Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive256

This is an archive page, last updated 3 September 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>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <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>

, (back)

Andy embarrasses himself in yet another scientific field[edit]

Taking a breaking from recently showing his willful ignorance about relativity, Andy goes to show his willful ignorance about evolution^img:

“”It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.

“”But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!

“”Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.

sigh... I've seen too much of Andy's anti-scientific nonsense in the last few days. Others can explain the problems with his arguments (using the word very loosely). --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can pick holes in those arguments - the humans eye is the same weight as an eagles! SAME WEIGHT! Tielec01 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I suggest Andy watch Maury for a week. Liars, addicts and assholes are very good at reproducing. --Roofus (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't even hit the jackpot in there, Jags:

“”7.This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).

Chaosof99 (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2011

Nice to see Professor Spellcheck caught out by the lightening/lightning homonym.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing Ray Comfort make that argument on his blog is what finally convinced me that he just plain doesn't give a fuck about what he's saying. He's not asking questions about evolution, and he's not educating people about it. He's just evangelising and dressing it up as criticism. He doesn't care how valid they are, all he wants is someone to read it, take it at face value, and think "Hey, yeah...." X Stickman (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's Brian Thomas of the ICR: ...even if a single...mutation fortuitously occurred in both members of a reproducing pair... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I like point 10, about the wolves. Obviously Mr. Schlafly did not get the memo about dogs being re-classed as a subspecies of wolf.

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there was just so much garbage in that one post. Hell, 9 of the 10 most recent WIGOs have been about Andy. If only we could turn all that willful ignorance into a source of energy.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The one about the Libyan flag was the one that set me into paroxysms of fresh incredulity. That he is about a hair's breadth away from supporting a Muslim dictator is ironic enough, but that he was bawling about the imminent demise of a flag drawing on communist and Islamist symbolism, while blasting Islamic symbolism, was extremely amusing.

ListenerX^TalkerX 07:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep that was classic. The old flag was obviously a bastion of neutrality. I mean how can a plain green flag have any kind of Islamic symbolism?! Classic Andy ignorance... --

08:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, A lightning strike to the same place multiple times is a rather common occurrence, so even his analogy is bullshit. Ateafish (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we can get Ken to draw us a picture of the hypothetical sightless common ancestor of humans, cats and eagles? I mean, out here in reality, where evolution actually works and has explanatory power, the common ancestor basically looks like a big lizard thing and of course the fossils have eye sockets and so we naturally assume it already had eyes, you know, to see with. But that's because we're not smart enough to consider transitional animals like the flying kitty, obviously. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what other exciting homologies we can find using the innovative Schlafly classification mechanism. The human foreleg has about the same muscle mass as the Shetland pony! The human's nasal acuity is approximately identical to that of a marmoset! The long-eared jerboa is roughly the same colour as human arse hair! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Speak for your own arse hair. Mine is not the same colour as a long-eared jerboa, more like pygmy shrew in fact. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I certainly loled at the first argument, because it is completely without merit or evidence. Andy just concludes based on nothing that a large variation in extinction rates is implausible. Although it is true extinction rates regular exceed the evolution of new species (we call those 'extinction events' Andy). There is a reason why 99% of all species that existed on the Earth are not here anymore.

I am not sure if an eagle and human eye weight about the same, assuming that they do, that fact doesn't make them similar (for one the eye mass to body ration is very different). Humans, cats, and eagles do have a direct evolution connection if you go back far enough. For humans and cats, you have to go all the way back to the the taxonomic clade Boreoeutheria and some 85-100 million years. For us and eagles, one has to travel back some 300 or so million years (we are both Amniotes) before Sauropods and Synapsids separated. However the eye evolved long before that, starting in the Cambrian (540+ million years ago), and we (cats, humans and eagles) all inherited the pinhole camera eye with retina and lens from those very ancient basal common ancestors all those years ago, hence the similarities you can still find today despite some very major differences.

Evolution doesn't have a problem explaining "self destructive personalities". There is no drive towards some ultimate goal of physical or mental perfection or conscious direction in evolution. Evolution is just species adapting to changes in a dynamic environment to better thrive in that environment for the purpose of reproduction. Really evolution is life's reaction to an ever changing environment on the Earth, and often it doesn't keep up (hence extinction events). Even in the species best suited to their environment have members who don't do as well and typically less likely to pass on their genes thanks to various "flaws". DNA copies imperfectly, so some offspring may not be as suited to survival. Lying can be a mechanism for survival and may benefit the person in particular cases (even if it hurts others).

As for the stupid notion of "Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner.", I'll let PZ Myers, who is a hundred times more qualified than I, answer for me.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can claim stupidity, what is your excuse? Most statistics are made up -- "There is a reason why 99% of all species that existed on the Earth are not here anymore." Millions Of Undiscovered Species On Earth [1] We know most species are extinct or we know not how many species there are?--76.205.79.71 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good one Occasionalanal, I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.--76.205.79.71 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what I love about the devotees of Andyism, they cannot simply ask a question about a challenge to their lord and master's ramblings, they have to be insulting about it. To answer though, we have found roughly some 250,000 extincted species in the fossil record, but we know that this record is still incredibly incomplete. Because of this we can extrapolate the total number by using our knowledge of geology, biology, evolution, and fossilization. Here is a nice link that covers that in bit more detail. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Touche, 76. It's just that a lot of your posts seem terse and really jumbled to the point that it's difficult to discern the point. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Beer Drinking Game[edit]

Every time i read things you all point out, i think I"m playing some kind of beer drinking game. On the link first given for this discussion "Autumn Foliage". That's a shot and a chaser, that! and let's see, "The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!" he's said that one at least 10 times on his page. must be worth a chug, there. SIGHS... he is truly a one trick pony.En attendant Godot 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy how he believes just because their sizes are similar that this is somehow very relevant, especially as some sort of conundrum for evolution. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what particular type of eagle has this property. There are quite a few of them. Sounds like a dimly remembered factoid he learned as a kid, and now dredges up at cocktail parties. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!" Holy shit, I thought that was a joke quote. I can't believe Andy actually used that in an argument!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

EC) A dimly remembered factoid that's prolly wrong: All eyes are of similar size (and hence weight?) as they all focus the same, or similar, light waves on a similar retina - it's just optics (dunno about octopus eyes though). Are a newborn kid's eyes the same size as an adults? Pippa (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So Andy has discovered common descent? Good on him. Röstigraben (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, common design elements in the eyes of many species, it is like they had some sort of basal common ancestor, imagine that! DA MAGICKS! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But if they weigh the same, then they're made of wood, and therefore, witches! Burn them! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Except, Andy, that eagle's eyes can also register ultraviolet light unlike human eyes[2]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Eagle and human eyes could not be similar due to a common ancestor because they had to evolve after that ancestor. It's implausible to think otherwise. So says Andy^img, and thus so it is. Phiwum (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, I want one of these loons to draw me a picture of what they think the common ancestor looked like. To me our ancestors in that era look like lizards, although I'm sure a lizard would care about the differences because our family tree diverges before the first actual lizard comes along. But whatever, they are saurian as all get out. And the thing about lizardy-things is that they've already got fucking eyes. I have this terrible feeling Andy doesn't even realise the common ancestor is a Tetrapod and that all these creatures have more in common with fish (who - surprise, also have familiar looking eyes) than with, say, a spider which has very different arrangements for vision. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates[edit]

Just doing a little fact checking on this "article"Yup, and discovered that the Wall Street Journal may actually have said that Creationists win more debates than Evolutionists. One problem though: the WSJ said this in 1979, 32 years ago. Maybe Winston Smith did a minor "correction" on that article. Jimaginator (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Its easy to win debates when the answer to every question is "GODDIDIT". Its like that douchebag who spams the kick button in Mortal Kombat.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I attended such a debate back in the early 90's. The Creationists had a polished, well-rehearsed, and nicely delivered presentation of PRATT and bullshit. The Evolutionist were a couple of stammering guys who read from note cards and prattled on about the fossil record, common descent, and DNA. The Creationists won hands down. After it was over, about 3/4 of the audience piled onto the church buses that brought them... So yeah, from what I saw, I imagine that they would "win" most debates.--Inquisitor (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Debates on issues like these only show which side has better stage presence, marketing skills, social skills, and debate skills, not which side has more scientific fact. Fortunately scientific theories are not decided by debates.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

^ exactly! Creationists also frequently abuse the format these "debates" (see Gish Gallop). --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem I've noticed in these debates is that the scientists/science defenders just try to go up and give a lecture that resembles an intro course in biology and they know almost nothing about the creationist talking points. So they end up sitting there going "WTF is this guy talking about?" when the creationist starts pulling "counterexamples" out of his ass in the form of bogus fossil finds from 80 years ago or some obscure quote mined research. It reminds me of Johann Hari's description of Climategate (and you can really just Mad Lib any woo into this quote): "The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative--See! The global warming story is falling apart!--to be reinforced by the media." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The question I want creationists to answer is: "Why don't you go debate another creationist?". I call that my 1 Question That No Creationist Can Answer^TM. Why don't they ever challenge each others competing creation theories? After all, wouldn't it make more sense to debate someone who at least is in the same field of study as themselves? These guys are a joke. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's part of crank magnetism. I have seen it happen in very rare cases, like an OEC writing a debunking of YEC. However, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Inquo - That's common to all debates and discussion shows involving religion. You often see religionists of various stripes 'debating' atheists, but I have never seen religionists of different creeds debating why their god is real and the other's not. "You think a man rode to heaven on a winged horse? Pfft, that's ridiculous, it's just not possible. What really happened was that this fella was born to a virgin years after a talking snake said to...". That would be great entertainment! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coke Eyes Hurlbutt's Bloodthirst for War[edit]

A common theme of Coke Eyes' MPR items is his practically begging for a war to break out in the Middle East with Israel, which I assume fulfills some sort of end times prophecy he'd like to see come about.

"Could Israel actually have oil to spare for the world? If so, the Arabs might go to war to stop that."[3]
"Arabs wage a PR war against Israel. Israel can fight back only with the truth."[4]
"Israel is more likely than ever to be at war. And Barack Hussein Obama bears much of the blame."[5]
"Egypt recalls its ambassador to Israel. Or does it? One thing is certain: it's a war zone out there."[6]
"Israel comes under attack—from the Gaza-Sinai region. The Middle East just dodged the bullet of war."[7]

There's far more. While some of his views, like believing dinosaurs are flopping around in lakes in Vermont, are cute, he really is a man with vile beliefs and hopes. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I sincerly hope you collected those over a few months and did not just go through his contributions that far back...

But now a bit off-topic: I never understood how you can be so hatefull to the world around you - even if they are all evil - that you wish for the world to come to an end, including your own life, just to see that you were right. How fucking pervertes is that? How fucking insecure does a person have to be to want that? --★uː ʤ ɱ constructivist 20:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoping for war in Israel serves a number of purposes:

It makes Obama look bad to the extent he tries to function as a peacemaker.
It makes Obama look weak in conflict with Iran.
It makes Israel seem more like the endangered righteous victim, and the Arabic nations as greedy monsters.
It helps fulfill those end-times scenarios.

So that's why we see it so often - it does a lot for him.--

^talk

21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Coke Eyes is rapidly becoming the most batshit CP sysop. In a world that includes Andy, Karajou and JPatt... that's scary (I'm not including Ken

- he's just ill}}. With some of the idiocy on MPR, I had sometimes assumed it was troll-bait. Looking at TH's replies to comments on his blog... he actually believes it. He's just as insane as Ken. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a portion of fundamentalist Christianity that believe that a pre-requestite for the rapture is that Israel controls Jerusalem. This shows up as Christian Zionism. The peace process in Israel means that the Jewish people won't have complete control over Jerusalem - thus a preference for war over a peaceful division. Consider the proclamation back in '96. Resolution #1 starts out "Because of the sovereign purposes of God for the city, Jerusalem must remain undivided, under Israeli sovereignty, open to all peoples, the capital of Israel only, and all nations should so concur and place their embassies there." So yep, he's nutty and its that end-times scenario thing. If you dig through the leaks files you'll find Terry doing the tour Israel thing. --Shagie (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Every time I have commented on his blog the tone of his response is very aggressive; it's the same tone an angry father tells his ne'er-do-well son "I'm not going to tolerate any of your nonsense! No YOU!" It's funny because he's so self-righteously stupid. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

A very short exchange with Ed Poor: wp:User_talk:DiEb#Conservapedia --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Saw that - what an idiot. He really keeps up the "I'm open for conversation!" routine while his buddies block and ban anybody who tries. --Sid (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I bet Ed didn't knew it was you, and you nailed him. This is where I'd start with a quote that gets interrupted with a YT video of someone getting owned drastically and harshly.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Full Throttle! soon[edit]

Soon Question Evilution will be going full throttle!^img... so does anybody remember when ken first said the QE campaign was going to go into kill mode? Because so far it looks like they are using the Biblical version of "Soon" --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post my own topic on this pathetic "Question Evolution" bollocks. For me it sums up the whole anti-science idiocy in one neat campaign. The obvious point is that the questions have all been answered. Several times. Not least here. Then take a look at the links from Ken's

idiot posts. As far as I can see, the entire campaign is about selling T-shirts and other merchandise with a logo on it. It's yet another campaign to screw money from idiots. These drooling idiot creationist drones are just trash. Go and read a fucking book. If you had ever read any book on evolution, you'd learn that most of what you believe is gibberish. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is nothing new. It's typical creationist activity - try to cast doubt amongst the scientifically illiterate and/or gullible by proclaiming that there are unanswered questions that cast doubt on evolution, then point-blank ignore the fact you're given any answers if and when you are, which is usually about ten minutes after the first person who isn't scientifically illiterate hears them, all the while continuing to proclaim that these 'unanswered questions' are the 'final nail in the coffin of evolution', or some such nonsense. The only real difference is that this is usually done in a small-scale, ad-hoc basis by creationists acting independently, which even allows them to admit their point is wrong when schooled in the science during a talk/presentation/whatever - and then go on and use the self-same point in another talk/presentation/whatever the following week. 86.179.127.6 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "full throttle" a euphemism for masturbation?

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Second definition--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Practically everything is a euphemism for masturbation. MDB (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I "Practically everythinged" to a picture of your mom last night MDB --Opcn (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel1212[edit]

Is a nut^img of the highest caliber...

Is there any consensus as to whether or not that guy is a parodist? --Durbinator (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He's legit crazy. Here are the collection of this guy's ravings. By his own accounts, he's an uneducated trucker obsessed with homosexuality. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that him? He's even madder than someone who's madder than a mad thing. Pippa (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He has a bit of a one-track mind. A while ago he had a bed bug infestation and deviated from his usual shtick to pour forth some ramblings about the Biblically-proportioned "bloody plague of bedbugs."

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who grew up in Catholic schools it boggles my mind that someone can be that virulently religious. That he disagrees with the fundamental concept that all men are created equal is something else.--Durbinator (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He is one of those fanatics who is able to suppress his conscience and all reality checks in favor of what the old book says. As to the Declaration of Independence, he is not disagreeing with the "all men are created equal" line; he is disputing that it permits gay sex.

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this look like a trap to you?[edit]

I don't think he will get any takers^img, at least not from anyone who matters, which is a shame. --Opcn (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No way anybody of consequence is going to take that bait. You can't get away with moving the goalposts if your clearly define where the goalposts are. Though I would absolutely love to be proven wrong. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

open source conservative?[edit]

I just came across this little gem^img and it's mind blowing... Where are the advantages to "closed-source conservative" and the disadvantages to "open source conservatives?" Is that their idea of a fair and balanced presentation? άλφα^Talk 22:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled onto that jewel a few months back. It was so stupid that I lost sight in my right eye for 20-30 seconds while reading it. I've tried not to think about it since. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

MatthewQ death pool[edit]

I'm guessing many of you are familiar with the current discussion on the cp:Counterexamples to Relativity talk page. The discussion has already yielded a couple of nuggets for the WIGO, mostly because Andy of course doesn't understand a single thing about relativity and he is basically being murdered in the scientific by his brother Roger and a user named MatthewQ. They do quite the nice job of showing how Andy is full of shit every step of the way. This of course leaves andy with his usual tactics of lying, misrepresentation, word games, and bullshit, which as we all know will sooner or later end with a permaban either by Andy himself or one of his lackeys. He can hardly permaban his brother, which of course leaves MatthewQ as the odd man out. So, how long do you think Matty will survive? Chaosof99 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Andy's unbannable brother is showing him up for being a gibbering idiot warms the cockles of my heart. ^{ONE / TALK} 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I do like Andrew linking to a New Scientist article to prove a point. He hasn't even read the first sentence as it says "as recently as two billion years ago". Sphincter (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

More funnly, as Roger points out 2 or 3 edits later, the article is 7 years old and has been superceeded by another article published in 2007 (I thinkit was) which contradicts the original article. So essentially once again Roger is slapping his idiot brother down whilst facepalming over andys idiocy. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, the fact it was later made invalid by a later paper says all of science is wrong because they changed the views later on --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Figuring out that you were wrong then proves that you are wrong now. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed's recently been editing gOD complex on WP. Coincidence? I think not. Pippa (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be to quick to place bets on Matthew. While most of the reforms of the "Rob Spring" have been dismantled, and replaced by Karajou's recreational-banning-over-fantasies-of-sockpuppetry, one thing that hasn't (yet) come back is "90/10" and bans for "arguing". In any case, Andy seems quite content to be soundly pwned by the whole world on the relativity issue. (God complex?) He could just walk away if he chose. So he probably doesn't mind Matthew's arguments at all. SamHB (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, Rob was banned for ~~arguing with Andy~~ breaking the 90/10 rule.

Matthew has two advantages going for him. One, he's doing the exact same thing as Roger and, as mentioned above, brother Schlafly surely isn't getting banned. Two, like Andy, his sysops don't know anything about relativity. Unlike Andy, they don't care. They don't really seem to be following this discussion, which isn't about conservatism v. liberalism (they're not even willing to follow the Dear Leader and believe that it is). So it seems unlikely that the Schlafly Readguard will get Matthew. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have met their ends doing essentially the same thing. Remember KSorenson? --Opcn (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

KSorenson quit because of Andy's anti-homosexual view, wrote a Parthian shot and was then banned. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking BCMP as well but I now remember talk of the age of the universe and distance of stars. I must have misremembered. -Opcn (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The biannual Schlafly Brothers Relativity Wars are one of the most enjoyable features on the entertainment calendar - BOCPWIGO is full of them. One the one hand you have Roger who kinda knows what he's talking about, and on other hand, you have his man child brother basically in the realm of "Fucking magnets, how do they work?"^img. Draw up a chair and await the moment when Andy gets tired of being bitchslapped and runs away with the ball. Ahhh, life feels good. DogP (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems unfortunately that Andy has decided to abandon ship and ignored any inquiry about facts (such as for example him quoting an article that states that the universe is billions of years old to make a point in his favor). The only thing he has now responded is to someone referencing a Wikipedia article, and as we all know Wikipedia is a librul website and thus can not be trusted. Kinda clashes with his earlier statement accusing Matty boy of playing politics with the speed of light (yeah, it makes even less sense in context). Chaosof99 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Depoliticising science[edit]

Quote from TH's blog: "That will happen only when science breaks away from politics completely. That means no government laboratories, no government schools, and no government research grants." Fafuxake! Leave it all to private enterprise? And to the devil with the hindmost! Pippa (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Hurlbut has been revealing himself more and more for an Objectivist rather than a conservative. In one of his latest comments, he expressed the opinion that the Founding Fathers were too lib-burr-rul for authorizing the federal government to establish post offices and post roads.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the old bird would think of her most ardent supporters also being the most ardently religious? Seems like they're ignoring one of the major planks of objectivism, and concentrating mostly on the part that legitimises their selfishness. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, isn`t that what objectivism is? --Durbinator (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Objectivism is just one of the many derivatives of Marxism, so Dr. Hurlbut has to be heterodox in that respect, but as far as government policy goes he seems to back Rand to the hilt.

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as you like to see ze reds everywhere, I think you might want to look again at that one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world." — Whittaker Chambers.

Rand was educated by the Reds and took away a good deal of Marxist philosophy from the experience, even as she rejected Marxism in its full form. Pardon me if I see just a shade of Marxist influence in a philosophy involving a massive exercise in consciousness-raising among a class of people defined by economic relationships.

ListenerX^TalkerX 21:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are clear parallels of that Bolshevist "us-versus-them" mindset in Objectivism, and much of Rand is (basically) Soviet-PTSD, but all extreme philosophies, especially economic ones, start sounding the same if you take away the particulars. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly; there are often two extremes. This is true in economics with laissez-faire capitalism and a command economy. In the more abstract sense, you have the Apollonian and Dionysian types of extremism, the one with a heavy emphasis on order and control, the other furious and cheering on death and destruction.

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)There are undeniable parallels in both sides' humanist conceptions. Both Rand and Soviet propaganda embraced the "heroic vision of man", but held that in order to achieve its full potential, humanity had to be freed from its shackles. Rand identified these shackles as the yoke of collectivism, whereas orthodox Marxism saw them as the capitalist mode of production. This was recently brought up at the talk page of the Atheism FAQ as well, though only as a tangential point. Röstigraben (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Privately funded science has never been politicized. (cough) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins fail, part 2.946.147[edit]

Apparantly, "Richard Dawkins hates the American people"^img + argumentum ad populum does the trick for Jpatt these days. C'mon can't we get some bizarre conspiracy stuff?

But, the link he provides fails even harder:

“”Dawkins’s whole post is an attack on conservative Republicans. He writes:

“In today’s Republican party . . . Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone qualified for the job.”

That short diatribe by an elitist Brit underscores the importance of America’s victory in the Revolutionary War. Although Dawkins despises 76 percent of Americans because they are Christians, he shares King George III’s disdain for the ordinary citizen, and declares that, “there is surely something wrong with a system of choosing a leader when,” the “uneducated fools” choose an “uneducated ignoramus” as their Commander in Chief.

Apparantly what is OCD-ing for drug abusers could be QED-ing for cranks: Proving the other side right within two sentences. Seems to be happening a lot these days... --★uː ʤ ɱ kant 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of "bourgeois pseudoscience" and "Jewish physics;" just another ad hominem.

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupid headline and discussion of stupid headline have been vaped. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Andy now trims the talk page, because Jpatt made a fool out of himself:

I like news that gets your attention. He loathes believers everywhere but has a clear biased against Republicans for their beliefs. Does Richard hate ignorance? Yes. Does he view the American people as ignorant? Yes. Dawkins hates 92% of Americans. If I put Dawkins "disagrees" or "dislikes" the vast majority of Americans- that doesn't make for a good headline. He clearly is a hater.--Jpatt 16:02, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I do love it when they lie like this because it's not as if their god doesn't know they are doing it. I've had a discussion recently with a 'jesus lover' who insists that 2 kings 2 23:25 says the bears ate Elisha because he cursed the children and not the young ones themselves, and with an apparently straight face they are simply willing to blatantly lie. And they think their god will then forgive them because they pray later. I try not to lie simply because I try to be a decent person but in their sick world view I go to hell because I'm a deceiving atheist? You really are a laughable cnut johnny, and even you know it. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Motherfucker, the one time I forget to capture something they wipe it. Anyway, I still had the tab open so here it is.

@Oldusgitus: I've said it before and I'll say it again, since I became an atheist I'm a better person and act more like Christians should act than they actually do. And that's because I have no sky daddy I can run to. If an atheist fucks up they have to take the full guilt. --★uː ʤ ɱ federalist 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Andy, please don't confuse your lines!^img After all, adding something isn't triming it. --★uː ʤ ɱ pirate 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy trimmed JPatt's headline, then replaced it with his own version, and someone oversighted JPatt's garbage. That would explain why the links in the WIGO don't work. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally added capture tags to the link before realising that it had been oversighted, but I renamed the image and updated all the links. Sorry about that. άλφα^Talk 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In your unending quest to document Conservapedia failings-- you just notified as many people as possible to read the article on why Dawkins and his small band of Godless followers are freaks. The law of liberal unintended consequences. Thanks again drama queens! ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.125 / talk / contribs}

And thank you for posting that link in first place - I'm now aware of the existence of the "American Center for Law & Justice", as well as a certain right-wing hack named Jordan Sekulow, and I think they'll make for interesting articles. Meanwhile, do try to understand that not all publicity is good publicity. Röstigraben (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That was a rather dramatic comment... 99.50.96.218 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"unintended consequences" - well people from CP are experts at that. --★uː ʤ ɱ structuralist 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Global warming Andy's Head[edit]

I found this little gem in the Independent this morning - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rowers-reach-impossible-north-pole-thanks-to-global-warming-2344689.html - a group of mad fellow Brits rowed successfully to the magnetic North Pole. What do you think Andy's reaction to it will be? Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Darkmind" (what a ludicrous name), your argument lacks logic because they had to drag the rowing boat for several hours to complete the last stretch of the journey. No sign of global warming there. Note also the uneconomical "rowing boat" instead of the much more patriotic and American "rowboat". Open your mind and realize that ice only appears to have disappeared because it is hiding from liberal atheists trying to push their agenda. With the inevitable rise of Conservatism, the ice will emerge from hiding once more. ASchlafly.

Darn that librul ice!! Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, being serious it's worse than I thought - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14670433. They're saying that this year's arctic ice melt might hit a new record. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The sad bit is that if you were to raise the issue with Andy, he'd probably say something like "It's summer - ice is supposed to melt in summer." That was how he wrote off the heatwave - when he wasn't using Orange County's unseasonally cooler weather to promote global cooling., that is. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The magnetic pole is mobile and has moved a long way south, and is now in atheistic red Canada. Hence no ice. Deny this and lose all credibility. 2.26.56.94 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

...What??--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

@Psy: I've seen that used by deniers before, even though sea ice retreat was already breaking records back in July. But it doesn't really matter, because the IPCC was wrong about Himalayan glaciers, and ice isn't really melting, and if it is, humans aren't causing it, and sea levels won't rise anyway, and Climategate, and Al Gore's fat, argle bargle!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Ken really write this essay?[edit]

While doing digging on Conservapedia, I found this: Essay:_Richard_Dawkins_and_peanut_butter^img.

Is it their attempt at humor, or are they being serious?--Lefty (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I remember this one! Yeah, he wrote it. It's a joke, sort of, like all his work. By that I mean both (a) he intends it to be humorous while still making his devastating criticisms of atheism and (b) it is a total joke just like he is.--

^talk

13:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken should just stay away from talking about Chuck Norris, machismo, and homosexuality. It is frightening that he managed to put all of these subjects (plus peanut butter commentary) in a single essay.--Lefty (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ken should stay away from X Topic" You realize the stupidity of that right? God forbid he do something besides waste away his life writing the same essay over and over--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken should stay away fromevery topic. Anyway, Ken seems to think his essays are intelligent satires biting wit. In reality.... But the peanut butter one I think is still a second to to The transitional animal the flying kitty. OLE OLE OLE!!! Beck (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad writing, or...[edit]

... budding conspiracy theory?

More than 400,000 people are ordered to evacuate Long Island, with government officials citing Hurricane Irene as the reason.^img Does Andy think there's another reason they're being evacuated? --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he is just being an idiot and can't seem to write anything without adding some sort of political bent to it, even unintentionally, as if by instinct.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It gets better^img. "Not a drop of rain has fallen in NYC and northern NJ, but liberals have already disrupted the lives of millions by withholding essential government services like transportation. Where's the refund for the paid-for services that are not being provided???" It's public safety in the face of an impending ~~doom~~ storm, you dolt! Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell, the man is a moron. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On further thought, it seems he'll be having a falling out with Coke Eyes soon: "essential government services like transportation"? That shouldn't be in government hands, according to Terrence. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There's 2 things on this. If the federal government did nothing and left to population to do whatever they wanted, rather like andy, jpatt and their teabagging morons want, then they would be shouting about how the federal government did notihng and how disgusting Obama is. Secondly the states should be doing everything, again according to the teabaggers, so the fed should shut their mouths and let the state do everything.
How is Obama supposed to do anythign right when your mind is so dysfunctional as andy and the rest of the cp'ers? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they are being sent to the FEMA concentration camps. The hurricane is just a government lie to be the spark. --Mikalos209 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are the atheist forces massing? If Buffalo, NY loses power we ought to be ready to take over the world while Kendoll can no longer skewer us with his biting satires. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The citizens of NYC are clearly being carted off to FEMA-run UN camps, in an attempt by the New World Order to take over the world's financial capital. Check for reports of unmarked UN vehicles and black helicopters driving around Manhattan. DogP (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that others on Coservapedia are trying to save Andy from having to answer for his callous opinions about the people of NYC.--MikeO (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wait, wait, wait, I thought heat was supposed to be a liberal conspiracy, not rain. Dammit. On a more serious note, "not a drop of rain"?! Is Andy living in a parallel universe? Oh wait, I know the answer to that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What ken would do[edit]

After reading what Jeeves posted, I wondered, what would Ken do if he lost power and therefor could not edit CP? --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Claim victory. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be like that montage in Scary Movie 2. Somehow Ken would rig up a generator using numerous rewritten, discarded letters as fuel and get back online. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

^. Or he would just keep typing and clicking randomly, thinking it was still working. When the power did come back on and he saw all the Brilliant essays he typed up, including the one that would have pierced atheism heart were missing, he would blame dawkins and write another essay about them censoring him somehow, --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's relativity double fail[edit]

As the WIGO says, Andy invokes string theory to discredit relativity, only to be informed that string theory actually uses relativity.

He was also asked by a user to explain syncrotron radiation^img. Andy then produces a paper^img and says relativity isn't needed. However, as MatthewQ points out^img, the abstract of his paper says that quantum electrodynamics (a relativistic theory) accurately predicts the phenomenon and that the paper uses relativity in its calculations. Hell, the Lorentz factor even appears in the abstract!

I hope people who aren't big physics nerds are also enjoying this. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The man is beyond any hope or reason. He rejects science based on emotion and dogma. Just a matter of time until he burns all the evidence and/or bans MatthewQ for talking back at him and showing what a fool he is.

What I find particularly interesting about him and other people like him (though it only tangentially relates to the relativity discussion per se) is that he clings so much to a book that was written by humans, altered and modified by his own admission, and interpreted to everybody's preconceived notions until the cows came home. He takes what he thinks the book says the world and the universe is supposed to be over what science can demonstrably show them to be. The universe he believes his god created and which nature should be self-evident from studying it directly, not a book about it. In my opinion that is very much a form of idolatry. And I thought this was forbidden in his preferred variation of christianity.

Well, I guess what's left is to grab a can of popcorn and enjoy the train wreck. Chaosof99 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If he wasn't teaching this shit to children, I'd have lost interest long ago. However, there's a cadre of unfortunate kids learning his gibberish as facts. Unbelievable. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He's totally oblivious to the fact that he's setting up these kids for a life of ridiculed beliefs. Navigating the 21st century filled with Andy's beliefs and opinions is one hell of a disadvantage. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They could end up like JPatt or worse: TerryH. Doesn't that make you flinch? Pippa (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the first day of class, slip the students that picture of TerryH and see if they want to continue. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 23:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually wonder whether Andy's ~~brainwashing~~ teaching is backfiring and sending some of his students to liberalism, atheism, etc. after they see how batshit he is. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Indoctrination is a powerful influence on a young mind but hopefully some of them are independent-minded enough to see through it. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood how it can claim to be home skooling when it patently isn't. What andy has done is set up an unregistered, and hence unregulated, school in his own home and then declared that a homeschool. I find it slightly bizarre that the US authorities allow an unregulated school to operate in this way imo. Can you imagine the outcry if it were to be revealed that muslim children are being ~~educated~~ brainwashed in this way. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Arquarium[edit]

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=next&oldid=905744^img Good old Andy, try to disprove one thing, end up proving that Noah would have had to have some fish-keeping skillz. Sphincter (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Fish can't live on land. Mammals can't live in the water (at least, not without coming up for air.) This disproves evolution/old Earth/whatever, because evolution has to make all living beings the same, right? So what was the problem with Darwin's finches? Gauss (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I was traveling, I should have socked up from the airport wifi to point it out, but I never even thought to! Also, changed section title. --Opcn (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is he seriously trying to derail his own project? He can't seriously believe the separation of water and land animals is a counter-example to evolution, let alone an old Earth. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Medal of Honour is now a Conservative Word/Phrase[edit]

I'm wondering what the reasoning behind this would be^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Isn't it obvious? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but look here:

Conservative terms, expressing conservative insights, originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

deserves a citation needed! And a jeer! Rursus dixit (yada³!) 11:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Karatoon wtf?[edit]

Karajou: *insert new cartoon*^img
Andy: *spread some gibberish over Main Page Left and reinstate the old one*^img
What the fuck? Did Andy make an honest mistake here? Or did he not like the new one? The cartoon itself is still on the server.^img As Andy never says sorry, this should be interesting if Karajou has the balls to ask. --★uː ʤ ɱ netlabelist 23:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Even weirder, Andy reverted not to the last one, but to the one before that. Kara replaced the "American Leech" one with "ExtendaHand", and Andy replaces "ExtendaHand" with "Autostandards". --Sid (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that's what really happened? The above diff, supposedly written by Andy, includes text that was apparently written by Ken^img. (And it is totally in Ken's writing style.) I think maybe inappropriate uses of oversight are messing up the history and attributing changes to the wrong people. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go along with Tabby. Andy probably added his "Conservapedian" debate piece but Ken added his Question Evolution blather and oversighted how many attempts it took him to get it just so but reverted the Jerk's latest scribble in the process.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing: I have no fucking clue what happened there. Somehow I can't picture Andy reverting Karajou because of a cartoon, on the other hand he often reverts stuff he doesn't like. But no matter what if it was an honest mistake or not, as Andy never admits a mistake he will justify it somehow. But it doesn't look like Karajou is going to say anything either… I'm totally lost on what to think of this. --★uː ʤ ɱ sinner 07:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy does not post stuff on the QE! BS, ergo it had to be Ken wielding his overshite.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

08:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Think this is what happens when a bunch of morons each have the power to spray their drool over the main page of what is notionally an encyclopaedia. Did you notice that Rob's temporary resurrection of the article of the week committee died again soon after he was expelled? Kendoll removed Elvis from the front page and stuffed some of his crap up there unilaterally as "article of the week." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the emissions standards cartoon is better. Maybe that's why?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is CP we're talking about. Never ascribe to reason what can be ascribed to malice or incompetence. Often both. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that Karajou's artistic efforts are slipping (his early efforts showed a little bit of artistic care but now they look just like the work of an angry drunk), I'm glad that the auto standards toon is back on the front page because of it's egregious typo. It just makes CP look what it really is - a bigoted blog written by ignoramuses and the more people that see it, the better.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

13:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, this one and auto standards were rather funny — relative to what did before and I think the average curtain is funnier that his previous stuff. But then again, I have a weird situational humor.

"now they look just like the work of an angry drunk" isn't that always the case? Even with his edits? --★uː ʤ ɱ netlabelist 14:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, mostly they're just angry but I get a sense of Brian just festering in front of the TV recently with a six-pack and getting increasingly aggravated by the world. I even think he's getting his ideas from TV shows and shopping channels. The day he uploaded his tricycle toon there was a story on ABC about a couple of grandparents who upgraded a kiddy's trike for their granddaughter with cerebral palsy and are now churning them out by the dozen. And his three-pronged helping hand is straight out of some infomercial.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Six pack? Nah, Kara's a Mad Dog 20/20 man. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You have much more refined picture than I do, or want to have. --★uː ʤ ɱ anti-communist 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane? What Hurricane?[edit]

So Irene has been downgraded to a tropical storm. According to Andy, this means that she was always^img a tropical storm^img and the people of the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas are just a bunch of wimps. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah - part of the mystery explained - "Why did liberals shut everything down because of a little tropical storm?"^img Andy has plumbed new depths of dishonesty here. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User: "Please don't make cheap political points about natural desasters.^img" Karajou: "Liberalism is what happened to New Orleans!^img" This guy really sickens me. Röstigraben (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, those damn third world whiners again, they should try living with atheists in their countries! --★uː ʤ ɱ pirate 14:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

BrentH is on the right track: "Seeing as Gustav^img and Katrina^img were downgraded to tropical storms in the end, we should move these articles to "Tropical storm" too." I have a feeling this won't end well for him. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And .... he gets an MYOB! Haven't seen one of those since TK died. I was expecting "inserting false information" or "arguing" or maybe even something about "inserting liberal multiculturalism". Or maybe failing to submit a writing plan? SamHB (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The MYOB block was for pointing out that reverting vandalism is not really edit warring, so JPatt shouldn't have blocked RLorian. Phiwum (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait...WHAT?![edit]

In one paragraph, Karadouche tells us "the subway system should be used as much as possible to the very last minute to get as many people out of harm's way as possible" and says that is a conservative point, while what happened with katrina (people waiting till the last minute to leave) is a liberal point. This man is making my brain leak through my ears...--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what New York does to prepare for the storm; it will either always be overzealous preparation that inconveniences everyone or the state and city didn't do nearly enough. It is lose/lose situation as far as Andy and crew are concerned, as New York has been deemed "liberal" and thus can do no right in their eyes. They are still angry over the state for not puttin' dem dirty gays in der' proper place.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If Irene had been a Cat 5 and smashed into NY, Andy would have crowing about God's revenge, etc. But seeing as God let him down on the natural disaster front, he's back to liberal bashing. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to a left-wing blogger, Chris Christie (GOP governor of New Jersey) has done a great job convincing people to take this storm seriously. Comments about Christie on CP? Zero. Typi-fucking-cal. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's always and everywhere the fault of liberal do-gooders and their asbestos bans. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We have always been at war with Eurasia. --Opcn (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath[edit]

Andy: A liberal refuses^img to apologise for shutting down the mas transit system. Linked Source: "an initial survey revealed flooded subway tracks, powerless commuter rail networks and fallen trees and branches that had rendered some rail routes impassable. " Me: Andrew Schlafly is a shitstain on the gusset of humanity. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just watching the news and watched a car FLOATING down the road like driftwood...in NEW YORK. Up your ass with broken glass Andy.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I just laughed my lungs out[edit]

Quoth Uncle Ed: Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias^img. I am speechless. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I liked his "we are not so much "conservative" as trustworthy." The scary thing is, he genuinely believes that shit. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with 188? Nobody could be that wilfully blind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Add anything that is correct and useful." is really the part here that is important. It's that they see differently what "correct" and "usefull" is. Which if you see it this way, they don't have a bias. But if you look at it from a perspective without blind believe they are biased as hell. That's why he can say that with a straight face, he really believes all this and so for him it is the truth and therefor unbiased. --★uː ʤ ɱ soviet 18:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ed genuinely believes all this. It's the only explanation other than "Ed is the greatest powertripping jerk on the continent". His protective layer of faith in the noble mission of CP and his own goodness is so thick that he won't even acknowledge a problem when people hold evidence up to his face. --Sid (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not going to college = not learning how to Spell[edit]

Exactly what it says on the Tin^img, Cause you know, nobody ever learns how to spell words before college.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2b onest Ey cunt speall eevan in colljege. --★uː ʤ ɱ secularist 19:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Check the talk page from time to time as people point out obvious spelling errors on the MPR.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken DeMyer, the ignorant[edit]

Europe's gone over the cliff of socialism^img (whatever he means with that) and Ken cooks up some news that's almost 2 weeks old…^img

My bank still works fine. Ok that's not funny, but that it's a state owned bank with the lowest risk that is funny. --★uː ʤ ɱ socialist 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Europe is socialist? LOL!!! I wish (economically anyway, socially I'm not big with the whole executing the Romanovs thing). --

23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Outlaw gays?[edit]

For Ken, the answer is YES!^img. After all who wants to see lesbians when you can watch this. --Marlow (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Irony, thy name is Andy.[edit]

~~Queen Carlotta~~ King Andrew declares backwards day.^img ... of liberals? (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal reverting is a blockable offense.[edit]

First^img Jpatt blocks RLorain for "edit warring" when he was reverting a number of vandalized pages. Then he blocks BrentH for pointing out^img that RLorain wasn't really edit warring. MYOB, indeed! How dare you point out that JPatt is a moron? Phiwum (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Added to the Anger Bear earlier, who blocked a user for pointing out on a talk page that Karajou was wrong about Superman. It's funny how users who cross Karajou always conveniently turn out to be socks. Angry and stupid is pretty much the order of the day at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadistic is the best word that describes Karajou. But now Andy has elevated Karajou's sadistic whims to site policy. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 18:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If by "now," you mean "in 2007," then, sure, I guess. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

^That!--Opcn (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Kara's issues and the lack of accountability date back all the way to even before RW 2.0 - I still got this old page from RW1 (from the era before CaptureBot, so expect tons of broken links). Yes, it once hailed permabans over "la" vs. "ta" in an article. And Karajou has been keeping it up all these years - he just occasionally ran out of targets. --Sid (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good God, I finally looked at some of the diffs. A user signs up and his first edit is this,^img followed by edits such as this^img and this,^img and his block is going to expire in a few minutes because he was only edit-warring in Jpatt's eyes. To be fair, I can sort of see why he will be allowed back - he has just the right tone to become a good Conservapedia sysop, he just needs to start picking on people below him, not above. --Sid (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more CP Kremlinology: Karajou actually apologizes here for a mistaken block on a parodist; as my former fellow sysops see more and more of this out of character behavior, it becomes undeniable his sadistic behavior not only shapes CP rules, but who interprets CP rules. Each needs to decide for themself if a 5 year block on a senior sysop for advocacy of the rule of law is justifiable versus someone motivated by vengeance for a personal insult which jeopardizes the integrity of the project. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 19:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, On CP, blocking a user who wanted what you want is perfectly fine and legal Rob. Why? Because they were a threat to everybody, even andy. You were never wronged because the rule of law never EXISTED in the first place. Now, go take a break and come back when you can stop saying "CP used to be a good place, CP is being ruined by Ken and Kara, andy isn't a bad guy he just doesn't know what to do atm"--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's block of JimJast was actually a little more entertaining than that. At least to a geek who has been following the "science" debates closely. First, JimJast isn't a CP parodist. He is an absolute crackpot who has found a place that rejects his crackpottery a little less strongly than the (infinite) rejection it gets elsewhere.

Just about everyone at CP (even me) have been coming down extremely hard on JJ, and actually persuaded him to move his drivel into the essay space. Not being a sysop, he actually consented, rather than blustering and blocking the way sysops would have responded to this. He asked someone how to make essay pages, then did so, and copied his drivel over there. Then he needed sysop powers to delete the original pages. He was told to ask Andy, which he did. Andy, quite reasonably, (oxymoron alert) wanted to be sure he deleted the right pages, so he instructed JJ to empty the contents of the pages to be deleted. JJ did so. That's when anger bear awoke from his slumber, saw someone emptying pages, and sprang into action. SamHB (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude, JimJast isn't a parodist, he's a crank just like the other cranks CP has embraced. That KAL007 nutter for one. You really need to get over this already. You knew you were going to get banned if you proceeded, and if you were somehow so stupid as not to know then we told you so. You took your choice, and now you've got to live with it. You're not getting back on CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou blocked JimJast, and then reversed himself and apologised only a minute later [8]. What an outrageous crime! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In which Robert hijacks yet another thread to go ME!! ME!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE AND HOW BADLY I WAS BITTEN BY THE BEAST I HELPED CREATE!!!![edit]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Milktost, you still miss the point. CP sysops know there are serious problems, save Andy. But even Andy agreed to (1) undo range blocks; (2) undo some 403s; (3) eliminate sysops are God clause. Ken agreed (1) the wiki should be more open; (2) blocking needs reform. Karajou gives lip service to some reforms but can't overcome personal grudges. Most other CP sysops agree with me on need for reform. Ken recently proposed making it "legal" to criticize other sysops actions. Even Rationalwiki had no dispute moderation policies in place till very recently, and that came at a cost. But as long as Andy remains reticent on everything, no enforcement mechanism can be put in place to untangle the contradictory dictums that CP sysops still think is their charge to make sense of.

Conservapedia is lawless. Rationalwiki was founded as a mobocracy to counter the claim that Conservapedia was authoritarian, but the reality is CP has always been lawless and is little more than the domain of a few wikipedia outcasts to vent their personal animosities about everything and anybody. It's growth was stunted when it embarked on this course after the Conservapedia:Great Purge, but it's increasingly harder for Andy, Ken, Karajou, TerryH and the others to deny what I'm saying. The mistake now is taking valid criticism -- such as I've expressed -- and turning it into personal disputes. But as has been pointed out, both WP & RW took at least 4 years to distinguish between problem users and those who had the interests of the site at heart. CP's 90/10 doesn't help any of this.

But it's good to see a few RW editors live up to the negative stereotypes Karajou has of all RW editors. By contrast, and despite our ideological differences, somebody like Sid, who I've known for more than four years now, I have learned much from and always found his criticism helpful. See, Rationalwiki, like Conservapedia, is not an ideological monolith either. There really are people on both sites who's ideological outlook is not to obliterate dissent. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There will never be reform, because its anathema to the people running that website. You can believe whatever you want, but your current belief that CP can and will ever get better is stupdiity --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that? Read what I said, "it's increasingly harder for Andy, Ken, Karajou, TerryH and the others to deny what I'm saying.". RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That without you the site is lost? Or that you were wronged? That CP is a doomed venture? You say a lot of things Rob.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you that fucking stupid? Why don't you~~lich mich arse.~~ Nevermind, I don't want you getting excited. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 22:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

About? Sorry, the prospect of doing something with you is a very giant turn off.--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, you hijack threads better then Rob. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say that even though I agree that Mikalos' (Mikalos'? Mikaloses'? Mikaloseseses?) obsession with following Rob around is kinda creepy, Rob's constant "Hey look at this thing that RW has known about for years but I've apparently only just noticed. Isn't it totally terrible now that it's happened to me?!" whining is also pretty god damn annoying. X Stickman (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is this Rob guy that people keep mentioning? Does he post a lot? Angry Blue (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a little creepy, but i don't deliberately stalk him. And i tend to use Mikaloses or Mikalos's. The fact its a name i made up doesn't help.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken and Show Preview[edit]

So why does Ken

never, ever use Show Preview? hope I'm doing this vote right –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He simply forgets every single time	12	Vote
He does it to annoy us	5	Vote
He's a troll doing it to annoy everyone	7	Vote
He's mentally ill	94	Vote
Goat	8	Vote

I know at some point, he mentioned it was to annoy people--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Poll fixed. I hope. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He does use it. Extensively. We are seeing only a minor fraction of his trials... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way of determining that? I wouldn't think so, but you being teh graphmeister, I thought I should ask. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TBQH, I think its the least disturbing of his traits. That guy is seriously fucking creepy, and the fact Andy permits him on the same site as his homeskollers is seriously irresponsible. --

23:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh you're not wrong. I just wanted to see what other people think about this one particular attribute. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very creepy. I get a head ache just reading his crap.

Also, he just said homosexuality should be criminalized because Indian Chrstians dance better than fat lesbians^img. Seriously, the guy needs help. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't need Preview, he has Oversight. See for example how the "Criminalize Homosexuality" link is dead now - he oversighted so much^img that now OliviaB's reply to Ken was also made by Ken! Meanwhile, the logs^img show how he spent seven edits on his two posts (all of which were then collapsed into that single diff, along with Olivia's reply!) --Sid (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell, the other day I watched Kendoll spend something like 15 edits over several minutes adding random characters and then the numerals 1-7 to the beginning of one of articles. Then he burnt the whole thing to the ground and recreated it without his little vandalism spree. He's off his nut. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not cool to reply to yourself but seriously, instead of backing up CP every night to tape or whatever, why don't they just write one single article called "Homosexuality, Liberalism and Atheism Are All The Same, All Very Bad And Cause All Things Bad", then use a script to read every word in the dictionary and create every article in the style of Homosexuality and X, Atheism and X, Liberals and X, copy the one true "real" article into every page and then call it a day? Me, I'd love to read Homosexuality and Homosexuality. That'd be a hoot. --Sasayaki (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The implication they would know how to do anything but basic Wiki editing makes me laugh`--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The implication they would know how to do ~~anything but~~ basic Wiki editing makes me laugh --Worm (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The implication they would know ~~how to do~~ anything ~~but basic Wiki editing~~ makes me laugh --Inquisitor (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

~~The implication~~ they ~~would know how to do anything but basic Wiki editing~~ makes me laugh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Th^e implicatioⁿ they w^ould know how to do anythin^g but basic Wiki editing makes me laug^h!~~ --99.50.96.218 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob concern-trolls another thread[edit]

Yah, yah, what Sid said (and a few others). Message to User:Conservative/FYI: All your extra efforts are for naught. This is how it works, at Recent changes, an experienced editor sees all the red links you create on pages that normally should not be deleted, like talk pages or Archives. So after you've spent hours and hours doctoring those pages to get them where you like them, nobody reads it cause they know it's been doctored to suit your tastes. I have never, ever, read any of your crap just for this reason. I see the red links in the deletion log, avoid any of those pages, and pity the users you've abused trying to cover your tracks. You're not fooling anyone, only yourself. These editors here know you and your work so well, I'd never have had the patience to put more than 5 minutes into investigating these naked abuses they've documented over years. And the shit you pull daily would've got you de-sysoped, blocked, banned, and sent to Siberia years ago on real wiki. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ROB, shut the fuck up. Now. You're only embarrassing yourself. Every single edit you've made to this page in the last month has been you whining about things that have happened to literally hundreds of other people, or you revealing some great truth that has been old news on this site for years and years. You're an idiot, a mental midget, and a troll. Stop it. Move on. Nothing to see here folks. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All vitriol aside, Rob, most of your remarks about Conservapedian personalities are very old news around here, so that they read like the efforts of a Wannabe.

ListenerX^TalkerX 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RobS invested a hell of a lot of time and effort into CP. Perhaps there was an element of wilful blindness going on but even so his reaction to being turfed out the way he was is not unreasonable. Unlike the rest of us, he actually believed in the project so he comes from a totally different perspective to us. Let him be. This infantile namecalling is part of the reason I hardly ever contribute here anymore. Damo ^Hi 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats the problem though. He HELPED MAKE conservapedia what it is today and was perfectly fine to let things keep going, then decided "reform time!", predictably lost, and now keeps telling us how the site is doomed or that somehow in the end what he wanted to happen is going to happen, that X has B problem, ect ect. If he would shut up about CP, come back when he won't tell us what we've known since day one and not act all wronged (he wasn't) we can all be "friends".--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think we should be giving him a hard time about it. Have you never believed in a cause, only to find out that it was shit? Whether or not he helped make some of the more unsavoury aspects of CP is debatable, perhaps he simply applied wilful blindness to the excesses - hardly the same thing. Damo ^Hi 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you decided to black out the bad things you did doesn't mean you are any less guilty of them. --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Rob's history is not in the same league as Mr. Schlafly's or Karajou's or Ken's

. The chief complaint against him seems to be his subscription to certain anti-communist conspiracy theories. And regardless of what certain fanatics say, failing to oppose a certain practice in a loud and blatant manner is not the same as supporting it. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)@Mikalos. I'm not so sure about that. For virtually all of his time at CP he wrote articles and news stories, he didn't really get involved to any great deal in the mass blocking, the 403'ing, the hiding of revisions etc etc. He more or less did his own thing which is, if not entirely noble, not the same as participating in the madness. Damo ^Hi 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that there are currently three (!) subsections on this page made to give Rob a hard time? If you would just let him moan and bitch for a while the other users that don't give a shit what he thinks might not be so annoyed. --★uː ʤ ɱ pirate 00:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob is doing nothing that any one of the old cabal did not do at one time or another; he is just a few years behind the rest of us in terms of understanding Conservapedia.

ListenerX^TalkerX 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the 5th most active editor all time at Conservapedia, ahead of TK, Karajou, and Jpatt, and only 200 edits behind RJensen. There's still much to be said. It's far from over. And to the whiners, you don't having a fucking clue about Conservapedia, nor for that matter Rationalwiki. Why don't you watch and observe, or just go on pissing in the wind about Andy & Ken. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey rob, rob. Wanna know a secret? Theres almost nothing you have told us so far, and based on that, nothing you will tell us, we either didn't know or just didn't care to know. Also, good job acting like a proper christian with all your insult and cursing. Also, we don't know about Cp? What don't we know? that it's oppressive and anti-everything? that most people there are crazy? What don't we know?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, as Jesus put it, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Milktost, wanna know a secret? Maybe I'm not talking to you. Maybe what I post here actually has an impact on Andy, Ken & Karajou. So who's the concern troll? you spout off year after year about those guys, haven't done jackshit to change things, and they ignore you. Don't you have anything better to do with your life? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe it has an effect" Oh come on rob, are you that fucking retarded? Really? And I don't think you noticed, but this account was made in January. I've been reading CP since late 2008, with a few blocked accounts for non vandalism (3 are for username and 2 are for a talk page edit). I've never cared to try and reform anything about the site, and my account there is to give me something to do to pass the time. And again, if you ever had a single thought that your reform attempts would succede, you really are a complete idiot. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2008, huh? So you don't know jackshit about Conservapedia or Rationalwiki, and the history behind both. You just a vandal troll. Figures. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would love to try and understand how you came to that conclusion but... nah. Not really worth the effort. And a quick look at my pre-current account edits: two talk page edits for the two talk page accounts congratulating them for having a non-biased article, and some asking why I had to use my real name and not any of my normal usernames. Yep, such a vandal I was in the day.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

you two

Pippa (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos209, please just let Rob have his slightly pathetic pity moment. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Another topic about kens atheism killer article[edit]

Ken: It won't be a satire, it may or may not come out in 2011 or 2012, and even by then atheism might be dead from shockofgod :)^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ho ho! Chuckle chuckle! Something may be happening sometime (here let me repeat the Google-friendly terms again and again), but I may or not be available! Ho ho! wink wink." What a fartbubble. DogP (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one surprised to see Ken showing interest in a Camel Toe?--Opcn (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I keep thinking of this Robin Williams routine whenever Ken comes out with his "At some point something may happen!" announcements. --Sid (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm used to arbitrary blocks, but...[edit]

...this one^img is even more hair-trigger arbitrary than usual. Ken blocked the user for five years for...what, exactly? Changing "rants against Christianity" to "rants against organized religion?" --Phentari (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This^img is quite a good one as well. Kenny blocks someone for 'over the top faux conservatism' for citing^img kennys articles. Irony, thy name is kenny. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene / Connecticut[edit]

Andy^img: Connecticut has liberal energy policies and so they have no energy and that's why 700,000 people are without power.

Reality from his own source: Extensive damage from Hurricane Irene, not " lack of plentiful energy". "There were a 'tremendous number' of down wires throughout the state and the power substation in the city of Bridgeport was underwater, with officials having to shut off energy in order to pump water out of the station..." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's ranting are becoming ever-more bizarre. He's working himself up into a Karajou-esque lather. God knows what he'll do when Obama wins next year. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

One can almost hear him say: "Ah, fuck that, all my readers are too dumb to read the links anyways." --★uː ʤ ɱ digital native 16:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

/Drew Carey voice/ "Hello and welcome to Conservapedia, where the facts are made up in front of you and the links don't matter." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He explains it here^img - articles are cited for facts, not opinions (and he makes a point that often those 'facts' are liberal opinions). It works like this: Fact: 700,000 people without power in Connecticut. Andy: They don't have enough power plants is the problem, because of liberals. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Unlike Wikipedia, at Conservapedia your citations don't have to say what you're claiming they say (also see: citation of a forum comment WIGO). --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fast! Somebody ask him if CP has any bias! I can't wait for the drivel on "conservative facts" and "liberal ~~facts~~ opinions". --★uː ʤ ɱ pirate 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This^img is hilarious. Has TerryB heard anything about a big deadly earthquake on the other side of the world or has he been living under a rock for the past six months?^{— Unsigned, by: 98.210.2.161 / talk / contribs}

Obviously the skill of sarcasm escapes you Anon 98.--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Power should be handled by Private Enterprise[edit]

Andy: I want the innovations that the free market can create to be in the energy sector!^img, which immediately made me think of Jennifer Government--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Many if not most homophobes are gay"[edit]

According to this page^img. Also, "the simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage." Sounds like people we know, eh? άλφα^Talk 00:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There has always been a general agreement not to expose parody on this page. Lets stick to this. Huh? --Damo ^Hi 00:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Unfortunately CP timed out on me while I was wading through the history to see who added that specific statement (surely it must be a parodist, right?) but a lot of the information was added by Rob. It just makes me feel justified in holding Rob in as high esteem as I do every other sysop at CP... άλφα^Talk 00:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@Damo - I think there's always been a general agreement that some people think it's ok, others think it's not. As I said, a lot of the revisions look like they were added by Rob, and I can't access the site to see if it was a legitimate editor or not. So much "obvious" parody is added by sysops, the whole site is unintelligible enough that I don't think it matters. άλφα^Talk 00:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears the addition was made by Rob^img. Read into that what you will. Damo ^Hi 00:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Calling opponents of the homosexual agenda intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality." Nice one, Rob. How is it exactly that people have you confused with a decent human being? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

uh, I don't think that was mine. Nice try, though. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See below. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we didn't post parody up here because -while it can be funny- it mostly doesn't illustrate the stupidity of conservapedia. They can't be responsible for what parodists write. Otherwise RWikians could simply insert parody and then post it up here as an example of CP stupidity. The other reason is because CP editors read what is written here and are likely to go fix any identified parody; I don't think this is major issue, the site is RIDDLED with misinformation, fixing it would be a monumental task especially when sysops are contributing to the problem. Regarding Rob - I've only been here a month or two (long enough to follow his crash and burn) and I thought he seemed like a strange guy but with a fairly decent moral compass. Guess I was wrong. Tielec01 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

EC @Bb Rob just moved the 'calling opponents..."entry from "Homophobia" to "Anti-gay". The actual entry was made by Toadaron^img. Rob did add the "most homophobes are gay" bit though which actually raises him up in esteem in my book (as I think there is an element of truth to it). Damo ^Hi 01:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Look at that, someone on the internet admitting he's wrong. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though there may be an element of truth in it, the reason it makes me cringe is because I find something horribly ironic about a site full of raving homophobes (Rob included, as far as I know) stating flat out that most homophobes are gay. I presume they think that they're among the privileged few homophobes who aren't? (Or rather, they probably have some reason why they aren't homophobes, just people "doing the right thing" or some other insanity like that) άλφα^Talk 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

With a header like this I can't believe Ken

hasn't been mentioned yet. Anyway, New Gay Stereotype: middle-aged, married, conservative, "family values". --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken

has way too much machismo to ever be considered questionable--Durbinator^{The truth has a liberal bias!} 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken

has way too much machismo way too many other things to do so he won't be able to address your accusations until November 2015.  Oh, by the way, he just created 25 new articles showing how critics of homophobes are fat rabbits unable to debate Shock of God Nets awesome (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Person of color[edit]

Redirect to "Blacks"^img "Blacks" redirects to "African American"^img which finally redirects to African Americans^img Is that the world's first triple redirect?. --Roofus (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no. there were, atleast by my look, some Hilary Clinton articles that redirected 3/4 times a few months ago--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is playing CraigF[edit]

I've asked you before and I'll ask you again; the homophobia and the sexism^img is a little much. Dial it back a bit. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even better when theres a woman amongst the american hero pictures. Or Esther, from the bible.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's gotten away with this ridiculous edit^img for quite some time, including the fun fact that the Prius is "very popular with homosexuals, celebrities and environmentalists who want to spend more money so people think they care about the environment." Not subtle parody at all. Phiwum (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think parody like that is proof of how scummy CP is. They let it stay, that means they approve. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

took him long enough^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They re-merged the article^img but at least they kept the men and women separate, as God intended. --Roofus (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To lazy to get the difs, but apparently being in "manly" roles was forced on woman by the liberals, and hulk hogan is actually a conservative with the liberal persona forced on him by liberals--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

QE[edit]

So which of these do people think is our old friend Mad Ken Demyer? I reckon #3, the poor little diddums with flu. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say #4 - isn't Ken officially enrolled in college, or used to be at least? And his desire to "debate evolutionists" is another clue, although Shockofgod is in for a major disappointment as soon as someone accepts that challenge. And if Ken really suffered from the flu sometime in the first half of July, it certainly didn't stop him from making about a hundred edits a day. Röstigraben (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - #4 is Ken. We know he uses the library at the uni in the town where he lives and the rest of the profile fits. Also... why are they contacting churches? Shouldn't they be contacting scientists and evil atheists like us? --PsyGremlinParla! 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why use the market place when you have indoctrination camps in every town? Also, being laughed at hurts. --★uː ʤ ɱ soviet 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it was #3. 1) Kendoll isn't a student. While he has edited from NYU, he's also about middle aged. 2) Person #3 was later dropped from the roster. It's a typical Kendoll move. "I'm totally up for it! But I'm busy/ill/on sabbatical right now, but later for sure!" Then in the end he doesn't end up doing anything, because Kendoll can't compromise his man of mystery status. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I know it to be true, I still have a hard time picturing Ken as a middle age man. With his writing style and level of idiocy, all I can see is a hyperactive 12 year old.. GTac (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing's Ken because the blog has been deleted. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an archive. 68.93.133.150 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I see of Ken's antics the more it confirms what a gutless, self-obsessed wimp he is.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

07:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy,...[edit]

...you are an asshole.^img 35 people died. Have you no respect at all? --★uː ʤ ɱ soviet 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even as a rhetorical question, that one's a no-brainer. As a side-bar: If a question is rhetorical, should it end in a question mark, as it isn't a question at all?--

^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Is there a joke in there I don't get? --★uː ʤ ɱ atheist 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even more to the point, the media coverage about Irene can be shown to have been pretty much on target.--

^talk

00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is just bitter because Irene didn't become Katrina 2 and give him a proper reason to bash Obama. Vulpius (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is (beware, rant ahead!), what does this man think would have happend if there were more people in the area? A lower death toll? It's this unbelievable stupidity: "Ah, only around 40 people died! That's not that bad! So the evacuations were premature! Abracadabra! Obama is bad!" that get's me to where I want to slap the guy in the face. If there are more people in an area when a natural disaster hits, there are going to be more deaths - just by the simplest logic of probability that's a no-brainer.

And then he goes about to pick one guy out of the casualties list and make all of them look like idiots that wouldn't have died if they had thought about things more (to be honest, windsurfing when a hurricane is approaching is not the brightest idea). That is so fucking degenerated, even for Andy's standards that's a new low. --★uː ʤ ɱ pirate 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My favorite was the slight about people not wanting to go to government shelters. People aren't champing at the bit to leave the comfort of their homes and weather a storm in some church basement? That's because the government it teh awful. Good job, Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess if pressed on it, he'd fall back to an explanation similar to his more guns = less crime thing. Like maybe with more people in the area there'd be more people to offer help and thus reduce the casualties, or something. I doubt he's thought too much about it. I know it's hardly news at this point, but this is one of the more blatant "anything the government does with Obama as president is automatically bad" things they've done. X Stickman (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

American Heroes[edit]

Lets take a look: Norris, Bush Junior (wait what?)...^imgHulk Hogan... yep. that articles going to go far. Apparently he no longer worships Ford though.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a little put off by Hulk Hogan too, I mean his theme song was "Real American", but that is but a wrestling persona. I can see this as a parodist haven. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm eagerly awaiting someone (someone trying to win brownie points) adding Andy Schlafly to the list; didn't someone try that on the greatest conservatives list or something to that effect? άλφα^Talk 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they never saw "HOLLYWOOD" Hulk Hogan in WCW.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone did add Andy to the greatest coservatives list; he aptly declined. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, TK put him in the Gallery of American Heroes^img and Andy "trimmed" it.^img(Here was the picture.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For someone with such delusions of grandeur, he sure is humble! άλφα^Talk 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Both andy's mom^img & Andy himself (in the position of Honour)^img have been added.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone burn a sock and add John. --Roofus (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Who?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

John Schlafly --Roofus (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I like how Jesus Christ is listed third, after Andy Schlafly and Chuck Norris. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They do realize that Jesus isn't a natural-born citizen and is therefore ineligible to be an American hero, don't they? --Roofus (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken had a short stint on the list^img before Craig removes him^img by way of "unsure nationality"--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman's gone^img for not being an American citizen. --Roofus (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hogan, that bastard, supported obama^img and Ridge didnt condemn abortion^img so neither can at all be American heroes. Also, Edison loses out for denying god, and Armstrong is out for commiting adultery^img, although Kara didn't like that, so he added neil back in and banned len for being a sock^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I like the "heroines" section. None of the five women there now actually match the criteria as they did not "maintain their traditional role in the home," especially that noted spinster, Ann Coulter. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire article is unbelievably embarrassing. Ken's essays are one thing, but this has the work of many hands.--

^talk

09:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goat I love it. Someone took a shit and many hands are trying to shape it. Amazing how innocent their idea is when they start an article, then immediately ideology rears its ugly head.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

God, I've never seen their Ann Coulter article before. I couldn't make it past the second paragraph. --Roofus (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it hilarious how "supported Barrack Hussein Obama for president" is a legitimate reason to toss someone off the list. Also, Thomas Edison was kicked for not believing in God^img, which is actually wrong since Edison was a deist. Bizarrely enough, Thomas Paine, who inspired Edison's deism, remains on the list^img. Chaosof99 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to point out the absolute obvious now: that things fails already in the first line. Actions make heroes, not values. --★uː ʤ ɱ pervert 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an objection way more insightful than this shit deserves. Angry Blue (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Slaves can't be Americans[edit]

Atleast according to this user^img. Nevermind that Lee, a man who fought Against america is allowed to be on the list.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Karajou steps in^img and puts an end to that debate. then restores Frederick Douglass^img, neglecting the women. Chivalry! --Roofus (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Those woman were being strong and Indy so, they don't count anyways!--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Free Socks[edit]

I'm going to be creating a bunch of socks that you are all free to use.

All of them are going to be the first initial P followed by a Last name.
The password on them will be: password
Enjoy! --MikeO (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Get lost, we're not interested.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

17:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't so uncouth, you might get into RW's SDG, where they have socks and proxies galore. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like something I'd like to be part of! Not that I'd actually be using socks or anything, but I'd love to indulge in the lulz. -Lardashe

Who do you think we are? Encyclopedia Dramatica? We don't want your socks. CP is way funnier when the crazy is added by actual crazies, not Poes. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like all of them got caught by Karajou. Fucking duh. You know he reads this page right? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fucking amateur. As OU has said, if you want to play with the big boys you need socks tied to a single pseudoproxy, so Kowardjerk's checkusering doesn't reveal anything suspicious (and the proxy-blocker doesn't detect it as a proxied connection) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

But what's the point? It's their site. If they don't want you to be there, then let it be. Socking just crosses a line for no good reason I can see. Phiwum (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're just not down for the cause. We're not trying to have a laugh or keep ourselves entertained, we're trying to destroy them. I won't rest until CP is eradicated from the internet. If I have to hack, steal, lie or cheat, then they are means justified by the end. Karajou thinks he can keep us at bay, be we are many and we're organized and determined. He will never stop RW from achieving its true goal: censoring conservatives at all costs. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The depressing part is that he believes you when you say these things. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You know Popeye is probably having a fit reading this right now. He'll be bellowing in to the phone at the FBI, demanding SWAT teams and extraordinary renditions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, when exactly does our plan to use all our secret agents (e.g, Ed Poor) to get Karajou kicked out of Conservapedia start again? (Be paranoid, Karajou!) --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I can talk to Ed about that if you guys want me to... he's coming over Saturday to babysit the twins while Mrs Blue and me are at Black Mass. Angry Blue (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That was clever, pretending our agent was Ed. That will certainly throw them off suspecting Ken

. Bob Soles (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but parodosts just arn't funny. The shit they come out without over there is only funny if they genuinely believe it, and I'd rather damn them for their own words rather than some dick poking them with a stick. If you sincerely want to to destroy CP, then all socks and parodists should leave en masse. CP would be a ghost town. Even Andy would be absent. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree that parodists aren't as funny as the genuine article, but it is sometimes funny to see just how much obvious parody that they embrace whole heartedly. Sure it's funnier when it comes directly from Andy's mouth, but when Lieberal O'ParodistSock suggests something patently ridiculous and Andy jumps on it as some kind of amazing point, that's pretty amusing too. X Stickman (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but sometimes poking them a bit gets them going and then we can see how low they'll sink. Look at all the talk about the Hurricane Irene.--MikeO (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you did a great job. They took the bait, and since they can't actually know what password any given account has you have essentially shitlisted the letter P. Well done, good sir. Too bad disabling the other 25 letters is not a matter of simply repeating this. I'm looking forward to learning what you will come up with next. Angry Blue (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I could use some new socks. Do you have knee high black ones?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the answer![edit]

The answer to the question "Why did Andy's campaign a few years back fail as hard as it did?"^img --★uː ʤ ɱ soviet 21:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's campaign failed because Andy's a crackpot, not because of a lack of advertising. In fact, the lack of advertising probably helped him; would you vote for a guy who thinks relativity is a liberal plot to stop people reading the Bible? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody gets my jokes… --★uː ʤ ɱ secularist 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You make jokes? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If I were rich, I'd personally finance Andy in a bid for president as an independent on the condition that he himself handle all of his own marketing and advertising, because that would be absolutely amazing and hilarious to see. However, this attitude of throwing money at pointless projects is probably why I am not rich. X Stickman (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell, if the Republican nominees have to be a joke then why not make Andy that joke? He'd be even more entertaining than Bachmann or Perry. Considering the batshit spiral they've been going down in recent years they might actually be ready for Andy in 2016. Parodists convinced Andy to rewrite the Bible, can they get on getting him to run for President? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering some of the stuff Perry is coming out with as his proposed policy, Andy might even be saner than him. Sure, he'd try to destroy the department of education, but he'd probably be OK with the federal government actually receiving tax revenue. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perry has the ability to apear to be listening to ideas, Andy lacks that ability. --Opcn (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I choose to put my vote into a Trusworthy Candidate with clear goals on Education, Energy regulation, Religion and the Economy. I put my trust in Andy. If you don't agree, your just a Liberal Atheist muslim america hater who also obviously supports abortion and various other things.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up[edit]

Last chance to sign up^img for Andy's World History course. Better get in quick! --Roofus (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can Conservapedia turn my internet off?[edit]

Hello all,

I have been vandalizing Conservapedia for quite some time, but was surprised when my ISP shut off my internet after receiving a complaint from what I am sure is someone at Conservapedia.

My question for you is whether this is legal, it's cleared up now, so I'm not worried, but I would like to know if I should limit my vandalism to public hot spots, or if I can call my ISP and tell them the true story and maybe send my ISP after Andy for wasting their time and resources.--MikeO (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop whining. You vandalised a legal website and you may have got hassled for it. Tough shit. Either don't 'vandalise' or don't whine imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't condone vandalism; obvious troll is obvious. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not whining about it, if they got me, they got me. I'm just wondering if this is actually a valid tactic, or if someone over there is overstepping. Figured that people here might me more familiar with mediawiki protocol than I am. Until I hear otherwise, my vandalism will only take place at public hot spots, which still gives me plenty of options.

An additional bit of detail I wanted to disclose is that none of my post's have been threatening, mostly I just blank pages and replace the text with a request for Andy to tell us about his gay brother, or insinuations about the rogue editors working over there. I think I might have called the car guy a retard once or twice too, but again, nothing that would be considered illegal as far as I know.--MikeO (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I think nearly everything is funny, but that doesn't sound like anything even vaguely funny. -Lardashe

Mike, maybe if you chill and hang out for a while you will get invited to the group where RW plans and executes their vandalism. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no cabal B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every ISP will have a Terms of Service to which you must agree as a condition of use, if you infringe those terms then the ISP is entitled to withdraw their service as a breach of civil contract.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

09:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the point in vandalising Conservapedia? If you disagree with them, there are far more constructive ways of expressing that disagreement than vandalism. The only reason I can see, is the juvenile fun in destructiveness, if your disagreement with them makes you feel like they are an acceptable target for that. That is a dehumanising attitude, treating them as things rather than people. We should always treat people as people, even people whom we have deep disagreements with. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that it has turned into juvenile fun through destruction, but I also hope that perhaps someone might see something and start questioning what's going on at the site, and maybe start to think for themselves a little bit. The one and only advantage in straight up vandalism is that it distracts them to an extent from making up more lies to pass of as truth.

My big issue with the site is that it attempts to pass of fiction as fact, and gives people way to gather support for their crackpot ideas. My original intent was to try to slowly insert facts into the site, of course it was quickly reverted and I was usually banned for promoting "non-conservative" ideas and not given any kind of recourse. So I took the easy route, which involved vandalism on as large a scale as I could muster, along with a little bit of "monstering" (a term first used by the character Spider Jerusalem in the comic series Transmetropolitan, which he described as: "The art of abusing people. Of ambushing them with questions, following them with questions, hounding them with questions, driving them to their fucking graves with questions. It’s sort of being like a photographer, except no ones' killed any royalty doing it…yet.")directed at Andy in an attempt to get him to comment on his gay brother.

2207 called. It wants the original Rationalwiki back. You're a little behind the learning curve here, son. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing your vandalism will serve to do (provided you are not A CP troll), is to cause them to circle the wagons even more and reinforce the notion that their ridiculous conclusions are sacred and true; for in their minds why would people vandalize unless they cannot debate what CP claims are the facts. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I condone any wandalism that's this funny^img. --Robledo (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes, whose beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." Ok, I lol'ed. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit it, I LOLed too. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For once Rat-Wiki is spot on; if you violate the ISP's terms by vandalizing they can cut you off. DMorris2 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction, if you violate the ISP's terms by vandalizing they can cut Starbucks/Panera/McDonalds/Chipotle/my neighbors off. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Think yourself lucky that you have only had your internet connection cut off. If the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services had learned of your nefarious activities there'd be hell to pay. Isn't that so, DMorris?

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction Occasionaluse: If you vandalize from Starbucks, Panera, McDonald's, Chipotle, Winn-Dixie, Chick Fil A, or where ever the hell and get reported, those places will block your Mac address and you'll never have Internet access there again using the device that gets blocked. Now me, I could give a shit less if they blocked my iPhone because I have 3G access through AT&T if they did, but I don't do malicious things on thy internets anyway. My laptop on the other hand I would not want to be blocked. DMorris2 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MAC spoofing --99.50.96.218 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember when they blocked the IP range for the entire Research In Motion network? lol... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi MikeyO, don't you have a gay parade to organize or something? --76.205.79.71 (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll see you there, JPatt. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your invite is in the post johnny, just ask some of your 'friends' to keep you company and you'll fit right in. Failing that ask andy's brother and he'll keep you company, right up until andy and his mother stone you to death that is. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of funny that I get blocked now as soon as I open an account, from one of the IP addresses I most use. Of course, I do live in NYC and open wi-fi networks are a dime a dozen here, so the only way to stop me is to block every IP address in NYC. Anyways, I'm now moving away from the simple vandalism I've most recently been engaging in, and returning to my original plan of inserting cold hard facts into your articles, and slowly making the site more "liberal".

Also, could you please tell Karajou that my edit for The Dark Knight was simply fixing a broken link, and that reverting it without actually looking at what I did, only proves that sloppy writing is endorsed by your site.

Dark Night is not necessarily important to the site. As far as open wi-fi, I'll block every user coming from Blimpie Subs. "slowly making the site more liberal" whatever you say -- reality has a known liberal bias I guess. LOL olddusgitus. --76.205.79.71 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In which Rob takes another thread and makes it all about him, again. 'Cause all that really matters is how badly he got bullied by a website he helped turn into a giant bully.[edit]

CP blocking policy no longer has anything to do with ideological conflict, nor defending Conservapedia. It is solely about the personal, sadistic hatred of a few sysops toward a handful of people. Anything which obstructs the expression of that hatred likewise becomes the object of that hatred. And this problem goes right to the top: Andrew Schlafly has allowed personal animosities and hatred to dictate Conservapedia's terms of service. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It always was that, Rob. Your failure to realise that until you got hit with it is why I have no sympathy for you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well y'all should be happy for CP's demise then because future growth is directly tide to heavy-handed policy of haters. Rob, your buddies here failed to mention that even if you had gotten your way, it wouldn't have meant diddly. You are too easily offended Rob, not a good fit for a wiki that is controversial to many.--76.205.79.71 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Well y'all should be happy for CP's demise then because future growth is directly tide to heavy-handed policy of haters."

JPatt, was there supposed to be comprehensible thought inside that word salad? Junggai (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.205.79.71, Have you read cp:Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia? It's worth reviewing. Whatever you mean by "getting my way", I can assure "my way" has never been anything more than what Aschlafly laid out on that page. He said,

A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on rules, just as the United States is. The democratic forces are properly restrained by the good rules. Likewise here....--Aschlafly 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

And that debate is significant for who Aschlalfy was speaking with. Here's a rule formulated by Aschlalfy,

We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.

Now, show me where I violated any Conservapedia rules that warranted a 30 day block issued by Aschlalfy to be extended to 5 years by a rogue admin, or what the founder of the site is doing now to mitigate a gross violation of site rules? RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 17:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, when you get back from fantasy land, let me explain how that rule was never followed. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, rational discourse (as you well know) was never part of the plan at CP. Sysops (like you) simply made up rules (and broke them) as they went along. Now take your nose out of our collective asses here at RW and go away. You were one of the turds that made CP into what it is today. Kind of funny how this stuff boomerangs, is it not?--Franklin (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, show me where I violated any Conservapedia rules that warranted a 30 day block issued by Aschlalfy to be extended to 5 years by a rogue admin, or what the founder of the site is doing now to mitigate a gross violation of site rules? Rob, if identical situations hadn't played themselves out HUNDREDS OF TIMES over the past 4 years, somone might care. Fuck off, willya? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh simple. You violated 90/10 while saying things the Sysops did not like while being a Serf. See, i found a rule you broke :D--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive256

Andy embarrasses himself in yet another scientific field[edit]

Beer Drinking Game[edit]

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates[edit]

Coke Eyes Hurlbutt's Bloodthirst for War[edit]

FYI[edit]

Full Throttle! soon[edit]

Daniel1212[edit]

Does this look like a trap to you?[edit]

open source conservative?[edit]

MatthewQ death pool[edit]

Depoliticising science[edit]

Dawkins fail, part 2.946.147[edit]

Global warming Andy's Head[edit]

Did Ken really write this essay?[edit]

Bad writing, or...[edit]

What ken would do[edit]

Andy's relativity double fail[edit]

Noah's Arquarium[edit]

Medal of Honour is now a Conservative Word/Phrase[edit]

Karatoon wtf?[edit]

Hurricane? What Hurricane?[edit]

Wait...WHAT?![edit]

Aftermath[edit]

I think I just laughed my lungs out[edit]

Not going to college = not learning how to Spell[edit]

Ken DeMyer, the ignorant[edit]

Outlaw gays?[edit]

Irony, thy name is Andy.[edit]

Vandal reverting is a blockable offense.[edit]

In which Robert hijacks yet another thread to go ME!! ME!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE AND HOW BADLY I WAS BITTEN BY THE BEAST I HELPED CREATE!!!![edit]

Ken and Show Preview[edit]

Rob concern-trolls another thread[edit]

Another topic about kens atheism killer article[edit]

Okay, I'm used to arbitrary blocks, but...[edit]

Hurricane Irene / Connecticut[edit]

Power should be handled by Private Enterprise[edit]

"Many if not most homophobes are gay"[edit]

Person of color[edit]

Whoever is playing CraigF[edit]

QE[edit]

Andy,...[edit]

American Heroes[edit]

Slaves can't be Americans[edit]

Free Socks[edit]

Finally, the answer![edit]

Just a quick heads-up[edit]

Can Conservapedia turn my internet off?[edit]

In which Rob takes another thread and makes it all about him, again. 'Cause all that really matters is how badly he got bullied by a website he helped turn into a giant bully.[edit]

Navigation menu

Search