wormtounge karajerk has obviously been dripping his counsel into andy's ears off wiki and andy believes him. Rob is finished at cp and with it the insanity will begin in earnest. This is going to be a lot of fun, although I do feel slightly sorry for Rob. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of the time PJR threw in the towel. Up until then, he'd got a lot of support from the RW crowd because he appeared to be relatively sane. Of course, once the Whorehouse of Ignorance opened and PJR's stupidity was given free reign, it became clear that he was just as insane as Andy. I imagine something similar will happen with Rob now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's review the remaining administrators, shall we?

• Andy himself
• Burbling idiot Ed Poor
• Serial site-ruiner Conservative
• Parodist DouglasA
• Non-contributing knucklehead Karajou
• Longtime la la land resident Joaquin Martinez (yup, still plugging away, Joaquin fans!)
• JPatt and TerryH clocking in and out, chasing their own particular interests.

In summary, RobS was the only one with any interest in being a proper administrator, and he's been rewarded the same way PJR, Fox, Addison and all the rest of them were. It's just astonishing.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Addison? I think you mean TimS. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot fuhrer Jcw.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the guy who obsesses about the KAL shootdown still active? (Bert Schlossberg?) (To be fair, he lost his dad in it. Still, though...) MDB (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

His contribs have dropped off this year, but he came back a couple weeks ago for this. The guy should have his own website if he really wants to generate all this content (he already has a book). ^{ONE / TALK} 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, wait a fucking minute....

“”The following is a critical review of the documentary by Bert Schlossberg

He wrote a "critical review" of his own documentary? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it just means he wrote the review. I note it lists him as the "director of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors". I kinda wonder if he is the "International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors". Oh, and check out their website. Good lord, it's straight out of Micro$soft Frontpage. MDB (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Bad clausing (not a word?). I think the review is by him, not the documentary. - π 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So he thinks his dad is still alive and in a Russian prison. That's a bit sad actually, I can understand his persistence if he really believes that. I wonder what led him to CP to work on his content though, if he has a website of his own? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You go to CP. You would never go to a KAL website. It gets him hits. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bert Schlossberg, who edited from NASA, was blocked for "using a U.S. Government or other governemental agency computer," a rule by Karajou, of course. Karajou read a newspaper somewhere that said government employees were viewing pornography at work, so he went on a binge to eradicate all government computers from having access. To undo the range blocks by wireless would be too slow, so I went to the main downtown library, which of course was range blocked by Karajou. The library, which is open 8 hours per day, six days a week, has 30 terminals and allows users 1 hour, or 240 users daily x 6 days = 1250 people per week x 52 weeks per year = 60,000 users denied access, because Karajou imagined them viewing pornography in a public library. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're using MS Frontpage, there's really only so much you can do. It's web site creation for dummies software. It's designed to create small sites and small pages for things like small businesses and groups, and personal vanity sites. You probably could use it to create some long form opuses like he writes on CP, but it's not well-suited for it.

It's also possible he's paying for disk space from whatever company hosts his site, and he can get the space for free at CP. MDB (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 5!!)Trust me, none of them are interested in doing any actual admin - hell, even when I was there, you couldn't get them to pull their fingers out of their collective arses to do any actual work. If I hadn't gone through and protected all the unprotected images, they'd still be unprotected. I brought up the issue of articles with {{fact}} tags - with a bit of effort, I had the list down to 397 in Jan 2009. 2¹/₂ years later, there's still 239 articles on the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia with fact tags. Ditto merge article requests 267 in total. Ditto broken redirects and double redirects. Because, let's face it, it's far more important to swagger around a wiki shouting at people, than actually doing anything to make sure it runs efficiently. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And yes, Bert was writing a bit like "What I did on my summer holiday by Bert S" - sort of keeping up with the intellectual age of CP. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite whatever plausibility the survivor story had in the immediate aftermath of the KAL incident, I find it *seriously* hard to believe they are kept in Russian prisons to this day. poor guy. Ateafish (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, protecting the images is a colossal waste of time. Only a tiny handful of people have upload rights, and even fewer can delete. On a wiki where the rights to edit and upload files are considered to require more trust than blocking rights, all the extra protection just serves to rub in the fact that the peons are powerless to make changes to the wiki. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It was my father-in-law on KAL 007, not my father http://www.rescue007.org/alfredo_cruz.htm I dont remember how I got to consevapedia but I found the people congenial and open to my sharing about KAL 007. They also were open to my writing about Jesus Christ, Aramaic, some historical pieces, etc. Bert Schlossberg

He really *is* a man of mystery.

User:Conservative never created an account. How does that work? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the extension or whatever was only added later, so everybody who joined before a certain date doesn't have a log. Andy's exactly the same. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ah. Never mind. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. gOD. Andy is the one with split personality and Ken is his alter ego. It all makes sense now! Vulpius (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Asteroids come from Earth!

Yep!^imgNow this might be possible, it might not, i don't know. its far to early in the morning for me to think that much about this.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Coke Eyes doesn't allow liberal comments anymore I'm done reading his blog. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

“”The NASA DNA find does give more support to the Hydroplate Theory, though Callahan and his colleagues probably would never admit it. By that theory, asteroids and meteoroids came from earth to begin with. The Great Flood happened when a subcrustal ocean broke through the crust and sent a powerful jet of water into the stratosphere. With and in that jet went a lot of loose mud and rock. Some of those rocks carried trees, shrubs, and bacteria with them. And about one percent of the total weight of water, mud and rock escaped earth’s gravity. Most of that debris lingers in space to this day. (Much of the water fell to the moon, Mercury, and Mars.)

THIS IS WHAT CHUCKARSE ACTUALLY BELIEVES. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is what chuckie says to himself to convince himself the lie he tells is true. I genuinely doubt even he truely believes it, he knows he is lying and inventing things but it allows him to reconcile his 'beliefs' with reality - which unfortunately keep showing him and the other creatards up for the foolw they are. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lord, Hydroplate Theory. I didn't read the blog (no time, but also no pressing interest), but I think he used that on CP to explain possible extraterrestrial life on other planets - it all came from Earth! --Sid (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is disheartening that people so stupid can get advanced degrees and have successful careers. Anyway, anyone know the cumulative mass of the asteroid belt? Surely it must rival, if not Earth, at least the moon, which is an awful lot of rock to suddenly be jettisoned from the planet. DickTurpis (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do Christie fundies actually have problem with the consept of extraterestiral lifeforms, couldn't they just claim that it was made by God™, too? I don't get what the problem is. --★uːʤɱ pirate 13:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it would imply that we are not so special in the universe; it is really a matter of extreme pride.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, there's probably more anecdotal and photographic evidence for UFOs and ETs than there is for pods of dinosaurs, but you can bet which one Terry will say is wrong. (Disclaimer - I never there were UFOs or ETs, kay?) --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that I have to abandon all logic with those people. --★uːʤɱ federalist 08:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The total mass of the asteroid belt is 4% that of the Moon. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Wow, I'm surprised. I always thought the asteroid belt was about 500,000,000 miles of sizeable rocks. Surely that would cumulatively add up to substantially more than 1% or so of the Earth. Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? DickTurpis (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

He is right, it is around 4% of the Moon's mass[5]. What one has to remember is the asteroid belt is very sparsely populated and that the asteroids themselves are spread over such a huge volume of space, you have to be precise in your targeting just to reach one of them. This is why all our probes can pass safety through the belt on their way to the outer planets. It isn't anything like in Empire Strikes Back.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC lots) Given that this is a man who believes dinosaurs walk (ok, swim) amongst us, are you really that surprised? --PsyGremlin講話 14:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I love how he equates NASA finding complex organic molecules in carbon rich C-type asteroids to actual bacteria, shrubs, and trees. Of course we have learned of an abundance of complex organic molecules in interstellar space;[6] I'd love to see how he possibly explain that with the Hydroplate "Theory". The more we discover about the universe, the more absurd creationist "theories" become and the more convoluted their replies have to be in order to fit the square peg of the evidence in their silly 6000 year old magical universe round hole.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So "NASA DNA FIND CONFIRMS HYDROPLATE THEORY" while evolution with it's mass of evidence is still just a fairy tale. Standards of evidence are seriously imbalanced. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A more general headline could be, "SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY CONFIRMS CRACKPOT THEORY; SQUARE PEG FITS ROUND HOLE PERFECTLY" ^{ONE / TALK} 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Haw, haw. It's NephilimFree's lunar bukkake theory. I think he deleted all his videos after so many people debunked him, but I can't believe people like TerryH can believe it's possible. As if water jettisoned at such high speeds to be free of Earth's gravity wouldn't vaporize/evaporate into the atmosphere. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So what's the real story? Seems like the kind of thing BoingBoing would be all over, but I haven't seen it over there yet and I can't seem to find it elsewhere. --Roofus (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It has long been theorized that chemistry inside carbon rich asteroids allowed for the building of complex organic molecules, including amino acids. The problem is we weren't sure if these molecules were truly being created in the asteroids (or comets) or were just external terrestrial contamination. The most recent research found that indeed such molecules are being assembled in the asteroids themselves through non-biological processes, including the molecules adenine and guanine. You may recognize those names as they are two of the nuclease components of DNA.

The "big deal" is that it adds to the hypothesis that many of the organic molecules needed to create the first self-replicators came from space, and were delivered to Earth via meteorites, which were in turn responsible (indirectly) for the origin of life.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And Karajou is Columbo!

There's no sneaking one past this guy! You've been found out^img, BradB! AKA RobS and TracyS and hence PsyGremlin! Phiwum (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What an idiot. --Sid (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And Ken is Clouseau: Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.^img

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's telling that the first order of business in the post-Rob era is to effectively close down the Community Portal. --Sid (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Let's make a panel consisting of only us so we can make rules" - isn't that what it is now, and his only reason is to start deleting pages? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, no Brad isn't me. But hey, if that's what fuels their paranoia, more strength to them. Best of all is Ken still spouting the sock lie when I e-mailed him on all three of his e-mail addresses to inform the lying skunk that Tracy was not a sock of Rob. --PsyGremlinParla! 08:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm to young to get these references, can't we use Monk or somethin'? --★uːʤɱ soviet 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Heretic! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Heretic indeed! Go buy one of the Columbo box sets, and while the remake is far from the real deal, at least watch the recent Pink Panther movie. --Sid (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The umpteenth billionith prediction of CP's demise…

…I think the latest burst of behaviour, backstabbing and nonbonhomie is the last desperate burst of X-Rays from CP as it finally tips over the event horizon of the mass of bigotry, hate, and barely suppressed homoerotica and near-pedastry that they, themselves, created. Of course, due to those pesky time dilation effects CP will never actually hit the bottom of the gravity well, but it will certainly slow down in a steady, conservative geometric way that, in the end, will result in CP giving every appearance of either being trapped in amber or, if certain wild speculations about time travel are correct, trapped in an endless cycle of ponies, insights and general non-relevance. (Yep, you guessed it, Futurama is on, wonderful where you can get your insights from).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CP is already dead. All you're seeing here is the last vestiges of metabolism winding down. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but the advantage to my analogy is that it employs those two bastions of liberal deceit: Black Holes and Relativity.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CP has always been some category of undead. It's a site the internet ignores until some new "insight" briefly breathes life into it. I think the inevitable fate of CP is that a cadre of parodists will manage to curry enough favor with Andy that they'll populate the entire upper echelons of the site. From there, they'll be able to exercise enough muscle to roust Ken, Anger Bear, and any other "legitimate" sysops that remain. After that, it'll be all parody, all the time. And nobody will notice the difference. Some would argue that this has already happened. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That raises a question - when was CP actually alive? My guess would be for about a week or two after it started, but that's just a shot in the dark. -Lardashe

Back in the day, when the homskollars were copy-pasting from their creationist textbooks with exuberance, CP was doing tolerably OK. Then TK happened to them. I wonder what all those original homskollars think of CP now, since many of them have probably graduated from university now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CP will stay alive (a functioning website) until the day Andy for whatever reason decides he no longer wants to pay for the bandwidth and server costs of hosting it. That may be years down the road because despite the site being a money sinkhole for him; his own pride will keep him devoting resources into this particular case of Wingnut Welfare, as shutting it down is an admission of failure.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CP was really only alive between March and May 2007 - after Andy went on his publicity tour and before TNOTBK. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CP won't die until Andy says so, even if he the last man standing. However, it's days of growth are far behind it. It's going to remain as it is for some time to come - the 4 remaining sysops, TerryH linkspamming his crap, Jpatt seems to be losing interest, and a crowd of parodists, all trying to cosy up to Andy, in order to get rights. If anything, it's going to be worse than during TK's time, if only for the short term, with Karajou checkusering everybody and blocking anybody who dares speak out of turn. The only thing that could possibly see a CP revival is Pres Bachmann. If Obama wins another term, CP is going to leap so far to the right and to become unintelligible.

Alternatively, Ken will kill Andy and take over the wiki for himself. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will he wear his skin as a suit? Vulpius (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen photos heard rumours that Ken would have to kill Andy, Ed, Kara and Terry in order to have enough skin to fit him. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"It puts the Hitler picture on the front page or it gets the hose again!" --Phentari (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost. "It puts the Hitler on the main or else it gets the hose again." Stile4aly (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mobocracy, democracy,...

Out of a sudden Ken discovered the idea of voting about stuff - of course it is not an important item, but he put to vote an action which he usually performs unilaterally: archiving of a page^img.

At this moment, it's a split vote: Conservative, Jcw, JamesWilson and AlejandroH are pro, contra are your own RonLar, RobertE, JDWpianist, and MarkGall.

The latter makes the most interesting observation:

But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote".

So, let's check revision 897475 from Aug 5, 2011 of the debate: Should RobS lose his Sysop rights? which I've got saved per chance...

Rob's supporters: KBarnett, MRellek, Sid 3050, MarkGall, SamHB, IanR, TerryB, IeuanApGriffith, Davidspencer, CamilleT, GuidoF, WesleyS, JarradD, MaxFletcher, Orsay, WilliamB, KarenWu, MatthewQ, Ameda, CPalmer, CharlieJ, TracyS, JanW, John01 and Rras.

Not 30+, but at least 25 editors. Needless to say that I expect everyone on this list to be blocked as sock of Rob!

And who were Conservative's supporters:

Conservative, Karajou, Bclough, NickP, SeanS and HP.

Thanks God no troll in this lot!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just read through your interactions with Ken, and you are just beating the shit out of him. I have seldom seen a more brutal drubbing enacting so decisively in an episodic manner.--^talk 06:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! One has to be very persistent when nailing jelly to a tree. The result is usually not very satisfying, generally one has shown that it was indeed jelly... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

Situational awareness fail --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was a painter I suppose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was so pleased with me, I moved it to wigo :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the funnier examples of Ken not giving a shit about anything else other than his own whoring of the front page. Also, why should people add to the "real list" - is there a fake list we don't know about? --PsyGremlinHable! 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too. I was seconds away from creating an account and asking where the real list is. --★uːʤɱ heretic 13:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"To the victor go the spoils" WIGO

So two out of the three edits were oversighted before capture. Can anybody fill us in? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or were the oversights the point of the capture? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to capture the deletion of the archives... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah, Ken definitely did not make it clear that his little vote was also about deleting all the old archives (which, conveniently, were mostly complaints about him). --Tabrcg23 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course he didn't. This is kenny and karajerk we're talking about. You don't expect any kind of honesty from either of them do you? Nobs, for his faults, seemed relatively straight. anger bear and kenny boy wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and tickled them under their collective chins. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's only one question I have for KaraLiarLiarPantsOnFire to answer: If TracyS and JenniferD are socks of Rob - how did they connect to CP from a dial-up service in South Africa? They didn't go through a proxy - it was a direct dial-up connection. Therefore Karajou is a lying sack of shit. Which begs the question - why did Andy remove Rob's checkuser rights? Was he in on Brian's little plan to drive Rob out? --PsyGremlin講話 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As likely that angerliarliarpantsonfirebear and kennymanchild were both socking up madly and andy either knew it or angerbear dripped his grimma tales in andys ear to disguise the fact. By stopping Rob checkusering then he couldn't present evidence of the deceit of the 2 of them to andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that Conservative could run a sock without everyone knowing. He's such an incompetent writer that I just can't imagine him successfully changing his writing "style". Phiwum (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I got Checkuser result from July 17 that says RobSmith and Joaquin Martinez edit from the same IP. It's quite large, being that it has contribs from two sysops. I'm having trouble copy pasting it to word doc or in email to show Andy. Any suggestions? nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Don't debase yourself and try to grovel your way back in. Karajou evidently lied in order to convince Andy to demote you and it worked. I can't see Andy reversing himself and I can't see why a proud man would give a shit about whether he has sysop status on that pathetic site (though I understand you see more value in the site than I do). If I were you, I'd say to hell with it. Phiwum (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maintain your dignity Rob, write a letter explaining why you can no longer be a member of the site and resign. That is the honourable thing to do. Damo^Hi 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It comes down to this: I, like cp:Andrew Schlalfy, edit under my real life identity. Two anonymous users have posted potentially unflattering, and openly false allegations about myself. I am a long time, good faith, established user. Mr. Andrew Schlalfy needs to decide between allowing anonymous trolls to post slanderous material about a living person, and allowing that person to respond. He needs to decide quickly. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 17:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he has decided. Too bad for you. Phiwum (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might get a bit interesting if Rob decides to up the ante in this game - assuming that I understood the implications of his comment correctly... --Sid (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on Rob, have you not been watching the same website as we have these last 4 years? Andy won't care at all about any of that. The decision has been made. You are now a liberal. Welcome. Damo^Hi 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, get your evidence together. With help from members of a vandal site if they are willing to help you. And then send it to Andy. Explain the situation in clear terms. Explain to him that you still believe in his project and all you were trying to do was to improve it and make it a viable resource. Copy all your evidence to Andy. Then wait for his reply. When he shits on you, as I expect he will because to do otherwise would be to admit he made a mistake and I can not see andy EVER doing that, walk away. Your parthian should be to andy, copied elsewhere if you wish, explaining your reasons. Then walk away, shut the door behind you and find somthing worth your efforts. I know others here really don't like you but as I said before I have gained a degree of respect for you, crawling to andy to try to stay does not befit you. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

AngryBear's always demanding that folk take him to court. Why not call his bluff with a defamation or slander or whatever suit? He did say you were sockpuppeting, (if) that's not true it might have an adverse effect on your business. Pippa (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you honestly imagine trying to prove damages from this silly incident? "It might have an adverse affect on my business" isn't the strongest argument. Phiwum (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no lawsuit here, so if that's what you are thinking; forget it. Damo^Hi 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(removes tongue from cheek) Pippa (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

wp:WP:BLP exists today because a bio was created to slander and discredit a source I was using. When the source complained, Wikipedia was changed forver with BLP [7] I know this game, and I know it well.

I have been trying internally to bring Conservapedia up to the minimum standards of editing conduct that most all wikis require of users. Now, two anonymous sysops have openly made false claims about my person, character, and integrity. The Conservapedia project needs to determine quickly whether it's going to allow anonymous trolls to post false information about a living person or hold those abusers to account. Andy Schlalfy repeatedly has stated accountability of editors is mandatory, begining with the requirement editors use their real first name and last initial. He has stood by this requirement as recently as one month ago. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize that means nothing, right? Yeah, Andy pretends there is accountability, but it's entirely obvious to everyone he doesn't mean a word of it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really, really cute that you refer to "the Conservapedia project" as though such a thing exists. There's a blog based on wiki software. It belongs entirely to Andrew Schlafly, who pays all the bills, sets all the standards, and makes all the rules. He lets a few other people play on his blog as he sees fit. That's not a "project" in the sense of the word as you're using it. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob's reaping what he sowed. As possibly the most McCarthyite^{(what about FOIA?)} admin on the website, he deserves all he gets: nothing. All that's happening is a slightly different faction of nutters has taken over the madhouse. Those with "respect" for him need to wake up. The man's a total waste of space as is 99.9999999% of the blog. Pippa (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I used to know someone, female as it happens (and yes that is important) who knew Nicky Crane VERY well when she was younger. Nicky was scum, for a long time he was utter scum. Then he revealed what many of us already knew for a long time and turned his back on his past and they hunted him for that.
Finally he died of AIDS. His views whilst in the closet were the views of scum but eventually he had the courage to come out. For that I had respect for him. I didn't like him, but I had respect. You don't have to like someone to respect their integrity. You may disagree with me, fine. For what has happened recently I have respect for Rob. You can disagree, that is your right to do so. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like or respect Rob, but seeing him get shat upon for indrocucing sysop accountability, demoted and then having him beg for Andy to admit he made a mistake (like that's going to happen) has become painful to watch. My advice for Rob: save whatever self-respect you have left and quit. Seriously, CP really isn't worth this. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you got demoted and the guy who puts a flying kitty on the main page didn't. Doesn't that tell you something? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Engage indignation mode, JPratt will comply.

People like JPratt ought to be denied the vote, they're so pathetically easily manipulated. Today he's told to be angry about a government meeting in Hawaii^img and of course he obliges.

Someone really needs to sit down with him and explain in words of one syllable that:

1. Civil servants don't magically become democrats once a democratic administration is instituted.
2. These sorts of meetings happen every year, and they have to happen somewhere. If you check the department of Indian affairs website you can find that department has this sort of event around four times a year, and most often in places that aren't as near a beach. Every single one has involved some of the panellists having to fly there.
3. You can also learn from the website that most of the panellists are from Hawaii, so gosh you've probably saved some money there.
4. Considering that even a minor US senator requires security when appearing at a public event, for small events like this one it may well be economical to have the event where the senator is going to be anyway.
5. The money for these events doesn't appear out of thin air, it's budgeted for. The funds for these events come from the department of the interior budget.
6. Even if you cut the department of the interior's budget down to nothing, you'd have only reduced the deficit by 1%. Civil servants meeting in sunny climes isn't exactly what's putting the US in debt.
7. When people are telling you to be angry, they're probably trying to manipulate you. And it's working.

The problem is even if you could hammer these little nuggets of critical thinking through JPratt's perpetual haze of stupidity, there's still a million people just like him and they all vote. You're doomed. DOOOOOOMED. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Doomed. Ace^{of Spades} 23:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good summing-up there. Of course, proper critical analysis has never been Mr Pratti's strong point. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Understatement of the millennium. DickTurpis (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was immediately reminded of this. «-Bfa-» 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was as smart as you, I could have mentioned that by law a single Republican has to attend. Also, these plans were likely made well before the credit ceiling slipnot. Relax In addition, you guys will never get conservatives, face it. Your stale liberalism keeps you all smug. It is a beautiful case of reckless spending, on topics that they neither understand nor really care for. But it is in the Democrat's district, for a day. Couldn't possibly be held somewhere cheaper, like Best Western. ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.154.230.254 / talk / contribs}

Hi, JPratt. Not that we don't enjoy your little visits, but try not to sign your posts as other users, mmm'kay? You could have your very own account, but then I suppose you'd be in danger of Kendoll kicking you off CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say mum. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site}

So, there is something I didn't look for

Two questions come to mind looking at this^img:

1. How big are the chances that that guy actually had the legal name of Bob Marley?
2. How can you impersonate somebody (a) without making a single post and (b) how can you impersonate somebody successfully if the guy you are trying to impersonate is dead for more than 30 years? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently I am working with a guy called Michael Jackson. There are lots of people with names similar to famous people, Bob Marley is not too unusual although a Barack Obama, Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann would be suspicious. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've met two Miles Davises and a Michael Jackson. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

According to How Many of Me, there are two Bob Marleys in the U.S. Worldwide, who in the hell knows. And I too know a Michael Jackson. He owns the local pub. A common name really. As are James Bond and George Bush--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the really sad part of CP. Bachmann could hear about them, and think "Hey, these sound like my kinda folks", creates an account and gets blocked by Kara as a sockpuppet. And with no e-mail, she can't even appeal it. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an awesome website, Colonel. Unfortunately, now I must forcibly remove myself from the computer if I want to accomplish anything today. Junggai (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I know many other similarily addicting sites. As for Michael Jackson, over 10000.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh only "one or less" of me in the US. Neat. See it helps to have Szvrkzy as a first name. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I worked with a Gary Moore and a Dave Stewart; neither of them played the guitar though... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap on a stick, there are 8 or fewer people in the US with the same name as my cat. What kind of sicko names their child 'Tigger'??? Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Saving for posterity

Andy's prediction^img which will vanish into the ether the second he's wrong. Also, I wish he'd stop saying "Conservapedia" when he means "I". --PsyGremlin講話 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I love Ron Paul (I was serious, not sarcastic) don't think he is going to win. I would vote for him, but I think he isn't popular enough with the crazy conserv type. Bachmann may have a chance though. Although Romney or Rick Parry (thanks, Colbert) are the more likely winners.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken does that too - calling himself Conservapedia that is. He burns stuff too. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's just repeating what the betting markets are saying. Hardly his prediction. DickTurpis (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Iowa Straw Poll taking place will inspire someone to fix the errors on their page about it. (And if not, perhaps my posting here will.) Random surfer (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Terry quick link-whores that one^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Bachmann won with Perry 2nd and Pawlenty 3rd. Let's see how fast CP covers its ass here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy: they just unilaterally declare victory. After all, they got one out of ten right...amazing accuracy! --Phentari (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Usually, when wrong, Andy reverts and/or deletes the offending material. This time hes doubleing down and proclaiming his failure to the world.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First test case for blocking review panel

User:Conservative blocked me for unarchiving the Community Portal, reverted me, then unarchived the Community Portal himself, then unblocked me. However, I still can't edit because my IP remains blocked. And the notice read's "You may contact Conservative or one of the other administrators to discuss the block," which of course is complete bull. This abuse is outrageous. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This abuse is outrageous. Welcome to Conservapedia. -- Nx / talk 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't know when to quit, do you? Give it up, liberal. You're experiencing life as a peon at CP, and now you're a peon you can't change it. Either sit back, crack a beer and laugh at the spectacle, or go do something else. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, BOO-FUCKING-HOO Robert. For Christ's sake, will you fucking listen to yourself? How many thousands of blocks did you let stand under the EXACT SAME CONDITIONS, many of which never even made a single goddam edit to the wiki, before you decided a few weeks back to play the good guy/martyr? And now that you get caught up in the same bloody net that you were completely complacent about from 2008 until very recently, it's a huge injustice? Are you that stupid, or just fuckin' delusional? Jesus Christ. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Years of watching TK, Karajerk et al do exactly this... and nothing. As soon as it happens to you, you're on here whining about how unfair it is. You're right, of course, but I'm afraid you'll find no sympathy here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:What they said Robert, eventually you'll get your indefinite block and perhaps then the other editors at wikipedia won't see you as one of the dickish sysops at this strange outlet Conservapedia, but as a martyr for free speech. Mission completed. But my compassion is strangely dampened, too. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to reality. They're ousting anyone with different ideals and want to make up rules that they couldn't even follow in the first place. The circlejerking continues as they censor anything that shows how abusive they can be. Rob, I still think you should try, civilly, to continue your pursuit of accountability on CP, but you should know by now that they'll never accept you back again. They threw you under the bus, and Andy is standing on the sidewalk watching until he can take your wallet and walk off with it. In some cases, you deserve it for all these years of being either blind or just as apathetic as the others. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fully deserved. --Robledo (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

First they banned the liberals..... --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Look what happened as soon as I showed (a) CP sysops lack technical competence to do range blocks, and (b) CP sysops lack technical training to read Checkuser (See User:RobSmith/Checkuser results show RobSmith and Joaquin Martinez use same IP). It all degenerated into CP sysops carrying on their treasured personal disputes rather than policy development and technical improvement. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 21:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Look what happened when the sun went down. It came back up again. Look what happened when I dropped this book. It fell on the floor. Look what happened when I jumped into the pool. I got wet. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What if the pool were empty? :\ Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and if you'd have spoken up sooner, you'd have been banhammered sooner. The people in charge at CP are angry idiots. They've bought in to political and religious ideas that are purpose designed to appeal to angry idiots. Why on earth would you want to be part of that whacko group? Have you ever stopped to consider what your fellow sysops believe, and what would happen if you earnestly told any of your friends that you believe those things too? Summon the last shreds of your dignity and get the hell away from CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That is tempting, but my Partian shot in Wikipedia was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was born. Conservative & Karajou need to read that:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[Note, is says "page", which includes talk pages] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR).

I've been here before. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know we're the major audience for CP and also the place where people can be free to actually speak their mind about what's happening there, so it makes sense that despite the wide lack of sympathy, you'd come here to tell us about stuff and complain. And of course it's been really interesting getting the inside scoop on things and seeing how you've evolved from what many widely considered just another ignorant and dictatorial sysop into someone who decided to try to find the problems, make them public, and solve them.

So I was wondering, more broadly, Rob, about whether you feel you've learned anything or been changed by this. I don't mean to be nasty with that, since it may seem condescending. But I've never been clear since your efforts started whether you felt like your treatment and the recent antics by other sysops have been anomalous, or whether you've just now finally realized how terrible the atmosphere has been for years. Do you regret, Rob?--^talk 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of pulling a Godwin's, I think the thoughts running through Rob's mind at the moment might be a rough parallel to the poem "First they came..." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, and at the risk of personal catharsis, I'll lay my cards on the table. Since childhood I wanted to write history, make my words live forever. I never dreamed Wikipedia would give me that opportunity. I'm still in the top 2700 most prolific all time contributors, of 135,000,000 registered accounts. When I was banned from Wikipedia, I was urged by other exilees at WikipediaReview to help tear it down, but I argued that would only discredit my own contributions to it. I had a vested interest in its success, despite the way I was treated by powers that be. I'm in the same position now. Conservapedia has my clean versions of my Wikipedia contributions (most of my WP contribs are about 75-80% intact after all these years). Do I want to see idiots like Ken discredit my, and User:FOIA's work? That's the immediate problem to deal with. But I'm confident my work will survive in whatever form, hosted wherever, on its own. Ken seems a little more receptive to collaborating with others. He, like Karajoou, just never learned how. They both were shown the door at Wikipedia before they ever learned the basics, NPA, CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:BATTLE, WP:POINT, etc. Ken wants to learn, Karajou may be incorrrigible, but thank God Karajou doesn't contribute rank content that discredits the site.

Both these guys just need to learn basic editing practices. They learned in Wikipedia a sysop's duty was to banhammer idiots like themselves, and they never progressed beyond that. They need our help, not our animosity. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nowt wrong with ambition. Shame you're batshit insane. --Robledo (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. Thank you, I didn't know your motivation or backstory.

So you think that this sort of thing is an exception, not a result of the basic dynamics of Conservapedia as set up by Andy Schlafly? To many of us, what has happened is the inevitable result of a system set up to reward ideological purity over reasonableness and intelligence - why bother to learn to deal with people or compromise or be nice, after all, when you will be punished for it by never being promoted?

I understand the "need our help" impulse, of course. That's why I edited CP for a long time as Tom Moore, trying to force recognition of opposing views and the problems with authority. But since I left, I have grown to understand that because there is a basic flaw in the entire structure, it's a poisoned field where little good seed will grow but the weeds will always flourish. Maybe you will change your mind too. Either way, though, thank you for putting your cards on the table.--^talk 00:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"They need our help." No Robert, they don't. They are doing exactly what Andy wants them to do in order to build the blog that he wants to build. Please, baby, please, disabuse yourself of the notion that CP is anything else but an outlet for the ideas of Andy and anybody else that he chooses to let come along for the ride. It might be running Mediawiki, but it's not a "wiki" as you seem to understand the term. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 00:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand. You seem to think that this fringe lunatic blog, whose chief purpose is to provide us with something to laugh at of an evening, is just in need of a little spruce up and suddenly it'll be a fantastic educational resource. Are you really so delusional? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing of Rob complaining when it finally happened to him reminds me of a story in "The demon-haunted world" about Middle-Ages witch hunts... It starts when someone accuses a woman of being a witch. The authorities capture her, and she goes to trial by the Inquisition. But the trial is a farse. As soon as she is accused of witch-craft, she is dead. If another woman testifies in her defense, then she must also be a witch. Anyone who testifies that they saw the alleged witch just taking a stroll when she was supposedly flying and eating babies, is told that witches can put spells on people. When a husband testifies that on the night in question his wife was lying next to him, the judge calmy informs him that a demon had taken the place of his wife. There is no evidence that can save her, because the authorities can't be wrong... otherwise people may start doubting that they are doing God's work... that they are incompetent. They don't see a reason why she wouldn't be a witch. The system depends on her being a witch. Then a confession is obtained via torture. In the process, the witch gives the names of other witches... and so on the accusations spread. Other witches are brought to trial, more names are given. The Inquisitors never fear they are wrong. Every witch must be put to death.

Until, one day, one of the Inquisitors is named a witch... no matter how hard she pleas, no matter how often she points out that she was with the other Inquisitors when the alleged crimes were committed... there is no evidence that can save her. She is now a witch. Danoso (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's Andy's definition of a sysop^img. They're basically body guards. RW calls them "goons and thugs". I striped out the word, "elite" here^img. Let's see if it survives. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 00:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Danoso, did you see Goya's Ghosts? Great movie! RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 00:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My own confusion over your attempts to "fix" CP is similar to the above, but also slightly different. Other people ask you why you bother trying to help them out when they are so obviously completely resistant to any "help" or change, but my thoughts go a bit deeper; Conservapedia is effectively a tainted name. Why try to save it? You could completely turn around every single asshole on CP, turn Karajou into a caring, helpful sysop who works with patience and care with every user, turn Conservative into a thoughtful, insightful editor who works well with others, unlocks all his articles, and encourages discussion. Andy could become a fantastically helpful and nice person who will get into actual debates with people where he'll throw out well thought through and researched points, actually *listen* to replies, and concede points when he's lost. You could turn Conservapedia into a paradise of editing where people don't just *feel* welcome, but actually *are* welcomed and helped by every sysop on the site.... but it's still "Conservapedia". Mention it to anyone, and if they know it at all, they'll think "Oh, that site where they're rewriting the bible to be more conservative?" or "Oh that place that harassed Lenski because they're too stupid to understand basic research methods" and so on. "Conservapedia" is a tainted name. There is literally nothing that can be done to change that at this point. X Stickman (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly Rob, whilst I laud your attempts to reform CP, I honestly can't shed a tear over your treatment there. They did the same to Philip, Tim, Justine, Dan, HelpJazz, BrianCo, and let's face it, you didn't speak up then. You're just a victim of Niemoller syndrome. CP sysops aren't interested in change or reform. They're just interested in maintaining their own little power bases and keeping their noses firmly up Andy's ass. Bear in mind that Kara sided with Ken, somebody he has openly accused of being a troll and of being kdbuffalo (hell, and how many people have been blocked for less by that jerk?), that should tell you everything you need to know. You can troll your nipples off at CP (al a TK) just as long as you toe the party line.

That's basically a long way of saying it's time to cut your losses, walk away from CP and let us have an update for Conservaleaks. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it you have either two options. One is to say that you knew that this would happen but didn't want it to, and that you didn't speak up before because you knew where you would end up. The other is to act all surprised that the abuses plainly visible for all to see at CP would ever be applied to you If you choose the second rout then you need another explanation for why you didn't try to fix CP before, preferably one that doesn't make you look like a jerk. --Opcn (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, of which of your CP articles are you most proud? Because I'll tell you what's most likely to happen to them - trolls, sock puppets and wandals are likely to begin ruining them and inserting gibberish or nonsense into the page, and without your attention or sysopery, the articles will likely be made a mockery. No-one else at CP will give a shit. Your work has no sentries there, and legions of flying kitties will invade the entire site soon enough. There's no point to your outrage - all you can do is stand back and realize that the entire place is one of the best jokes on the internet. DogP (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good comments, all. And Stickman's got it exactly right, it's like trying to rehab the name of Chrysler. You can bring in a new CEO, start a new product line, istitute this reform or that, and in the end it's still a Chrysler. As to my work there, I'm not concerned, it's aboout time there be collabotative editing, an open wiki, and end of sysop fiefdoms. That's what this battle was all about. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 16:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative editing? You must be joking. When the leader of the site makes an edit like this^img with no comments on the talkpage section specifically on the subject, you know that the website owner doesn't care at all about collaboration. You are wrong to think that Karajou and Conservative are errant sysops of CP, they are the personification of the culture Andy approves of. Damo^Hi 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

^-- This sums it up perfectly. --Sid (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Then go make your own conservapedia. This oone isn't changing. And I don't see anything wrong with the name Chrysler >.>--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘fuck me Rob, are you REALLY saying that a bunch of <broadgeneralisationalert>liberal, socialist, atheist vandals </broadgeneralisationalert> aren't all evil baby eaters? Shit. I'm off to dig up and barbecue my newly dead cats body and break my 30 years of vegetariansim if you have just said what I think you may have. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor kitty, my condolences. :( 30 years vegetarian? Sweet jesus, that's willpower. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Influential politicians and their careers

I don't know why, but this page is pushing my buttons more than anything in recent memory on CP. Now, Dwight Eisenhower, who commanded the forces that beat Germany along the entire Western Front didn't have much military influence.^img So much stupid. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 23:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the entry for Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, the Islamic socialist, the anti-American extremist who has succeeded in destroying the U.S. economy and bringing Nazism to the U.S. in the guise of health-care reform, is now rated "the least influential president in a century." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the over/under on how long it takes him to reduce the top part of the list to Ron Paul, Reagan, and Bachmann? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just Andy making shit up like the young mass murderer's fiasco and not realizing how easy it is to pick him apart. He keeps clinging to his "liberal = bad, conservative = good" ideal and tries to convert it through several "insights", so he can later go "oh, you're wrong! Because <link>". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I especially enjoy how Michele Bachmann is greater in influence over American politics and with a greater career than Dwight D. Eisenhower. She has done what again exactly? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This just in: Just because these guys are completely unknown doesn't mean they weren't incredibly influential.^img BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, like Andy said, "this is not an entry about titles." Ike's titles of 5 Star General and President of the United States were pretty much just given to him undeservedly. It's not like that RINO actually worked to achieve those positions or did anything significant that would cause people to promote him or elect him. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Practically anyone in history is a RINO compared to Andy's definition (or the definition of the far-right today). Someone please sock up and mention that Abraham Lincoln wasn't very influential as a lawyer, but later became an influential president. Maybe there's still a chance for Andy! άλφα^Talk 01:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Beyond things pertaining to the civil war, I've never learned much of anything about what Lincoln did as President. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I ever learned about his presidency outside of things pertaining to the civil war either, but since his election amounted to one of the major (short-term) catalysts for the civil war, that could amount to something. Although times are different, I just want someone to point out to Andy the potential for a lawyer that actually manages to achieve a political office. Sadly (well, probably for the best) Andy's electoral career seems to have failed. άλφα^Talk 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Obamacare

One of the interesting twists in the "Obama is not influential at all!" trainwreck: "Obamacare wasn't Obama's idea, and Obama didn't draft it. We just blamed Obama for it during the last few years because we're assholes."^img --Sid (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why admit that something is broken?

Conservative tells us a lesson about truth and honesty and what they mean for a conservative.^img I have never seen anybody discredit himself in a better way. The projection, oh the projection... --★uːʤɱ libertarian 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's list

Seriously, what do you have to do get dropped off Andy's Presidential list? Pawlenty says he's dropping out, which drops him to #12 on Andy's list.^img --PsyGremlinHable! 15:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy's been waiting for a guy who's been dead for a couple thousand years to come back... so a guy dropping out of the race, but still winning the presidency isn't too far of a stretch. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Terry Wobblebottom's greatest hits

I'd forgotten all about this one: An alternate supply of Carbon-14

Best line? "The Global Flood produced earthquakes of incalculable magnitude, enough to generate tremendous piezoelectrical potentials and essentially turn the earth into a fast-breeding nuclear reactor."

So 8 people, sailing in a wooden boat, weren't affected by spending a year on top of a nuclear reactor. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The RATE project's take on it was interesting. It amounted to, "This accelerated nuclear decay would, of course, produce enough heat to melt the Earth's crust, and we can't find any way around that, but we're still here, so that proves God took away the heat somehow." --Phentari (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, creation "science", where miracles balance every unbalanced equation. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit^^miracle=God? And then also: Bullshit=^miracle√God?--★uːʤɱ atheist 20:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Just think about that on its face. Enough electrical generation to literally melt the crustal plates of the Earth. Noah's boat would literally sit on a seas of superheated, boiling water (it wouldn't matter if its a few miles deep with the amount of heat energy being produced to slag the entire crust. Anything aboard that ship would be steam cooked within minutes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Voilà: Creationism solves the origins of roast beef. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 21:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly atheist evolutionists. Christians know when the god said to build an ark of gopher wood, that meant to build a fusion powered neutronium spaceship to escape the boiling seas of death. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear FSM that made me LOL.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Noah would have even lived long enough to be boiled - earthquakes on the magnitude that he talks about would kill him first Beck (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

BOOOOOOM. DOWN GOES ROB.

The Arsefly puts him on timeout. He's cooked now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who is going to conduct the 'review' into Robs behaviour. The only unbiased choice would be Karajou. Tielec01 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm picturing a Jinx-esque review that will take over a year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Previous "reviews" have consisted of the affected user brown-nosing Mr. Schlafly until he restores rights. Precedent includes the cases of TK and Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob should have just quit. He was doomed after the inevitable failure of Glasnobs/PeRobStroika and it would have looked better if he left on his own rather than being kicked out. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did try to encourage him. Hopefully he'll retire with a dignified parthian shot and accompanying email leak now, rather than attempt to cling on to past "glories" and brown nose his way back down the greasy cesspit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I am deeply saddened by this traumatic experience, I console myself by looking forward to the next clone of the site and the latest round of discussion group leaks. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When comparing Conservapedia to a country in this instance, I think we are talking Franquist Spain, not the USSR. It will be reformed when the king dies, not before. Rob should fire his Parthian, if he can, and come join the anti-communist brigade here. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy has a couple of years left in him I would imagine. If he left who would pay the hosting costs?Tielec01 (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More like a very, very pathetic online version of Alexander's empire - when the king dies, everything will fart apart, and the lieutenants will turn on each other to fight over the remnants. Röstigraben (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy always seemed more like a figurehead to me. TK held de facto power in the past, but now it's in the hands of the Manchild/Mallcop duo. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's happened so many times before, but it still amazes me. Karajou, fair enough, but it's unfathomable why Schlafly continues to protect, or even tolerate, Conservative. He can't possibly think that his articles are good, can he?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of things that Andy evidently believes that no one else would possibly believe he believes. Who knows, maybe he really does think Kendoll's articles are quality productions that add value to his site. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but Ken brings in page views, and Andy is a sucker for page views. -- Nx / talk 09:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect Rob to release any secret stuff, I don't think that's his style. He may edit here but at heart he's not one of us. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be a perfect time for JPatt to leak a load of stuff and blame it on Rob. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt that Andy thinks of himself as a great leader, a visionary. I wonder if he tried to run against Obama as head for the Harvard Law Review: his lack of any leadership-quality must have been obvious to everybody but one.

He'll try to rationalize his failure in the whole cause Rob vs. (more) evil as a sign of his sublime techniques: leading from the rear (ein guter Hirte führt von hinten), while he de facto just waited until he could spot a winner in the fight of his diadochi.

As this behavior always benefits the bigger bully, for everyone but Andy the result was clear: Bugler beats PJR, TK beats Bugler, TomS, etc., Karajou beats the rest to pulp (and jcw beats MaxFletcher).

What will happen now: Well, on a personal note Conservative will get rid of RonLar. Ed Poor will be delighted, as henceforth there is no one who claims that there is any sign of censorship on Conservapedia....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC) )

In the meantime, Ken wastes no time^img in teabagging the corpse of Rob's sysop rights. For the log, Tracy^img miraculously was a sock of PsyGremlin before she became a sock of Rob. I guess Max will lose his rights next and be banned just like you and everybody else who voted for Rob or complained on the Community Portal. Then they'll start rangeblocking the planet again. Olé! --Sid (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(PS: I obviously hadn't looked at the "Open Revolt" section above when I wrote this, so pardon the redundancy - then again, Ken's posting comes from another page, so he either moved it or spammed it all over the place. Oh well. --Sid (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) )

Clearly both Rob and Psy are in fact socks of this mysterious 'Tracy', whoever she may be. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

my theory is that Ken has Bipolar, and Rob is the other half of his personality LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not what bipolar means, idiot. --24.246.11.252 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An intriguing theory! Oh, and another thought! Now that Rob has become an unperson, this needs to be purged from the Conservapedia^img article: "RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas." I suggest that Ken should also burn the entire edit history of that article to be extra thorough. *nods sagely* --Sid (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey rob, a question. Did you ever have any direct communication with Andy about this whole affair, or did he just sit quietly on the sidelines, removing your rights without a word? This is important. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The funniest thing with all this is the fundamental dishonesty of Karajerk and Ken. Take TracyS for example - Kara blocked her as a sock of moi, presumably because she was from SA (and as you know, all Saffas are me and all Germans are Sid). I dropped him a mail politely pointing his error out and once he'd finished spitting invectives at me, he duly changed it... to sock of Rob. Dribbling idiot Ken then jumped on the bandwagon, calling Rob a loser (ironically after running away from the debate on that talk page) - and yet neither one can say for sure that it was a sock of Rob, which I doubt very much it was.

They are just lying through their teeth in an effort to disgrace Rob, which makes them despicable skunks and more worthy of being demoted than Rob - after all, who wants a lying son of a bitch running your wik... oh wait... Still, just to prove a point, JenniferD WAS me (I would have thought adding Mandela to an article would be a dead giveaway) and yet Kara blocks as a sock of Rob. Meaning that he had no idea that it was a sock of Rob, but used that as an excuse anyway. Lying filth. And yet he's the first to whine about people lying. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained two sections up, Rob said before that he had trouble editing from his ISP, so he might have to use a proxy. But gee golly, must be hard for Andy right now. All that squabbling and childish hatred exploding on his wiki-blog and the poor guy doesn't even have the time to checkuser the IPs and say who is who. Or, he could let it sit as is and wait until Koward or Ken to block Rob... and all is right with the world. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy will do nothing, he is useless. Like the time when Smeg Ed stuck the knife into Jessica's back (because TK was too much of a coward to bring it up, so he turned to his bosom buddy), Andy even had to ask what reason he should give for demoting her. Sadly, Rob is finished. Karajou - despite his lies - rules the roost now. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Karajou rules the roost now." Now all I can picture is Karajou strangling his rock hard cock. Thanks, prick. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll thank you to keep your filthy mind out of my metaphors. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Kara and Ken rule the show now. And Andy got the sysops he deserves: A power-hungry dictator, a barely coherent man-child, a petty jerk who thinks of himself as a wise educator, and an Ayn Rand fanboy who loves to pimp his blog. Oh, and parodists. Lots and lots of parodists. --Sid (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The saddest thing is, if Psy is right and they're all just lying to discredit Rob.... who are they doing that for? What is the audience they're trying to convince? Rob's supporters on CP? They're convinced they're all trolls and/or Rats anyway. Everyone else on the wiki? Who? There is no one else. The only people they can be trying to convince are themselves. X Stickman (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It always amuses me how self-proclaimed xtians and 'conservatives' are willing to lie at the drop of a hat for anything they think worth lying about. It can be homosexuality, it can be the US constitution, it can be same sex marriage, it can be aids ... anything basically. I have NEVER understood how they reconcile their claim to be xtain, and as such governed by the 10 commandments, whilst at the same time being willing to break each and every one of them at the first chance. I know the claim that if they repent their imaginary friend will forgive them but their imaginary friend can also apparently see into their hearts and read their motiv es and he ain't going to be fooled by the likes of kenny and karajerks lies. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Theological diversion

I think you're missing what the Chirstian gospel is, Christians are not governed by the 10 commandments ("sin shouldn't have power over you because you're not controlled by laws, but by God's favor." Another translation reads, "Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law". [8] Pretty clear language, Christians (a) are not under the 10 commanments, and (b) are not required to abide by the 10 commandments, and (c) are not judged by God according to the 10 commandments. Then again, this is a stumblingblock for many non-Christians). Christians are only encouraged to set an example to all the idiots who are too stupid to understand what God says. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you Rob. Do you think you're a good person? Squeeee! I got to channel Ray Comfort for a second! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Ten Commandments don't apply to Christians, how come so many of you get a throbbing hard-on at the thought of putting them up all over public space? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Christians are only encouraged to set an example to all the idiots who are too stupid to understand what God says." Gold. Which sect is that, Rob? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me then Rob, if the 10 commandments - the basic foundation of biblical law - are so unimportant why are so many fundie wingnuts, in both the US and elsewhere, trying to make me and others abide by them? Thing is, you are doing what all wingnuts do (which doen't surprise me I'm afraid) and that is you are picking and chosing which parts of the doctrine you feel applies to you. Going by your 'argument' there is no biblical prohibition against same sex marriage or in fact sex. It's the old testament and so doesn't apply any more. Isn't that correct? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, Rob, you do know that your view of the Ten Commandments is heretical, yes? As to Romans 6:14, I would recommend you read it in context next time. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob relies on what Paul says about the law. Let's see what Jesus has to say on the issue: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."[9] Rob, did you just teach that Christians could break the commandments? Yoritomo (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream position is that Jesus's death fulfilled most of the Mosaic Law, leaving only the moral law standing; but Rob seems to be confusing freedom from sin (i.e., forgiveness/salvation) with freedom from the law. The Radical Reformers made the same error; it did not work out so well for them. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is contradictory to the point of being almost nonsensical. Most modern "Christians" cherry pick these ideas and only apply moral laws as they see fit. Hey, lets be nice to everyone! Except those muslims and homosexuals and atheists and people who don't believe what we do, of course. For all their assertions that there is no such thing as moral relativity, this seems like a great example.Beck (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're painting with a pretty broad brush -- I'm not sure that "most modern Chrisitans" bear any particular animus to "muslims and homosexuals and atheists and people who don't believe what [they] do" in terms of how they live their lives and practice their fsith. A lot of the really loud ones do exactly what you say, but I'm not sure they really represent a majority. Certainly (anecdotal evidence warning) the Christians that I know best do nothing of the sort. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You really should not let the shysters and fanatics on the television turn you off to Christianity. They are the most visible representatives of that religion only because they make the most noise, something that incidentally was expressly forbidden by Jesus. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you took me the wrong way. All christains aren't bad - most of them are good people. Some people just twist their faith in ways to back up their bigoted views. They see a religion that teaches universal acceptance as a gay-bashing xenophobic hodgepodge of hate. Honestly though, trying to apply some of these 2000 plus old ideas to modern culture is impossible. If you look throughout history, people have used their faith to justify crazy things. Beck (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Most problems with Christianity boil down to the intersection of two distinct qualities within it: firstly, its radical or countercultural character, which lends it a comparatively narrow range of acceptable viewpoints; secondly, its universal character, which imposes the requirement that it eventually go mainstream. When it does, everyone in the society has to try and fit their views into the narrow range. This causes a Constantinian shift, in which the range of acceptable viewpoints remains fairly narrow, but the specific acceptable beliefs may change completely. Hence, you see a religion of peace and love turned into a religion of war and hate, because the warmongers and hatemongers made the most noise. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob's position is a not uncommon one among Christians, who differ greatly on the exact role of the OT law in the NT era. His position is similar to the dispensationalist one, although those who put a strong emphasis on Paul's antinominianism reach similar conclusions by very different means. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where you need to strike a difference between some Christians and other Christians. Some are guilty of bibliolatry, others less so, some other perhaps "commandmentolatry"? Then you realise that each one pulls No True Christian on the other and suddenly it would be hilarious if it wasn't also so sad and with real implications for how people are treated and respected (or not). ADK^{...I'll swirl your Swiss cheese!} 10:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And of course, remember than there aren't really Ten Commandments. There are dozens in the Bible. The Ten Commandments (with capital letters and everything) are just a selection grouped into a single passage and kept due to being a traditional grouping more than anything. And even the specific wording, ordering and selection depends on which general sect of Christianity you're talking about. It's a pick 'n' mix of about 12 different commandments that form the Ten depending on what part of the Church you grew up in. So Rob is actually quite right saying Christians aren't "governed" by the Ten - at least in so far as the Bible doesn't give a list of ten things that are the be-all and end-all trump cards over everything else. ADK^{...I'll abandon your kumquat!} 10:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what is so fun about being on the anarchist end of the politcal spectrum, and not the right wing libertarian 'anarchism' which some wingnuts have latched on to to justify their selfishness. No-one can tell me I'm not a true anarchist, if they try than all I have to do is quote Prudhon and by default I win the argument :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Ritual Decalogue. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the dispensational persepective is the only one that really makes sense. If we define Christianity as two main branches (ignoring Eastern rite orthodoxy for the moment) of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the big question is over the inerrancy of scripture. This reveals the schism between Andy Schlalfy, for instance, and Ken DeMeyer. Andy comes out of Roman Catholic tradition which does not rely on biblical inerrancy, but uses the Pope as the Vicar of Christ to interpret scripture for us. Whereas Ken DeMeyer, who come out of some Methodist tradition, claims the inerrancy of scripture, and condemns Andy's Conservative Bible Project as playing fast and loose with the Canon of Scripture.

Myself, I come from a German Catholic tradition, but I now know Martin Luther was correct. It is indeed a gospel of grace and not of works (or law-abiding, law ful-filling). Christians saved by grace have been around forever -- Moses was a murderer, King David was a murderer, yet both found grace & salvation; Job was "just and perfect"; Zachariah & Elizabeth, (in the early chapters of Luke) were "righteous" before Jesus was born. How is the only way a person can be declared "righteous"? By accepting the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as atonement for sin. What has Abraham, or father, found pertaining faith? Abraham beleived God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness. IOW, Abraham was a blood washed, born again Christian.

John chapter 1 says "No man hath seen God at any time", yet Exodus says "Moses spoke to God face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." Remember, a basic tenet bible beleiving Christians is, there are no contradictions in the bible. I generally spring this question on them, and if they can't explain it, they don't know their bible and haven't clue what they beleive in, or why. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly reconciled the way Dogma does it: "Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they're talking to themselves." ADK^{...I'll xerox your furry!} 17:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is simple: the difference between natural & sprititual, which any Christian knows. No natural man has seen God at any time; you must have "the mind of Christ". nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Back up a second, who is "Ken DeMeyer"? You made mention of the schism in belief between one Andy Schlafly and one Ken DeMeyer. I am aware of the former, but not familiar with the latter. Is he a famous Christian apologist? Does this person post to a website? Do they have a user name? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken DeMeyer == User:Conservative == RuyLopez == Peter Moore == Ken. He's the man of 1,000 names. --Roofus (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Interesting... in the past, Rob has gone to great lengths to protect the real life identity of User:Conservative. Going so far as to not even divulge the gender of said user. Seems awfully suspicious that he'd be willing to toss out an actual name so readily. Maybe Rob would like to confirm or deny your assertion. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He just did confirm it We've known for a while that Ken DeMeyer is Conservative. Rob is the only one who's talked to him in real life and called him by that name though. --Roofus (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... forget it. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

lol Roofus, Inquisitor was being deliberately obtuse for comedy. Everybody already knows who Conservative is. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob now feels the power of Andy's ignoring skills

"Thanks for your attention^img" says Rob, ever hopeful. Unfortunately, now he's going to enjoy the first fruits of his new found peonhood and just like Iduan his pleas will remain unheard. Good luck breaking through that impenetrable wall of silence, Nobbykins. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it so strange that Rob is aghast at his treatment at CP. Was he not paying attention when it was happening to all those around him? Ace^{of Spades} 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Leading by inactivity is Andy's watch-word. He shaped Conservapedia by poor negligence... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll be lucky if Andy gives him a "Thanks, I'll look into it and get back to you after reviewing the case" bullshit answer. Not sure if Rob is even serious about this - Andy hasn't said a word during the entire Rob/Ken/Kara war on his talk page, which generated dozens of replies in hours, so what makes him think this time will be different? --Sid (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It just occurred to me just how much Andy and Kendoll are kindred spirits in this regard. Andy is a bit more sophisticated about it, he'll "conduct a review" rather than being "not very active for the next 90 days", or he'll ignore it altogether rather than provide a snide and insulting non-answer complete with youtube links and a copy-paste from the Art of War in the original Chinese, but the spirit is very much the same. The message is pretty much "away with you peon, answering you is beneath me." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2)Andy's got to be the worst leader of pretty much anything I can think of. He willingly lets all this shit go on on his talk page, adding nothing to it, completely and obviously ignoring it by responding to other people about other things on the same page. Even if he is dealing with it in private correspondence (and I mean the broadest sense of the word "deal", as I'd bet Rob's pestering him with emails to do something, waiting for a reply), at least it looks good to show some public leadership, i.e. "this is being discussed off-wiki" etc. No wonder he did absolutely shit at the HLR and in politics. He's got absolutely zero leadership skills. Garçon^coffee! 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"It has been my belief til now that Mr. Schlafly believes in accountability^img" Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh harder. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, Rob, that whole " we don't ban users for what they say elsewhere" lie was out the wondow the second TK banned his first RW users for posting here, and reached its pinnacle of hypocrisy when Karajou banned someone for voting against Ed's sysopship at Wikipedia. Don't even bother bringing that up; they all know its a joke. Also, do you honestly think registering under the username "JohnD" is actual accountability? Citing CP's username policy as anything other than an excuse to block who they like is idiotic. DickTurpis (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a comment about that in the Community Portal that another fictitious username troll just deleted, to the best of my recollection it was "blocking because of membership in a vandal site was always illegitimate, and something TK invented out of whole cloth", or words to that effect. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 22:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you really not see the shadow of the vicious banhammering that's coming your way in the very near future? If were running JCW, I'd have done it already. One way or the other, you're out of there and Andy isn't going to raise so much of a finger in protest. I'd give you less than a week to live, if I'm reading the tea leaves right. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lordy, Andy actually replied, and it's the biggest backstab trolling^img imaginable. --Sid (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well done! A side-step par excellence (but I'm afraid, RonLar will get punished....) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, seriously. I mean, I'm sorry for you and all, but you had to see it coming. Did you think you were any different than those who came and went before you? Where were you when PJR made his stand? Or CPAdmin1?^img When LearnTogether was hounded off by TK, ditto for RJJensen. Andy didn't care or step in on their side. Why in the world would you think that you would get different treatment than they did? Refugee^{talk page} 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Prof Jensen is a good case study, and a precedent that relates to my case. Jensen, a very prolific and notable contributor (still ranks I think #3 ahead of myself all time, and he edited for barely one year) quit after another sysop (Andy) deleted a page he wrote. One time, one deletion by one sysop of another sysop (Andy didn't like a page on hyphenated Americans, American-Jews). When User:Conservative deleted & oversighted discussions I was involved in, I tried to alert User:Conservative to the problem he was creating in the sysop community. He backed off for awhile, but I see he was back to his usual self again yesterday. Meantime, Prof. Jensen has re-integrated himself quite well, it appears, in Wikipedia. I was thinking of trying to recruit him for Ameriwiki. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bwahaha. But like the Murphy's, Rob's not bitter^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Place your bets: On what day/time will Rob get banned from CP? (Eastern Time)

• 10 PM, 16 August 2011. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• 6 PM, 17 August 2011. --Horace (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rapture. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Place your bets: Who will deliver the coup de grace?

Andy.

User:Conservative

• I'm bucking the trend. I don't think Kendoll is going to like which way Rob's wind is blowing. Real names? Not for our Kenny. He'll see Rob swing before he lets that happen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jcw.

• With blessing from karajou. Ace^{of Spades} 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, good call Ace. I can see J-boy doing it a la Bugler to flex his muscles as a parodist to be reckoned with. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou.

• BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Seriously, how could you choose anyone else? --Horace (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Considering how many times he's tried blocking him just recently, I'm sure he'll jump at the chance... SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Karajou. Because he really really wants to. Refugee^{talk page} 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor

• He will do it under the guise of moderating. - π 23:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RobS

• Pistol. Closed room. You know the drill. DickTurpis (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And Rob is down for a bit

Hit by the big Man himself for a 90/10 violation, for a month. Sorry, I don't know how to capture a block log >.>

• 19:16, 14 August 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (application of the 90/10 rule) --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There you go.^img --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob: Tell me why I was desysopped.

Assfly: Fuck you, blocked 1 month.

NICE Andrew! RatMaster ^háblame 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the perfect way to welcome Rob to the land of Non-synops: Remind him he no longer can ignore the Ever-Present 90/10 Commandment--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I was about to post after SeanS'^img comment:

Please don't interfere, Mr. Schlafly can speak for himself; and it was Mr. Schlafly who just said we respect freedom of speech here, as well as authored the clause we do not ban for comments on other sites. Perhaps Mr. Schlafly is unaware of the censorship and violation of First Amendment Rights User:Conservative has been doing to my Free Speech Rights for the past several months. Why, User:Conservative just deleted the Archives of the Community Portal yesterday, violating how many users First Amendment Rights to criticize^img? RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 00:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You were going to tell somebody about respecting freedom of speech by telling them the statement they made shouldnt have been made...? How's that work?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, how does that taste? I hope you at least got a reach-around or something after getting fucked so badly. Couldn't happen to a better guy. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This one belongs in one of the CP-relatated entries:

• you heard it from the boss, discussions on wiki sysop "accountability" are "unproductive". Rob Smith 19:07, 14 August 2011 (EDT) [2]^img

after which I got a 90/10 violation. 00:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's andy telling you to shut up Rob.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop whining, Rob. That's what the 90/10 rule is for. You're only pissed because it was used against you. Where were you when everyone else got 90/10'd to death for the crime of asking awkward questions? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

EC That's CP doing what CP has always done since Day One. Only thing noteworthy about it is that you're so clueless as to think it's remarkable, somehow. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 00:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This kinda feels like Trotzki getting assassinated in Mexico after questioning Stalins concepts - the only difference being that the guy with the mail-functioning brain isn't dead this time ... and permanent revolution is now on the other side. --★uːʤɱ pervert 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So Andy just said criticizing someone is allowed? Wow, so, I guess users can criticize Andy openly now? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the power of conserva-hypocrisy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yah, deleting the Community Portal Archives is respecting free speech? I've lost all respect for the man. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 01:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, Rob, I'm getting sick of having go over this. Are you retarded or something? This is nothing more than CP being CP. It's Andy and his lackeys doing exactly what they've always done, with no cover, no shame and no remorse. How could any of this come as news to you? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So because your making a point about somebody else breaking rules its ok for you too?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• whines about Rob again*

Rob, perhaps you could use the assistance of RW for specific examples of abuse and unaccountability and compile it into one massive go (not a parthian shot) and since Andy now proclaims criticism is okay, you should go towards the restoration of the Community Portal. You're now a lowly editor with a "BAN ME" sign on your back, it's time to act defensively. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you don't come across as a parodist or even a disaffected contributor, like I was. You seemed to just want more power, but your cyber political games have seemingly fallen flat. I would have a lot more respect for you if you took on Conservapedia philosophically. Instead, you seemed more interested in a personal grudge with Ken. This beig said, I would support you now beng demoted to sysop here. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

NM, you were demoted in May. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Free Speech Rights"

(as written by Knobert Smith) Why do so many Yanks have such difficulty understanding what freedom of speech actually means? In essence even this uneducated Brit knows that it means the government is not allowed to stop you spouting your own views and opinions, ie you are free to criticize the government. It does not mean that a privately paid-for and hosted wiki-blog is obliged to leave comments on a talk page. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Infectious wiki disease

Have you noticed how quickly "incivility" has caught on as block reason du jour for getting rid of pesky peons? Demons Bradley imported it from aSoK during glassknobs and now it's spreading like wildfire. It might well displace the good old 90/10 as the go to banhammer reason for people who can't plausibly have the sockpuppet label pinned to them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the gentleman's gentleman makes no sense! I imported to where? aSK is the only place I have ever levied a block against another editor. I don't even have block rights at CP. LowKey (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) BTW, why do you keep going on about daemons?

Yes, but you came in and started censoring people's posts for "civility" reasons, just like you do at aSoK and it caught on. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) And it's because of your insanity about UFOs being demons. And there's nothing catchy to call you regarding your nuttier crystal skulls stuff

Oh goody, the goalpost game! So are we no longer speaking of blocks but of edits? Or both perhaps? Regardless; what censoring and where? The only posts that I have censored (and I am fine with calling it that) on civility grounds are on aSK!. What are talking about? I'll have to start calling you "No Sense Jeeves" because you are making no sense! Or maybe just Juvenile Jeeves because you seem incapable of identifying me without stooping to name calling. LowKey (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reality says Hi^img! You might want to investigate it some day. Also the best way not to be ridiculed is to stop believing ridiculous things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You may need to think about it a bit, but the reality is not what you claim it is. Since the logic escapes you, I will point some facts you may need to consider,as they contradict your comments. 1) That was not a block. Not a block. 2) It was not for civility issues but "personal remarks" REGARDLESS OF CIVILITY. I did not mention civility at all. Not for incivility. 3) It was as per CP's PRE-EXISTING POLICY and not imported from aSK at all. Not imported. 4) I used a pre-existing template. Not imported. 5) The edits that were replaced with the "Personal Remarks" template were edits by Sysops. Not "pesky peons". 6) The policy had already been invoked more than once by a sysop who seemed unwilling to enact it himself, so I did it. I was not importing anything. 7) According to the CP block log, of the last 300 blocks civility shows up 16 times. That's a squeek over 5%, which hardley qualifies it as the reason du jour or catching on quickly. 8) Civility featured as a block reason before that diff, so I cannot have imported it. Upshot: You commented that I imported "incivility" as a block reason from aSK, and that it has caught on quickly. Your comments are wrong on multiple points - ridiculous even - but if you have a good story who cares if is untrue? Not you, apparently. LowKey (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, somebody go over there and invite Bert Schlossberg to the Ameriwiki project. Tell him we're a start-up project, would love to have him, and we don't block for idiotic reasons like using a government computer. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Go do it yourself? We aren't you're fucking mail service. --Mikalos209 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't block for using a government computer? You mean you welcome socialists? Dear god! DickTurpis (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, Rob's blocked for a month.^img Andy got tired of his yapping about fairness and accountability and applied 90/10, a.k.a. "I don't like what I'm hearing" --Sid (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You'd think that by now, I'd have learned to catch up with the last few sections first before switching into wise-ass mode... --Sid (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kara's blocking policy proposal

I like how he manages to sound^img sane and insane at the same time.

I mean, the "Block Proposals" sections sounds mostly sane... until you reach the "offender will submit written apology to ASchlafly as a condition for reinstatement" part (for "causing a fight"), at least. But the top half? The rules that will get you blocked? Hahaha, those are just a simple copy of his "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITEEE!" user talk page threat. Vague as fuck and completely opposed to change - everything open to interpretation by those in control.

Yeah, this whole blocking reform will go well! --Sid (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is how religions start? Once there was a real Arsefly who was engaged in his wiki world and made rules for conduct within it. Then the world became too large for him to manage alone, so he appointed others to help him in his endeavours. The Arsefly gradually became less engaged with his world, so much that he hardly seemed there at all at times and rarely displayed his mastery any longer. The others at first distorted and then ignored the rules altogether, citing the Arsefly as their authority to do so. To continue living in the world, the peons were forced to pay homage to absent Arsefly, and grovellingly apologise to him if they offended his chosen. Then one day the Arsefly died, and nobody noticed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ideological block: Not permitted" Isn't that actually the entire purpose of Conservapedia? "Blocking out" and removing any and all influence that doesn't agree with the conservative ideology? Also interesting that there is no middle ground for vandalism between three days and an entire month. I'm also quite amazed at the "causing a fight" rule Karajou proposes. Not surprised considering the totalitarian dictatorship that is reigning in Conservapedia (which is of course only pretending to value other peoples speech and right to disagreement which inevitably will lead to a verbal fight, hence why it is punishable in the most severe manner of the presented options). Chaosof99 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I love how it's more of a crime to be an ideological deviant than straight-out vandal. Simple vandalism gets you no more than three days, but 'causing a fight' can get you indefinite. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Free speech... BUT NOT FOR YOU!

We all knew it'd happen, but who would've thought it'd happen so soon?

• Andy: "Rob, we respect freedom of speech here, and that includes being criticized. If you don't want to be criticized, then don't speak out publicly. But once you (or anyone else) speaks out publicly, then please respect the First Amendment right of others to criticize, and then move on to more productive activities."^img
• SamHB (roughly two hours later): "Ed, I must criticize you about that MRellek thing..."^img
• Karajou: "NOOOOOOO!^img YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PROVOKE A FIGHT!"^img

Priceless, really. --Sid (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it more amusing that Andy cites "freedom of speech" at someone and then openly and unapologetically blocks that very same person for violating their "90/10" rule - a rule designed to undermine the very freedom of speech concept. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got the diff where andy, for I think it was he, said that the 90/10 was not a rule anyway but more of a guideline. It was in discussion where kenny baby was involved and kenny kept saying he wouldn't mind if the 'rule' were changed to be 80/20 or 70/30. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no free speech^img for RonLar^img, neither. Stirring the pot, provoking a fight, do I see a pattern emerge? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the whole 'First Amendment' thing a massive red herring anyway? I mean, it's there to curtail the actions of the government, not nutjob blog owners. Worm (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, conservatives and liberals alike seem to get it wrong all the time. Nobody in America has to respect anyone's first amendment rights except Congress. At least, that's my understanding of it... but don't courts cite the FA all the time when, say, they rule against corporations trying to restrict speech amongst employees and such forth? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea (to be fair, I don't live there, so I never had to read into it), but (IIRC) some CP sysop(s) at CP said that nobody has Free Speech rights on CP because it's a private website. So taking this at face value, Andy is lying even more. --Sid (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Something else I found strange, is Andy's "No one is required to edit here using his real full name." The sign-up page says "User names based on your real name or initials are preferred" and until recently you could be blocked for not using your real name in initial. So what is Andy lying about here? --PsyGremlinFale! 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really lying - he's saying that you should sign up with your first name and last initial, not with your first and last name. Of course, if you ever want more rights, Andy will ask you to submit your full name to him (and thus to all the senior sysops). --Sid (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be the link about someone asked for on Andy's comments about 90/10; the whole thread is worth re-reading. And Psy's right; that's why Andy wants few rules -- he can't keep from stumbling over his own dictums and nuances which become law. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 17:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the one but it was bad touch poor and not andy who said it. Thanks. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pssst hey rob

I know how you can get back in to the inner circle. Go back to your "director of counter-intelligence" schtick. Here, I'll start you off - if you follow the really bizarre spelling error "synop", you get Mikalos [10] = SeanS [3]^img [4]^img. Quick! To the Agency! ^{ONE / TALK} 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you picked me or...?--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I kept seeing the word "synop" and it piqued my interest :) I've nothing against you, and for all I know you're a good faith editor over there anyway (I didn't go through your contribs) ^{ONE / TALK} 13:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell do you insist on spelling in "synop"? You're only giving yourself away, and you sound like a n00b!--♟ (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because for some reason Synop is what my mind remembers. --Mikalos209 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can practically see Kara at his desk right now: Biting his fingernails, he squints at the above exchange and asks himself: "...but what if that's just what they want me to think?" --Sid (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You probably made him put on a Tin-foil hat to block your mind reading powers Sid.--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Where's Kenny now?

There he is! And still can't use the edit preview button.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. But obviously not him. DickTurpis (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Though they emulated his incompetence at editing quite well.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just me. It's actually quite difficult to write as badly as Ken. Don't worry Robbie! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Torturing the Ameriwikians...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken certainly wouldn't sign up with one of his many known pseudonyms. But I do wonder - will he bother making an appearance at Ameriwiki at all? Or has CP become his only home? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe...he did go to aSK. And Karabird made an appearance to wandalize the place.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken won't venture out from behind the walls of fortress CP. He learned his lesson on ASoK, where he realised very quickly that without the ability to lock pages and ban editors, he arguments fell to pieces with frightening speed. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

CP needs an cp:Ameriwiki entry; then I want to go after recruiting the few sane contributors there. Iduan, FOIA, Bert Sclossberg; perhaps we can get Prof. Jensen back, too. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which will last about as long as the Storehouse of Knowledge article did. According to CP, there can be only One True Conservative Wiki. (actually, given Ken's antics, that phrase takes on a whole new and hysterical meaning). Also, if you try to recruit openly, you will be shot down for good. Oh yes, and e-mail is disabled. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kinda curious that your list includes two of the most single-subject-obsessed people I have ever seen. cp:Alger Hiss is the #3 largest article on CP while cp:Korean Airlines Flight 007 is #16. And if we ignore essays, subpages and MPR archives, they're ranked #1 and #9 respectively. --Sid (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're judging them based on their CP career, with it's "keep your head down and shut up" attitude toward contributors. Unless you stop contributing content, and enlist yourself as a vandal fighter to ward off the latest attack Andy & Ken provoked, you'll never go anywhere. User:FOIA probably still doesn't have upload rights, despite me asking a half dozen times. Andy wants body guards (like the royal guards or Secret Service) to watch his back as he & Ken shock the public on the front page & Main Page talk (which includes shocking and inflaming conservative, mainstream Republicans). Sysops are meant to take the bullet in Andy's view, ideology has nothing to do with becoming a sysop. TK killed himself doing it, as he spoke his dying words, "I have taken more than enough crap for Andy’s project". Andy himself is a fucking idiot if he can't see what the whole world sees. Maybe Ken can register an account here, become a sysop, and delete TK's dying words from my userspace. Come on, Ken, show some balls, asshole. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, Rob, it's sweet that now when you tell the story of TK's death, you blame Conservapedia and not us. Junggai (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can be open minded and persuaded. In this version, TK still kills himself (as in the Megan Meiers incident), but he's a victim caught in the crossfire between "taking enough shit for Andy" and a bunch of cybervandals. The larger point being, innocent sysops, whom Andy regards as pawns, are needlessly sacrificed in a futile cause to defend two idiots who post outrageous bullshit with the intent to provoke vandal attacks. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait. You disapprove of the Flying Kitties and Fatties? That's not outrageous bullshit - it's Trustworthy, cited and Featured! DogP (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Iduan is pure of heart.

Here^img Iduan writes, "A bad block is a block issued for vindictive or ideological reasons. No user intentionally issues a bad block..." Wow. No CP sysop ever blocks for vindictive or ideological reasons. Who knew? Phiwum (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I did! They get blocks for talk, talk, talk and incivility, silly!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that Iduan is innocent; he's so tainted he pulls down his trousers and bends over whenever there's the slightest possibility someone in authority will walk by. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear what he means is that nobody recognizes a block they made as being bad, even if it is. That's probably a fair statement. I'd bet even Karajou thinks all of his 5 year bans are proper and justified. DickTurpis (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia chooses its favorite for the GOP Nomination

It's becoming increasingly more apparent (here for example) that Assfly will be throwing his support behind Michele Bachmann. This is the perfect strategy for Conservapedians. Michele Bachmann (a fellow fundamentalist bigot) will never win the GOP nomination. It will be Perry or Romney. Thus, when Obama wins in 2012, CP will be able to chalk it up to the GOP's refusal to nominate a true conservative. Professor (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck. I like Bachman. Now I have to rethink my position. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, why? Phiwum (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In the right light she could be seen as a bit of a milf :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the Newsweek cover? Not my idea of MILF. I hope with every fiber of my being that Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Michele Bachmann. Imagine the surprise on the TeaBaggers' faces when roughly 85% of the country runs screaming from their Conservative Princess in the general election. Can you imagine that bitch trying to debate President Obama? It would be slaughter. The sad thing is that they actually think they will win. They truly BELIEVE that Americans want a hate-mongering cunt to be president. Professor (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't even with kennys, let alone mine. And I agree, when I heard the straw poll results my first reaction was 'great, they are really going to nominate that moron'. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I dislike Bachmann very much. She strikes me as both stupid and dangerous. But Rob said he liked her, until he heard that CP likes her, too. I just don't get why that should matter to him at all — especially considering that he was smitten with that site until very recently. Phiwum (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Obama would slaughter her in a debate. He'd win (unless the Republicans manage to slip something in his water bottle beforehand) but Bachmann's been demonstrating an ability to turn off the crazy lately. It wouldn't be like an Obama/Palin debate, which would be like watching an NFL team play the local pee-wee football league. MDB (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather see Perry get running. And Obviously Rob can't agree with CP lest he be seen as a insane person.--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because Bachman seems fanatical doesn't mean she can't also be cold and calculating. An Obama/Bachman debate would only look like slaughter to the liberal 50% of the nation. But actually she's useful to the Republicans because she splits the tea party vote with Perry, ensuring that moderate and electable Romney wins the nomination.--Talpidae (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bachman has also hired speech and debate coach, Brett O’Donnell, who has worked for George W. Bush, and also led the debate team at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University to the top ranking in the country. So I highly doubt that she will blunder hugely (as in misrepresent her ideas), even if many people just do not like the politics she does come out with.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1V9jVqQ23

I came to the same conclusion, at first. Perry and Bachmann will divide the lunatics, paving the way for Romney. However, the more I talk with Republican friends (real Republicans, not the crazy right-wingers), the more I realize that might not be the case. The moderate Republicans (or the ones who are just fiscally conservative/libertarian) are leaving the party in droves. Three of my friends (proud conservatives) are voting Democrat next year. Their reason is simple: the GOP has been taken over by fundamentalists. They often site the fact that even though they fought bitterly to get McCain the nomination, the GOP threw the election away by giving Palin the VP spot. Democrats will get a bump this year from disenfranchised, disillusioned Republicans. Professor (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A garbage man nominated by the GOP can beat sackless Obama. What you you call stupid, has raised more money than anyone in congress. Do I expect you knuckleheads to understand? Na, keep on stroking it. It doesn't matter who the GOP selects and the only people leaving in droves is obama's support. Now back to your momma's teat. --76.241.159.160 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's going to be a lengthy battle among three fundamentally different candidates, each with their own strategy. Romney's candidacy is based on arguments (electability, to be precise), Bachmann's running as an ideologue, and Perry's support will be strongly determined by geography. Bachmann should not be underestimated (at least in the primaries), she's likely to get first dibs on Palin's supporters, which would substantially increase her strength once it's clear that Mama Grizzly is going to stick to her cushy TV job. Röstigraben (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like how a Bachmann supporter stopped by to provide us all with an example of what is meant by "right wing, bigoted, fundamentalist, lunatic". He better watch out; Obama might be coming for his guns and his children and his bible. Scurry back to Conservapedia, Karajou. Professor (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BoNs in the 76.xx range are usually JPatt. If you haven't encountered him on CP yet, he's the only one who could make Karajou look smart. Röstigraben (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My money's been on Perry for some time now, but I would LOVE it if the GOP went for Bachmann. Wonkette has a good story about how she bought votes in the Iowa Straw Poll, but it turns out that not everyone she bought stayed bought. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have always known that I was more intelligent than Rick Perry, but I have lacked any evidence to back up my claim. Luckily, some brave Texan leaked Perry's college transcript. Who else can join me in proclaiming 'I am smarter than Rick Perry'? Professor (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can, but I don't think I needed to see his education records to do it. When he decided he was going to pray for rain, that was enough. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The 76/8 is split, it's all under the control of ARIN (so North America) but 76.241.159.160 is in a smaller patch ARIN assigned to a baby bell, now AT&T, and which presently seems to be used for DSL customers. Any AT&T customers from the same service area could (over a period of time) get assigned these numbers. I'd guess most such areas contain more than one crazy person, and only AT&T's records would prove definitively which customer it was. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Proposal - the ALERT ME SO I CAN WRITE ANGRY LETTERS edition

No, this isn't another section on Kara's crazy proposal. But DMorris^img wants to be immediately notified of bad stuff so he can write abuse reports. --Sid (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a bad blocking policy here at RW? Goddammit, guys, can we PLEASE step it up on the fascism? We're embarrassing ourselves out there. Professor (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I love that all the parodists are getting in on the action to make sure the block policy remains draconian and unfair. Once again CP is going to be screwed by their complete inability to tell friend from foe. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So what we need is a power mad crack pot who can swing a ban hammer like a toddler. RIGHT HERE HOMIES.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberal child-raping Hollywood producers

Makes a change from the "Jews control Hollywood" thing I suppose. Not that CP ever said that. SJ ^Debaser 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "liberals control Hollywood" line is derived from the "communists control Hollywood" line, which has a different point of origin than the "Jews control Hollywood" line. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me…

…that the good ol' boys at CP will see some version of this (very SFW, unless you work in Texas).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Three wiki tournament - stressing articles and collaboration

Traditionally, I prepared diagramms on edits per month for RationalWiki, Conservapedia, and Citizendium:

edits per month
RW	CP	CZ

The number of edits is quite a good measure of activity, but it is affected by a few hyperactive contributors who only invoke an impression of vitality. So, another important measure is given by the number of unique editors per month:

editors per month
RW	CP	CZ

These (and all the following) numbers only include registered editors - thought at least for RationalWiki there is the possibility to edit pages without being logged in...

But these numbers don't tell you much about how much collaboration is going on - the real essence of wikiness :-) So, I looked into the number of articles which were edited each month. (Please ignore the stupid titles of the next pics - or even better, propose new title ... )

So, first diagrams of the number of pages which were edited each month. For each page I looked up how many edits very actually made - one edit means usually that something uncontroversial is added, two edits imply - at least for Conservapedia - an improvement of an article and its instantaneous reversal. Three and more edits may indicate that the page is in the focus of some interest, or place of a more or less lively discussion.

edited pages, shaded by number of edits (all pages)
RW	CP	CZ

(same scale of the y-axis) Reducing the scale of the y-axis highlightens the fact that RationalWiki is the most active wiki.

edited pages, shaded by number of edits (all pages) / zoomed in
RW	CP	CZ

But Citizendium and Conservapedia are not about idle chit-chat, they are about creating content. And indeed, if we look only at articles (i.e., pages in the main namespace), there had been a time when there was happening more at Citizendium and Conservapedia than here at RationalWiki. This has changed over the last quarter...

edited pages, shaded by number of edits (mainspace only)
RW	CP	CZ

But the number of contributions to a page or an article is not always a good indicator for the amount of collaboration which is going on at a wiki: cp:User:Conservative is the living proof for this, farming dozens of articles with no interference by other editors being allowed.

So, here again the number of pages which were edited per month. This time, the colors indicate the number of editors (authors?) who edited the page. (The titles of the following diagrams get worse and worse. I'm open to suggestions :-) )

edited pages, shaded by number of editors (all pages)
RW	CP	CZ

Again, RationalWiki is the top-dog. Interestingly the amount of discussion at Conservapedia is similar to us:

edited pages, shaded by number of editors (all pages) / proportional view
RW	CP	CZ

Now, you are waiting breathlessly for the actual articles... You don't have to suffer any longer, here they are:

edited pages, shaded by number of editors (mainspace only)
RW	CP	CZ

For Citizendium, the number of articles with more than one author working on are hard to spot. Therefore, again the relative view:

edited pages, shaded by number of editors (mainspace only) / proportional view
RW	CP	CZ

Citizenidum's system of editing-by-expert while at the same time having less and less experts who want to edit make the articles monocultures. If you look for collaboration - or at least revert-wars with more than two parties - you have to go to RationalWiki.

Thank you for your time ;-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful charts. I've edited your mini-table titles to help people follow - hope you don't mind :) ^{ONE / TALK} 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

well done - thanks! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say I find the amount of collaboration at CP quite surprising. There seems to be a rather big chunk of articles in the past month that have been editing by more than 10 people... which articles are these? I assume the recent "Essays" make up a good portion of them. Also, I take it templates like MPR are excluded. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably just the common vandal-magnet articles. Plus things like the Community Portal (LOL) are in mainspace, so they'd be counted.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that CP - despite being administrated by computer experts - doesn't actually have namespaces; so everything (including the community portal and Ken's dribblings) are in one big mainspace. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome charts, Larron. Refugee^{talk page} 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)