Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive259

This is an archive page, last updated 24 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>, <258>, <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)

Twice in one day from Hurlbut

Not only is he linkwhoring twice in a day to profit from a tragedy,^img his 'analysis'^img is hysterically funny. Not only is the whole 'debunking' woefully poor, it's his usual hate-filled screed type of article with massive generalisations, all Arabs aren't Muslims, and painfully erroneous in basic research, Sam Worthington never travelled through time. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I especially like his comment near the end: "One can ask why the government has neglected the most basic element of homeland defense: an armed citizenry." Besides that, in his response to "why didn't GWB deport all the Muslims" he fails to mention anything about why deporting an entire, diverse religious group would be wrong on logical and/or humanitarian grounds, and ind just says that GWB had a blind spot and didn't seem to understand that all Muslims were behind this. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry is right, conspiracy theories are really harmfull. Right, Terry? So fuck these Arabs, they are all bad!!! And the US has never ever done anything wrong to Muslims Arabs Muslims!!1!! fucking synonyms! --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry has it right, If you see something, keep your trap shut, because it’s none of your business! That's how to survive on CP. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know bitching randomly about CP is cathartic - just think how much faster the healing process will be if you leak the soopah seekrit chats! --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This stuff is more about Rob than it is about Terry

Was Rob ever invited into the secret sysop groups? I thought him and Ken were in the outer party and not permitted to the inner party. - π 01:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Psy, as pointed out here, the SDG group was not the first discussion group. Neither TK nor Conservative were members of that group. (ConservAdmins is referenced in Conservaleaks here). On the 14th of this month I intend to contact Andy Schlafly to see if he is going to allow User:Karajou gross violation of the Conservapedia Commandments to stand, hence ratifying for all to see that pretty grudges and vindictiveness now take precedence over Conservapedia stated policies. I'm going to force his hand, either he embraces accountability or he allows on his webserver anonymous editors to slander, by real life identity, a good faith user and the fourth all time contributor as having committed potential criminal misconduct (harassment). This should be a wake-up call to all active users and sysops, as well as future users and sysops. Their involvement in Conservapedia may end with the same slanderous accusations. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's it! You can lead the revolution from exile! Threaten criminal charges! It's bound to work. Just wait until Sept. 14 and we will watch Andy see the light, throw out the various ne'er-do-wells who have snuck into his benevolent administration and return Rob Smith to his right hand.

That, or he'll ignore you again. Could go either way, I guess.

No matter. I'd do it. Your attempt won't look pathetic at all. Phiwum (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC you bastard, you said what I was going to say) Yeah, you can't force Andy when he ignored the shit out of the whole situation to begin with, unless the harassment bit is more of a "I shall take legal action against thee" type of thing. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And when Andy rejects you, Rob, will you leak the chats then? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurlbutt's got a gripe, too. He's upset (and rightly so) about some material that appeared on the now defunct Encyclopedia Dramatica. His prime suspects are "the entire user base" of Rationalwiki. These guys threaten civil & criminal damages all the time, but nothing comes of it. Andy, a lawyer, doesn't bother explaining the facts to them but allows them to continue making fools of themselves. Guilt by association was always an illegal block under CP's rules as exercised by TK, but now is elevated to official policy with my de-sysoping and blocking. Why isn't this policy exercised against Wikipedia users? Wikipedia has done far more damage to Andy Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly, and Conservapedia's reputation than Rationalwiki editors, (many of whom are also Wikipedia users) ever dreamed of. But I not only get de-sysoped and blocked, but slandered as well, for trying to do things to repair the damage Encyclopdia Dramatica, Rationalwiki, and Wikipedia have done to Andy Schlalfy and Conservapedia's (and Conservapeida editors) reputation. It's a moment of truth for them. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, Rob, when will you learn? Between Lenski, the non-dancing Muslim Obama, the Schlafly Bible, liberal relativity, fat atheists, flying kitties and any number of other examples, the people who have done the most damage to Conservapedia's reputation are the ones supposedly running the place. Just because we (and others) highlight their insanity, doesn't make us the bad people. Except for in the minds of Schlafly, Wobblebottom and Popeye, of course. And Phy's reputation went down the drain the moment she said it was ok for a husband to rape his wife. It's not like we make this shit up. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:Phyliss Schlalfy begins with citation from Mr. cp:Chip Berlet's polemic, Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. (Look at the slanders he's got on his website about her, Theocracy and White Supremacy, for example). I waited four years for Berlet to respond, and Karajou did exactly what Conservapedia (a) was founded not to do, and (b) as expressly stated in How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia, blocked Chip Berlet on ideology (the discussion of Karajou's intent to violate CP policy and block for ideology his available on the private mailing list) and stated as much in his reasons for blocking. We had the real opportunity to do something about Wikipedia's bias against the Schlafly's and Conservapedia here, but Karajou blew it. Berlet never bothered to respond after he saw how arbitrary and unfair CP is to its users. TK would have waited and contacted me, but as can be seen from the discussion page there, Karajou and Conservative have no regard whatsoever for the work of another sysop over several years, on behalf of the project and the founders family. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob and welcome to RationalWiki. Let me explain something to you about leaving Conservapedia: you are now nothing to them, and for all intents and purposes, you never were anything. Best of luck in contacting Andy. Don't hold your breath waiting to hear back. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. I email the discussion list (I'm still in contact), lay out the particulars, close with a "failure to hear a response in 48 hrs means you uphold Karajou's actions." If the answer is yes, everything's fine. If the answer is no, I become one of Conservapedia's chief critics. And remember the job I did on that sonofabitch Obama. Harvard elitist scum. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't Andy at Harvard as well. Or don't whities count as elitist scum? No, I forgot, Obama's just an uppity half-caste who doesn't know his place although he has pretty much fulfilled the American myth that anyone could get to be President if they work hard enough. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you continue to be as actively anti-cp-members here if Andy lets you back into CP to write MPR headlines? X Stickman (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Oooh! One of CP's chief critics! My, what a threat that is. Yes, after all the damage you dealt Obama (who is still licking his wounds after the beating you gave him), it's obvious that CP doesn't want to tangle with you. Honestly, Rob, are you just funning us? Any self-respecting man would realize that he's been told to fuck off from CP and who the hell cares? That sort of treatment should bother you about as much as getting kicked from your favorite online game server. Eh, guess they don't like me. Perhaps I'll go elsewhere. Yeah, maybe they were somehow unfair in their treatment, but honestly, do you want to alternately grovel and impotently threaten for weeks on end? Phiwum (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm committed to the spirit of the wiki, free speech, the rule of law, and fairness. If this means CP reform, so be it. Even User:Conservative agrees with me, there should be a way for one sysop to criticize another, the only difference is, I didn't know there was a rule against it. And User:Conservative's assertion that there is such an unwritten rule only adds to Rationalwiki's claim CP is brainless and authoritarian. My commitments are to ideals, such as conservatism, and not to imperfect men, such as User:Conservative, Karajou, or Andy Schlafly. What they did to me violates all the fundamental precepts of conservatism the purport to represent. But only Karajou, in my estimation, owes myself and the Conservapeida project an apology for his arrogant and reckless conduct. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, just make your own fucking wiki. Conservapedia is like carthage after the third punic war, just minus the war.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Rob is the Black Knight from Monty Python And The Holy Grail. "I become one of Conservapedia's chief critics" and bite their legs off! Seriously, do you have no idea how silly you're coming across? JUST MOVE THE FUCK ON ALREADY. Find a rebound nutty conservative group. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Guise, really, already with the "give it up Rob!" rhetoric? Remember how much lulz we got from the rumble before he was booted from CP. I can understand his mode of thinking: he's dedicated to Conservapedia, not the individuals who run it to the ground. However, I think his efforts won't bear any fruit, but who knows? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who has a healthy dose of Cynical leaning realism in they're blood.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"he's dedicated to Conservapedia, not the individuals who run it to the ground." Jesus Christ, Norse -- you've been hear long enough to know that Conservapedia IS the individuals who ran it into the ground--or at least THE individual. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

uh, I think I said "conservativism" and CP sysops have betrayed the ideals they allegedly profess. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 00:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what view.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet you stuck with it. Even when they started re-writing the Bible to fit their shared ideology. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 00:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course *I* know that Conservapedia (well, he said "conserativism", close enough?) IS the individuals (Andy, etc.), I was speaking on behalf of Rob's understanding. Why he hasn't given up and sticks with Ameriwiki is beyond me, but I would just enjoy watching Koward go ballistic if Andy listens to Rob's email. Also, Rob, you might want to tell Andy that Ken's idea of blocking reform has stalled into nothing, as it was just a show to give the idea that sysops were actually trying to improve something. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely parody?

Someone tell me it is^img, because I don't want to believe that the other side in the political debate of a superpower can't be informed enough to do a Google search. First it was teabagging, now the latest Republican power comes from dogging? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Those teabaggers sure like dogging after they've been excited by Santorum. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Git! I already had that joke picked out for a blog post I was going to write later. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed my Poe. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what is promoted on Old Dogg as an editorial. Obviously they have heavy-hitting intellectuals behind this thing, so I'm sure it will be a success. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It probably amused JPatt. Doubtless he's their target audience. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not fundamentally more stupid, unfunny, or puerile than any work of Coulter's, so it will probably amuse a lot of them. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread hijacked by Robert Smith. Pay no attention to the man behind the throne

All it is is link spamming and self promotion^img; "Old Dogg, is a provider of community driven news, and a social news website." Somebody better tell Rwusja about 90/10, CP does not allow a community or social networking. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We get it rob, you got booted because you talked to much as a plebian. stop bringing it up in every topic.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

huh? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your connection between "90/10" and "Social website/community" is weak and vague at best, and it makes you look like your just whining more about being blocked. Avoid discussion 90/10.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I'm sending a message to CP sysops (whom I know intimately) asking them why are they selective in reverting, deleting, and blocking link spammers and self promotion. Not stop hounding me, please. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think they care about what you want to say to them? --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

They read this. We have a tacit understanding. I am still in communication with all them privately. I have an ethical concern about leaking private materials, which I am asked repeatedly here to do. In the absence of betraying trust and confidence, I prefer to communicate openly with them here. That's why I came here. CP sysops do not use their private discussion lists for anything other than vandal patrol, and policy reform or proposals on the open wiki will get you a 30 day 90/10 block. So this is the only forum CP sysops pay attention to. I know this as as fact. I'm surprised you do not know that, cause your only postings seem to be, "we already know that."

Now, If you are serious about Rationalwiki's mission statement, and affecting change at CP, please stop hounding me. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do read this. Yes im committed, vaguely, to the goal of rationalwiki (As much as somebody who is a biblical literalist can be anyways). However, no rob, they are not interested in reform, and they are not really interested in you anymore. Your not getting back in and the De facto law of the land will be "whatever X sysop wants it to be" until andy steps in and then it's "Whatever andy decides it will be". De jure law is long dead. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We already know that. We already discussed this. I already told you my goal in life was not to become active again in CP. Please, just stop hounding me and wasting my time, and stop interfering with my communications between old time CP sysops, and the old time RW cabal who may have a bit better understanding of the issues involved than you yourself have displayed. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

stop interfering with my communications between old time CP sysops, and the old time RW cabal It's like The Spy Who Came in from The Cold, if Leamas was on crystal meth. Godspeed (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

War! is coming

Terry: The middle east continues to edge into a new war!^img , with the arabs having such WILD dreams as.l.. im not to sure. I couldn't make it through the article he posted.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, there is going to be war. It's just going to be in Israel, and it'll be at least partially the fault of conservative ideologues like at Conservapedia.--^talk 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one? Wtf? Senator Harrison (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a demographic war borne out of thoughtless and shortsighted support of Israel's most reckless policies, and it's coming. Arabs outnumber Israelis in many occupied areas, and the disparity is just going to continue to grow. And because Israel has been propped up by American conservatives to a point where it cannot step down from a special status as a religious state, it can't give the natives the vote. Which means either Israel is going to have to start killing them and moving them to reservations or else they're going to become a modern apartheid state - both choices lead, of course, to war.--^talk 00:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is great that the worlds jewish state is going to be a minority jew nation.

it's also going to have a large section of the planets Jewish population and a god awful amount of ability to fight back though/. There IS a reason Israel hasn't lost it's wars--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That reason is of course US support. It's easy to strike really hard when you've got someone much much bigger than you to lift your hammer up for you. --Opcn (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It always seemed simple enough to me: either Israel treats the palestinians as citizens or gives them their own country. But I guess as someone once said, "The important things are always simple, the simple things are usually impossible." ...or something like that --Durbinator^Durbinating 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More the simple easy solutions to 3/4 of the worlds problems simply won't be considered. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was 16 or 17 I had quite a simple idea for all this mess. Just let the Arabs have a single state of which Isreal is an autonomous region. Today I think they should just make a single state called "Israel & Palestine" and give both religions equal represantation and rights within the whole system. But then again, I'm - if I want to or not - German, so when I say Israel is doing something wrong I immediatly get "Nazi!" or "Anti-Semite!" thrown in my face… --★uːʤɱ soviet 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to side with bigots, but that's not a very good plan (sorry). You'd be asking both states to give up independent sovereignty, trying to join together two groups that have violently opposing interests and long-standing differences, and you'd be asking each group to accept the partial legitimacy of an ideology that they consider not just wrong-headed, but actually evil. Not to mention that Israel's status as a minority would put them in really obvious and real jeopardy in this situation.--^talk 11:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's unlikely. Of course the first step should be to make them stop killing and hating each other, which might be possible through showing them how much they actually have in common. Maybe a first (or zero-ish?) step would be to give the Palestinians enough economical ground that they are able to have a good education, more often than not a well educated people become more tolerant than they were before. I have always failed to see how having a Jew or Muslim as a neighbour is sooo bad that you need to get rid of him. I actually had muslim neighbour once, it was actually quite practical - when he prayed I always knew what time it was... --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 12:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Long and boring comment:

After over half a century of bloody conflict and teaching hatred, coexistence in a single state is only a dream.

Although Israelis have more than their fair share of extremists and fundamentalists, and specific violent episodes tend to temporarily harden the stances of many moderates, by the late 1990s a significant portion of Israel's population (perhaps the majority) had come to understand the demographic time-bomb that would result from maintaining hold of the West Bank. Simply annexing "Judea and Samaria" to Israel would ensure a future in which Palestinian Arabs would constitute the country's majority, leading to only two possible outcomes:

• The end of the Jewish State: Jews becoming a hated minority in an Arab state.
• The end of democracy: Israeli Jews being forced to strip Palestinian Arabs of their citizenship rights in order to maintain the Jewish nature of the state, relegating the majority of the country's population to an underclass without proportional political representation (and thus aching for a violent revolution). How many Jewish parents would want their children to abandon democracy and become enforcers of a real (not merely retorical) apartheid?

(These are, of course, the very same reasons why the so-called "right of return for the refugees" can't be accepted by Israel. It would be suicidal.)

Even many so-called "hawks" eventually came around to understand this situation: that's the story behind Ariel Sharon and his followers leaving the Likud Party and forming the Kadima Party (toghether with formerly Labour politicians like Shimon Peres himself). Many Palestinian Arabs also did the math, and in the late 1990s a small group highlighted the situation by openly proposing that the West Bank be formally annexed into Israel and its inhabitants given Israeli citizenship.

Of course, there are Israeli extremists that would solve the situation by either installing some sort of Theocratic dictatorship or by tried-and-tested ethnic cleansing. But even the moderately reasonable Israelis know that separation from the Palestinian Arabs is the only real alternative. The only question that remains is the manner in which that separation would take place:

• The peaceful creation of a Palestinian State via negotiations between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, leading to a bilateral treaty that offers certain guarantees to Israel's security.
• The so-called "unilateral separation", the model already implemented in the Gaza Strip, with Israelis unilaterally retreating behind a huge wall and/or barbed wire, leaving the Palestinian Arabs on the other side and maintaining a state of war (which would imply bombing the Palestinian Arabs as much as necessary to keep them from launching missiles -or other forms o attack- into Israel).

The main problem in the region is that Israelis wanting to negotiate peace and the creation of a Palestinian State have so far failed to find a Palestinian partner to do so. It's the Palestinians who either make demands that essentially boil down to asking the State of Israel to commit suicide (like the already-mentioned "right of return for the refugees"), or simply refuse to negotiate, hell-bent on throwing the Zionists back to the Mediterranean. The words of Golda Meir remain as true as half a century ago: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us". It is in light of these unpromising circumstances that the West Bank Barrier being erected by Israel could eventually double as a de facto border behind which to retreat in case of implementing a "unilateral separation" from the West Bank.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, I'm a big fan of the proposal of the late king Hussein of Jordan, who proposed placing the Old City under the direct sovereignty of God, thus becoming neither Palestinian nor Israeli, but a mini-state open to all. Of course, this dream would only be possible under a peace settlement... not with an Israeli "unilateral separation".--Xyr (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Terry is an islamophobe, arabophobe or both. Either way his "Arabs/Muslims want blood"-screeds are pretty racist. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 11:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just adding a capbot to terry's^img crap so noone has to give him hits. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

nice idea - but what's about the copyright? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been done before on here LArron, but if there is a copyright problem then anyone feel free to remove it. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving for the purposes of preservation is entirely legal.--^talk 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And for the purpose of commentary, for which I believe this section qualifies. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a headline saying that War! is immanent in the Mid-East reminds me of a great anecdote about Noam Chomsky. Sometimes his talks are scheduled a couple of years in advance, but the organizers need to know what Chomsky will be speaking about, so he generally tells them that the talk two years hence will be about "the current crisis in the Middle East." B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 12:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In which Jpatt hijacks 9/11 to protest abortions

So I randomly remembered that Jpatt is on Twitter and checked it up again for the lulz. And oh look: "I salute the 3000+ Americans killed that day 10 yrs. ago, never forget! Pray to end the 3000+ Americans killed daily by abortion #prolife"^img --Sid (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are they really americans if they haven't been born yet?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Where's the birth certificate? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You forget there's no such thing as birthright citizenship... any more, according to JPatt and pals. They don't count as Americans until we've seen their kindergarten records. Mountain Blue (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At least I didn't recognize "all" 9/11 dead with a banner on my wiki. If you don't understand, it's becuz you're dumber than dirt. TKlives--208.40.4.94 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"TK lives". Hilarious, considering you had to read about his death here, even with the tight-knit Christian fellowship that you've built over there. Loser. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is exploding!

Ken's missive on the exploding growth of Christianity^img highlights the increasing inconsistencies within Conservapedia. Christianity is exploding and atheists are but a squeak in society! However there is increasing obesity and dementia which is all related to atheism! Boo Hiss! People are becoming more conservative and I can prove it with my made up words list but people are becoming stupider therefore evolution isn't true! Do any of these guys think about what they are writing anymore? Ace^ace 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In their defense, the atheism and obesity articles primarily focuses on America, or at least the Western World, while "getting more conservative" trope is exclusively focused on America. Ken's "Explosion of Christianity" does specifically state that the rapid growth of Christianity is occurring outside the Western World.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they actually read any of their own shit, that's what causes the continued and rather amusing inconsistencies. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

America: Getting conservative and Christian, Europe: Getting liberal and Anti-christian, and oppressing the rights of the conservative and christians. Africa: Fuck them who cares. Asia: China continues to be very anti christian and is liberal, and the arab world is just anti-semites 100%. Fuck australia they dont matter either. CP worldview in a nutshell--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article reminded me of this, but I hate the term "Global South." Economically, geographically, politically, etc. it's such a stupid term for lumping all of the non-Western world together. </rant> άλφα^Ταλκ 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory xkcd reference. DickTurpis (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful; I had forgotten about that one. Perfect for the occasion. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, of course the toon actually shows a map. Most globes have an inclined axis so when you position it so that the North Atlantic is at the top everything else is below it (south?). Please don't run with this, it's just a picky observation. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If the axis is inclined then "below" doesn't imply "to the south of" any longer, does it? Mountain Blue (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Geographically south has a distinct meaning but it I keep coming across north and south being used for relatively above or below and even for social and political trends. So that's why I said don't run with that; I'm not trying to make some major case out it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You forgot all about South America! Which I suspect to them doesn't even register except for Venezuela.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If atheists "are but a squeak", why is Andy teaching^img that they outnumber every other group except Islam and Christianity? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite; Andy's source for that table specifies that "Nonreligious" includes quite a lot of groups, and that people who actually answer "athiest" tend to number between 0 and 0.5 squeaks. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on which Sysop you talk about. For the rest, atheism is on a decline, with liberalism (in the places that matter), and we only need to do some work against it. Now if you ask Ken, not only is it falling off the cliff at lightspeed while still posing a credible threat to the world, but he's somehow helping kill it :)--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Both at the same time for them. But as this is CP looking at it and saying "how is that logically consistent?" wont get you anywhere, let's ask "why is it like that?". Well, for that the answer is rather simple. Chrisitianity, theism and conservatism has to grow so they can spout of bullshit from their blog and believe they are "winning the war" — also they have to get a hard on, because their side is winning. At the same point the paranoia and "they are dangerous"-effect has to be kept going, because without it most of them don't have a reason to live (ironically, the exception is Ed). So, yeah, for them they are winning but the enemy is still dangerous as hell. Stuff like that happens, nobody gives a shit about CP except for laughing your ass off reading it, it still got into books and the media somehow. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Make your mind up, Ed!

User asks Ed for help in proposing an article for deletion.^img (note - it is the "Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage" article, so we how how this will end up.)

Sez Ed: "I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions."

User: Oh, I thought you'd be familiar with the policies.

Ed: Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter.

Just another day in the life of Ed 'Don't be a Dick" Poor. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The user posted on a policy proposal page^img, so that's a non-starter. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed isn't lying; he knows CP policy quite well. Unfortunately, their policy is to either ignore the problem until it goes away through blocking and reversion (the Schlafly approach) or... block and revert immediately and not worry about it. άλφα^Ταλκ 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just like it's policy that mortals are not allowed to decide whether an article should stay or go (a.k.a. the AfD mechanic on Wikipedia) because that would be a "Mobocracy". So on CP, single sysops get to decide this arbitrarily. Which is why Ed can liveblog movies while other articles are deleted for being "pop culture". Hooray for not having Notability or Deletion standards - you don't need those when a handful of sysops are micromanaging the entire project anyway! --Sid (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed edited the poor newbie's comment to add a double-square-bracket URL link?! Cripes, he used to be a 'crat on enwiki. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No - the diff shows 5 intermediate revisions. Ed only made the last one - his own comment. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow... just wow...

After CMI doesn't even try the second time, Ken comes all over MPR^img. He has one of these, right? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw those this morning and was going to post something here, but one starts thinking... what's the point? These ignorant fuckwits are just going to say "That doesn't answer the question" no matter how good the answer actually is. It's pretty clear to me now that none of these creationists have ever read a proper book on evolution and have no idea how it really works. They seem to cling to some half-assed ideas of what it means and then handwave the rest. It's like Douglas Adams once made that joke about the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal evolving into a spaceship, Douglas Adams believed in evolution, so they think that's how evolution works. Total idiots. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Everytime I read stuff like this (the creationism bullshit), I feel empathy for for people that actually know this stuff. If even I, somebody who almost failed all science classes he ever had, have to headdesk, how do people feel that actually understand this stuff? I was reading those "rebuttals" before and most of them are either "Where's the evidence?" or "Not why, how?". What exactly are they expecting? Descriptions of the biochemicals processes on the evidence of fossils that probably don't even exist because all these things happend in water? And the worst thing is, some not even 2000 year old book that was written by some folks that weren't even there either is enough evidence to challenge people that have actually used their brains and not only their guts. This is why I can understand that people like Dawkins are so pissed off about these ignorant fucks. --★uːʤɱ socialist 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The creationists are like a bunch of blindfolded kids with sticks whacking at a straw man pinata. IANAB (I am not a biologist), but my coursework required a basic understanding of biology and evolutionary theory (plus I actually read, it's pretty crazy I know) -- after a while, you have to stop headdesking otherwise your brains start to leak out of your skull and your desk gets full of nasty dents. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

They respond so poorly to answers and explanations because they're not really asking questions in the first place. They *frame* it as asking questions because it makes them look more legitimate, but "question evolution" and all of the "how come evolution can't answer these questions" variants that have existed may as well just be statements. Rather than "How does evolution explain sex?" they may as well just put "Evolution can't explain sex." That's the message they want to get across to people who just casually glimpse and/or hear about the campaign, because it'll stick in their head. Chances are most people who come across it won't know the answer, simply because it's never occurred to them to look it up, so it'll stick in their heads as a point against evolution. Some of those people will go on to do research and find the truth, some will go on with it in their head as something evolution can't answer, and a small minority will go on to join the crusade. I mean seriously, the questions posed aren't particularly difficult ones. An hour, at most, on wikipedia would answer them all, and they obviously have the technical know-how to do that (since they have all these websites), but they utterly refuse to because they're not looking for answers, they're just evangelising. X Stickman (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they think science is analogous to a religion - they expect it to present itself as one nice self-contained package with all the answers. If there is so much as one unanswered question, science must be wrong. They cannot understand this idea that science is a process of exploring the unknown. There are plenty of very good questions to be asked about evolution, which genuinely don't have solid answers, but if anyone answered "We don't know, we're working on it" they would cite this as some sort of evidence that science is misguided. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Aslo remember that it could very well be the same people writing the strawman "questions" as the rebuttals. There is no evidence that they answers were even submitted let alone the best answers submitted. CMI could have just through bias, selected the easiest to refute answers, provided they didn't write the "answers" themselves. Remember that it isn't beyond creationists to flat out lie when it comes to defending their position. Their rampant quote mining is enough to condemn them of dishonesty. It isn't about skepticism or scientific honestly, its about propping up a dogma they are never allowed to question. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of the rebuttals are taken from our own article here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

True, the point of many of these operations is just to spread FUD, much like the "critique and analyze" language in Texas' school standards. The best approach is to just throw as much shit at the wall as possible and see what sticks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In which Ken shows that he doesn't know how the 15 questions work

There is so much win in this section:^img

It starts with Ken moving the post and slipping the word "Purported" before "Biologist" - nice bit of acting like a scumbag there, Ken - followed by his typical reply, "I disagree with you, so I didn't read it, and what what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?"

Seriously, the man is that stupid. He can't process any thoughts beyond that phrase. Full points to Max for pointing out, that as the questions are being answered from an evolutionist point of view, there's no need for them to answer that question. Plus he finishes off with by whining "by the end of the day, there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the coward Richard Dawkins are going to change that."

Truly beautiful. Ignore the answers in front of you and chant the old mantra. No wonder he hides in his bunny hole (no intellectual there) when it comes to debates. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I love it. He replies to only the first question, then goes off on a tangent and says it must answer this and that, which aren't even in the question, then jumps the edge demanding sources and evidence of his fallacious "proof atheism is true" crap. Half the replies to Ken are bewildered, WTF responses, the other half as metaphorical facepalms. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, classic KenDoll. He issues a challenge, panics when he gets a response that beats him to a pulp, changes the rules on the bounce and then is deeply deeply hurt when people point out that he's a cheating scumbag. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just don't get it. I was brought up as a traditional CofE Christian. And it wasn't the sort of stereotypical limp-wristed Anglican stuff either. It was muscular military and public (private to you Mercans) school straight-talking "this is wrong, you know it's wrong, and if you continue to do it God will tell you to fuck off when the time comes" Anglican stuff. And what Ken does when dropping his anaemic little turds all over the internet is exactly what they were talking about. He must know he's being dishonest, surely. Does he and people like him believe he has some sort of Holy Get Out Of Jail Free Card? That it's OK to lie for Jesus? Or does he actually believe all this crap? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, as much as I'd like to think Ken is a lying sack of shit, I fear that he genuinely believes that he has a winning hand when it comes to debating people. It's the self-satisfied smugness that comes with his inane answers that's the giveaway. For Ken, throwing down "what's the proof and evidence that atheism is true" has the stopping power of an elephant gun at 6 inches. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The number one thing to remember is that Ken is a coward. Reading his opponents arguments would be an act of bravery. --Opcn (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lemme just pull up this quote from the Question Evolution! Campaign people's webpage:

"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 lemme just spell that out for you. There is no evidence, no matter how compelling, no matter how well supported, no matter how blindingly obvious to all and sundry that can be true if it contradicts the bible. Of course the 15 questions can never be satisfactually" answered because the only satisfactual answer they will accept is "I was wrong and now I believe in Jesus. Where do I buy a Question Evolution! hat and t-shirt at a reasonable price?"

I mean, literally. You're arguing with people who have already said they are not rational and cannot be reasoned with, and whose worldview (stupidly) relies on something so demonstratably false they have to discount any and all evidence if it doesn't agree with their preconcieved notions.

Ken, if you're reading this and I know you are, this is why nobody will debate you and your stupid creationists. --Sasayaki (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is why those questions are disingenuous, because no answer will be a "satisfactory answer" no matter how factual or truthful it may be if it challenges their religious beliefs. They have no choice in the matter, they must reject all answers upon a fate worse than death. That is why scientists and other proponents of evolutionary biology and theory will not debate creationists. There is no point, there is nothing to be gained, they cannot be reasoned with. It is like trying to reason with an Al-Qaida suicide bomber who believes his god commands him to blow up the Infidel. You can't, all you can do is minimize (or if possible, prevent) the amount of collateral damage they can do, in this case to the education system, to science, and to the youth of America.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken: May I recommend the following book (if you dare): "Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me". It talks about cognitive dissonance. Could be very helpful in your situation. Website Jimaginator (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

I thought all info on the FBI investiagtion had been wiped from the site, but then I found THIS: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:About#FBI_investigation^img

Grrrr... reading the "About" page - this stupid third-personism thing they do "Conservapedia was on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009" No - Andrew Schlafly was on CR and he was talking about the CBP, not Conservapedia. It's as bad as their "A Conservapedian will make a complete ass of himself in front of the New Jersey SC today..." --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for Ken, "Conservapedia has done X", "Conservapedia will do X" — it bugs me everytime I read it. NO KEN, CP isn't doing it, you're doing it. And you're the only one doing what you speak of. --★uːʤɱ sinner 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll kind of has an excuse, being the man with no name. Putting "Conservative will do X" would just confuse people. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Except he constantly refers to himself as "User:Conservative" so he has no excuse. «-Bfa-» 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

CP Access Problems

I've not been able to access CP at all over the last 24 hours or so. downforeveryoneorjustme.com tells me it's up, and people here seem to have no problem making posts so is it really just me or are others in the UK having problems? I haven't found any other site I can't access. It's not a 403 this time, just a "Connection has timed out" error. Are they blocking us at the IP level now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting it over here. Wouldn't IP be 403? AFAIK a time out simply means that the servers didn't respond in a certain time. If you use Firefox, you might turn that option off, especially when it's set on a few seconds. Then just open CP and leave it loading for a while. --★uːʤɱ kant 17:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. I meant: are they blocking us at a router level now. 403 blocks came from the server itself, but if the router certain types of traffic even reaching the server it could cause the sort of error I'm getting. I've had timeouts before, but it's been constant for 24 hours and I'm getting no problems elsewhere. That makes me think it's deliberate rather than accidental, but with CP, incompetence is more likely than malice. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive been having the same problems. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been blocked for the past 3-4 days. --Roofus (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been having that problem for a while now, and there's even a thread about it somewhere in the archives from WIGO:CP. I guess they keep thinking of new ways to block the world, eh? άλφα^Ταλκ 23:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Genius. They block at router level for 10 days and see which users don't edit. Then they block those users. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But how do they know which IP addresses to block? Are they smart enough to 1) block random IPs, or IPs they think are "bad", then 2) check RW for which users complain, then 3) assume that the CP users who aren't editing are socks? That's crafty, but it also seems like it would involve a lot of collateral damage... but the sysops don't really care about that, do they? άλφα^Ταλκ 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Not a problem for me though. One of my socks got banned, which was a bait sock anyway. I have two others from two other IP's buttering up those morons. One already got block rights. Glad I'm in the US. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't maintain or even hold an account on CP any more, but since I do read the site for laughs, it's nice to view the links. Hence why I'm always adding capture tags, so those of us that are blocked from even viewing can still abuse ourselves enjoy the site. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus, I'm in the US too, and I edit from home (so I wouldn't think I'd be included in the block-every-major-university-and-government-institution policy they sometimes follow). άλφα^Ταλκ 03:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I can access the site again but it only works about half the time. The server must be overloaded because the site is growing too rapidly. --Roofus (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Working again fine this morning. Coincidence? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I get this error seemingly randomly at home but never at work. What tends to happen is I use firefox and willopen wigo, go to cp to read some of the more insane drivel in (often) more than one tab and then after a short time I start to get timed out. the timing out will usually last for a day or so and then everything reverts to normal. I don't seethem having the ability to do that to be honest so I wonder if something else is going on. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That was precisely my problem; I can view it for a few minutes, then it suddenly starts timing out, regardless of web browser. I've never edited from my home IP, so I wouldn't think it would be blocked, but who knows. I can't imagine the site is exceeding whatever hosting package Schalfly's using, or at least not enough to cause massive time outs like that. άλφα^Ταλκ 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Redefinition of marriage, by Ed Poor

Not really worthy of being WIGOed, but those currently unable to see Conservapedia deserve to read the latest example of Ed Poor's "article"-creation style: Redefinition of marriage^img.--Xyr (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame he couldn't find any information for his article, but then again, where is he going to find resources about marriage as defined by liberal and conservatives^img--Willfully Wrong (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The definition of Macheeeesmo above marriage stole your thunder... such blatant parody Tielec01 (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see someone has trimmed the mention of the Conservadictionary^img from MPL. Does even Ken realise that it's a hilarious parody-ridden embarrassment? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it - Ken couldn't give a stuff about CP, other than a place to post his random dribbles and to backup all his bookmarks. He probably removed it so that all three of his posts appear on MPL without having to scroll down. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It can only be Ken

What other kind of idiot would cream their pants and pretend a power point presentation on some nohopers website^img is something truly amazing. Ace^ace 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, a new fucking GEOLOGICAL ERA is starting!--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to sock up and ask Kendoll if they can attend the free web seminar he'll be giving? That should be good for a laugh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking bets on attendees to the chat room during the unveiling. My guess is fifteen people, at least half of whom will be there to laugh.--^talk 01:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking up ShockofGod, I see that he tried a phishing scam at one point. So I will not be among the people going to Flash-based chatroom he controls, because it seems like just asking for trouble. Someone's gonna have to tell me what happens.--^talk 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Has the exact relationship between Conservative and ShockofGod ever been established? (E.g, they are one in the same, best friends, fuck buddies, all of the above, etc.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not the same person. They just shill for each other. Ace^ace 03:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the one shockofgod video I've seen he said he was riding his motorcycle on the freeways of the Inland Empire which is in California. Ken's supposed to be in New York. SoCal ²¹² 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If I can't find a woman with terrible taste in men I'll be there saturday night :/ --Opcn (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Will the powerpoint be available for download? If so, we could always upload it somewhere to prevent them from getting the page views. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just in it. There's no passwords to phish so don't worry about that. I have to say it was one of the more bizarre, surreal moments of my personal internet history. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading this and looking at other posts by "question" makes me think of Ken. Hi Ken! Ace^ace 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's good news, at least, Harrison. I don't know, I'm just not tech-savvy enough to be happy at the thought of going to a known phisher's Flash chatroom and downloading a Powerpoint file he made - seems like a recipe for trouble, scooping info out of my cookies or the like. Maybe I'm paranoid, though that does seem like something that can happen without too much trouble. Damn techno-voodoo.--^talk 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just loving this sentence:

Evolutionists, the unveiling of the PowerPoint presentation combined with the proliferation of Question evolution conference room presentations via free PowerPoint presentations and via free web conferencing rooms will cause a whole new geologic era to commence and it is not going to be hospitable to evolutionism.

What a salad. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Great ghu! Even by Ken's

standards that is just awful. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's going to coat the area with idiocy so thick that'll form a layer of mud will it? Does he just string random words together into sentences? That's pure gibberish! Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken on Ameriwiki

I thought that we'd already agreed that 'Question' is Ken, and that he has write access to Schlock's blog. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Ken was the nameless contributor who turned up, threatened to debate anything that moved and then backed off because he was "too busy." --PsyGremlin話しなさい 05:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Those two are not mutually exclusive; Creationist at CreationWiki= Ken, Conservative at Conservapedia=Ken, American at Ameriwiki=Ken, Question at QuestionEvolution=? It was because Ken has write access that he was able to delete the page after we laughed at it. I'm sure Soggy doesn't really care but Ken has to delete anything and everything to cover his tracks. BTW I see Ken has set up a special messages page at Ameriwiki and got his talk page locked so he doesn't get those annoying orange boxes after the 'excessive vandalism' by Ace. What a lily-livered wimp he is. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Said "excessive vandalism" equating to Ace asking Ken if he is Ken. I don't know who George Fitzgerald is, but he's clearly Ken's bitch - "User also has a preferred way to contact them" Yes George, it's called a "talk page" - the thing all users have on a wiki. Then again, they're letting Ken crap all over their wiki, so the project is doomed before it's even begun. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I may be a paranoid objectivistic conspiracy-theorist. But, I am not Ken! - The Question^{...but what is the answer?} 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't someone teach Kendoll how to unwatch his talk page, so he can have it unlocked and not make his OCD go crazy at the same time? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not Ken. That's one of AceMcWicked's sockpuppets. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, why are you sooo interested in posting on User:American's talkpage in the first place? All Ace seemed to be doing was harassing the user, so I locked his talk page until further notice. It seems so many of you seem to want to stalk this user. If he is indeed User:Conservative from CP, so be it. He is welcome here, provided his editorials are kept in userspace.

Nobs, that is interesting. If he is indeed a sockpuppet of Ace, this proves he is only there to cause trouble. Provide proof and I will infinitely block the puppet and block Ace for malicious sockpuppetery.--George (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

George, if asking somebody if he is indeed another user on another is "harassment" then I can see you learned your management style at Conservapedia. Especially as you seem to fail in knowing what a talk page is for. Why, pray tell, does user:American deserve his own "message page" when he has a perfectly good talk page? Are you worried the red "message" bar might induce an epileptic fit? Are you so worried that Ken won't be able to answer questions? Seriously, if this is how you're starting your project - especially given your paranoia, based on the ex-Head of Counter Intelligence's comments - then you might as well go the whole hog and introduce limited edited and blocking everything that moves. Or do you see Ken as being a serious contributor to your project? I can't wait to see the "Atheism versus ponies" essay on Ameriwiki. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds nice Psy, but Ken is not involved in the Ameriwiki project. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob lies and says User:American is me. Lying scumbag. Ace^ace 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou waves the white red, black and green flag

I guess Ghadafi is really done now, even Karajou (and with that probably CP) aknownledges the eevil rebels as the real government now^img and the not-so-new flag goes up with it^img. Just one question remaining, will the flag also be changed? --★uːʤɱ secularist 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what JoMar is thinking.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At the moment he's problem still reeling from too much tequila after Mexican independence day. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

They still haven't updated the flag. This is the critical failing on the site, keeping articles that are not pet political projects up to date.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, you have a very 'relaxed' view of CP if you think that's their critical failing. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's just a side effect of their most critical failing - that anyone who doesn't agree with with their world view and doesn't accept the authoritarian power structure is driven off. There's no-one to update the articles. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 07:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that';s the same problem Wikipedi has. The difference is, Wikipedia manages to not drive off enough of it's userbase so that the effect isn't as pronounced--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I should revise that, it is a critical failing, not the critical failing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's machismo is showing again

SharonW finally flips her lid and challenges Ken to a debate about obesity only.^img

Ken runs away.^img

Most bizarre comment: "certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart." Does he really think these examples support his hypothesis? It's like him saying the house which the christian fire was destroying "had dangerous chemicals which were harming the inhabitants." --PsyGremlinTal! 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken always runs away. The only was to get him to man up is to back him into a corner. Of course, that might just lead to blind panic and the use of excrement as a weapon. Yuck. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For the last time Psy, it's pronounced "MA-CHEESE-MO". SJ ^Debaser 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not from around these parts. Maybe if you draw a picture? --PsyGremlinTala! 04:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone shown Ken this article? It clearly shows that, in this particular study, persons with no religious affiliation had a lower percentage of obesity than every other Christian affiliation, aside from non-denominational protestant and non-traditional. I'm sure that he will dismiss it and claim the Gallup poll which merely asks about whether people live healthy is a better guide to religion and obesity than a study about, say, religion and obesity, of course. (To be sure, I merely skimmed the article myself.) Phiwum (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken really shows what a despicable cunt he is with these edits.^img First he says "I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said 'between the lines'" - i.e. running away from the question, then says "I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own" as if that has anything to do with the article, before finally telling Sharon she's welcome to create articles about "Heterosexuality and obesity" and "Heterosexual females and obesity" because she has "more interest in such topics."

Just when I thought Ken couldn't be any more maliciously stupid. Still, at least he's driven away another editor. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You know I never used to think of Ken as maliciously stupid, just simple. But this last year he's really turned into a mean-spirited oink. I think the combination of living on his own and not taking his meds is seriously taking its toll on his personality. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What personality? --Opcn (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has a personality, you cannot deny that Ken is a unique individual, otherwise he wouldn't be so easy to spot wherever he goes. It's just that he's not personable. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Any brave soul...

... going to watch the shockofgoat powerpoint presentation later and report back? It's something like 3 or 4AM, so there's no way in hell I'm going to catch it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will. If I remember. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They're using some awful spam website for conferencing according to mywot: [2] [3] Jaxe (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

VFX is supposed to show up.--Opcn (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"The web conference room is going to be packed" - not so much. I got in without a problem. It's all standard SOG bullshit so far. "I think this is true, so it's true." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling it quits. I can't stand listening to this bullshit. I saw two slides. This is the first:

Conclusion from History:

4) Jesus' Resurrection.

• There are established facts concerning Jesus:
  • Honorable burial, discovery of His empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, origin of His disciples' belief in His resurrection.
• The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.
• The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that God exists.
• Therefore God exists.

I swear I'm not making this up. This is what he calls an argument. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what any of the above even has to do with evolution. O_o --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Link? Ace^ace 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here: [4]

I wouldn't bother though. It's just someone reading out creation.com articles as if they're something new and original. Jaxe (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So who in the seminar is Conservative? One of the moderators, surely?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC) FWIW, at the moment there is one presenter, three mods, and forty guests in the seminar. A number of guest usernames lead me to believe that they are not True Believers.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I tried to sign up but couldn't. Fucken webshite misinterprets my IP address as being somewhere in Outer Mongolia or something and presents me with dialogs in a language I can't even fucken identify, much less actually read. Mountain Blue (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In which Ed is a monumental douche (for a change)

"LOL, your interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project.

Accompanied^img by the edit summary "Anything to say before I drop the ban hammer?"

What a monumental prick - so much for nurturing an editor along. Firstly, Smeg Ed, you're not on WP and secondly, you might want to have a word with Andy about all this nasty "original research" and improperly sourced statements. Has he been crapped out on WP again? --PsyGremlinSermā! 05:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything at WP this week that might have upset upset him. Maybe it's just the real Ed Poor shining through. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he should quote the dear leader's words at Ed: "We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Here, we do not restrict research for articles in that manner." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The community portal lives!

“”The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --SamCoulter 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

[1]^img

I don't think that's going to work, though... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 08:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Especially not with Ed Threatening to drop the banhammer on him. He is toast. --Opcn (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"There doesn't seem to be much interest in blocking refinement...^img. Of course, with people in fear for their lives for participating, what would you expect? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rob, thats sorta old news though--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CaptureBot failing for some reason? άλφα^Ταλκ 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"In fear for their lives" eh Rob? I think you need to get things in a bit of perspective mate. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Which one of you jerks gave up halal?

Totally totally not necessary to have that fixed, they knew it was there, because they saw it here, I'm sure it didn't help your redlinked sock at all. --Opcn (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? Why would anyone do that? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But seriously, folks. MaxFletcher got the idea that "TiemToRaepCP" might not be a "trusworthy" editor and Karajou removed the Star Trek reference in the introduction. They're not generally considered to be socks. Are they? Spud (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not everyday you see some creativity

this guy must have really thought this out--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now *that's* a vandalism spree.

Nobody seems to be on guard today.^img--B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Way to go, JPatt, good on you for blocking him. You gonna do the heavy lifting and fix all those edits, or wait for Andy to come around? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)That is amazing. I wonder how many articles that is?--^talk 14:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

1,116. And you are right: hilarious and amazing. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

159 new articles. Odd. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

From 10:13 to 10:46, that's 33 minutes... --★uːʤɱ soviet 15:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Countdown until Andy brags about the number of edits and pageviews, which clearly show that CP is a growing, popular and reliable resource: 5, 4, 3... --Sid (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Chub (gay culture)^img - lovely. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's ears are burning. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, cleaning lady dude^img --★uːʤɱ heretic 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a hard job, but it isn't like any of the three remaining sysops are going to do it. Just call it a day, Schlafly. You tried, you failed. Move on. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He reverted the change to "Halal" and made it black again.Spud (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are interstate commerce and wire fraud still in the FBI's jurisdiction? That is what you call it, "jurisdiction," right? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Man, am I glad this vandalism^img was reverted, otherwise I'd never know what the capital city of Turkmenistan is. – Nick Heer 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to all you wandals out there

I'm not sure if they're using a mass revert tool, but I think they are. For real comic effect, you wandals should use your account to first revert (use the undo button) a bunch of wandalism to obscure articles before going on your mass defacing spree. This would have the effect of causing the mass revert tool to actually revert many articles back to their defaced state. Don't thank me, just doing my bit to make CP more insular and paranoid. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It obviously is a mass-revert tool, so what a waste of time. They should have let that latest idiot blank every page on the site, and then put them back at the click of a button, just to make the point.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been done manually: Andy's reverts were done at a rate of 5 to 15 per minute, and he spent more than an hour at it. --Xyr (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I really hope it's just a rate-limited bot that does it, because if Andy spend more than an hour of his life clicking the "revert" button he's even more of an idiot than I gave him credit for. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Five years and it never occurred to him to page protect his cp:American Government Terms; I'd have suggested it on the private list but he'd never respond and doing it on the open wiki would only earn a 90/10 block. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling, like perma-blocking someone. Godspeed (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like whoever did it created an account here first. Thanks for nothing. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Kid spends 10 minutes writing script, Andy spends over an hour mopping it up. It's a wonder why Ed (who purports to be some sort of programmer) doesn't help (lol, I know, not really). Occasionaluse (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes Ed Poor - developer at WP, chief programmer and webmaster of the Moonies, database manager at ABC News, man who can't even get EdBot off blocks... if it even worked at all. I wonder if Andy was thinking "Gee, where is everybody?" as he mopped up? --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, EdBot doesn't work any longer: mediawiki changed the procedure for automatic edits (you have to get a handle first), and Ed doesn't understand the current procedure^img:

Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.

Really, it's trivial to write something like Conservapedia:Guard Dog (cp:Conservapedia:Guard_dog) - but Ed isn't just up to the task.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are they all too proud to accept our help? Some of us have an interest in protecting and preserving the crazy. I don't like sifting through vandals to find lols. I'm sure it pollutes LArron's data. Do you think Ed could be made to ask for (or at least accept) our help? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandals suck. Phiwum (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As a RationalWiki Senior Sysop, I heartily endorse this vandalism. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As a RationalWiki generic fucktard, I will donate €1 to these guys for every Conservapedia headword someone fucks with. Blank page, replace with profanities, create vandal article, whatever; if Andy has to revert it it counts. Today's spree will provide the funds to neuter fourty stray dogs or feed a hundred puppies for a month. Get cracking. Mountain Blue (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread is problematic

I thought it was established policy the RW did not promote or coordinate vandalism on CP. And yet we have two established editors, one of whom is giving advice on how to vandalize moar efficiently, the other of whom is promoting vandalism with a (charitable) cash reward. That's not how we roll, folks. Smarten up. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't promote or condone vandalism as a site, what individual editors do is up to them. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 05:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I never appreciated mindless vandalism. But watching Andy on his knees mopping the floor since his janitors are all away or could not be bothered is funny to watch. What is the consensus now? is it mass reversion or doing it individually?--Buscombe (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Think of it like the Tea Party: the Tea Party isn't about being racist, homophobic or ignorant...it's about taxes. The rest are unofficial platforms. It's a beautiful design. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't think of it as vandalism; think of it as trying to help make Conservapedia worthwile.

I had a look at the dictionary project a few minutes before I posted my previous comment. The obvious parody alone accounts for about 95% of their entries. The fail on Conservapedia is about to reach the density where the whole thing disappears into its own private failgularity. One year from now all that will be left will be afterglow red-shifted into the microwave band. Andy is running out of time. He needs to make up his mind. What does he want to be remembered as? The man at the helm of the most embarrassing, most pathetic, most personally humiliating failure in the history of the web, or THE MAN WHO MADE A THOUSAND BITCHES NEVER WANT ANOTHER COCK AGAIN?

This city has close to ten thousand stray dogs and they do produce the commensurate number of puppies every year. If Conservapedia gets a couple of dozens of them rescued, neutered, or both then for the first time in his life Andy will have had a real impact on something. Mountain Blue (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow. In the past week, Andy has spent no less than 5 hours, by my estimation, manually reverting vandalism. I just got tired of it, and there's no need for it. But Ken and Karajou convinced Andy it is worthwhile for Andy to continue spending his valuable time cleaning up other people's garbage. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on wiki = revert. Nobody else is so Andy is atleasty doing the job of a wiki user.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah but it's CP's utter hostility to the idea of building a Community and open intolerance of dissenting views that provokes vandal sprees. Even the users with blocking rights are tired of it. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm just rarely on when the vandalism ever seems to happen. And still, vandalism = ban and revert on pretty much any wiki ANYWHEe ROB, community and tolerance or not. Wikipedia gets ten times the vandalism without being oppressive--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Once again Mikalos you've totally missed the point, but I thank you anyway for your off-topic response and obsessive hounding. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Wikipedia

I edit Wikipedia as a regular user with no privileges. Over the past couple day I made several hundreds of maintenance edits to solve certain article naming issues in a certain part of the biology wing. I made page moves that violated firmly established site-wide naming conventions when I felt a nonstandard name made more sense in the context of the local subtree. I hijacked dozens of long-standing redirects, including fan names of popular US sports teams. I demoted large articles from headword main pages to footnotes and replaced them with disambiguations. I disassembled long-standing disambiguations and rebuilt them from scratch, removing fucktons of linkspam for veteran editors' personal pet sharticles. And what happened?

Nothing.

No TK jumps stabs me in the face and orders me to discuss before making disambiguation pages for silly foreign animals. No Karajou goes Serena Williams on me because my species articles don't conform to his inane amateur page structure and fail to feature his inane amateur taxon box. No weird old uncle jumps out of the bushes and demands a "writing plan". Nobody gives a shit about my flamboyantly sophomoric user name. Apparently some people are not entirely happy with what I'm doing; they make their objections known politely and helpfully. They assume good faith and offer constructive suggestions re: alternative meaningful courses of action.

Up until a few days ago I hadn't made any contributions to Wikipedia in about five years. I spent so much time watching the hostility and paranoia over a Chez Andy I completely forgot how easy it was. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to get unbanned from wikipedia sometime.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor plays(?) stupid

I almost want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but who knows...he may actually be that stupid:

• Ed asks for examples of censored (deleted) contributions.
• LArron provides such examples, explaining that the diffs are deleted, even providing screenshots of some deleted diffs and even explaining to Ed (a master of wikis) that he can view the deleted diffs with his powah.
• Ed says the diffs are deleted and he can't view them.^img And he's getting sick and tired of graciously asking for the evidence.

Stupidity? Malice? Malicious stupidity? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go for the latter. Ed was never interested in the evidence to begin with, and now that's he's been presented with it, he's going to resort to usual CP sysop bully boy tactics. Larron was always on a hiding to nothing with Smeg Ed. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Great League of Cognitive Dissonance, Delusions and Megalomania that is called Conservapedia, every member seems to have a super power of ignorance. Andy's speciality is to completely and utterly ignore any mistakes he made, Kens power of ignorance is the aggressive flinging of crappy mantras ("You can't answer these 15 questions", "Atheists are fat", "Atheists are cowards", etc, etc.) and Ed has the amazing power to ignore everything he doesn't like about something he actually likes. So if Ed ignores he ignores with full power and complete laziness to look something up, not with a delete button. That makes Ed even funnier than Andy or Ken, from what he does he's either amazingly dumb, extremely dense but he never quite looks like such a bad character as Andy or Ken. This goes so far that you can't really hate him for what he does, either he's so dumb not to think that others are noticing that he's just playing dumb, or he actually is that dumb. Either way, I can't be pissed off by him. Like a child spilling soup. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering this golden comment from Ed^img: "Can we think of any relevant cases where someone's preconceived idea led to the making of claims to support that idea?", I have to go with malicious stupidity. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Larron shows^img evidence, Ed hurriedly declares victory^img on account of NOT BEING ABLE TO FUCKING READ.^img Plus the usual threats.^img --Sid (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Ed is really turning on the stupid here:^img

Ron: "This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."

Ed (possibly deliberately) misreads that as Ron saying the Counterexamples article was locked and is thus grounds for him to delete the entire conversation and accuse Ron of acting in bad faith.^img

The arguing styles are quite interesting:

• Andy - "If I ignore it it'll go away, if not, throw in a non-sequitur about the Bible"
• Karajou - "Liberal! DIE! DIE! DIE!"
• Ken: Your question/answer doesn't address this completely unrelated point which I've just brought up, so I'm not going to debate you anymore, because you're actually right and my faith is so shallow that rather than try and debate the merits I'll run away."
• Ed: - (delete) "No, I can't see what you're complaining about" (block) "what do you mean, I can't see anybody complaining" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he really goes to great length to ignore my example:

• I added my example, again, in detail (and in colour)^img.
• He misreads the first sentence, stops reading, and feels entitled to erase not only my last comment, but the whole section on censorship^img: voila, it never happened!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 9:59 pm, Today (UTC+2)

In fairness LArron you've got him squirming like an eel. Good effort. StarFish (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He's squirming like an eel, but at the same time he thinks he's fooling everyone. That's why Ed is so special. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's fun - up to a point. The trouble is that Ed is genuinely stupid, and after a while this all starts to look like idiot-baiting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. But as soon as I start to pity him, he'll say something so arrogant and prideful it will bring me back to the dark side. Happens every time. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're right. Ed Poor is the perfect case study for the wp:Dunning–Kruger effect. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what will happen?

The same procedure as every time!

• Ed Poor will lay low for a short while: he can't be wrong, therefore he isn't wrong...
• RonLar will get blocked for some spurious reason, most probably by Jcw or Karajou
• Ed Poor returns...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My advice, for whatever it's worth: contribute to articles, and just edit your userspace and show every goddamned point of censorship you can find, but keep it statistical and without opinion. The only way they could shut you up is to... censor you. :P By now it's shown beyond any doubt that Ed is lying through his tooth to the whole issue. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And yeah, it's funny watching him play ping-pong between CP and WP whenever he gets nailed on something. He's so desperate to feel important, but can't be arsed to take responsibility. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep on keeping on, Arron! Your humiliations of Ken and Ed are the best thing on CP these days... careful, reasoned, and relentless!--^talk 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A side effect is that all this feeds Ed's persecution complex. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BLOCKED! ... for two hours. A warning shot across the bows from the Chief Petty Officer.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And rightly so, LArron, you uncivil bastard!! Occasionaluse (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's quite hard to stay civil when presented with Ed Poor's variation of the Gish galop: ask a series of questions and ignore all answers you are given...

And sometimes I'm surprised how fragile the egos of the sysops are over there: Ken and Karajou can certainly dish it out, but this little exchange was to much for them:

Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages. Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--CPalmer 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT) Oh, I would settle with a debate which Conservative thinks he did well in! RonLar 12:09, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to burn a sock and tack a citiation needed tag onto CPalmers claim that such debates exist all over the pages of CP --Opcn (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservapraise

Has anyone ever seen Andy give someone kudos for doing something other than blocking/reverting? Seems like it's the only praiseworthy activity that goes on at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

IS there something else to praise there 99% of the time?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Parodists get praise whenever they explicitly state the great insight that Andy was hinting at. See here. The point Andy was pretending to make was obvious, but it took a parodist to come right out and say it. Phiwum (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC x2) He has praised people for their edits, although it's rare. Here's one example of such praise^img. However, I just lost the connection so I don't know the exact contents of the edit in question; he does praise editors for their work, even though anecdotally, most of the praise does seem concentrated on blocking/reverting. άλφα^Ταλκ 21:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

One of my socks once got praise for organizing the counterexamples articles, but then got blocked by one of the minions for removing some particularly flacid ones. --Opcn (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been praised (although I would hardly consider my account there a sock. It performs legitimate, helpful edits, with nearly none on talk pages) but I've noticed that Andy tends to temper his praise with a complaint. Something like "Good work, but you should have done X as well." - Lardashe

That Sock only ever talked about what he was working on. I think it was DouglasA who gave him the boot, so thanks asshole! --23:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Great insight! (before we banhammer your ass!) nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy used excellent here^img, then improved on the suggestion of course. Auld Nick (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Zueglodon blues articles links to this about Phil Schuer:

Phil Scheur...has some stellar edits to entries such as Christopher Columbus, Rick Santorum and Barack Obama.? Phil Scheur's edits to Sesame Street may seem a bit out of line, but that is a show that has long pushed unusual multiculturalism on kids.? That's not a big deal to most people, but it shouldn't be shocking to recognize it either.? At any rate, one or two questionable edits amid many good ones seem forgivable.

That's my two cents.

BTW, Conservapedia:The_Zeuglodon_Blues#Ace_McWicked has a whole section on Ace McWicked's sockpuppetry. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Rob, just like every sock used to be Ames, and then Sid and then me. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they are all me - you have Karajou on the case! He is never wrong! Like that time he traced me to Italy, that was clever of him because I didn't even realise I was there. Idiot. Ace^ace 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But anyway - those socks were mine but I never did all the "Bills" nor have I ever been to Italy. Rob is trying to muddy the waters so I'll get thrown off Ameriwiki or something. He knows he is lying too. Ace^ace 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

However if he convinces the admin there that you are user:America then he gets Ken banned forever, so that's a cause I can get behind. --Opcn (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember a classic case, just after Jessica was made sysop. Her and Addision spent ages clearing up all the move candidates, moving debates to debates and Ed's crap to essays, etc. At some point during the process, she managed to block a vandal, which provoked a "Great block!" message from Andypants. Nice to know one's work is appreciated. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember similar things happening. What is so depressing about CP is that Andy is obviously watching what is going on and yet completely ignores the useful stuff that people do unless it happens to touch one of his erogenous zones, similarly with all the Rob kerfuffle on his talk page. The man is completely incompetent as any sort of leader. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn Ace, you're the Goldestein of Conservapedialand! LOL! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I always enjoy the praise for blocking. "Superb block!" What the fuck does that even mean? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

When you block with passion!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And manage not to block yourself instead. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It means he got at least half staff off it. --Opcn (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced Andy, Karajou and the others really enjoy the cat n' mouse game with vandals and socks. For years I've proposed putting an end to it, but they're just lost if they don't have RW to blame for their problems. Even TK understood that Rationalwiki's biggest success was knocking down Conservapedia as a counterpart to Wikipedia and making it a counterpart to a relatively obscure website. But recent events drove home the point they're more obsessed with ratvandals now than ever. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop lying Rob. Ace^ace 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A packed web conference of timid atheist bunnies!

The webcast of the powerpoint presentation was a rousing victory!^img Two million tracts coming soon! Phiwum (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This assumes you take these people are their word since they show no evidence.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean proof and evidence that their word is true and correct. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no kidding.Phiwum (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It was fairly full when I popped in, but the only reason I was silent like a timid bunny was that comments were disabled. The bits I saw were rambling, disjointed and dead wrong. I can't see it converting anyone or anything. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments were disabled so no one could voice dissent or answer the questions? Color me surprised! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially with master debater Ken there. In fact, I'm surprised the chat room was even open. For that matter, how do they define it a "victory"? --PsyGremlinFale! 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Open room. Disable comments so no dissent or objections are raised. Do the presentation without disruption. Declare how no one answered the questions and thus Victory! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a question when you refuse to accept an answer? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

They were never meant to be honest questions, the whole thing is a facade. Remember, they are not allowed to accept any answer, so asking the questions is inherently dishonest.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I popped in also - no comments were allowed. Ace^ace 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

All this talk about whether comments were allowed or not is beside the point. Atheists are cowards! Why doesn't Penn debate some random Christian on the internet? He's overweight, too! If you think that comments being disabled matter, then prove to me that atheism is true. Also, Stephen Fry is gay. Ole! Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A user is like, "hey comments were disabled", and Ken is all, "I heard from a christian that an athiest is a furry!", and the sysops all look away... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Look how that manchild runs off to his corner to pretend that he's a big man when he gets fucking trounced with no effort at all. --Opcn (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey everybody, Evolutions lack machismo :)^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I wish Capture Bot were running quicker these days, I think it missed Ken telling us all that Evolutionists DON'T lack Ma-Cheeeeeese-mo --Opcn (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Constitution Day, Andy!

Hey Andy, it's Constitution Day! I read the U.S. Constitution straight thru again. Please read it for the first time, and post any words you don't understand here. Jimaginator (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You're two days late. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Jimaginator (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yar, it be constitution day too? Shiver me timbers! --Opcn (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd mark out for "International Read The Constitution Like A Pirate Day." --Phentari (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Template overuse

The kendoll template has been massively overused and is starting to look quite ridiculous. Ease off a little I reckon. Ace^ace 21:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not be offended if you detemplate and rewrite. --Opcn (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting as bad as the former overuse of "teh Assfly."--^talk 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I quite like it Ken

DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I scrolled through the page and only saw it once.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You unintelligent response is not surprising Brx. Look on the WIGO:CP page itself. Ace^ace 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, whichever idiot put it down six times in a column needs a little hint. Otherwise I don't see a problem with overuse--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You a bit peeved because a certain gentleman with a certain template is giving you the runaround on a certain wiki frequented by a certain gentleman obsessed with a certain war which was cold, eh Ace? (Actually I agree with you, it does look daft all over the WIGO page like that...) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to one Ken

per WIGO. Seems enough to me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing seven Ken

's in the first 3 wigos was a bit much. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So, i was reading CP's tvtropes page

and found this old cap from jpatt. felt like sharing/reminding people of the fun--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Johnny Sedition. A late-era CP classic. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 00:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I still love how the title is 'Essay: Impeach Obama', the first words in bold are Impeach Obama and then " First I want to be clear, I am not interested in impeachment. I do not support impeachment efforts and in fact I am against impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama". LOL! --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It provides a nice object lesson for Republican party against the constant appeasement of their batshit crazy wing. Provide them an impeachment today, and tomorrow it may take a military coup to keep 'em happy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry is now #3

Still being beat by both Romney and Jeb^img, but hes now more likely to win than bachmann.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's a piece of shit, my man Bachman will smoke his ass. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 02:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

-points out Bachmann is a woman---SmithRob (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. This thread was about Rick Perry's ranking on CP. Now it's about Rob.

Rob did you go insane?--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You either have an alarm rigged in your entire house to go off when Rob posts, or you ARE Rob and the first rule of sock puppetry is you don't talk about sock puppetry. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

-tends to random watch recent changes on this and CP out of boredom, mostly when i get bored of clicking buttons while i play ocarina of time or Civilization II--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah I have actaully wondered about Mikalos ever since Rob accused him of being my sock. He is always springing up whenever Rob makes that claim. Ace^ace 02:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Curses, you have foiled my evil scheme!--SmithRob (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be the weirdest thing I've seen a while. Please let it be true. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

-Has a mustachio and top hat on- Who me, no. I am not Rob smith, completely not! I am... how you say. communost man SmithRob.--SmithRob (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, you have just stooped to a new low in your endless charade against Rob. Give it up you clueless Liberal. godspeed. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get Larron to do some analysis for us? Or we might try to just not care, either way works I guess.--Opcn (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos could have built like 27 hospitals by now. Such a waste. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hospitals are for the weak! As my holy prophet is Darwin, who is the prophet of the Gods Evolution and Atheism, I obviously could not care less if weak people die!--SmithRob (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DADT expires in less than 90 minutes

What do you think CP's coverage will be? I'm betting they just ignore it, with anyone mentioning its repeal being blocked. --Roofus (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does it expire at 11 at night?--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It expires on September 20th. I assume at midnight Eastern Time. --Roofus (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

whats DADT? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

do'n't ask, don't tell, that law that made it so openly gay/lesbian people could not serve in the military. --SmithRob (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The real question is how long it will take China to attack the newly-weakened American armed forces.--^talk 06:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, AD. You made me smile. I hold you responsible for any wrinkles that may subsequently develop as a result of this--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Weakened? Once they get those tanks and planes painted with rainbows, the magical gay shield of protection will make them invincible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard's joke about the transvestite brigade is all I can think of now... άλφα^Ταλκ 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy on extinction rates

Andy^img: "Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to."

Yes, there is plenty of evidence the extinction rate vary and many reasons to expect it to (e.g, asteroid collisions, climate change, massive volcanic eruptions, other massive changes to the environment, human beings arising and wiping out many species, etc.). --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy keeps mistaking the tidal wave of facepalms as being some odd kind of applause? Jesus, that's the stupidest thing he's written for... well a week. Maybe. He keeps raising the stupid bar, so it's hard to tell sometimes. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet there is no plausible reason to expect that the speed of light or radioactive decay might vary significantly either, except when they are required to be shoe-horned into accommodating ancient myths. Andy must have OCD (obsessive cognitive dissonance). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you just described every Young Earth Creationist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the earth is 6,000 years old and everything but 8 people and however many animals (the cretinists assert it's a small enough number to fit on a boat) were wiped out in a flood that occurred 4,000 years ago, I don't get how this is internally consistent even in Andy's world. 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

6-10k years.--SmithRob (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism vs. Ponies: Great Things a Poppin'

The list of possible topics for essays is endless: Beakers vs. Atheism, Maps vs. Atheism, Piglets vs. Atheism, Databases vs. Atheism, Chairs vs. Atheism, Books vs. Atheism, Saturn vs. Atheism, Dry Erasers vs. Atheism, Hindus vs. Atheism, The Empire State Building vs. Atheism, Gregorian Chants vs. Atheism. My mind is just bursting with ideas. I'm going to submit writing plans for all these topics and more! I feel a 40 hour writing jag coming on... Jimaginator (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets not forget all the things atheism causes, besides the known depression and uncharitbleness ect: foot fungus, swamp ass, explosive diharia, thunder storms, tick bites, jerry springer, falling off ladders, hang nails, Rob Schnider movies, and Encyclopedia Dramatica.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Explosive diharia"? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you doubt my latest insight? Prehaps you'd like to tell me why Atheists never win nonexsistant debates that take place in Ken's mind?--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he mainly doubts your spelling. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, I can't pretend to read your response, I 'm going to be busy for the next 90 days.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Andy himself has pointed out that breast cancer is God's way of preventing hussies with hollywood values from making more hussies with hollywood values, so Conservapedia should be happy to assist in further research in this general area. I can even offer specific starting points: liberal professors have been known to admit that heavy habitual use of (a) bicycles and (b) dope may contribute to early-onset erectile dysfunction. I'd love to read some good Christian conservative's take on this. Mountain Blue (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold on there partner: How would such breast cancer prevent the breeding of more hussies, unless they would have less time on God's earth to procreate. This would mean that less reproductive opportunities for the trait to be passed along would eventually eliminate or reduce the trait. That almost sounds like, like... I can't say it. I would go to H. E. Double Hockey Sticks. Jimaginator (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hussies that die younger have less opportunity to procreate. Andy is explicit about the fact that their liberal lifestyle is causing their liberal breast cancer, not anything genetic they've inherited. It's his whole point. No genetic trait can be reduced or eliminated because genetic traits have nothing to do with it. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fucking genes, how do they work? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and breast cancer:

Atheism is promoted by evolution.^img

Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals.^img

liberals love abortion.^img

abortion causes breast cancer.^img

QED, atheism causes breast cancer.

It's much more impressive posted on my bedroom wall with the letters cut from magazines and the words connected with red string. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If I follow this thread correctly (and I skimmed it, and ignored things I didn't like, and didn't understand all the words, and was not paying much attention, and I'm always right), then God is punishing the Hessians? Jimaginator (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Borked

Can't get CP to load. Recent changes flashes on screen for a second, then I get "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading. The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy." Are we running yet another DDoS attack against them? Hello Brian! --PsyGremlinRunāt! 06:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Have "we" ever run a DDoS? The one time we did gum up their servers (ironically at my direction) was during my attempt to get Andy past some arbitrary number of views before the 4th of July, and we stopped once it became apparent that the rate we would have to go at would be too slow to make the deadline. --Opcn (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Loads fine here mate, I've not seen it borked at all recently. Could they have fucked up their server/router in some way due to the site being administered by a bunch of retards? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

All fine in Blighty too. They definitely seem to be having more of this type of problem recently. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was, of course, joking about the DDoS - anything to give Karajerk a frothy first thing in the morning. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have problems viewing the site too. It's been this way for some time now. I've tried various things, and it seems that if I come in through a link from a search engine (Google) I can then navigate around the site, or from a "cached" page or link here (strangely) rather than from my "favorites" bar. It also times out if I try to load a view of 500 recent changes, but I have success viewing 50 at a time. I have no idea why this is so, or if any of this will work for anyone else. Refugee^{talk page} 12:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is but they seem to be getting a deluge of not especially amusing vandalism at the moment. StarFish (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had any problems since User:Conservative stopped his malicious cyber attacks on my IP. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? Kendoll can barely operate a wiki, he's not some kind of l33t haxxor. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You could always call the FBI and turn him in... άλφα^Ταλκ 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No. There is reason to believe Ken

is an internet cyber vandal. That's why I was using the Canadian proxy server at the time Karajou alleged I was a sock of PsyGremlin. nobsabandon hope all ye who enter here. 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You do know that nobody talks like that anywhere else but CP, right? Your de-programming is not yet complete... 173.10.105.29 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken told me personally he did a cyber attack on Human's business and was planning another. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't talk shit, Rob. You're confusing Kendoll's "operations" with reality. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we assuming ken has any sort of competence whatsoever? If he told you he hacked Human, he lied, or he exaggerated. Maybe he stumbled on LOIC, or more likely he pinged human a couple of times and called it DDoS--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Ace, Human did have trouble with his website within the timeframe Ken boasted of causing disruption. Wanna see the email from Ace making that claim? I haven't had a chance to talk with Human about it, though. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus always with the spy vs. spy business! We get it, Ace is a bad person, relax and enjoy the show. --Opcn (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about Ace, douchebag, we're talking about Ken's cybervandal attacks. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try my hand at the conspiratorial game... Here we go: For the record, Rob, you stated that Ken conducted a cyber attack on Human's website. Your proof of this? A post you made, stating that same fact. Thinking about this from a legal perspective, how would that hold up? The only proof we have for such a cyber attack is a statement you made, since obviously Ken isn't available for comment and the phone conversation between you two isn't public record. Someone could argue that you simply invented that accusation to accuse Ken. </conspiracy> My, that was fun. I think you'll have an uphill battle convincing anyone of that, especially considering that this is Ken we're talking about; as someone stated above, I think you're confusing Ken's ramblings for reality. άλφα^Ταλκ 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. So, the question comes down to the credibility of the witness then, doesn't it? And as I've said before, I've yet to speak with Human on this matter, so there may be corroboration then, correct? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is something you're seriously interested in pursuing, I would consult a lawyer. I don't know the legal term for it, but we'll move past the "random people on the Internet rarely constitutes something that anyone else but them would care about." Moving past that, if it came down to you vs. Ken, here's what we have: you, arguing that someone who's potentially a mental patient, carried about a cyber attack against a business, and on the other side... Ken, who's potentially a mental patient who very clearly has barely enough knowledge to operate anything more than his web browser. See the problem here? Even if Human chimed in and confirmed having problems with the site, you would still need more sophisticated computer forensics to pin that on Ken specifically, because coincidence does not imply causality. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In all seriousness, though, I'll stop before I quickly exhaust my rudimentary legal knowledge. Talk to an actual lawyer if you feel it's an issue (and why would you? It would be an issue for Human to take up, not you). We have a few members here with legal knowledge, after all. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken is quite the search engine magnate, according to RW. And I've already submitted a deposition on my knowledge of the Ken DeMyer cyberattack on User:Human's business to Nutty. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OH. MY. GOD

Please tell me he doesn't actually think that Carell (who worked on the Daily Show...) was denied an Emmy because of Conservapedia's dumbass list^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

-Reads the blurb- Nope. Didnt even hint at such an idea. He said it was conservative and that that might be why it was denied. --SmithRob (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"...said it was conservative" Obligatory Eddie Izzard quote: "In my mind!" --PsyGremlinSermā! 05:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Read it again, Mikalos. He says it's because it made his essay. Also, don't edit my posts.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Andy answers his own question "before it was ruined by political correctness" Why would somebody in a ruined show win an award? Not to mention that the US Office is even more horrible than the British version. --PsyGremlinSprich! 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"

"... Carell made "The Office" one of the Greatest Conservative TV Shows" I still hold my position as he never claims it was speceficly because it was on the list, just that it was "a great show that was conservative, and heres a link to why i say so". Wanna go use a sock to ask yourself? --SmithRob (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy^img (exact quote): "The lame Daily Show would never permit the conservative humor that Carell portrayed on the The Office. Could that be why he left the Daily Show for the Office???" Yep, that's exactly why he went from minor role on a cable show to lead actor on a network TV show. What other incentive could there be?--Night Jaguar (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy only tossed this in because he needed news filler for the mainpage right, as he has to ignore the only real news of the day, which is the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) as that would be a "liberal victory". Better to pointlessly politicize the Emmy's. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Carell primarily an actor on the show (albeit a rather good one), and only actually wrote about two episodes in the entire thing? Thus his ability to 'make it conservative' is kinda limited, especially now he's now left. I thought the show was actually primarily done by Greg Daniels, who was the one who accepted the Emmy for it back in 2006, and who adapted it from the UK version, which was written by the Ricky Gervais (who, incidentally, is an atheist, for the folk at CP reading this) and Stephen Merchant. Not only that, the show isn't exactly lacking in nominations and awards, so I guess this is just another case of reality interfering with Andy's point. 86.186.137.74 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So let me follow Andy's logic, a good conservative TV show is one that rewrites someone else's show? So conservatism is all about lack of originality? Makes sense to me... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the US version of the office ruined by political correctness? I thought it was ruined when they ran out of UK episodes to rip off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Think broader! Conservapedia thinks conservatism as anti-liberalism. You can't have anti-liberalism without mentioning the liberals. The fact that the question "what will we do when the liberals have been eradicated?" isn't solved yet doesn't slow them down - there's still plenty of liberals to mock now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was ruined by Flanderization (warning: TV Tropes is quite addictive). Anyway, to the surprise of no one, Andy doesn't get The Office^img. The lack of a laugh track probably makes him see what he wants to see (even more than usual). --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

i dont get The Office either. i just think its not very funny. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I don't watch tv so I have no idea what any show is like. Some people tell me the office is funny but tbh I doubt I will ever know. I do live just around the corner from Ricky Gervais' mum though if that helps? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to understand Andy's point here. If Carell has been snubbed by the Emmys for making The Office 'conservative', how can it be that this show actually won an Emmy in 2006, two in 2007, and another in 2009? If the show is conservative, and the Emmys discriminates against all things conservative, as Andy seems to be implying, surely it's the show, not the actor, who would be 'snubbed'? Or am I just being too logical for Andy's point to make sense to me? 86.186.137.93 (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Did it win one this year? Or last year? If not, its the persecution complex kicking in--SmithRob (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy's sole point is that liberals are the spawn of Satan while conservatives are at God's right hand. Every argument he propounds is just a means to that end. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2 million Question Evolution! tracts distributed goal of campaign fan

I think the title^img says it all. Or it says something. Or maybe not.

Is Conservative really a native speaker? Phiwum (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That messed up peice of word salad isn't as funny as Shocker's logo. A confused adolescent looking down shamefully as a man of the cloth approches from behind. Telling?--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, Ken is reading us and still can't get it right.^img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 04:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2 million? What was this, a pamphlet bombing campaign? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

a) How's he going to fund this? b) "Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands." Dear Goddess, that reads as smoothly as shitting barbed wire. --PsyGremlinSprich! 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And this is the title of a mainspace article? Not an Essay? More encyclopaedic by the day. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Last time I went into my city centre I got given about 2 million pamphlets and tracts (including a few chick tracts, which actually made me stop and be angry with the people handing them out because seriously, chick tracts? That's how you're promoting yourself?) in a couple of hours. When your distribution method is "print up a load of stuff and hand them out / leave them lying around", numbers aren't impressive Ken. X Stickman (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy confirms the fact sysops don't have to use real names

Andy, on Ken: "Meritorious edits, of which your examples have tens of thousands, obviate the need for a first name and last initial."^img--SmithRob (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Meritorious edits" Andy really is an idiot, isn't he? --PsyGremlinHable! 04:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So which came first, the thousands of edits or the non-compliant username? A bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning by Andy but what else can you expect from a woolly-brained mastodon grazing the frozen wastes of CP? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the name thing wasn't there from the start was it? I first registered as Opcn there... --Opcn (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't he just say "grandfather clause" then? Because the way he worded it really leaves the "so they made thousands of good edits within seconds of registering their accounts?" question wide open. Jesus christ even when he actually has a good, decent answer slapping him in the face, he still manages to make a complete twat of himself and pick the most stupid option. X Stickman (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the grandfather clause would be hard to argue, because of how the rule came about. Crocrite or whatever, had his name changed to DeanS and within about 5 minutes was blocking active editors for having the wrong name. It was basically the case of a sysop making up a new rule, and then after making sure he was okay, went around retrospectivly applying it. They were no long blocks but it was still annoying. - π 07:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why, but that's it. Tolerating Ken's flying kitties and atheists-are-fat "essays" is one thing, but declaring them "Meritorious edits". Even for Andy this is really, really deluded. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The only surprise here is that Andy even replied to the question. The double standard over naming is hardly news, and anyway, most current users who do follow the rule are obviously parodists.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Every editor who follows the naming rule is a de facto parodist. It stands to reason; why would a good-faith editor worry about being blocked? Only liberal vandals would deliberately avoid giving the sysops a reason to block them. I know that every single one of not only my socks, but all the socks I've corroborated with via the mailing list follow the first name last initial format, I'm surprised the eagle-eyed sysops haven't clamped down on more off them yet! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou: STOP PICKING ON KEN^img. The paranoia at that place is reaching Jesse Ventura levels.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou standing up for Ken is the best thing to happen to CP, from a sane person's point of view. Hey, Kara! Remember when you used to call Ken a troll because he's kdbuffalo? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't somebody go there to Andy's page and tell Andy in addition to Conservative's meritorious edits, there is word he has engaged in retaliatory cybervandalism against his critics. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Because (1) the claim isn't all that plausible, given Conservative's evident stupidity and (2) the only word regarding Conservative's dastardly cybervandalism comes from you and I can't imagine anyone would stoop to relying on your word. Honestly, that may sound harsher than I intend, but who cares that you claim Conservative is an elite hacker? I'd be more worried if you said he was a vampire. Phiwum (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That would explain why edits through the night. Although regarding Ken he's probably more camp than vamp. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you're starting to sound like Ken. He gets something in his head (Him:atheism causes obesity!!!! You:Ken is a cybervandal!!!!), and despite the fact that no one believes him or really even cares, he'll plaster it all over the wiki regardless of its relevance. Give it a rest, k? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)