Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive258

This is an archive page, last updated 15 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>, <256>, <257>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Same ole' ken so I'll skip the link

Fresh off his latest turn down of a debate Ken instead turns his focus onto his articles concerning how Atheists will not debate. Maybe if he writes about that enough his own failure to debate won't seem quite so hypocritical. In other news Shock had posts on his blog listing the team members for the QE! campaign, one of them said that they wanted to debate. I expressed an interest and Shock took down the blog post. Big surprise there. --Opcn (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My pet theory is that Ken's writing those posts on Shock's blog anyway. Think about it: "Conservative" on Conservapedia, "Creationist" on Creationwiki, "Question" on the Question Evolution blog? That would also explain in a way why Ken would suddenly copypaste^img entries from that blog as CP mainspace articles. --Sid (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Ken's thumbprints have been all over that blog for quite a while now; although he's not the founder, Ken definitely has write access. It was confirmed for me when he deleted the list of members after it being pointed out here that he was the wimp with flu. The phrasing and grammar on Sid's link are strongly redolent of Ken's style and the childish name selection is just laughable. You can also see how Ken's applying his SEO 'expertise' trying to fan the embers of a dying fire. He has also deleting blog comments; once that happens you know Ken is running scared. Come on atheist firemen! Just a little pee will put this one out. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Why bother pissing on something that can't even stay lit? Better to avoid the splashback. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy speaks in tongues...

I suggest that you echo number of edits in last $ww times 10 seconds = $y. Thanks.^img Ace^ace 04:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew he was a bot script, he is clearly written in Perl. No wonder we were able to replicate his speech pattern with a random phase generator. - π 05:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Anybody have a guess at what he meant? -Mikalos209

WTF? Has he finally completely lost his mind? --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

False alarm. The Ken script's had some hickups; it only looks like Andy made this edit because of one of the usual oversight mishaps. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the perl script that passes for Andy's brain has finally packed up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is it. I've had this theory that Andy has been on a constant bender the last few years. He's going through the strung out phase right now. In a few days hes gonna wake up, read Conservapedia and have the same WTF feeling I had when I woke up on my neighbors roof new years day.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have parsed it. He may be talking about the value of the time put into Conservapedia ($y), assuming ten seconds per edit and a given wage. Still looks like a non sequitur though. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So Andy can't just be normal and has to type out a dick response to be a dick? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously now, maybe he just hit the send button in the wrong window? Still as Andy never admits mistakes this all made perfect sense! --★uːʤɱ secularist 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaand Andybot oversights his bizarre malfunction. Nothing to see here. Move along. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What window do you mean? This is certainly one of the weirder moments in CP history. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I bet Andy runs a bot to make it look like he edits Conservapedia and cares about people who ask him questions on his talk page. That's why most topics on his talk page go ignored. His only real edits are to things like the CPB and MPR. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Return of the cocoa edit?

So what was going on in Andy's tiny, befuddled mind as he goes on a late night de-redding spree and turned to the Cornwall^img page? There are quite a few redlinks so he removes Cambourne^img saves it and comes back for St. Ives^img then unlinks wrecking^img, saves and does the same for Breton^img and finally unlinks Mebyon Kernow^img but seems happy to leave redlinks for St.Austell, Falmouth, Looe, Newquay (twice) and Bude. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a confusing topic for Andy's tiny mind. It's England, but it's... Welsh? (Pause to imagine the fizzing sound of misfiring neurons) Plus it's a non-US topic, so he's always going to be fighing massive disinterest. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Welsh? Really?. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Flood WIGO

To be clear, Andy's remark^img on the main page of how "liberals avoid using the word 'flood'" is indeed batshit crazy, but not for the reasons that the WIGO implies. This bee in his bonnet goes all the way back to his secularized language fixation, where he claimed that the changing of "flooding" to "flood waters^img" was a liberal attempt to deny the importance of the biblical flood. He made this clear in an amusing main page discussion^img he had with several editors -- yep, that's the one where he also claimed that "Christian" was a secularized term.

At any rate, the ridiculousness of his recent post has less to do with the fact that he thinks the news story avoids the word "flood" (he means that they use the word "flooding" instead), but the fact that he spent the better part of a week downplaying the devastation of Hurricane Irene, and suddenly a tropical depression with absolutely no casualties elicits a "look how the media is ignoring the plight of these PEEPLE!" response on MPR. Junggai (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, because hurricane Irene made the largest impact in liberal New York, so of course their response was draconian and overkill compared to the size of the threat. Lee on the other hand is going through the conservative south, who is suffering despite their best preparations. For Andy, everything is political, everything, including hurricanes and tropical storms. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Tropical Storm Irene Ateafish (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What's a federal holiday and a state holiday in all 50 states but ignored on CP?

Labor Day of course! Worth mentioning in they traditionally emphasize American holidays on those days (in addition to religious ones) such as Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Veterans Day, and Memorial Day.* Especially if they feel the the liberal establishment on the web (particularly Google) are not doing enough (or in their minds, purposely downplaying). However today's holiday, despite being national in scope and a holiday for well more than a century, gets zero mention. The question being is it just their anti-union stance, there recent turn to anti-Americanism, or both?

*Yes I know Thanksgiving isn't uniquely American, and Veterans Day is Armistice Day or Remembrance Day in other parts of the world; just talking about holidays as celebrated in the U.S. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

They mention it, by pointing out the decline of unions^img.--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Labor day is a socialist holiday that celebrates that bastion of liberalism - unions Ateafish (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah, and unions are dying. May Day (May 1st) is the international workers holiday. Anti-communism is so ingrained in American culture, in 1894 Congress made the workers holiday at the end of summer, rather than at the beginning just to thwart commie agitators. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's impression I've always had actually. May Day wasn't celebrated as anything more than the traditional May Day festival in the UK (spring festival and all that jazz). It's not even a Bank Holiday here - rather it's just the first Monday in May (in England at least). But it is co-opted by the workers as a workers' day - and why not? The current government is looking to abolish it and move it to October where there's a big gap between the late summer bank holiday and Christmas. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the international workers' day is on the 1st of May to commemorate trade unionism in the US. In 1888, hundreds of thousands of workers came out on strike on May 1st. Unrest continued for a few days, culminating in the Chicago Haymarket Massacre on May 4th and the subsequent execution of four activists. 82.23.153.159 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, so the holiday was moved to September. Likewise, Armistice Day Nov. 11 was hijacked by pacifists. So Congress changed the meaning of the holiday from celebrating the end of the war to end all wars to Veteran's Day. Memorial Day, although celebrated by living vets, celebrated dead vets. And the 4th of July celebrated patriotism, but not vets. Does this makes any sense.... nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering you said it Rob? No, not in the least. --Tygrehart

"Memorial Day, although celebrated by living vets, celebrated dead vets." Um, was there ever any chance dead vets would be celebrating it and we would know of it? --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You can thank conservatives for forcing Google to display the American flag on their homepage. You can tell it is grudgingly done, sorta like a footnote, but displayed nonetheless. --193.200.150.137 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Shocking, horrible, reprobate. Ummm, just how did they force Google to do it? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny Schlafly Picture I doctored

Here. Someone please upload it. Call it "Jimmy Schlafly: Boy Genius" or something like that. --Rskle (talk)

Please don't upload it. 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait your serious, let me laugh harder--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hands off, that's my thing! Also, "you're." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A Fucked Up Dream

I drank a whole load of wine and ate a shitload of cheese before going to bed last night and had this mad, fucked up funhouse, dream. Andy Schlafly was showing me around the physical location of his homeschooling program. He had bought an old high school or university, a large building several stories high (about 9) which was a square with a central, internal, courtyard. It was dilapidated, very much like some of the buildings you see in Pripyat. Very grey, abandoned as if in a hurry, dust and ash motes floating around - this was a very vivid dream. We were sitting in his office, a glass floored room looking out over the courtyard where his class was taking lunch. It was a mob scene of carnage, Jews fighting Arabs, Christians persecuting Blacks, kids running riot, guns, explosions - a total anarchy of violence. Andy Schlafly looked upon it serenely and told me there were 0 mental problems and all was well. Then I woke up and went "what the fuck?". Weird. Ace^ace 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a break from CP and RW for a while. Clear your head. --Roofus (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should try stick your head up ass, see if it fits. Ace^ace 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently had a dream that Andy was my going to be my orthopedic surgeon. All he did was laugh his weird Squidward laugh. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a nightmare. Now it will haunt me in my dreams. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Night Jaguar (see section above): Well, if there was any doubt that Ken is reading us, he has just added^img "Often this leads to having dreams about Conservapedia at night." to his Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder "essay". --Xyr (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I blame the cheese and wine rather than some weird, made up disorder. At least I didn't dream about flying fortresses, matadors and homosexuality ShockofGod. Ace^ace 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

lol He among you that has never dreamt about the Internet, let him first cast a stone at Ace.--Xyr (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My dreams tend to involve this chick I used to work with. And I think I'll stop there.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

One night in January my dog suddenly ran off when I was walking him, then came back home in the early morning with a broken leg. Then some evening in February he jumped off some stupid ledge in a park, broke the same leg again, along with the stupid titanium plate that was still in it. I kept having dreams about the dog coming home with a bloody stump for months. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that sucks... sorry man. It sounds like you feel guilty about it. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I feel guilty, just not always sure what to do. He used to be an xth-generation stray dog and he was about four years old when I had to adopt him, so he's used to freely roaming at night. If I keep him no a leash all the time he goes nuts. If I don't there is a real risk something bad might happen. I see a new crippled stray almost every other month. I'm very happy he's getting better at understanding that sticking close to me is the safe choice no matter what. Ironically, I think the fractures might have sped this up some. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a dream a while ago wherein Schlafly invited me and my family to dinner and I was so convinced that he was going to poison me that I took a poison test kit with me and we all waited while I sampled some mashed potatoes. Why I even turned up with such a conviction was unexplained. I think the dream 'began' as we were all entering his house. Anyway, maybe we should have a Funspace "I dreamt about CP" page, a bit like the How I found RW page. Ken could cite it in his essay. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

...so was Andy trying to poison you or not? You can't just leave us hanging like that! --Sid (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I never found out; I woke up. In fact, I woke myself up - I remember thinking in my dream "this is just too weird, I'm waking up". Second time I've ever done that. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else now terrified of going to sleep, lest the Assfly appear in their dreams, like a non-threatening version of Freddie? Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be afraid of his weird laugh haunting my dreams... --Sid (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Last summer, I dreamt that I needed to have a meeting with PJR for something or other that had absolutely nothing to do with CP, ASoK, RW, or trains. While I was waiting, on his turf, for him to show up for the meeting, I talked to several of his friends about who we were on CP. I told them who I was, and one of them admitted to playing JPatt. I thought that was hilarious; he really was a parodist! I finally got to meet PJR, but I don't remember what we talked about. I do remember leaving the meeting disappointed that I hadn't been able to accomplish what I wanted (whatever that was), and I remember him disapproving of Jpatt's and my being parodists. Burndall (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And meanwhile, back in the basement...

...Ken

re-defines the verb "sulk" to mean "post".img --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if said homosexuals went cryin' to their mamas? Ken, you need to step up your investigative journalism! ^{ONE / TALK} 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wanna encourage him to start his own Church?

Since Andy has a whole set of his own theology and a revised Bible under his belt, anyone wanna try encourage him to start his own Church/Schism? Or did I missed it and it is already under way? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, it could be almost as successful as Maratreanism. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But then again, perhaps they'd be as successful as the Mormons! Andy could found his own state in some armpit nobody else wants, and he wouldn't even have to treck through the desert first because he's in New Jersey already! *ba dum tsh* Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I joke that he has his own religion, Andyism. All kidding aside, Andy will always just see himself as a righteous prophet or apostle of Christ and nothing more; nothing less either, his pride would not permit that.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for parodists to convince Andy to run for President. Maybe we can combine Andy's church and his doomed-to-fail campaign? Make him create a church/political party. Nah, let's not get greedy. Anyway, the recent Conservative Dictionary Project showed it's very easy to manipulate Andy. Somebody just stroked his ego, repeated his silly catchphrases and *bam*. It was completely transparent, yet Andy didn't see it at all. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy did run for congress before, and that didn't turn out so well (last place in the republican nomination in 1992 House bid) for him. So I think if he remembers any of that it would be tough to convince him to run for president. That's why I am suggesting get someone to convince him to start his own church. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've always imagined him as a Traditionalist Catholic--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Question Evolution! have any visibility?

I mean outside of fundy churches in the US? I've not heard it mentioned in any media in the UK, one of the countries it claims to running. I don't don't go to church, so I don't know if it there is any support for it there, but if it does, the message doesn't seem to be getting out to the rest of UK. Are they just preaching to the choir? I know its a CCMI thing, so not strictly about CP, but CP and ken are the only places that I have come across it AMassiveGay (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it really has any visibility in fundy churches either. It's all just Kendoll bluster. The whole plan plan has an underpants gnome quality to it. 1) Contact Texas churches. 2) ??? 3) Destroy atheism. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There's about five obscure internet creationists working on it. I doubt you'll come across it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 07:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really no more than some of Ken's ridiculous Operation Flying Fortress type blather. Check out the posts at http://shockawenow.blogspot.com and see when Shockornot last posted - January by my reckoning, everything else is Questionable. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Using a certain search engine beginning with 'G' looking for news results for "Question evolution" I only get two hits - beliefnet and WND. So it's not exactly massive. I can't understand why the NY Times or Washington Post hasn't picked up on it. Bob Soles (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it (much) outside RW (but then I live in the wrong part of the world, talk to the wrong type of Christians^TM and read the wrong YEC website) Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly other than CP (and by that I mean Ken and to a lesser extent, Terry), and Ken's mall-cop friend in California, I haven't heard about the "Question Evolution" campaign anywhere here in America. It's a dud because those questions have long been answered, it is just that they decided beforehand never to accept any answer as a matter of course; with that mindset what is the point in engaging them?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's a good little trained monkey. After reading this page he added this^img "Press coverage to date: 5 (yes a whole five!), one being Terry's blog. Pippa (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the whole campaign is run by only five or six people (where did I see the list, was it CP?), I doubt its even having much impact within fundy churches in the US. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.66 / talk / contribs}

I love how he dances for us; too bad he is too cowardly to debate us.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

When he told his latest challenger that a challenge from an atheist is an oxymoron, I think I felt more sorry for him than I ever have. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Its sad really, the pages mentioned are all heavily christian/conservative. So the only people aware of "Question Evolution" already do, when the point of this "campaign" is to convince people NOT on your side. Then when you consider the constant "Any day now, the QE Campaign will go "FULL THROTTLE" and "DESTROY ATHEISM", I think its safe to assume the campaign will fail in a few months, if it isn't a steaming pile of fail already.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember, these people aren't afraid to lie. According to them, this campaign is a smashing success. Hell, it was a smashing success at 1,000 pledged hours of service in Texas and now it is a smash at 1,300 pledged hours of service. Do you have any idea what the campaign will be in 2013 when they hit 2,000 pledged hours of service in Texas? A smashing success. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the main objective of the "Question evolution!" campaign is to get enough people to "visit the CMI webstore to order very affordable Question Evolution! resources available" and "visit a Cafepress store (in Australia, Canada, UK/Europe and the USA)" for "more items, such as shirts, caps, mugs, badges and stickers" to turn a profit. They are preaching selling to the choir. --Xyr (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So in that regard, they are just like WND, who uses many of their news articles and commentary to solely push books and DVDs sold in their stores to the paranoid faithful.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken reads this thread and adds a "Press coverage to date" section^img to his Question evolution! campaign "article". --Xyr (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, that's what Pippa said. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Er... in regards to reading comprehension, memory and goldfishes, feel free to use my comment as proof and evidence that claims of cognitive deterioration resulting from prolonged exposure to Ken's antics are true, accurate and correct. --Xyr (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

News from a parallel universe in which sites like delicious.com don't exist

Just came back from lunch, checked CP for the first time, and realized that Ken apparently decided to use everybody's favorite Trusworthy Encyclopedia as his personal bookmarking site. (Yes, again, I know...) --Sid (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And lawl, the moment I turn away from CP to post here, TerryH sneaks in to promote his blog yet again. Ahhhhh, CP... XD --Sid (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is as if they given up on the idea of even having the façade of the site being an encyclopedia.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He's always done it. Look at some of these^img. And even on ArseK Pippa (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

but wate! They's moar!^img 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

He definitely has some^img odd^img pages^img in^img his^img userspace^img. Again, what?^img Strange titles, blank pages (save a period and a space or two...). Definitely Ken. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Teabagger and what the fuck is the Dictionary Project about?

Teabagger Date: 2007 True conservative meaning - one who supports the Tea Party False liberal redefinition - (definition inappropriate for family website) Forgive me I don't know how to do the cool capture stuff on Wikis.

The above example besides being amazing, has me wondering WTF the project is about? I guess I'm confused by the concept. To me a conservative dictionary project would mean that they would be returning to the original meaning of the word, before it was altered by liberals. I wanted to add some words to build up my post on a sock....but I cant think of any examples that don't seem like parody. Can anyone give me an actual example of a word that should be there? --Sorge (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All of them. Here are a few examples:

Dictionary

Instant

Relative

Marriage

Gay

Rights

Freedom

Censorship

Capitalism

Denial

Entitlement

Union

Evidence

Theory

I wish I wasn't currently blocked. This is a real fast track to blocking rights. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BradleyS, creator of this Dictionary project, is clearly a parodist but I admire his work. Favorite I've read so far: Doorknob^img: "True conservative meaning: the knob on a door". No word yet on the liberal definition, but I'm hoping it will be "the village whore, because everyone gets a turn". --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I await with excitement the liberal definition of "lawn". LOL Jimaginator (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the capture for Teabagger^img. I enjoyed the entry on homeschool^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Queen

CP has one page which gives eight definitions of the word queen^img. The last one amused me, even if it was added by a likely parodist three years ago.^img Garçon^coffee! 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I went from that link to the Chess page and I was amazed.... It's well written, informative and free of any crazy politicalization..... I wonder where they stole it. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 22:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I did the same exact thing!!! Senator Harrison (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when everything wasnt about politics.

that time died a long time ago--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there was any doubt that Ken is reading us, he has just gone to work on the chess article^img. I wonder why a section entitled Queen got his attention. Anyway, I'm not sure the article will be "well written, informative and free of any crazy politicalization" after he is done with it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

“”While strategy is in important consideration in chess, Richard Teichmann, (1868-1925), a German Grandmaster who was known for his strong attacks, said "Chess is 99% tactics"

Oh dear.

1. Ken cannot write for shit
2. Ken cannot write without throwing in random quotes
3. "while" is the new "in regards to"
4. Ken doesn't know that "strategy" and "tactics" ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having now skewered Ken in regards to Ken's writing on the internet, I shall now camp outside his intellectual bunny hole. Olé! Olé! Olé! --PsyGremlinSprich! 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to Ken, tactics and strategy are considered to be different in chess. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) _{I rely on my spellcheck too much, it seems}

Always inserting random quotes and random shit... Ken

is a parodist from Unfunnypedia!  It all makes sense now.--User:Brxbrx/sig  03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Back in Tiechmann's heyday, 100+ years ago, chess players DID constantly play for sacrificial attacks and tactical fireworks, so it's not surprising that he'd have that quote attributed to him (although I suspect that even back then the 99% figure would be clearly interpreted as hyperbole). Of course, anybody trying to play serious chess today while spending no more than 1% of their time on strategic concerns would get completely stomped. So as it now stands, the use of that quote is a ridiculously outdated, out-of-context misinterpretation of a hyperbolic statement. Apparently the evolution quote mine has been thoroughly abused, so the board game quote mine has opened for business.--RedSmurf (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, PsyGremlin could have done with checking WP there. The usual distinction between strategy and tactics, whether in an abstract war game like chess or a real war, is that strategy is higher level, concerned with the broader picture. Precision night bombing was a (failed) early strategy in WWII, while for example using radar to guide fighters to the vicinity of enemy planes was a somewhat successful tactic in the later war. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How to write an article about a movie...

Ed Poor doesn't like cp:User:GOPFan2011's page on the classic Casino Royle (1976)^img:

You've got a lot of trivial facts, and even an info box. Please add something about this film that justifies the article's existence. Or else I'm inclined simply to delete it. What can readers find here, that they can't see in Wikipedia? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:33, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Indeed cp:User:GOPFan2011 should have a look at some of Ed Poor's contributions to get a feeling what is to be expected from such an article. Here his take on The prince and me^img:

The Prince and Me was a romantic comedy starring Julia Stiles, with able supporting performances from Luke Mably (the prince) and Eliza Bennett (his little sister).

That's the thing for which readers flock to Conservapedia, as they won't find such an article at wikipedia! Well done, Uncle!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every sysop at CP is guilty of hyprocrisy to some degree, but Ed Poor takes the fucking biscuit.^img Along with your example and mine there are probably many more. I anxiously await the moment a parodist brings it up and Ed enters Backpedalling Mode. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Won't happen. Or to speak with Ed Poor: "No one has to answer sniping questions from non-contributors.^img"

Yeah, Ed is awesome at destroying information on a large scale, but he won't live up to his own standards (to the degree that his Ed Stubs are pretty much legendary). And whenever somebody challenges him, he simply ignores it. See for example Larron's censorship challenge. --Sid (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm less and less convinced that Ed is simply stupid and more convinced that he's simply malicious. I don't believe anyone could be that stupid. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just that his opinions vary a lot according to his moods. He potters about making edits here and there, living in the moment without any thought to consistency. The only unifying factor is that, unlike maybe any other sysop or parodist, every single one of his contributions makes Conservapedia worse.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, his "Two meters" masterpiece was one of the most neutral and factual articles any CP sysop has ever written. --Sid (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't understand these charges of hypocrisy. Look at Ed's complaint about the Casino Royale article. "You've got a lot of trivial facts, and even an info box." Now, do Ed's articles have a lot of facts, trivial or otherwise? No. An info box? No. If the Casino Royale article consisted of a single broad sentence (perhaps with an aside about pre-teen sex appeal), then it would be more Ed-like and hence unobjectionable. Phiwum (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BrianE gets it^img. I especially like his edit comment: "Improve". (Though I feel sorry for the original author, assuming he's not a parodist --- which is unlikely.) Phiwum (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kara believes that he is.^img That comment about Woody Allen being depraved was likely one step too far.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kara caught BrianE but Phwium was referring to the original author. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"It is an unusual example of an English-language film with a French name (meaning "Royal Casino")" I want to jab my thumbs into my eyes. That's like saying Ishtar is an usual example of an English-language film, named after a Babylonian goddess. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone should have some fun with Casablanca which strangely enough has nothing to do with US presidents. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Moar

Just found these two edits. This could possibly be Ed's finest moment: Edit 1^img - category only edit 2^img - use category as link. Yeah, I'd say Ed is qualified to comment on the quality of movie articles. --PsyGremlinPraat! 19:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

un be liev a ble --Xyr (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Situational awareness...

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but the juxtaposition^img between a headline about liberal vitriol and Jimmy Hoffa's "violent war" against the Tea Party movement and a headline about the "creationist online miniguns" makes me laugh. Just another example of "<something> is bad when liberals do it, but perfectly acceptable when we do it." I guess their argument could be that the miniguns aren't firing at much of anything because their anti-evolution campaign is a joke. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

One is from ken, the other is from terry. They aren't all the same, though it'd be nice if they held each other accountable.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw they were from different authors (Ken's style is so easy to recognise, after all) but as you said, they should hold each other accountable, or at least read what's right on the main page before posting something. As we've seen, though, Ken is basically above reproach on CP, as Terry probably is as well. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

TerryH visited one of CP's "conferences" (whatever happened to them?) so he has actually met Andy. (Even before we got a picture of Coke-Eyes our friend Kettleticket remarked how creepy his eyes were.) As a CreationWiki admin and Tea party activist I would put the safety of his position at CP ahead of Ken. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry virtually worships Andy, as far as I can tell. I think Andy's attended his wife's funeral. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The one of the forces behind Conservapedia is laziness both intellectual and the regular kind. The higher ups at CP can't be bothered to read anything, even the MPR before posting. They can't be bothered to fix all but the most egregious parody or even make decisions when it comes to policy. --Marlow (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken is Mad

Ken

is angry, it seems a blog known as the "Good Atheist" is bring attention to the myriad of fatal flaws and deception in the "Question Evolution" campaign.  Kenny claims said campaign has nothing wrong with it, but instead of addressing the criticisms, he deflects and pontificates on how in his mind there is no such thing as a "good atheist"img.

The Good Atheist though brings up excellent, valid points, to which it appears Ken cannot answer:

• One of the main goals of the campaign is to sell as much swag as possible to the religious. They repeatedly emphasize how you can purchase their "Question Evolution" goodies.

• They have no interest in debating or questioning evolution, the campaigns title is a misnomer, it is really "deny evolution". Even when someone does answer those questions, they will never accept the answers by default. Their belief that the questions cannot ever be answered no matter what exposes the falsehood of their claims to honest skepticism.

• He points out that those behind the "Question Evolution" campaign have a creed that they themselves are never allowed to question:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

So some things can not be questioned; how then should we take their campaign to question theories of science seriously? Of course Ken

will never address these points as he is too cowardly to debate. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that ken doesnt believe in actual athiests..preferring to think of them as god deniers or god haters. But there will never be a debate..as none of them will agree to one where -MY BOOK SAID SO thus ITS TRUE!!- is not allowed by moderators as a valid arguement ----joya unlurking 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I experienced that quite a bit growing up, interestingly enough. Many of the people I grew up with either saw atheism as an institution (mostly an evil one) or people who specifically choose to deny god, hate god, etc. The former view set the stage for the silly questions of "you're an atheist? where's that church?" and the latter led to my peers asking me how it was possible that I didn't believe in god, but still believed in the devil. I always see a little bit of that when Ken mentions how atheism hasn't inspired any works of art and all that; some people can't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, that atheism isn't a formal religion. (Then, of course, there were the pentecostal kids that I grew up with who seemed to have confused vampires with atheists; somewhere, somehow, they'd been led to believe that I couldn't physically touch a bible....) άλφα^Ταλκ 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My best man seemed to have difficulty with the idea as well. What was odd was that he agreed with my perspectives on everything, except that he thought it was fine to lie to people if it resulted in good behavior. Mostly he seemed to think that God should fall into the same category as Santa - a way of persuading people that good behavior generates concrete rewards - except that he didn't seem to think that people should grow out of it once the good behavior was taught. - Lardashe

As I read the article and what Ken wrote I had to think of communist prosecuters. Not only that both all the time go for the shill gambit ("You belief something that is bad, therefor nothing you say can be true because you are an evil person/mindcontrolled by others"), but also the whole way he forms his "arguments". Almost everything he does are ad hominem attacks — one could almost say he has to evaluate himself steadily because deep down inside he knows he's failure (like a gay guy who fucks a lot of women so he can feel himself more manly) — and everytime he thinks he gave it to somebody, he sees his delusion driven ideology further evaluated. Like an endless cycle of failure and strengthend believe that the failure is not a failure at all. God, I hope he is a parodist account run by a team of 20 or so, then I could congratulate them on how awesome they constructed that guy. --★uːʤɱ secularist 21:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate crime wigo

Andy is criticizing (and likely missing the point completely) hate crime legislation as being a means to legitimize certain groups (homos). He does not desire for crimes against soldiers to be considered hate crimes: he wishes to expose alleged hypocrisy in categorizing hate crime. So the WIGO is not very accurate.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Andy's equating fags and soldiers that's funny and interesting. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant help but wonder if andy noticed that according to the cited article...the shooter was driving a van with a Support Our Troops bumper sticker............ joya unlurking 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletions and oversightings

I started to write an essay on Essay:Deletions_and_oversightings _{(perhaps it should be moved to the CP-namespace...)}: with the help of User:Diebot, I was able to preserve most of these events during August - and a couple of them can be found at the subpages of User:Diebot...

So, have a look - and give me a little feedback - pretty please? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and valuable summary - we as a group chat about these things a lot, but there is little formally recorded data. One thing made me go "Uh?", though: "And the change of the page-id (from 114829 over 114830 to 11483) shows that he deleted the page twice during his session!" - This strikes me as overly complicated (or I just misunderstood the point) since the deletion logs simply show just that, too, without having to worry about page IDs... --Sid (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The only time you will see the words "Schlafly" and "most important" in the same sentence.

Right here. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 19:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I need to vomit. Really, Bachman? Not, oh I dont know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Rosa parks, Sandra day O'connor? Not Sanger or roosevelt. oh right. they are jewish, black, a working woman, an abortionist, and a socialist in that order. En attendant Godot 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Vomitus oxide ala mode. A tragic disconnection from the reality of who moved America forward. Schlafly would rate somewhere down in the 0.00001 percentile methinks. Jimaginator (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If Schlafly is so damn important, why is Bachmann in politics and not at home submitting to her husband? Ewwwww.... Now I've got that image in of my head. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this on and off the past two days... the longer I think about it the more interesting it becomes. "Most important women" in general is easy. "Most important women in the United States" is a lot less obvious. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking fail

TerryH spams MPR once again talking about "Jimmy Hoffa" declaring violent war on the Tea Party^img. Jimmy Hoffa went missing in 1975^img. Huh? He declared war on the Tea Party in 2011 but went missing in 1975? That can't be right: Terry^img meant the guy's son.

This kind of stupidity and laziness is why CP would fail even without bias and batshittery. --★uːʤɱ soviet 20:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that meh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

James Hoffa II also goes by Jimmy.--^talk 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that too, but not spending 2 seconds to look at he page CP has is still pretty lazy. --★uːʤɱ soviet 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Whomever wrote the WIGO failed because it is clear from the first paragraph of Terry's article he is speaking about James Phillip Hoffa, son of the late James Riddle "Jimmy" Hoffa, and who is very much alive. He also goes by the name "Jimmy". We may want to read the articles we are going to criticize otherwise we are no better than Andy and JPatt who never read what they link to.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your forget that not everybody wants to read anything in said blog, and anyways, you should be more specific when talking about famous names anyways.--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine and I totally understand that; however if you are going to criticize what he wrote, make sure you know what he wrote.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the article is clearly about Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., but Terry fails because he links to cp:Jimmy Hoffa, which is about Jimmy Hoffa, Sr. Also, Terry's discussion of unemployment rates in the article is very disingenuous. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there some back way into that site. I want to read the stupid, but I don't want to give him the pageviews (is this the one he gets paid per click... or was that someone else?) SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was the examiner.com that was pay-per-click; I added a screen capture, though, so at least you can read that specific article without visiting the site itself. Best I can do for you, though. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much to the article itself, it starts off pretty much like this: Hoffa is declaring war on the TEA Party! (Terry puts Tea in all CAPS as if it was an acronym) with the blessings of the "Thug in Chief" Obama! Well then BRING IT! (Macho huff!). Next section: The rally was in Michigan, and Michigan has high unemployment! Finally he concludes with: The TEA Party isn't anti-workers, Obama is! Oh and oh yeah... BRING IT!!!!!

I am not exaggerating those "Bring It!" parts, those are really in there, I am imagining Terry in a square circle screaming "BRING IT!!" towards the entrance to the arena under the jumbotron, hoping Hoffa will answer the call and wrestle him in the ring.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tea is kind of an acronym - they sometimes say it stands for "Taxed Enough Already" ^{ONE / TALK} 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a Backronym that was later attached to the name by various commentators, it was never originally presented as such, nor is it official.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but the backronym does at least make Chuckarse slightly less wrong. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In which Rob goes off on some weird tangent completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Yah, it's kinda like Chicago's Mayor Daley who used the cops to beat up the Weather Underground, and then turned around and supported the Weather Underground candidate for President. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which president was a member of Weather Underground? Ace^ace 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

wut? --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

-looks confused by the point rob wanted to make---Mikalos209 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is why I don't complain when Rob is bitchin' about Conservapedia. It's much better than his Obama non sequiturs. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a theory that Rob chugs a beer between each post, and sometimes he passes out mid-sentence. When he recovers, he no longer remembers what he was typing and just has to finish off the top of his head. SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess is he's going off on the tangent of "Obama knew Ayers, and Ayers was a member of the WU, so Obama is part of the WU!" It's beside the point that the WU basically broke up in the early 70's, a.k.a. almost 40 years ago. Just another ghost of the Cold War that's still haunting Rob. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Weather Underground formed in 1969. Clearly an eight year old Obama (living in Indonesia) was a big part of this. It disbanded around 1977, when he was 16. Where is the video tape evidence of every moment of Obama's life from age 8 to 16 that would prove he had no connection to the Weather Underground? What is he trying to hide? --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the membership certificate? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Rob or any conservative hates Obama is beyond me. I argue he's a fairly conservative President, just not in comparison with the immigrants from Crazytown in the GOP primary.--^talk 10:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For all those who might think that Obama is a bit far left at some point in the next years, keep in mind that the guy would be a right-wing politician in most European countries - and that's not because Europe is so far left. --★uːʤɱ pervert 10:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I find it amazing all these Americans complaining the sky will fall because of Obama's health plan, when Australia has had something very similar for 20+ years, there are some real problems but the sky has not fallen, and even the right side of politics supports publicly funded health care (even if they want to tinker around the edges), because they know opposing it is just not politically viable. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The UK has had universally funded free at the point of delivery health care for 60 years ffs. Despite the 'best' efforts of the rabid right wing the NHS remains stubbornly popular with us lowly Brits.
And as for Obama. I would put him slightly to the left of tony bliar. But seeing as bliar is a essentially right wing fundamentalist who would have been more at home in the GOP then either the labour party or the conservative party that is not saying much. Obama would be essentially a left wing tory were he here in the UK. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course politicians are great at adapting to their environment. Rather than transporting the man and his US politics into another country such as Britain, it's better IMHO to imagine what he'd be like as a British politician. He wouldn't be a LibDem because he likes teh powerz too much. So, a left-wing Tory or right-wing Labour? I'd reckon on the latter because that's where his public-facing non-ideological ideology would be. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to Dan Carlin's Commonsense podcast and in #193 he speculated about a 'wifeswap' with the British Parliament running the US for 6 weeks and US Government running the UK. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

With perfect timing, here is an article on this exact subject: Obama is the Best Republican President Since Lincoln. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article. The idea of Obama being a Republican in all but name isn't actually new. Unfortunately it usually takes the form of lame jokes about Guantanamo, torture memos, and the Cheney III administration, however. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama spent $4 trillion ($4,000 billion) in three years to create ZERO jobs; if Obama had just cut each of the 14 million unemployed a check, that would be (4,000/.014) $285,000 per head, which would have gone a long way to stimulate consumer spending. Good luck trying to sell borrowing another $300 billion from China to not create jobs, again. Is it any surprise, like Mao, Castro, or Kim Il-sung, after a comunist is in power three years there's no jobs, the people are starving, and capitalism is being stomped out? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Rob, your summary doesn't seem to bear much in common with reality. I lay out a lot of the reasons why Obama is fairly conservative in my blog post linked above, but also:

• A full review of the studies of the stimulus finds general agreement that it did work, although disagreement over how much.
• Your grossly simplistic calculation appears to have consisted of taking the amount of money from (stimulus? jobs bills? what?) and dividing it among the unemployed. But that isn't what occurred with the various bills. For example, when $10 billion goes to infrastructure in stimulus (just picking a number out of the air) a big part of that is going to go to buy things like concrete. The result isn't just jobs to build roads - it's also the roads themselves, which weren't free but were badly needed (and we need more)
• There is no evidence that capitalism is being stomped out. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. Citizens United - while not under Obama's control - has meant that corporations can donate unlimited sums to influence elections. The EPA has backed off from regulating most everything, including its recent ozone decision.
• With negative interest rates on ten-year bonds, it's almost criminal not to borrow further to stimulate the economy. My preference is towards massive solar investment (maybe $800 billion) but at any rate it is clear that when you can borrow money and get paid for it to pull your economy out of a slump, it's what you should do. America needs to take out a new loan so it can buy a car to get to work... walking isn't working.--^talk 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if obama was a communist. He isn't, and if he is, he is either a very terrible one or very good at hiding it--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Believe me Rob because I AM A SOCIALIST: Obama is not one of us. And that has nothing to do with him, but with the policies he makes and the way he speaks he simply doesn't qualify. I know he spent soo soo awefully much but belief me a real socialist would spent much more. You can see a real socialist in Venezuela with Chavez oer in Germany with every party there is except the FDP and even they would never be so bold to attack UHC, unemployment benefits or social services. What makes a socialist is the thought that capitalism isn't the best system possible and a tendencies towards equaling out differences. That is what we all have in common from anarcho-cummunists over social democrats to real communists (maoism, stalinism, leninism and what ever they are all called). So you can say that Obama isn't a pure capitalist but influenced by socialism, but saying he's a socialist is a lie. And it's a lie bored of.

And while we're at it please liberals, stop saying they only don't like him because he's black. I don't think that 20% of Americans are racists we would notice that much more. They don't like him because he is much more charismatic than any of their canidates ever was. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Reminds me of Ed's brilliang idea to fly a helicopter over Haiti and drop $20 bills as aid. Maybe you can crop this graph up real nice. Or maybe you can just pull your crazy right winger asshole card and tell us how your hands are clean of Bush now. Never mind that Obama put a stop to the trend Bush started. Never mind that we're now creating jobs. Obama is the devil. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• What makes a socialist is the thought that capitalism isn't the best system possible and a tendencies towards equaling out differences.

In the United States, most Americans, whether progressive, liberal, conservative, or centrist, would tell you that Obama does not believe capitalism is the best system possible and advocates "change" because he believes in "spreading the wealth". nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And?--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, what people say about him is irrelevant. Especially when we are talking about ideology that is crappy. The same way a Christian has to believe in certain things to be considered a Christian, a socialist or a communist has to believe certain things to be considered a socialist or a communist. I have btw. followed the 2008 election closely (I watched the presidential debates and pretty much all the ads) and Obama said repeatadly that he isn't a socialist and after all, I think he knows best what he believes. --★uːʤɱ digital native 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The right has diluted the term 'socialist' to mean anyone who's not a free market fundamentalist. Hell, sometimes it's even used to mean "person I don't like" (like CP with 'liberal'). If Obama was a socialist he'd nationalize, not bail out private companies and keep them going. I wish he were a socialist, but he's not. He's a capitalist, just not an extremist one like many in the Republican party. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tonight Obama will make the case that taxing corporations (i.e., taking money from them that they could use to create jobs) will aid in job creation. It didn't work in the 1930s. In the 1980s, we tried the reverse and had a recovery that lasted 28 years, while the workforce grew from 110 million to 138 million. Meanwhile, over the same span, Europe created 4 million new jobs. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Taking money from them that they could use to create jobs." Notice how they're not creating jobs? Job growth was zero last month, and yet large corporations are flush with cash right now. Maybe we should cut them a check for 2 trillion with a note saying "please create some jobs? Pretty please?" Maybe I should refuse to pay taxes because I could use the money to cure cancer. And in the 1980s we tried the reverse and have had a huge debt ever since, but debts and deficits are bad things only when Democrat is president, when Reagan does it it's fiscal conservatism. DickTurpis (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying the US workforce grew is quite meaningless because the US population grew in that same period as well. What you want to do is look at rates. Also, "Europe" isn't defined above. Whatever it means, again, looking at absolute numbers is meaningless. Many European countries have growth rates much smaller than that of the US and the difference in job created can just be reflecting that. Finally, taxes on corporations are at historic low, but the economy is tanking and unemployment is high. Doesn't exactly fit with your theory. And in the last 30 years wages for most people have barely kept up with inflation. At the same time, the wages for the top earners has increaesed phenomenally and wealth has become even more concentrated. There has also been continually worse and worse periodic economic crises in that time. Hardly a success story. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Europe in that timespan is relatively useless, depending on how you define Europe. Eastern Europe had a post-communist system for 20 years now and that means lots of money floating in for modernization and complete building of businesses. If you want to look at how effective economies are with their laws, you have to look at same-situation types of economies with different policies — So for example Australia, New Zealand and Japan. But not even Western Europe would qualify as it is geographically so close to Eastern Europe (and as of a few years ago all trade restriction have fallen away for some of them) that they both engage in a reaction with each other redistributing industries through the natural means of economics.

One of the safest ways to produce jobs are subsidies. You pick a few industries that seem good for the future (green technology, computer science or whatever is needed in the future) and give them money if they create jobs — that could be by really giving them money or by giving them tax cuts. Either way they would have an advantage over other industries and will grow faster, meaning that they produce jobs if people buy their stuff. With the right policies people will buy that stuff. It almost always works. But then again that is big government at therfor evil. The problem with the laissez-fair politics is that you leave the economy on it's own opening the gates of hell for vicious circles that can really put the economy down (Argentina? Great Depression?). --★uːʤɱ digital native 18:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Obama apologists on parade. No, believe me when I tell you..... Obama is conservative. Also, he was butt raped, I mean he was schooled by communists and radicals. He couldn't possibly have been influenced by them. The liberal mind is funny to watch.--70.239.8.209 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Long on rhetoric, short on numbers.--^talk 00:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to the Point

Terry is simply showing once again what a bunch of lying shits the American Right are. The fact is that Faux News doctored the clip to make it look like Hoffa was talking about violence when he was talking about democracy. See for yourselves. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncut. Cut. --★uːʤɱ pervert 08:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's times like these when the teabaggers need to remember the sage advice of Sarah Palin (who has also had her say about Hoffa's nasty awful rhetoric): If someone is trying to take you out, "no matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!" Occasionaluse (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reagan would be a RINO

Some NPR thing said that^img, and Andy takes this as proof America is more conservative becausethe current standard bearer of the conservative moment would be a RINO--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"That reflects Conservapedia's Law: Americans are forever becoming more conservative. " -- Il Duce Andy. Sooo..during the Revolutionary War period and those few decades after, when the constitution was created, were the days America was at its most liberal? So I take it to mean the more we move away from the Constitution and its original intent, the more we reach the conservative ideal?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything will ever top Andy's earth shattering insight that people become dumber as they become more conservative. Just look at the differences in handwritten letters! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, this is now an even more fitting match - before, it was only language that was becoming more conservative, but now America itself is becoming more conservative, and intelligence is decreasing (based on American scoring data, if memory serves correctly)! --Sid (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the Founding Fathers were raving moonbats! Thomas Jefferson wrote god out of the Bible. Thomas Paine wanted an inheritance tax to fund general welfare. Good thing these liberal nuts are gone. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine what role this fantasy plays for Andy's worldview. Obviously if one was to look at all the Presidents of the United States, all the Congresses, and all the state governors, one would see that the country swings back and forth between the ideologies. I understand the need for cheer that one's own belief system is not fringe, but creating a law that makes you smile but has no basis in reality doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannabis and Obesity

Forget Atheism and Obesity try Cannabis and Obesity. Ace^ace 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that "The Shaggy Effect"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see the new ads for "medical marijuana" already: "Get thin, fly high" --★uːʤɱ atheist 06:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Or as they used to say in the old days: "Lose weight now, ask e how." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "heroin chic"? Pippa (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So, CraigF, again

Whoever is using him is overly dedicated to the job they want to get done. Also, the sexism and Americanism are a bit strong.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The parodists seem to be tripping all over each other on this recent Conservative Dictionary Project. Congrats Andy, your "encyclopedia" is half blog, half parodist clusterfuck. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can really go too far when acting as a parodist on CP (at least in terms of morality). You either expose their utter insanity when they agree with you, or you get found out and banned, in which case you're just a crappy parodist. Kinda like Borat; Borat himself is one of the most disgustingly racist characters going, but it's only an act to expose the same views in others. X Stickman (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I like-a Borat! Yes? "Who is Jack?" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As incredibly annoying and obvious as CraigF is, there is a redeeming quality in that the cabal ignores him. Is it because his parody is a little too close to reality for the sysops? Is it because he is a dick who gives people a hard time? I have a feeling that this could be one of those "useful idiots" that Ed and Angry like to employ, which would be hilarious if they think he does more good than harm. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow him closely, but as long as you don't push into any sysop-occupied niche or challenge The Truth, you'll be fine most of the time. --Sid (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SharonW^img tries to reason with Angry Bear. The problem I see is that SharonW is (purportedly) <gasp> a woman! And we all know a woman can't know better than Angry. Get ready for some prime time misogyny! That or he'll completely ignore it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole "JonnS situation" is pretty funny. This guy signed up, stated his liberal positions, and proceeded to accuse CraigF of parody argue with him about the differences between furrys and bestiality and demand that he make his positions on Animal Husbandry known. Most of it seems to have gone down here^img.--MikeO (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The dispute with SharonW illustrates one reason I don't like many parodists. Sharon seems like a decent enough person, but Craig is working on his imitation of TK, which involves being an asshole to everyone except those in power. So, Sharon (and others) experience the frustration of dealing with a troll. It takes a thoroughly unpleasant person to behave like such an asshole, and the fact that he's a parodist does not mitigate that fact. Phiwum (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

^Aaaaaaaaand bingo. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul, TerryH and Andy

I wonder how Andy will respond to this^img column that Terry is pimping on MPR, given his love for Ron Paul. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 11:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Damned be that RINO bastard for wanting armed guards on the border and comfortable conditions for the troops!--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, THIS OLD GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT? WHAT? With that out of the way, Terry seriously fudged that headline.

Headline: Air conditioning for troops in Iraq, and gun-toting guards on the border. Yes, he said that.

Reality, part 1 (even according to his own blog!): We are spending twenty billion dollars on air conditioning for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would take all that away, use ten billion to pay down the debt, and use the other ten toward FEMA and any other agency that we really need.

Reality, part 2 (and this is where Terry's blog left me confused enough to actually look up actual footage to understand what he said): The government could do the fence-and-machine-gun thing to secure the borders, but that's not what America is all about.

So yeah, I seriously wonder how Andy will react to Terry openly lying in his headline. --Sid (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A little If/Then statement for you If the troops are in the middle east Then they need air conditioning. It's not an issue of maybe or kinda or sorta, it's a consequence of the war, add it to the price of ammunition and transportation. --Opcn (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy may dump the headline, but not for Terry lying as a stated reason, as one of the de facto rules of Conservapedia is that sysops, like popes, are infallible. He will likely take it down in support of Ron Paul, but will be completely silent on the matter in order to keep up the united front. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry misses the real story, which is that Ron Paul said, "and use the other ten toward FEMA and any other agency that we really need." when in reality he infamously wants to get rid of FEMA. Is that Paul quote really accurate? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading Terry's subliterate rants and retarded logic is painful. My god the man is breathtakingly stupid. I think the best bit is where he says Ron Paul is anti-semitic for using the word "neo-conservative" which Terry insists means "Jewish". What a racist tool. DickTurpis (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we use capturebot on Terry's blog so we don't have to give him any hits? I'll give it a go DickTurpis (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed Terry's bizarre delusion that if enough Mexicans get in to the USA they might demand a referendum on returning the territory annexed by the US over the years. Even if every Mexican man, woman and child moved to the US, then good patriotic white people would still outnumber them at least 3 to 1. How do people become like Terry, so twisted up in bullshit conspiracy theories that they can't see reality any more? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil, check the video I linked to at the 8:32 mark to see the AC/FEMA answer in context. --Sid (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as we've seen in Conservaleaks, like Karajou, Terry is an agressive authoritarian shit - "It you have a link to those pictures. then kindly supply it. It you’re going to make that kind of allegation in my comment space. you better have something to back that up, buddy." Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

He's still at it^img. The guy must be scraping the barrel if he has to rely on such ridiculous non-stories to fill his pathetic blog. Makes me wonder though, Terry is the biggest randroid on CP (or at least the only one who's actually read her novels), so why is he so opposed to a fellow objectivist? Has Paul committed the cardinal sin of talking about "billions of years", or what? Röstigraben (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul is not an Objectivist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't swallowed her philosophy whole - the non-religious part alone would doom him in a Republican primary. But he's definitely the one major candidate who's closest to the branch of conserva-libertarianism that frequently references Rand. Röstigraben (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering Ken's recent insights about how evil all atheists are, perhaps it's time for him to skewer her with a satirical article? Perhaps he doesn't have the balls to step on Terry's toes... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether Terry would notice, or even care. He only uses CP to link whore his own blog these days. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 21:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably right. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Cokeeyes is already stepping on Kendoll's toes. Kendoll is very down on neocons, which we now know is a covert synonym for Jews. So clearly Kendoll is a flaming anti-semite who should be expelled from CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear...

Andy's degrees are in electrical engineering and law and he doesn't have a teaching credential, correct? So he's not qualified to teach world history or anything else; he just considers himself the Best of the Public. Is that right? --Roofus (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is fully qualified to be a complete moron, but holds no other qualifications whatsoever. DogP (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

From our article Andrew Schlafly:

“”There is currently no evidence in the public domain for his credentials or training in the fields of education or childhood/pre-college development.[2], nor did he declare any training or certification in education in his March 2009 application to the State of New Jersey to establish an education program .

--Night Jaguar (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As to why he's allowed to teach despite knowing shit about it, check this recent article about CP and homeschooling in NJ. --Sid (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NJ is a state that has extremely lax homeschooling standards/requirements. They do not require that the tutor/instructor have a teaching credential Ateafish (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't hate on NJ, man; at least we aren't a bunch of kike and fag lovers like you. 77.247.181.162 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

^This guy! What a kidder!--Durbinator^{An armchair calls to you} 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gedanken

I'm a long time lurker and with the (expected) resurgence of 9/11 stuff, I was wondering what the CP response would be had Gore been in charge.

How many of the bat-shit theories would be tolerated or even promoted? My guess would be most if not all. Considering his hatred of relativity (et al), it seems to me a given that he'd subscribe to "Gore was the orchestrator & whatever you say supporting that is awesome"

Anyway, kinda made me sick that I thought of how Andy would have behaved given different circumstances.^{— Unsigned, by: Boba Fett / talk / contribs}

IT would have been the same. He wouldn't even be tolerated if he said it was a cool thing. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

American presidents at Conservapedia

absolute values

percentage

• For each month from Nov 2007 - Aug 2011, I looked up the most recent revisions of the articles (pages in namespace main), i.e., how did Conservapedia present itself at the end of the month
• For each of the names Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Obama, I checked how many articles mentioned them in a month. Of course there are a lot of false positives: Johnson is quite a common name, Bush can be a bush, Ford a car etc. And 24% of all revisions are missing, which adds to the inaccuracy...

But overall some interesting trends are visible:

• Bush and Obama are often mentioned, as Conservapedia was active only during their terms. At the moment, roughly the same number of articles mentions both of them, Obama is overtaking the Bushs only slowly
• the hero (Reagan) and the villains (Clinton) get the same amount of interest...
• Lyndon B. Johnson isn't actually more popular (articlewise) than Eisenhower, but the various namesake boost his count
• Nixon and Carter are head to head, Ford needs the help of the motor company to stay in this group
• for most of the presidents, the percentage of articles which mentions them is quite stable, Obama is the obvious exception.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, Eisenhower never had a real job or did anything noteworthy anyway. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's most favorite scientists

Perhaps a little bit more topical than the ranking of the last presidents are these of a couple of Conservapedia's most favorite scientists: Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Dawkins, Lenski and Myers:

absolute values

percentage

• Dawkins is Ken

's favorite - even Darwin can hardly compete with him...

• Myers found the way into many of Ken

's essays, too, making him more visible than the equally maligned Einstein

• Lenski didn't gather any more interest after the exchange of letters with Andy.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not surprising there was no more interest in Lenski - after the spanking he administered, they probably wanted everyone to just forget about it.--^talk 06:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

last in this series: philosophers

absolute values

percentage

Aristotle, Plato, Pascal, Locke, Hume, Kant and Marx larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Plato — that's really a no-brainer if you think about it. He believed in weird soul stuff, hated those damn relativists that questioned the absoluteness of language, just pulled stuff out of his ass and advertised a autarcic almost collectivist regime in which those poor souls who had not seen "the light" were if need to be forced to see "the light". He's a perfect fit for CP. --★uːʤɱ pirate 07:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

that's really a no-brainer if you think about it *LOL* larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol. How did I not see that when I was writing it? Anyway, found an election slogan! --★uːʤɱ atheist 08:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

promise, this is really the last one: some -isms

absolute values

percentage

capitalism, communism, creationism, liberalism, atheism and tribalism larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

I'm surprised liberalism isn't higher. And what about Darwinism? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Coming soon to CP

Karajou on the 10 Commandments^img --B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

-	The Most Important Commandment	Meaning	Response of Karajou and Coservapedian society
1	Love your neighbour as yourself. On this hangs all the law and the prophets.	Pretty self explanatory, innit?	Hates pretty much everybody, especially "liberals." Angry 24/7.

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the Bible to justify capitalism. Fantastic.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My favorite parts: "Included with adultery are extra-marital relations; platonic relations; affairs; homosexuality; perverse sexual practices; thoughts and dreams of doing it. " ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly pleased that my bit inserted into Ephesians 4^img (yes, it is accurate) is still there. Yea, go ahead Karajou - change that analysis and translation. I dare you. Maybe you can get Andy to remove all of Ephesians as "Liberal insertions"? --Shagie (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah man, I can't covet my neighbor's ass.... But he works out and it looks much better in shorts than mine. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 07:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is Karajou talking about? He only listed a couple of the real Ten Commandments. Also, dreaming is a sin??? Jeez, and I was felt that thought crimes were ridiculous enough. Carlaugust (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, the selective religiosity is absolutely painful. As usual at CP, the only people who do anything wrong are liberals. That means no adulterers are true conservatives, homosexuals are damnable but people who kill them out of ideology go unmentioned, support of murderous dictators is limited to liberals who support "communist" regimes (I assume there's some Vietnam butthurt behind this statement) but support of anti-communist murderous dictators is conveniently forgotten. Junggai (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"platonic relations"? How can something that is defined through not having anything to do with sex be adultery? Does that mean that Karajou doesn't have a single friend because having friends is a sin?

Thou shalt not kill. — Hatred for Christians, Jews, conservatives, including demands for death; abortion industry; support for third-world dictatorships engaged in socialism/communism. Andybody else noticed how conveniently Muslims and atheists are missing here? So in other words: It's ok to hate them. And why third-wolrd dictatorships? Would a dictatorship in the first world be ok with Jesus?

I, as most people here probably will, have a problem seeing how atheism is worshiping other gods. Did I miss a memo from the secret church of atheism that Darwin is now our god? Or are we worshiping science? If so can any of you sinners draw me a picture of science so that I can pray to it?

I might be wrong here (and that's because I forgot most about religions anyhow) but isn't allah also the god of Abraham, Isaac (instead of Issac, which I think is a glorious typo) and Jacob? --★uːʤɱ soviet 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What I enjoyed was the idea that "Secular science", you know that same science that allows Kara to enjoy the standard of living which he has grow accustomed, is an example of breaking the 2nd Commandment of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image..."--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Floods

Yes, yes, it's been mentioned several times before, and in the most recent escapade^img, a new user (we all know about those...) is doing a lot of the work. Once again, however, CP's supreme parodist chimes in with this take. "Floods ravage Pennsylvania" instead of "flooding, etc." Priceless. άλφα^Ταλκ 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're such a cocksucker. 62.113.219.4 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I must respectfully decline. άλφα^Ταλκ 01:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the implication being a cocksucker is bad to be highly bigoted. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I made that implication; I simply don't like uncreative spam. άλφα^Ταλκ 01:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

-Meant the Anon---Mikalos209 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So two anon's within minutes of each other? Is that normal? άλφα^Ταλκ 01:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

?--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was specifically referring to the junk in this section coupled with this edit. Since I don't normally many posts like that on this page, I was just wondering if it was normal to get two different anons posting so shortly after one another. Random copycats, maybe? άλφα^Ταλκ 02:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Em, now I really feel the need to ask, aren't "flood(s)" and "flooding" to different things? "Flood(s)" is clearly a simple noun but "flooding" comes from the present participle (I had to look that up) of flood, which is flooding, which is then used as noun within the sentence. Even if I had to translate that I would use two different words. Am I right or is the colloquial throwing around of words distorting something here? And if I'm right how the hell does he think the difference in saying that something is still going on is bias? --★uːʤɱ digital native 13:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No one cares but Andy, the guy who thought "Christian" was a secularization. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that no one except Andy cares. But my question was sincere. --★uːʤɱ atheist 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a sincere answer. Q: "is the colloquial throwing around of words distorting something here?" A: Only if you're insane. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, got the wrong idea. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fun fact: the story which Andy linked to contains (title included, the first five letters of which are "flood"!!) 16 usages of "flood" or a derived word (ie flooding/flooded/etc), and the word "flood" itself appears 7 times. alt (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem, though, is that Andy doesn't accept derived words; he only wants to see "flood," not "flooding" or some other derivation. He's using his near-complete inability to grasp the English language in an attempt to make a political point. άλφα^Ταλκ 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But, but, but, surely comparing a local deluge (no matter how devastating) to The Global Flood is demeaning to YHWH's work? It'd be like using Roman Gods, not Roman gods to refer to the false pagan deities the Romans worshipped. CS Miller (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Stupid vandalism that made me laugh.

Here^img --B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Such low standards--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I chortled. --Roofus (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple, stupid, but yet I smiled. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

True. Had to LOL too. Simple but effective. Mountain Blue (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Some very encyclopedic articles

These all popped up on Recent Changes tonight:

• Honey-Cured^img
• Ham Steak^img
• Headcheese^img
• Gelatin^img
• Adjourn^img
• Ground Beef^img
• Grade, Grading^img
• Hazard Analysis And Critical Control Points^img

And my personal favorite...

• Adjourn for more than three days^img

--Roofus (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out the revision history^img for that Adjournment article. Pretty long for two sentences. – Nick Heer 04:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You laugh now, but I created Cornpone^img many moons ago and it has since swelled into quite the scholarly article (no thanks to me). --Horace (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I like those better then wikipedia's. The lack of giant essays on everything is sorta nice--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of those are in cp:Category:United States Government Word Definitions and were created by SSchultz, apparently a big U.S. Department of Agriculture fan, who was blocked forever when he caught Karajou plagarizing. Godspeed (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was very disappointed to discover that "adjourn for more than three days" wasn't an uncle Ed masterpiece. It sounds right up his alley. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither chamber has any little girls in it. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the history of Conservapedia contest 3, which is where those articles originated. Stile4aly (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Was that another one of their contests that developed (or always was in the first place, more likely) into a massive spree of plagiarism by the admins? άλφα^Ταλκ 17:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Former atheist"

Ken posts^img a quote from a "former atheist" about how atheists just love sin, and that's why they are atheists. I've seen these "I am a former atheist" screeds for religion before where people write that they used to have a strong belief, and then they do a 180 and reject that strong belief for its polar opposite. And now they can't fathom that strong belief they once had. These people are either intellectually weak tools who swap their religious beliefs like they swap their underwear ("Now I'm black and don't understand white; now I'm white and don't understand black"); or they weren't atheists because they would have a deeper understanding of it than they evidence. Here's another like that. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The "former atheist" is renowned Daily Mail wingnut columnist Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lee Strobel is a good example of such an idiot. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing new under the sun. It is standard evangelical or fundamentalist belief that the only reason secular people, pagans, casual Christians, or even those who are devoted to another major religion are not devoted Christians is because "they love their sin". It has to be this way, otherwise Christianity is far more difficult to justify if you don't first put everything everyone believes or do in the framework that they are wicked by default.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think every evangelical pastor is either a former atheist, former drug abuser, former warlock or former green beret/marine/special forces. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm a current atheist and boy do I looooove me some sin. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what I love? Abortion.^img What I love even more is that there are rightwingers crazy enough to believe it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was reading that article all I could think was 'wow this guy is easily led'. Your average atheist does not burn bibles. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But now, JPatt's going to read this page, completely miss your obvious sarcasm, and see your comment as proof in his mind that he's completely correct. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt has a mind? Does he ever use it? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that...from an evangelical fundamentalist standpoint...love of rationality and thinking for oneself IS a love of sin. They tend to pussyfoot around that, because it doesn't sound very good when you come right out and say it, but it's true nonetheless. What was the original sin? Seeking knowledge. Heck, you just need to look at Martin Luther's rants on how reason is the "damned whore" and the enemy of faith. --Phentari (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

HongKoch

Never mind the unfunny troll, but did Karajou just specify a block reason that had wit and style? Mountain Blue (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(From the "unfunny troll" on another IP: Wasn't supposed to be funny & I was surprised by the reply myself. 138.92.155.237 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Got a screen capture for those of us that can't visit the site? άλφα^Ταλκ 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me a minute, not a lot of experience with caps... Mountain Blue (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Message to the unfunny troll-- everyday Conservapedia is online is a "You Lose" moment. --99.147.61.54 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that every day CP is online is a "you lose" moment for conservatives, except for people to be embarrassed by you, they actually have to know about you. άλφα^Ταλκ 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Karajou is going on a block spree, over 100 accounts so far. --MikeO (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't figure out what URL you need to specify a slice of Recent Changes that starts at some specific point and does not extend all the way up to the last change. Perhaps someone else can piece this together, or whatever. Anyway, here's the pertinent bit:

• Random boring wandal replaces Karajou's talk page with "LIBERALS LOVE YOU SOOOO MUCH!"
• Karajou blocks random boring wandal with block reason, "We love you too, which is why you really need to have Christ in your life"

I mean, that's practically graceful. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait...every day that Conservapedia - one of my primary forms of online entertainment - is online, I lose? Is "being entertained = losing" the liberal or conservative definition? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to update the conservative dictionary! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There you go^img, after all Karajou being funny needs to be screencaped. It's not hard: Go to the block log, User:_______ is the blocker Title:______ has to be the blockee with "User:" in front of it. Don't you people play around with the software? --★uːʤɱ kant 18:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. I tried to cap Recent Changes instead of the block log because the entire conversation was there, neatly lines up, in the form of five or so consecutive entries. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a CP account you were holding in reserve...

...it's dead, Jim^img. --B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My best guess is that it was in response to this: (You cannot stop us! I have hundreds of sleeper socks on this site, all registered from different IP addresses, there is nothing you can do to stop us from showing you the truth! We are many! We Win!!!) which was left as the description for an edit to Karajous talk page. Think he's done now, or just taking a breather? I mean he only got a hundred or so accounts.--MikeO (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah. "account creation disabled" as well. Probably any poor sucker who happens to sign up from one of those IP addresses from now on will be blocked as "sock of foo." Good old Anger Bear, the gift of incredible stupidity just keeps on giving. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to Kara, the chances of an account that's been inactive for weeks suddenly coming back to live and being used for legitimate, constructive edits... slim, very slim. He blocked a trailer load of trolls with perhaps one or two false positives. Yawn, if you ask me. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, mine get through unscathed. Phew. – Nick Heer 19:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am relieved that mine are untouched too. Thank you. --Buscombe (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Still alive here too. --Roofus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My accounts are both untouched; one's been inactive for over a year. I don't intend to use them anymore: my attempts at parody are nowhere near as good as Andy or Kara produce on a regular basis.--Simple (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

On a related note

Anybody know how much time CP has gone into no edit mode over the last few days?--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not related in the slightest. Fuck your vagina and it hideous sores. Ace^ace 21:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A million times. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 21:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ill pass, you aren't my type--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Priceless Andy...

Anyone wants to bet on how long this^img is going to stay... especially since the last contributor is no less than Andy^img (once again demonstrating his wiki-editing skills).
Aurélie wanna talk to me? 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How? How? How can something like that happen? I can't even get the source code, it all turns black… --★uːʤɱ secularist 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Go through the article history link from Recent Changes. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tried that, it was a Firefox problem. IE (6, becaue I don't use it anyways) shows a single black bar. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a Firefox problem, it's a Wikimedia problem. The hack just doesn't work with IE6 because IE6 is buggy and doesn't understand the CSS that Mr TimeToRaepCP has added to the page. Chrome shows a black page too. Mountain Blue (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For those interested and don't want to mess with the link, this is the CSS the user added: <div style="position: fixed; width: 100%; height: 100%; top: 0; left: 0; background-color: black; opacity: 1; z-index: 99;"></div> Gotta love the Firefox web developer's toolbar that makes it even easier to disable CSS. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the things I hate about Chrome is the fact that it won't let you disable CSS. I often read the web from small netbooks and pads. Some of the blogs I follow are so laden with useless graphics and design shit in general I have to disable CSS if I want them to fucking scroll without fucking freezing my browser for ten fucking seconds every time. Pandagon and Alas are particularly egregious examples, but there are others.

One other thing is fucking asswipes who specify justified text on body text columns 400 pixels wide. I can't fucking read a fucking blog post with word spacing that will vary by a factor of five from one word to the next. Who fucking can? What the fuck are they thinking? What the fucking fuck?

In my capacity as a progressive I'm in favor of rounding up all web designers and sticking them in camps or something. In fact when I've finally taken over this will be my first order of business. Herasimchuck and Bowman will be the first against the wall but Storey is not long for this world either. Not that I think anybody gives a shit about Herasimchuck but he steamrollers the competition in the pretentiousness department amd you have to respect that. And make no mistake, when I'll be driving from art school to art school washing down design departments with my trusty Flammenwerfer 35 what will be chained to my trailer hitch will be the bloody corpse of Zeldman. Seriously, we will never win the argument with the gay bashers and the creationtards if their fucking web sites are the only sites anyone can fucking read. Gawd I hate these design fucks so much sometimes I wonder if it shows. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So I take it that you don't like blinking text either? I'll have to remember the next time I code a web page to justify everything. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Given how much the CP sysops read us, I'm surprised it's still there. Proof they only give a shit about themselves. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I love how he reverted it to a version by "TiemToRaepCp." The guy is either illiterate or a bot.--Durbinator^Durbinating 06:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a bot. Remember the script malfunction? Senator Harrison (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's crap marches on

Emboldened and now untouchable after skewering Rob, Ken embarks on his mission to ensure that every article on CP is a steaming heap of crap, by shoehorning his drivel^img into every related^img article.^img I rather like his adding the "See also" link and then pasting in the contents of the essay anyway. Carry on Ken, great job - a few more 22 hour days and your job will be complete! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Even the quote makes me facepalm. First of all, Russians are rude. That's a cultural thing. And second Brits are very nice and kind people, maybe not in London but people in big cities are always rude. If these people weren't all from small towns they'd know that. --★uːʤɱ kant 13:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Hot Fuzz has made me fear small towns more than big towns in the UK.--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Londoners are very polite UHM, now get out my face and shut the fuck up you don't know what you're talking about!! SJ ^Debaser 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Britian and Morality is Now the featured article!^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just on the phone with the scrawny Chinese kid who wrote the kenbot and the meth fiend teenage punk slags that actually drive the thing... they say the book advance they're being offered needs to grow one additional digit before they finally come out. Expect Ken to crank it up some more over the next few weeks. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, Kendoll. Why summarise the contents of the article when you can just spam the title twice on the front page and call it good? If he were any dumber he'd have walked out in to traffic by now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is ironic seeing how Ratwiki crap marches on as well. Clap, clap on honoring those who died September 11. I hope you aren't honoring those who died on purpose.

Oh, hi JPratt. We haven't missed you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Johnny? "I hope you aren't honoring those who died on purpose" - good grief, you conservative scum will dance on any grave to make your half-arsed point. Now fuck off and learn what it means to be human. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Human? Surely that would take information and logic to point out facts and... nope, he'll never get it. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And reading that, I forgot: RationalWikians are also rude. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Honouring those who died on purpose? Johnny boy, you've obviously confused the flag of the United States with the Flag of Saudi Arabia. Don't worry about it though, we all make mistakes. I remember I once smashed someone in the face for accusing me of not giving a fuck about 3'000 innocent people dying for no good reason. I subsequently got arrested and charged with GBH and had sweet, vicious love forced upon me in jail by a wide chap named Bear. I won't be making that mistake again. SJ ^Debaser 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Bear was his real name. X Stickman (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And I don't even want to know what a "wide chap" is. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor: Andy should find another project to join.

Okay, not really what Ed said, but close enough. AaronT echoed^img Andy's claim that the heterosexual songwriter claimed YMCA was a sincere tribute to the Y and hence conservative. Ed replies^img that Aaron isn't "helping us provide trustworthy information" and should move on. Notice that neither Ed nor Conservative bother to tell Andy that he was wrong when he said the same damn thing. I guess they figure that true conservatives ignore flaws in their leaders and instead beat up the guys lower on the totem pole when they exhibit the exact same flaws. Phiwum (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't challenge the guy who can strip you of what little importance you have in life. They do what a LOT of humans do every day and have throughout History--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And so the homework begins

What kind of a teacher is Schlafly? 42 out of 40^img is nothing new for a bunch of non-answers - especially given each question is worth ten marks and receives at most 2 sentence replies.

But "Either write an essay of at least 150 words in length on any aspect of the lecture, or add or fill in 3 important terms from the lecture for the Study Guide at the link above (mention in your homework which three terms you picked)"? Seriously - 150 words, or 3 words. For 10 marks? The mind boggles.

I do rather enjoy the fact that Andy's potential model answer claims religion was invented. --PsyGremlinParlez! 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there's hope for the kid. From "wow, there was only 300 years between the flood and the rise of the Egyptian empire!" it's only a short hop to "seriously, that flood story is a complete fucking load." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the "300 years is more than 3 generations!" remark. Clearly Mr. Schlafly is forgetting that this is supposed to be immediately after the Deluge, when (as Genesis has it) Shem, the son of Noah, conceived his first son at age 100. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point - but 300 years is more than 3 generations! Perhaps it is 30, which could result in a population of many thousands. (Minus 2). That's creepy: a new generation every ten years? That implies that the girls got pregnant earlier than British teenagers today! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the homework

In years past, our policy has been to lay off the "kids," because to pile on Schlafly's unfortunate victims isn't cricket. Now that there are more parodists than anything else submitting homework, can we make fun of them for snowing Schlafly with stupid answers? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 13:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I still personally wouldn't, but you have a point. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the policy back then was WIGO'ing the students to avoid shining the limelight on them. Now there's so many parodists and Schlafly's questions have become even more retarded, there's just no avoiding that kind of stuff. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do whatever the fuck you want. Certain people will be on horses higher than others. I hope they fall and hurt themselves. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We have in the past refrained from going after the students, but Mr. Schlafly's grading responses have always been fair game. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, don't take the piss out of the students, but Andy's buffoonery is fair game. Auld Nick (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How does Terry honor 9-11?

By using the free encyclopedia's frontpage to link-whore to his own for profit website^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This sickens me. --★uːʤɱ heretic 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And then, of course, you have the pinkos of the Ward Churchill type, whose response to 9/11 was to form an "anti-war" brigade, because it was their enemy that took the blow that day. They are using the anniversary to spew a lot of wishful thinking about how the U.S. has "lost" to al-Qaeda. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you got one of these yet, Listener X? [1] ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.23.153.159 / talk / contribs}

What a perfect and sickening example of trying to profit from tragedy... άλφα^Ταλκ 02:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The shysters who squawk the loudest about "profit from tragedy" are more against the "profit" than the "tragedy," as the subjects of their own writings often attest. That being said, the coin is a very tacky piece of merchandise (not to mention a politicization and cheapening of the military's challenge-coin tradition). ListenerX^TalkerX 03:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That coin is in appalling taste. As one of the comments says: I hope its not made in China - but it probably is. Damo^Hi 03:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The coin is not so bad in itself, but it is being pitched as an emblem of the "holy military service of Christ," to quote Calvin. I do not think soldiers would be too enthusiastic about their traditions being appropriated by a bunch of whackos whose "fighting" mostly consists of sitting at keyboards hammering out invective against a group of largely loyal Americans. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't fully understand your comment before last, ListenerX. Of course I'm more against the "profit" than the "tragedy." I have no problem commemorating a tragedy, or even profiting from it necessarily (since, for example) any time a news outlet, whether it's print, online, broadcast, has a story about a tragedy, they stand to profit; that's just reality) but my complaint is mostly the same as yours: the tackiness of the piece and the politicisation of a tradition). άλφα^Ταλκ 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose profit in the slightest in itself. I just like to point out that the only reason Terry is bothering to mention 9-11 at all is to shell his own money making site, which is made worse because it runs contrary to the idea of the free, collaborative, encyclopedic wiki.

Over all it would appear that Conservapeida is mentioning 9-11 in a very toned down sort of way. I suspect it has to do with their recent anti-American turn as America, in their eyes, is tied to the Obama administration, and they won't do anything that could give that administration any positive or even neutral coverage.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do my homework

Andy once said Conservapedia was essentially complete because pages beyond the first 30,000 or so articles would be largely useless anyway. Anyone remember where that was? Failing that, anyone remember his exact words so I can search for them? Mountain Blue (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

here^img - it's one of my favorite quotations... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In a world of callousness and dereliction, larron continues obstinately to be awesome. Mountain Blue (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know. Sickening, isn't he? :) --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

More crap from Ken

Homosexuality and obesity^img and Lesbianism and obesity.^img And here all this time, I thought lesbians were homosexual. --Roofus (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that in some wingnut lexicons, "homosexuality" means "pederasty" and "lesbian" means "radical feminist." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's referring to male lesbians. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't new--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I myself am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 04:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The fat lesbian article has been around for a couple of years and while the Homosexuals & obesity one is more recent neither are new to those who have been watching. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I found them while looking through Recent Changes. They're new to me, and I assume some others. --Roofus (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because they are not new doesn't mean they aren't Signs of a Diseased Mind... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Roofus, you will find a lot of condensed hilarity and insanity in our Conservapedia namespace. What you may like to look at is Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that isn't genuine. --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it not genuine? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Summa Homosexualita is awesome. It's kind of sad to think what Ken

could have accomplished if channeled that dedication into something worthwhile.  On the other hand, he's an endless source of hilarity, which is good too. --Roofus (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are advantages to being a lesbian trapped in a man's body, (a) you can't charge homophobia or sexism, and (b) you can't complain about making only 59 cents on the dollar to what men make. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What can I say? I love the little butch ones. Really, I do.B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do my homework, pt. 2

Andy once claimed Conservapedia was the reason the US were becoming more conservative. Where was that? I trawled the summaries of his last 1000 edits and every WIGO archive page back to January but I can't find shit. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in one of the leaked mails somewhere - Andy says that because of the viewership CP is getting, they're the single biggest reason for the swing to the right. I'm sure it's referenced on one of the pages for the CP sysop groups. Probably Zeug or Fab Five. --PsyGremlinSermā! 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 20:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We've broken our record for unique visitors in the month of January.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!!!

All of our traffic sees the conservative message, and with our high volume, our site could be the single biggest reason American culture is moving to the right.

Yeah, in private emails he does seem to have even bigger delusions of grandeur than usual. He once wrote that the Conservative Bible Project could provide a "foundation of unity" for the entire conservative movement:

I just realized something about the CBP and the conservative movement and 2012.

By 2012 the conservative movement could be disrupted with internal religious battles. For example, in 2012 Mitt Romney, a Mormon, will run against Mike Huckabee, an evangelical. Newt Gingrich, a Catholic convert, and Sarah Palin, a Catholic-turned-evangelical, could run too. Jeb Bush, a Catholic convert, could run also though he may await 2016. These religious differences run deep, particularly among older conservatives. It flared up some in 2008.

As we've seen with the CBP, liberals know about these differences and try as hard as they can to inflame them.

The CBP could build a foundation of unity. It could address and patch up differences to "make way" for a more unified conservative movement in the future. If everyone accepts a particular Bible, then it's awfully hard for them to engage in religious conflicts with each other.

Thoughts?

There is no God but Conservatism and Andy is its prophet. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious; I'm wasting an hour sifting through wiki logs and archives for shit that's sitting on my own local server. Idiot, me. The "foundation of unity" thing is fucking spectacular. Mountain Blue (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I love Karajou's comment:

Let's grab the hammer away and use it against them.

Remember what I said about identifying every liberal verse that was distorted. We do have our work cut out for us, but it can be done. We have the Bible Gateway site to look up the bad liberal versions when we need to.

This is also going to solve the liberal "well-the-Bible-contradicts-itself" argument.

Their plan is just to write out every contradiction in the Bible? Isn't that sort of cheating? On a side note, I'm now associating Karajou with River Tam, marking out passages in the Bible that are contradictory, much to the priest's dismay. I think I watched way too much Firefly my first year of uni άλφα^Ταλκ 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And at the end of the story, he kills/bans all the evil face-eating liberals and saves the tiny crew of the Conservapedia cargo ship? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

He can't even get the other sysops on his own site to use the CBP and he's going to get the Republican candidates to all endorse it? How does he plan to get that done? --Roofus (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In his head, it's probably already happening; as was discussed above, Schlafly seems to think that CP is the drive behind America's shift to the right. If that truly were the case, then something that's so important would already be read by the candidates. I wonder if any of the sysops would consider submitting questions to any of the upcoming debates. I'm sure the screeners would simply jump on those... άλφα^Ταλκ 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell, the biggest critics of the Conservative Bible Project were conservatives. Liberals just laughed their asses off.

Even Ken

expressed doubts about the project:

I agree 100% concerning the name change from Conservaitve Bible Project to the Conservapedia Bible Project. There hasn't been a single prominent conservative, conservative religious leader, conservative theologian, or conservative Bible scholar who has endorsed the project and I think the name of the project is a problem. It has all been negative in that respect. (Source)

Lastly, I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project, but setting that aside, I have noticed that parodists like to try to suck up to Andy via his various projects and TeacherEd has done that as far as the Conservative Bible Project. (Source)

Andy, it's really bad when Ken

has a better grasp of the situation than you do. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It just shows Andy doesn't understand the difference between Catholic & Protestant. Geez, even Al Gore was a divinity student, and people laughed. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof that nobody cares about CP.

Take a look at recent changes: dude goes on a vandalism spree^img; as soon as he's done, user: Conservative and Coke-eyes edit their turf, ignoring the guy who made 50 pages read "tits." JPatt logs on, blocks the guy, reverts 3 or 4 of the 50 or so attacked pages, and then gives up. Three sysops, zero interest in the well-being of the project. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Halal^img is still black. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Our boy Andy is finally on the case. PROTIP: A decent leader knows how to delegate, Andy. That's why the Chief of Police doesn't write parking tickets, why the owners of oil companies don't ask me if I want to fill up with regular or premium. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 03:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the President doesn't do oil spill cleanups by himself? – Nick Heer 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I rolled my eyes when I saw Andy had to revert everything despite active sysops. Useless. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy had someone doing the job, but he died. They only learned about his death nearly two months after it happened, through us. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The more useful sysops are gone now. TK policed the place with brutal efficacy, and when Crocoite/DeanS was active, main-page-right was of far better quality. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

On irony

"Proof that nobody cares about CP" ahh - irony

Lulz, the above post rocked my world. Tielec01 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clear what was meant. There's no irony. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ironic that most accusations of irony aren't actually irony. Including perhaps this one. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a section called "Proof that nobody cares about CP" that discusses CP is pretty clearly ironic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The question becomes - does the intent behind a statement remove the irony posited by its face-value? Personally, I think that nobody really gives a shit. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see where the unsigned poster is coming from. More correctly, the header should be "Proof that nobody cares about CP (except people looking for a laugh)". Occasionaluse (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You all suck. There is no irony. To like gawking at something is not the same as to care about it. The header is OK the way it is. Mountain Blue (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention... now... that... is... ironyyyyy" Tielec01 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is evidence they know all the editors with blocking rights are rationalwiki parodists. None will speak up to tell Andy that. Hell, Andy already knows that, too. But none will discuss it publicly or privately. I came to WIGO to force discussion on this stuff, and you know the rest. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Variable radioactive decay rates

Apparently this has been floating about for some time now, so first up - has this come up before on CP? It only just came up on my favourite newsblog. In short, a scientist (perhaps more appropriately, a scientish) has proposed that decay rates vary with distance from the sun. If he hasn't already, I expect (and hope) Andy will be all over this. Lulz ahoy! ^{ONE / TALK} 12:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy's definitely mentioned variable rates of decay in his attempt to disprove radiometric dating, but I can't exactly remember the context. Maybe in the Counterexamples to an Old Earth article? άλφα^Ταλκ 18:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a standard creationist meme, I've heard ken ham use it in a 'lecture' of his I was forced to attend once. The argument is that just because C14 decays at the rate it does now does not mean it always has decayed at the same rate therefore C14 dating is not reliable. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When this legitimate (probably) study hit skeptics were worried about it, but as time passed no creationists seem to have picked it up. --Opcn (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Decay rates are determined by the probability of various interactions on the nuclear and intra-nuclear level (and can be calculated, in theory, explicitly through path-integrals or feynman diagrams). And thus are proportional (in some sense) to the magnitude of fundamental constants. There is no a priori reason for us to expect these "constants" to be constant over time, in fact, the relative strength of the 3 nuclear forces (judged by the apparent ratios of their coupling coefficients) varies with interaction energy and the coupling constants even unify at certain large enough energy levels. However, the electromagnetic coupling constant (the famed fine-structure constant) shows up in many different areas in physics, most significantly in the strength of various atomic transitions (e.g. in the absorption/emission spectra of various atoms). The "base" (low energy-limit) of alpha can therefore be measured by looking up in the sky and measuring some convenient absorption spectra at various distances from earth. Hydrogen clouds are particularly fruitful due to their natural abundance in the universe and several opportune atomic transitions which actually shift in opposite direction under a change in alpha. Experiments conducted in this manner and others on earth (to see if there is any on-going time shift in alpha on earth) have us fairly certain that alpha has not changed appreciably over the last few billion years, and due to various other cosmological clues we don't expect it to have been radically different in the time since the universe condensed out of its GUT state (say, since a few seconds after creation). Not to belabor the point, but there is very deep physics behind this trivial observation by Andy and co.

Of course, none of this matters for shit if you are convinced that the stars and the entire cosmos past a few thousand light years are a painted canvas and that everything is set up to make us believe that the universe is old when it really is not. Ateafish (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I forget - On a related note, you can easily construct GR frame where an observer comoving with that frame since the creation of the universe (well, at least since the moment relativity is valid, so lets say a few nanoseconds after creation to be safe) until now would have measured the time elapsed (and thus, the age of the universe from his perspective) to be 6000 years. Ateafish (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) However, the alleged variations in decay rates are proportionally tiny and there remain a good deal of critics citing disconfirming evidence to this somewhat radical idea. The blog points to a paper by scientists from Berkely and Livermore who found no such variation, as well as a relevant WP page. At any rate, ¹⁴C dating is limited to about 60,000 years before the present. Homo sapiens is about an order of magnitude older than that. With background effects and known process error, samples older than about 60,000 years seem younger than they are; ¹⁴C dating is appropriate for archaeological investigation of e.g. ancient cooking fires, but has no bearing on paleontological findings even as recently as the early Pleistocene epoch, when early humans such as Turkana boy were struggling to keep up. Few lulz coming from this one, most likely; sorry. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)