Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive260

This is an archive page, last updated 29 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>, <259>, <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)

David Jensen

We all know that's one of Ken's many mysterious disguises. Well Google tells me that David Jensen is a DJ, an Associate Professor of Computer Science and an actor. Then I found this picture and I think I know what Ken was masturbating over thinking about when he chose that name. --PsyGremlinFale! 05:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DJ DJ? I like the sound of that! Did MC Mick Carter gig with him? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Atheists

Our questions are still stumping you! hahaha!^img, Why can't you answer them evolutionists! Huh, huh? Why can't you? For good measure i'll tell you that you CANNOT ever just so you don't waste our time trying! --SmithRob (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can sort of understand Ken's exuberance. After all his failed, non-existent, imaginary operations, I'm sure he's thrilled to be hanging on the shirttails of somebody who's piggy-backing on somebody else's basically failed project. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've still yet to hear about Question Eviloution from anywhere but CP and Ken. It's suppsoed ot be worldwide, right? No longer just Texas grassroots?--SmithRob (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Today, Texas! Tomorrow, er, Ken's bedroom. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well considering the operation is "primarily being conducted in South Africa (and some other foreign places)", a Google search for "Question evolution south africa" limited the results to SA sites reveals... nada, zip, zilch. In fact, the first result is for Grade 7 biology, talking about evolution and the early hominids found here. The Question Evolution campaign isn't even half a squeak down here. Oh yes, Ken - 4 edits^img and it still says "Are you an evolutionists?" Moron. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You just don't know where to look for evidence of the South African campaign. See the first comment^img on this site. A self-identified physics lecturer has posted the fifteen questions on his office door. That's one down and only 999,999 to go! And then, after that, one million more! Obviously, South Africa is an integral battleground for the Question Evolution campaign! Phiwum (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC I tracked him down to Stellenbosch University. I would thought our biggest fundie church would have some mention of it, but not a word. Then again, they'd probably want paying to spread the word. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy the blurb as it holds a fundamental mistake:

The scientists at Creation Ministries International easily and effortlessly respond once again to evolutionists concerning their 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. - Ken (emphasis mine)

Claiming those who work for CMI are legitimate scientists is a falsehood for there is no way they could conduct real or honest scientific research or inquiry based on this very statement which all members of CMI must adhere to: [1]

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. (emphasis mine)

By stating that no evidence can be accepted as factual, and no theory can be accepted as valid no matter how well supported by the facts if either violates the dogma set forth by their religious text, they invalidate themselves as real scientists and thus should not be taken seriously by the scientific community, skeptics, honest inquirers, or the general public. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it bad that I want to buy the shirt that the guy is wearing at the top of the CMI QE! page? Ateafish (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will happily believe that their response was effortless, it shows no signs of anyone having out any effort into it at all! --Opcn (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Non-Sequitur comic.

Schalafly's dream world. B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And there's another comic I have to read every day. Bad Faith (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm up to about 75. That's about an hour a day reading the comix. B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, must add to my list. From yesterdays: "Saying facts would be a lot less offensive if you used air-quotes." We sure this guy doesn't read CP? --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Aaaargh! The comments -

maybe if our young skulls full of mush were not getting evolution pounded into their craniums, and could concentrate on how systems actually operate and can be used for our benefit, and quit trying to justify a philosophy that is far from science, as evolution as regarding origins of life is neither testable or falsifiable, maybe our students would fare better in the workplace and in college environment

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I read pearls before swine, and thats about it. Although i lurk the editorial comics for the comments.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This old Non Sequitur is a work of brilliance. MDB (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Relevant non-sequitur" is almost a contradiction in terms --Opcn (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Accounts being banned...

So, anybody have a reason for all the accounts with not bad names that get banned before making an edit, besides checkuser?--SmithRob (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally they will do a purge of editors who never edited anything. --Opcn (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That will work if the accounts werent brand new though--SmithRob (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think they give a shit WeaselNation (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The sound of silence

I love it how CP sysops scatter upon being shown to be incorrect. DavidZa^img debunks the claims of a site used by Andy/Karajou to prove how earthquakes are doubling increasing at a geometric rate. Normal people would just admit it and move on. CP sysops just let it fester like an open wound they refuse to dress. The silence is music to my ears in a suspenseful way. Are they going to open their mouth again? Could they be that stupid? I'm waiting. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And Karajou obliges!^img He tells David three things he already knows:

1. The writer of that website claims to take his information from the USGS
2. he counted the number of quakes over the years (but fails to mention he got it wrong)
3. I'm sure anyone here can do the same thing, without having to go through a peer review process. (it's just too bad that he didn't, because it's wrong...)

Karajou's malicious stupidity makes my day a little better. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Next steps: Ban. Delete. Masturbate. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But... but... the site agrees with them... it must be right! --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so using this search function and covering every major quake (mag 7 and higher) since 1 Jan 1901, we get the following:

1. 1901 - 1910: 112
2. 1911 - 1920: 92
3. 1921 - 1930: 64
4. 1931 - 1940: 69
5. 1941 - 1950: 89
6. 1951 - 1960: 77
7. 1961 - 1970: 88
8. 1971 - 1980: 95
9. 1981 - 1990: 58
10. 1991 - 2000: 126
11. 2001 - 2010: 151
12. 2011 - 2011: 17

Comment. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just did roughly the same thing with the centennial catalog and got:

1. 90: 149
2. 91: 185
3. 92: 153
4. 93: 171
5. 94: 194
6. 95: 139
7. 96: 135
8. 97: 156
9. 98: 116
10. 99: 155
11. 00: 104

How did Adam and Eve deal with all those earthquakes? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They are like the CMI; they have already decided their conclusion before researching the data, and if the data reveals their previous conclusion to be erroneous, then the data must be wrong. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's things like this that keep me coming back to CP. The blinkered, pig-ignorance of Andy and Karajou is simply astonishing. When they get going, even Ken can't compete for sheer idiocy. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Karatwat still doing his university course? I wonder how many times has he had to re-sit his exams because he certainly doesn't appear to know much about research. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

He probably just keeps telling whoever marks the exam that they're wrong over and over again until they sigh deeply, give him a pass and tell him to fuck off. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Or nails the guy's door shut, and tells him he's blocked and will only be let out after he apologises. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It must be kind of funny, seeing as he's doing archaeology and anthropology - every time the lecturer comes up with a date earlier than 4000BC, he probably yells 'Lying liberal!' or something. --PsyGremlin講話 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They'll just ignore him until the MPR item gets archived/removed and that gives them free reign to respond however they please. All is well with CP. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All that mag 6.99 stuff cracks me up. I don't believe any 'quake has ever been rated at a 6.99, the scale's not that precise. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The silence has set in. Non-sysops have reached consensus that the article is BS. Andy goes about continuing to make additions to the main page with not even a "trim" of the debunked news item. Angry Bear, who is probably just slightly less stupid than Ed, knows better than to continue lying. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Genghis - the 6.99 stuff looks rather silly, especially since what they want to say is so simple: "at least 7". And yes, you can practically hear their helpless confusion behind the scenes: Andy is not wrong unless he admits he is wrong + Andy didn't admit he is wrong + Andy is wrong = DOES NOT COMPUTE.--Sid (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it, Karajou has admitted defeat! Jammy (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cept then he suggests making a table and putting in a SEPARATE ARTICLE. Still no attempt on anyone's part to correct any errors on the mainpage. ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.91.58.116 / talk / contribs}

He's not really admitting defeat, he's just employing a Schlafly Rearguard. "What you say may be true, but until you individually document each of hundreds of earthquakes we can't take you seriously." They're all complete dicks over there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, so I counted too. If earthquakes double every 40 years, then that proves a very young earth. 6000 years works out to 150 periods of 40 years, which means that there would be 2¹⁵⁰ earthquakes. 2¹⁵⁰ is 1,427,247,692,705,959,881,058,285,969,449,495,136,382,746,624. For the record, of we take the number of earthquakes in the last 40 years (430), then we get an age of about 350 years (40*log₂(430))--Roofus (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Math...make...brain...sizzle...jaAm--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Roofus's little analysis is the most obvious observation one could make and, of course, shows that Andy's "evidence" doesn't prove what he wants it to at all. But, since Roofus's calculation really is such an obvious thing to do, I wonder why no one else (either here or at CP) thought of it before his post? Great post, Roofus. Phiwum (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, perhaps I spoke too soon. Roofus, aren't you assuming that there was one earthquake in the first forty years? Maybe there were fractional numbers for some time -- say, only one earthquake per 80 or 120 or 2^n*40 years way back in the beginning. Phiwum (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ISTM that if there were no earthquakes in the first 40 years and then one in the 2nd 40 years (ie one earthquake per 80 initially) then that is more than a doubling. Your first time period has to have at least one earthquake.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nonsense! This isn't like, oh, say, Conservative words which curiously exactly double every century (through some unknown mechanism). This is more statistical in nature. If the odds that an earthquake double every forty years, then reaching far enough back in the past, one could have forty year blocks in which the number of earthquakes are more than the expected value for that period or less. (Of course, Andy's "reasoning" is rarely this subtle, but the point remains: we can say that the expected number of earthquakes doubles every forty years without presuming that every forty year period has at least one earthquake or even at least one expected earthquake.) Phiwum (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Piffle and tosh! Both Karajou and the cited webpage refer explicitly to the number of earthquakes doubling in forty years, just like conservative words; not the liklihood of earthquakes doubling. In MPR, Andy claimed that severe earthquakes double every forty years, full stop. On his user page, he refers to 'increase in major earthquakes'. Of course, elsewhere Andy refers to 'frequency of earthquakes', but given his unique insights he may well be talking about some property of seismic waves that nobody has caught onto yet. I mean, what Ivy League trained engineer refers to 'frequency' when discussing probability or incidence?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I've been back in school and have had math on the brain lately. :) Think of the exponent on 2 as the number of "doublings" of earthquakes. Years 0-40 represent the beginning of time, and there'd have to have been at least one earthquake or there'd be nothing to double. That's how we get 2⁰. Zero doublings.

In the second 40 years, the number of earthquakes has doubled once, which is 2¹, and so on until we get to the 150th doubling. It's perfectly possible that there were more earthquakes in the first 40 years, or none until 80 or 120 years. Hell, let's go nuts and put the birth of earthquakes at the flood. That's about 4,000 years ago. That means that we'd have had 2¹⁰⁰ earthquakes in the last 40 years. That's still way, way, way, more than the number of stars in the known universe. --Roofus (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Age of the planet

Tell me RW, can you prove the world is not older then one day old?--SmithRob (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the bible says so. QED. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A designer intelligent enough to create all of existence and to manipulate our memories could not possibly make up the distilled idiocy that is 4+ years of Andy Insights. Therefore, the world must have existed at least since 2006/2007. QED. --Sid (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A day old, come on, you can hardly even prove it exists. ADK^{...I'll scratch your frying pan!} 09:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If the world is only a day old, then there's no way I'm worshiping the sick fuck who implanted the memory of last Thursday in my mind. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is flawed, but not CP standard. You're supposed to tack on "proof and evidence" shpeel along with requiring scientifics. Then, assume it can't be answered. "Provide proof and evidence that the earth isn't one day old and doesn't conflict with biblical scripture. Since you can't answer, give it up fat liberal atheists!" Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He's really grasping at straws....

About the whole^img weird earthquack thing.^img B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Standard Schlafly - ignore the data he doesn't like, and talk up the data he does. The man is a liar, pure and simple. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did he come up with this idea, anyway? --Roofus (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, TerryH and other end-timers have been banging on about for about a year or so now. Ace^ace 04:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"The more recent data would be far more reliable than the older data, don't you think?" I mean, what is he saying here? Because the whole point is that they are comparing the old with the recent and allegedly finding a difference. If you are only going to use the recent data then what is your point? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that the growing trend experienced in the last three decades is based on more reliable data than the decreasing trend since 1900. E.g. the higher number of earthquakes from 1900-1910 is based on unreliable data, but the number of earthquakes from 1980-1990 and 1970-1980 (lower than from 2000-2010) is "reliable". Ateafish (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Greatest conservative books

Alright we have a list of greatest conservative non-fiction books to mess with. I know that we know books better than conservapedians do, we can subtly add to the list a wide variety of well thought out opinions. Have at it people :D--Opcn (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should we? Let them fight over it and then let it be forgotten about., funner that way--SmithRob (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that is one sparse list, especially compared to their "conservative songs" list. I don't know that most of the tracts that I would pick could be considered "conservative" (indeed, Hayek wrote an essay called Why I Am Not a Conservative), but since Andy and co. have appropriated Smith, what the hell: Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (far better than Rand); various things by Milton Friedman; Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty; various essays by Lysander Spooner (an anarchist, but influenced the libertarian movement heavily). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate Rothbard and Spooner. I'm a little l libertarian, I look at their work and I just want to hurt them, it's as bad as Marx I tell you... --Opcn (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, Spooner was pretty progressive for his time. Rothbard mostly wrote crank economics and really went off the deep end in later life. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely there is only one greatest conservative book in Andy's library and that's the Bibull. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing by Coulter yet? Oh yes, Rob's been banned... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 07:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rothbardian plan

1. End government 2. ??? 3. Utopia --Opcn (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just what like these douchebags advocate. What a bunch of dumbasses.Senator Harrison (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry Chuckass's Third Party

I found this^img piece of linkwhoring to be particularly ammusing. tl;dr, Terry decided to throw his support behind a "Constitution Party" that believes in "God and godly principles and a God-ordained Constitution" Like the one he mentions in Florida. No word on how the Establishment Clause fits in with this party yet.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For those not in the know, Ms. Salanitri is Chuckarses' cowriter at their little blog, so that's a double helping of self-promotion. She's a busy little beaver for her various nutcase causes, I'll give her that. I wonder how she finances it all? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe she sells her turgid prose.^img --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't be as bad as Chuckarses' sci-fi. Have the crew of the good ship Atlas saved earth from the evil Socialons yet, or whatever the fuck he was writing about? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who don't visit the other WIGOs, I was writing a long rant about this latest Hurlbutism while this thread was developing. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he'll go off to fight the New World Order with Chuck Baldwin now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say somthin, but he has it set up so my posts are automaticly deleated from his blog.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. There's even some goofy script on the page that means I can't even read his shit now from certain IPs. Actually, that's probably for best WeaselNation (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the memories

Before CP became the festering wound it is today. I didn't realise wikis even had this as a special page. Not counting deleted pages, I presume I can take these at face value and assume they're the first articles created on CP? Ancient pages^img άλφα^Ταλκ 03:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your nostalgic mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the first appearance of "Exploring Creation With Biology." Oh, the halcyon days when it was the homskollars working on CP, not the angry, crazy fuckups they have now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not the earliest pages. That list only shows from March 2007 onward. Conservapedia began in November 2006. At some point, someone at CP managed to knock-off 5 months or so of history, including the earliest pages made and the first users who joined. So they no longer have an accurate record. I believe that TK did it sometime in early 2008, either accidentally through his stupidity and lack of tech know-how, or purposely whilst trying to cover up something (there was a specific reason & action at that time if I recall). Some earlier contribs can still be seen in individual user's history such as User contributions for ASchlafly where it shows he began editing in November 2006. This is not to be confused with the later "week that never was" when a whole weeks worth of edits were erased during a server switch. Refugee^{talk page} 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It actually looks like a list of all articles sorted by time of most recent revision, starting with the least recent. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it looks like they've got the user list sorted out now, reinstated or whatever. Not sure about the other. Refugee^{talk page} 04:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• The oldest existing edit is the creation of the wiki by cp:User:MediaWiki default (revision no. 1): Nov 1, 2006^img
• The oldest existing edit to the main name-space is this article on cp:Anselm of Canterbury by cp:User:Aschlafly (revision no. 1518): Nov 21, 2006^img
• virtually all of the first 1500 edits are missing now, in fact, from the ca. 7,800 edits in 2006, 2,100 can't be found in the data-base any longer
• some 55 editors made contributions in 2006:

1. SharonS: 1,200 edits (her stub on Abraham^img (revision no. 1535) is the oldest surviving non-Andy entry...)
2. Aschlafly: 1,100 edits
3. DanielleR: 700 edits
4. PhilipB: 400 edits
5. BenjaminS: 400 edits

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AugustO tries again

Mr. Schlafly WTF is this "Greek empire" you're teaching to your students^img and why are you awarding full marks for rubbish?^img --PsyGremlinTala! 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say, August's example was one hell of an answer, and the rest of this pupil's homework^img is excellent as well. Whoever that is would be about a hundred times more qualified to teach this course than Andy (then again, the same thing would be true for a comatose chimpanzee). Anyway, there can be no better example of Andy's grade inflation than the fact that college-level essays get the same score as the gibberish and ten-word-answers of other students. Röstigraben (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So who bets that we'll see a Schlafly Ignore or a Schlafly Slip? –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 20:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's as simple as redefining the word "empire", which is well within Andy's authority. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Andy has difficulties to please AugustO: his bible translation - not meaningful^img, the satanic percentage - blasphemous^img, and now, his homework - ludicrous^img.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone ever fail Schafly's courses? They all seem to get 90+% regardless of what they write AMassiveGay (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there a pupil once who left in disgust - after getting very low grades for his comparatively not-so-bad homework(s)? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy can quickly "prove" AugustO wrong by pointing out that the phrase "Greek Empire" returns about 183,000 hits on a certain search engine that starts with 'G.' --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From Andy's POV he can still advertise no one has ever failed his courses (presuming he thinks that's a good thing). Similar to the way abstinence-only education is 100% effective Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this the one you're thinking of, LArron?^img Devon got whacked blocked after this edit^img, though the general consensus was that he was a parodist. 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

There was the 'girl' who was in tears when andy 'graded' her homework with ihs usual shitty style that time. Assuming she existed and was for real he rfather then appeared to complain and both he and his daughter got blocked. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Failure to follow directions". This isn't teaching, it's brainwashing. Oldusgitus' example is immortalised in this toon by PsyGremlin. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and bestiality

Awesome idea, Ken^img. What better place to discuss this important topic than everyone's favorite family-friendly encyclopedia? Röstigraben (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. Atheism is big among liberals. Liberals want to destroy Marriage. The destruction of marriage will lead to people marrying animals. QED, Atheism relates to bestiality, and any self-respecting encyclopedia will document that relationship. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And we're off^img to the usual lame start. Röstigraben (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a new low even for Kendollpedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reliance on a single data point: check.
• Parade of horribles: check.
• Arbitrarily deciding which OT laws still apply: check.
• Nonsensical inherency argument: check.

Keep it classy, Ken. ... of liberals? (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait... bestiality is legal in 18 US states? Oh please tell me these are the same most obese, religious and Republican states... Also, utter, utter fail by Ken - it's "bestiality" and yet he still moves it. What an utter numpty. Even Andy's dictionary agrees with me. I knew it would come to this, the minute Ken won his war with Rob. He's untouchable now. Well done, Karajou! --PsyGremlinParlez! 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, did the numbers. Of the 18 states in which bestiality is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor (which is pretty scary in itself), 5 are counted amongst the most religious states in the US (Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Kentucky & Texas), 8 voted for McCain (Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Texas, West Virginia & Wyoming) and 4 are amongst the most obese (Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana). Guess them Bible-bashing, lardarse Republicans like them some ass. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments^img Röstigraben (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we give him a barnstar for being CP's favorite lolcow? Nets awesome (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's moments like this that make me step back and think "Ok, no, enough, I'm not even going to pretend to like these people anymore". Then I remember my secondary (still not malicious) reason for being on CP and blank out the shame.--SmithRob (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is brilliant. A parodist with an IQ of 200 couldn't do a better job with that. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. So far, Atheism and bestiality and Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments have the exact same content, but with its two sections in inverse order. Both sections are also present in whole in the Atheism and morality "article" (in the same order as in Atheism and bestiality).--Xyr (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Singer actually make a lot of sense with that statement? After all I'm a mixture of nihilist and consequesntialist, so I'm clearly in his general camp. Also, the term "bestiality" doesn't aply to those experience as there was no actual sex involved. What would be the correct term for that? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interbreeding by artificial insemination?--Xyr (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, answering the complaints: Why are liberals such horrible horrible people?^img--SmithRob (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Man, to think I was afraid of people like him rounding me up and putting me in an internment camp...--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Watching the conversation on Andy's talk page^img is pretty humorous (any over/under on how many edits Ken needs to make one sentence)? Although we all know how this is going to work out (complainers banned while Andy says nothing), I've got my popcorn. Nets awesome (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just got an email from a person I know running a sock account - editing has been turned off so there'll be no more questions, OK? Ace^ace 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tis True, although i get the feeling its more because of the vandal, as andys reaction to vandalism is to shut off editing of late--SmithRob (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed that, at CP, someone who literally named himself the man of steel can be called a liberal. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering thee man of steel was going to renounce his citizenship, the man of steel is now a liberal name!--SmithRob (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell does Andy keep him around anyway? As misguided as Andy is, I've never see him defend Ken, ever. WeaselNation (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The same reason Andy does everything he does. A pathological inability to admit he was wrong about something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Andy defend Ken in a vague way (usually by lumping him in with other people), and I have a slight recollection of him specifically praising Ken's essays, but I can't remember him ever saying something specific like "Ken is great" (although he might've). Either way, Andy can't admit he was wrong. He'd instantly ban Ken and erase all mention of him if Ken ever came out like Bugler or something, but until that happens, Andy will continue to let Ken do his thing because trying to rein him in or otherwise chastise him would weaken the "unified front" thing CP tries to put out. Also Andy probably counts on Ken's crap to get him the pageviews he lusts after. X Stickman (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Professor values and bestiality^img. I refuse to believe that Ken is a real person. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the CP 'On the hour' video Andy defended the homosexuality article by playing up all the Biblical quotes in it which I always saw as a de facto endorsement of Ken. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He did defend Ken's crap on-wiki at least once, back when he was still writing his humorous machismo essays. Ever since, it's just been his tried-and-failed "Can't hear you!" approach. I bet he's gnashing his teeth every time Ken takes another dump all over his precious blog, but he'll never reverse course and scold him in public. If not even Rob's uprising and all those epic discussions on his talk page could coax him out of his shell, this latest criticism will also be ignored. As long as Ken doesn't upload graphic depictions of atheist bestiality to the main page, at least... Röstigraben (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy has called Ken's contribution "Meritorious edits", has defended Ken's shit and even has come to use his stupid atheist-are-fat line. His hands are not clean. The funny thing is when someone looks at Ken's garbage and he is the one that has to defend it because it's on his site, like he did in that piece in the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Andy has a knack for choosing the worst possible allies (see TK as well). --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I must say, I did not expect this. I did not think ken could possibly go any lower. This was not within the scope of my imagination.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

CP Down Again

At least from Blighty. Evidently too much stupid for the server to bear. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

'ey oop - this might just be server load. I suddenly got one page loading and then nothing again. Evidently the latest ken essay has all the evangelical dog-fuckers interested. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 00:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother making these kinds of thread unless it's down for a whole day. Usually it's back within 5 minutes, and it just ends up a waste of good electrons. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that keeps going down is editing--SmithRob (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Ken "goes down" regularly. On other men. Because he's a closeted homosexual. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 01:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, dont go to his level.--SmithRob (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that be waist level? ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Ken has any sort of sex life, be it homo, hetero or bestial, is a joke. The man will die a virgin. Of course what sexual fantasies go on in the chemical whirlpool of his brain are probably too strange to ponder. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody sock up and show this to Andy

Particle physicists detect neutrinos travelling faster than light, a feat forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity. --Roofus (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering when Andy was going to get to that. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously though, its not even up on Arxiv yet and every fucking science column has picked it up? Everybody is setting themselves up for disappointment, Ateafish (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And for anyone thats interested, it was posted on arxiv at midnight http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 Ateafish (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NO! THIS CANNOT BE! MY RELIGION OF RELATIVISM HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A HOAX BY LIBERALS! I HAVE BEEN LIED TO! WHY DID "SCIENCE" REMOVE ME FROM GOD? I PRAY THAT IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR ME TO EARN SALVATION! --Andy's wet dream (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously speaking, I'm surprised that Andy didn't jump on this the moment it appeared. You'd think he'd have a Google Alert or whatever for "relativity" --Sid (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Google can't be trusted, and the likes of RedState and Breitbart aren't too interested in science reporting. He'll need a bit of prodding from a parodist. Röstigraben (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of bestiality.

Professor values^img; Atheism^img (complete with PZM); Wikipedia^img; PZM's kid^img; and Stalin^img. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 03:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Ken really want Conservapedia to be the top hit page when someone searches for bestiality? That would be his crowning achievement as a parodist. Seriously, Bugler couldn't have done better. I mean, even Senator Santorum needed help to offensively googlebomb himself. --Shagie (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken does. He gets so excited any time any of his articles "climb the ranks of a certain search engine beginning with G in outer Mongolia" that it's probably his only remaining life goal. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The man needs a wife, a hobby, and a JOB. Seriously, anyone know what he does for a living?--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know any woman for Ken? And As far as i know he edits CP 24/7--SmithRob (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Ken's outdone himself when it comes quote-mining and made-up references. In the article on PZ's daughter, the 3rd ref links to PZ's blog, which says the following:

"Just when you think Slimy Sal couldn't sink any lower… He's just got to dive into the Marianas Trench. Quote-mining (badly) my daughter isn't just ugly, it's vile and loathsome and despicable…but that's typical Cordova, now declared Asshole of the Year."

Then again, I've always thought of Ken as vile and loathsome and despicable. But he's not even referencing the quote, just PZ's response. --PsyGremlinParlez! 05:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's get Ken to put the 'Atheism and Bestiality' article on the front page. Show everyone their complete batshit selves up front. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, much as I disagree with PZ Myers about innumerable things, User:Conservative should really be leaving his family alone. His daughter is a non-notable person, regardless of her views. Actually, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one — if you are an atheist/utilitarian, it is really hard to logically justify that there is something immoral about bestiality. That is why herself, Peter Singer, many others, who ascribe to that worldview, accept the ethics of bestiality. As to myself, I don't accept it as right, but that is the non-utilitarian/deontological/teleological/spiritual side of my ethics talking. Humans exist to exist in a certain sort of relationship, and we can't have that sort of relationship with other animals. However, while I think bestiality is immoral, I don't think this is a proper function for the law to try to enforce that moral rule. Non-sadistic bestialists/zoophiles need some help, not legal persecution. That is something I would agree with Skatje Myers on, despite our otherwise massive differences in worldview. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's Ken, but still.. creating an article entitled Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality^img? Wow. That's just... wow. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wordle of CP's last 500 edits

And the content of Ken's Krapticles

Here's how CP is looking right now to someone who's browsing recent changes. Kendollpedia indeed. Röstigraben (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems here...

C'mon folks. There's absolutely no way in hell that this "Ken" is a real person. I've never met any body that's this much of a vitriolic/stupid/intellectually dishonest/bigoted/retarded?/backwards thinking dumbass in my entire life and I live in fucking Arkansas. This is clearly the work of either a) several clever parodists working in tandem or b) some poor sap who is obsessively spending waaaaay to much time trying to bring down CP. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 11:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice image, Röstigraben! How did you create it? Phiwum (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a wordle, you just have to enter some text or specify a source, and the site automagically creates a graphical representation of the frequency of words in your text. Röstigraben (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a new word needs to be added to our article matrix. DickTurpis (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That Wordle! IT'S BEAUTIFUL Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

More bestiality!

Scientific American and....^img ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention how bestiality sections were inserted into Social effects of the theory of evolution^img, Evolution^img and PZM^img--Xyr (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bestiality and intelligence^img, by SamCoulter and consisting in a single sentence: "Intelligent people don't waste hours of their time writing unsubstantiated rubbish about bestiality."--Xyr (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't count if it's not Ken. that's just Sam acting out--it's more about one guy's frustrations than CP's new obsession. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 02:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I know. I just wanted CaptureBot to get the image, just in case...--Xyr (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel sad for Sam, he actually seems ot think something good would rise from that. Apparently he never saw the Rob debacle. --SmithRob (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida...?

Why is Florida so important?^img--SmithRob (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

...and bestiality? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida is tied for the state with the 3rd highest total of electoral votes, and the only one of the top 4 that's really a swing state. The 2000 election hinged on less than 600 votes in Florida. CP is right in that it is a very important state in Presidential elections. DickTurpis (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Florida was THE ULTIMATE battle state in the 2000 election (and of course Bush won because lil bro was gov, but thats another story). Florida is indeed a swing state, although it leans conservative politically. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's full of fucking old people who never change their channel from Fox News. My opinion, but I think that's how Gov. Voldemort got into office, pandering to the elderly. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's Alabama. Obama won FL in 08. 216.153.135.33 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is what makes me think Rick "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" Perry would have a really hard time carry the state. DickTurpis (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. They always promise that, when they abolish the social safety nets, the current recipients won't be affected. Only those who are still working now, and at least 5 or 10 years from retirement. It requires the old farts to think about people other than themselves to see it as a bad thing. And people who can consider voting Republican are notoriously bad about thinking of people other than themselves. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction: "...people who can consider voting Republican are notoriously bad about thinking." Scream!! (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and it is really obvious and infuriating.--^talk 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida is a bitch for Presidential Canidates. On the one side you have very liberal cities that vote almost always Democrat, on the other side you have very rural areas that almost always vote Republican. The you have a few not-so-large-but-still-big cities that swing around. And then you have Cubans who are pretty Democratic but mostly go hardnline on foreign politics and a lot of old people that might go for something or not. No matter what you say, you might end up saying something that doesn't run with Cubans or the elders. But back to the question. The normally Democratic voting Three Lake States have lost some electorates, but some Southern States have gained strength which is basically the complete opposite of what would have been good for Obama. But even if Florida goes Republican in 2012, Obama could still win by winning over other states or holding all other he held in 2012. But yeah, just looking at the Electoral College that thing's gonna be shitty. Except they nominate Bachmann, then Obama will win. --★uːʤɱ digital native 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The snarl word backlash

Hey look, that one guy who is one of us said we shouldn't use unjustified snarl words! He's a <insert unjustified snarl word here>!^img --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

CP was right again!

We were right that PErry's chances to be elected would be nil and enter free fall!^img, nevermind we moved him to THIRD place earlier!--SmithRob (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

With that section title you got my hopes up that the neutrino thing was getting mentioned. ADK^{...I'll recollect your hot dog!} 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, as ever, is a Texas Sharpshooter. I've been saying since some time in April that it's Romney vs Perry. Until last night, my money was on Perry. I still say it's Romney vs Perry but I'll take a little money off the latter. Andy, by contrast, chops and changes depending on the latest polls and his own cocoa-induced hallucinations. He'll keep updating his pathetic list until the last possible moment then call himself a visionary when it matches the result. The man is a liar. Let's restate that for the search engines: Andy Schlafly is a liar. Andrew Schlafly is a liar. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably get more hits with Andy Schlafly is a fucking liar. Or at least you should. WeaselNation (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery: What Percentage of CP Sysops Go To Hell? (If Hell Does Indeed Exist)

It is certainly more than 0% and less than 100%^img. I don't think we can put an upper bound on it. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I know he is a former sysop but RobS is on his way. He has been telling me via email that Christians (and by extension - him) are allowed to lie because they have accepted Jesus, or some such nonsense. I'll post the conversations some time. Ace^ace 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone keeps getting these juicy emails from all sorts of people. I feel left out. --Damo^Hi 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

sent you an email. Ace^ace 00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hit me up too? B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 01:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's less than 100% because Jesus personally assured Andy of his spot in heaven as a reward for removing the liberal bias from the Bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait... Rob actually beleives that? Yah, he's not even saved then.--SmithRob (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob is an antinomian and thinks he is now released from all obligations under the Mosaic Law, including the moral ones. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a gospel of grace, not of works. You can 't earn your way. Ace, a species of anti-Christ, doesn't understand this. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And god's grace is made manifest through good works. If you think its ok to lie and do what have you, you are NOT anything close to christian Rob. I suggest you read your bible again because your destined to hell for that false-gospel of yours. --SmithRob (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

God says I'm adopted into the family so I'm adopted. And who am I suppose to believe, you, or God? Pretty pretentious of you, or should I rather say blasphemous, to think you can 86 what God says and means, huh? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You dare say I'm twisting and trying to supersede god when you say your allowed to do whatever the fuck you want because your saved? No rob, your not, and when you try and spin that to jesus your going to be told you are not welcome. There is a reason antinomianism is considered a Heresy. --SmithRob (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then God himself would be a liar, wouldn't he? See what Calvin says about it: "those who seriously fear God will hence perceive the incomparable advantages of a doctrine which wicked scoffers are constantly assailing with their jibes; the intoxication of mind under which they labour leaving their petulance without restraint. ...the moment any mention is made of Christian liberty lust begins to boil, or insane commotions arise, if a speedy restraint is not laid on those licentious spirits by whom the best things are perverted....if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known." nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like ↑ this is why judgemental fundamentalists Christians are widely considered to be insane bigots. Hell is having such opinions. --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Calvin is not the bible.--SmithRob (talk)

Don't get me wrong, I don't like hell and don't want anyone to go to it. But its still part of my beliefs. --SmithRob (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with the most common Christian idea of hell, is not the idea of hell itself, but rather the idea of it being everlasting. I believe in hell, but I believe it is a temporary state, and at the expiration of its duration, those in hell are admitted into heaven. I think hell is reserved for rapists and murderers and so on. Depending on the severity of their crimes, they may spend a shorter or longer time there; some really evil people, like Hitler, may spend many millions of years there, but I believe even Hitler goes to heaven eventually. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting metaphor here^img. Pretty apt too, except for the recent invention of superlenses that can surpass the diffraction limit. Extending the metaphor in the other direction, what would allow someone to pierce the veil and trespass on God's domain? Some philosophical innovation? SCIENCE? Andy's insights? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The essay linked from that page is very interesting.--^talk 01:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again I follow a link from here to CP, read it, chuckle and think "heh, not a bad effort but I think the Assfly will see through this rather than latch on to it", only to then see that it was started by non-other than the great man himself. Unbelievable. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wherein I derail the topic slightly

The first realization (or as Andy would say "superb insight!") I had that led me to believe that Christianity was a crock of shit was the idea that God created the human race for the express purpose of sending the vast majority of them to Hell, including everyone who ever lived anywhere before missionaries arrived. It's probably the only thing that Andy and al Qaeda agree on. --Roofus (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, someone pointed out the stuff in Revelation that says only 144K go to heaven. I guess CP doesn't like Jehovah's Witnesses. -Lardashe

This really... really irks me. I feel like I get desensitized to the hateful bullshit that people at CP spout, but every once and a while Andy ups the ante. People go to hell because they believe in evolution? When did Jesus say, "the way to the father is through me and ignoring any evidence that indicates speciation through natural selection"? Andy is basically saying if you don't agree with my world view 100% you get eternal damnation. No parodist can beat Andy at his own game, what a ... I don't even have a word for him. --Marlow (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that`s what gets me the most about Conservapedia... most of it I can laugh off. That whole idea-- that if you aren`t exactly like them, you must be going to hell-- just pisses me off. How arrogant and self righteous can you be? --Durbinator^Durbinating 02:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Between that and his bible, he seems to be well on his way to starting a cult, doesn't he? --Roofus (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer hell. Can you imagine how borring heaven will be with people like andy up there? The man dosn't even like foootball.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How many evolutionists are also christian though? Like biblical literalist christian? --SmithRob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would you have to be a "literalist" Christian to go to heaven. The fucking Pope says evolution is compatible with Christianity, is he going to hell? --Marlow (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) According to many protestants, yes. Or rather, HELL YES! Some of them even think he's the antichrist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont think he goes to hell for being the pope or anything, but he is as possible as anybody. And what i meant was the fact for andy, being a Literalist is the only true christian, theerfor, evolutionists would go to hell since how often are they literalists?--SmithRob (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a biblical literalist protestant, asking me if the pope is immune to going to hell is sorta silly. --SmithRob (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the pope has had his shots. You're not one of those biblical literalist protestants who thinks that vaccines are a scam, are you? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No?--SmithRob (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For biblical literalism, I would love to find a definite article in the greek in Acts 16:17. ὁδός hodos (strong's number G3598) seems to suggest that it is a way. Young's Literal Translation puts Acts 16:17 as "`These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'"[2] Or the NASB which has a nice little '*' in front of its 'the'[3]. So... going back on tangent somewhat... It appears that the authors didn't proclaim damnation with anyone who didn't agree with their world view (or at least, kept their minds open in removing people saying otherwise). Going off on another tangent, wp:Aghori is an interesting read about a sect of Hinduism that embraces the other half of the duality that one normally ascribes to ascetics. More than one way to enlightenment/salvation. It was interesting discussing religion with a Hindu, his take on conversion was "I hope you have a clearer understanding in your next life." No reason to trouble themselves or you in this life. --Shagie (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Helll very definitely does exist, and I have been there. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So have I, and it was HOT! --PsyGremlinHable! 05:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of order - this is definitely NOT the only thing that Andy and Al Qaeda agree on - there are any number of topics where they have much in common (eg., treatment of women).Tielec01 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never een to hell but I have been to heaven. It was full of gays. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I passed through Las Vegas on my honeymoon. I don't gamble... 20:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reason RobS is going to hell

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. Ace^ace 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

let God be true, but every man a liar...5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)...7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just... 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.... nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD Deut. 23:1 KJV --Inquisitor (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What advice give ye that we may return answer to this people, which have spoken to me, saying, Ease somewhat the yoke that thy father did put upon us? [i.e., cut taxes] 10And the young men that were brought up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou answer the people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it somewhat lighter for us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. 11For whereas my father put a heavy yoke upon you, I will put more to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. [my little finger is thicker than my daddy's dick; I'm going to rape you with higher taxes]. 2 Chronicles 10 nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what the fuck are talking about Willis Rob, I hope you are repenting for your lies and blasphemy. Ace^ace 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is knowing the thickness of your father's dick a common thing in America? I'm blissfully ignorant of both the length and girth of my father's penis. X Stickman (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it wasn't much. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop Feeding The Ultimate Troll

I think it can be agreed, that Ken is out of control. It was only a matter of time before he broght beastiality in to his atheism nonsense. But more importantly, it brings nothing to CP but page views of people who think "Theres no fuckin way it says that" and us. And it seams to be working. Everytime he creates another one of these "insights" we comment about them, and he takes these comments and they stroke his ludicrous ego. Even though we think hes a parodist, or even doubt his existence, he FEEDS off it. Now I'm well aware that I'm not the first person to place the troll label on that "man" but I think its time we did somthing about him. Thats why we have to stop feeding the troll. I'm calling on a boycott of everything Ken Doll related, here, on the WIGO, everywhere. No matter how insane his pages are, no matter how inflamatory, we just stop. Who's with me?--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. Every page Ken creates is a further example of what dumb fucks US right-wingers are. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 12:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Only a complete moron would think that User:Conservative is representative of conservative views. Your argument is just about as reasonable as his recent contributions on bestiality: a small handful of atheists have suggested defenses of zoophilia (tied to their utilitarian ethics) and hence atheists want to fuck sheep. Similarly, Conservative writes batshit crazy articles, so conservatives are batshit crazy. Phiwum (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservative is best at getting Andy/Karajou/CP to show their true colors (basically, ignore the parts of reality they don't like, substitute their own). He's doing amazing work and we owe it to him to praise him. Thank you, User:Conservative. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken has outlasted both Robs and TK. He owns CP now - to the victor go the spoils. Spoils of which is the Schlafly reputation. Andy traded his name. Ace^ace

Really, Phiwum? I'd agree with you if there was an instance anywhere on CP of a sysop taking ken to task for his articles. As pointed out elsewhere on this page, Andy has defended the Homosexuality article on the radio.

The entire right wing of US politics is insane. Look at the bullshit spouted by Bachmann, Palin, Perry etc. When a crowd of right-wingers applaud the idea of killing 230+ people, even Ken's stuff starts to seem tame. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 12:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's a troll that gets bigger the more he feeds. Notice how after he's created beastiality articles, other editors have equipped sword and shield (as well as their trusty Please Don't Ban Me +1 amulets) and strode into a futile battle against him, Andy's talkpage being the battlefield. Unfortunately, just like every other god in history, Andy will ignore it completely and do nothing, frustration crests, and Ken rolls a 2d20 and always rolls a perfect 40 troll response that just applies sandpaper to the wound. He actually thinks that his articles make an impact (as positive one at that), so he makes more when people start complaining. Other sysops, do nothing. CP in a nutshell that tends to repeat itself every so often. My opinion: FEED HIM. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In what game system do you ever roll 2d20? DickTurpis (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was nerdy enough to wonder that, but I'm proud to say I wasn't nerdy enough to ask. Phiwum (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As much more of an ex-D&D geek than a current one, I couldn't resist. DickTurpis (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Played D&D way back with an old friend and rolled the best stats possible, so nothing ever hit him. I allowed every attack to happen twice, hence 2d20, so it stuck with me over the years. :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree - I wanna ee Atheism and Necrophilia on the front page. Ace^ace 12:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and coprophilia. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 12:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TeenageCumSlut, if you want to claim that User:Conservative shows how fucked up Conservapedia is, I couldn't argue with you. But Conservapedia is not representative of conservatism either. Your arguments really are analogous (albeit less insane) to what Ken is doing: Look at what some atheists do! See!!! Atheism is bad! Substitute Conservatism for Atheism and we really are getting your argument. If you want to dispute Conservatism, why not argue against its claims rather than against small groups of its proponents? Phiwum (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. I never used the term "conservative", I used "right winger". Traditional conservative positions are expressed only by a tiny number of Republicans these days, and they get denounced as RINOs by the nutjobs. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 12:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! The nutters make a lot of noise, sure, but they are hardly representative of right-wing politics as a whole. Your weird distinction between "conservatives" and "right-wingers" wasn't at all clear from your post.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the OP. Ken is a symptom of everything that is wrong and dysfunctional with Conservapedia and why Schlafly's project is an utter failure. I say that the more Andy & Kara allow it to happen, the more we should urge him on. As much as Kara likes to bleat about liberals wanting to destroy them, it's far more satisfying to watch him sit back and allow one of his own to do it. I for one do not react to Ken's drivel with outrage. I say "Huzzah! Huzzah!" --PsyGremlinHable! 13:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) To TeenageCumSlut: The gist of my point stands. The various folks called right-wingers are a fairly diverse group and Conservapedia is not their spokesmen. Indeed, you suggest that the majority of Republicans are right-wingers. There are, therefore, more right-wingers in the U.S. than atheists. If Conservative's blatherings are ridiculous because he tars atheism on the grounds of what a few atheists write, then your comments are equally ridiculous. Let each person represent himself, rather than his group, and attack foolish ideas because they are foolish, rather than attacking their proponents.

But I've had my say and if you still don't see the similarity between your comments on right-wingers and Conservative's horrible articles, I guess we can drop it. No offense intended. Phiwum (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree. While I agree that CP isn't any kind of spokesman for the right, and I'd also agree that most of Andy's inshites are too out-there even for the rest of the group, I believe CP's political stance is pretty representative. The low tax, anti-Obama, pro-Christian, anti-science crap is par for the course these days. When the views of what would previously have been considered a fairly right-wing guy like Romney are characterised as socialist, it's pretty clear that one wing has suddenly become much, much heavier than the other. I'm not claiming all Republicans are like this because they obviously aren't, but all the noise is coming from the right at the moment, and it sounds just like CP. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 13:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you can't see the similarity in the two arguments, there's not much I can do.

• Here are some atheists defending bestiality. Atheists are stupid.
• Here are some right-wingers running a pathetic wiki. Right-wingers are stupid.

Phiwum (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you can't see that you're making a totally false equation, there's not much I can do. The second bullet is not what I'm saying, but since you evidently can't fucking read I can't be bothered correcting you. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well from my limited point of view the right wing in the US are defined by the likes of Bachmann and Perry. Staunch Conservatives in this country, the UK, shake their heads when they read the rubbish that the gop now spout, and it IS the gop no matter what you may say Phiwum because the leaders of gop are too fucking scared to naysay bachmann, beck, perry and barton and so tacitly support it. I know few republicans in the US but I do know some who voted for bush, TWICE. And they are not voting for bachmann or perry. They may abstain or they may vote democrat but like it or not the shit ken dribbles over cp DOES represent a large section of 'conservative' thinking in the US Oldusgitus (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oldus, I don't disagree that the Republicans have a lot to be embarrassed by. The fact that Bachman, Beck, etc., are so popular and that the former is treated as a serious candidate for President is shameful. But, to my mind, Conservapedia is not representative of anything. Ken is a simple-minded fool and the other sysops should be embarrassed by what he does online, but conservatives (or right-wingers) generally? Nah. Phiwum (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's descent into madness will continue no matter whether we pay attention to him or not. Conservapedia is his whole life, nothing we can do about that. The only one who could maybe get him to do something worthwhile instead would be Andy, if he banned Ken for life. But he'd probably just find another obscure website to waste his time with. The only real victim in this little drama is Andy, whose blog has now officially become Ken's personal playground. Oh well, he can't say nobody warned him. Röstigraben (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain that oneday ken will kill of all the humans so that atheism will no longer exist--SmithRob (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the end Ken's most defining characteristic is that he's a fucking coward. Ergo, he's ultimately harmless. WeaselNation (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have to pay him or whatever charity money to debate? Why can't he pay us? What if I offer a free, unconditional debate on whatever he feels like? If it's collateral, if I back out or don't respond he can cite the debate as a victory against atheism. Consider this a legitimate offer, Conservative. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Because he is a cp:coward He will not agree because he will not debate because he is afraid (as he should be) that he will get his ass metaphorically raped if he even debates the weakest of opponents. His logic is painfully sloppy. --Opcn (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, offer still stands. As long as the debate isn't during business hours. I work, unlike Mr. DeMyer. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Breaks

Has anyone a list of the announcements of breaks, times of absence, etc. which Ken announced over the last months? AFAIK, were are at the moment in such a period (that's why he couldn't participate in the block-reform-movement)... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah, this was supposed to last til, what, around October or November? --SmithRob (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out CP Recent Changes: It was all bestiality, all night. Ken just has to write crazier-and-crazier shit to get RW's attention. I can't even bring myself to laugh at him anymore. I can see him going full-Markuze one of these days. Godspeed (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I always thought that the Atheism Vs. Ponies article would eventually lead to beastiality.--Opcn (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget - the International Mug of Mystery only does written debates. Whatever they may be. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Jungle Lovin' hits the front page

Kendoll's new obsession is now given pride of place^img on the front page. This must be even more embarrassing than the flying kitty episode for the ostensibly sane sysops. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Keep fuckin' that chicken, Ken. Anyone want to update the screen shot on Wikipedia's article on CP? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I love his mainpage logic. Britain (where bestiality is illegal) is immoral - where as the USA where he claims they're up for it in several states is on the straight and narrow. I suspect that Conservative's outrage is a thin smoke screen for his utter fascination with the subject. I wonder what search terms he's been putting into a search engine beginning with G to find that lot. I wouldn't want to see his web cache. StarFish (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a genius isn't he?^img StarFish (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant "Students love pegging 15 evolutionists!" 13:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Internet usage and obesity

Ken removes a section on internet usage and obesity^img, perhaps remembering that few people spend more time on the internet than he himself. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor: No censorship here!

It's brought up^img on his talkpage, and his response on the Bestiality talkpage defends^img Ken's reversion (of course, completely avoiding the fact that Sam was blocked for 3 months). Unfortunately, although intriguing, it was impossible to establish the veracity of most letters. doesn't appear anywhere in the article as he claims, but Conservative's "essays"? A-OK!^img Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Especially funny, given that just today^img added two Youtube comments as proof that students love the Question Evolution! campaign. Phiwum (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Because youtube comments are just AWESOME! άλφα^Ταλκ 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I like how in Ed's world, "payback" is more important than not looking like a fucking moron. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Youtube comments on any of ShockOfGod's videos are strictly censored to only allow comments that heap praise and offer support. Dissent and disagreement is not allowed, so of course the comments shown will be for their campaign.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Will someone witty please tear Andy or whoever wrote that speed of light entry a new asshole?

Thank you. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Some of us can't visit CP, and I don't see anything in the WIGO that would spark it. Link with capture tags, please? άλφα^Ταλκ 22:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, they are removing the values in meters, because US use miles.

By the way, can someone tell Andy that he should announce in Front Page "Breaking News : Relativity debunked", using the neutrinos experiment?" Barraki (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact he hasn't yet is making me think that he's waiting for either verification or falsification. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's so un-Andy-like. On the other hand, it was all over the news, so if it gets debunked it will also be all over the news. And if that would be the case he would have to say that he was wrong about something. --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

CP has been down for me all day (It does this a lot.) Has the neutrino business appeared? As of yesterday it hadn't, which was sort of surprising. He's just clueless. Anyway, would someone please tell us about this, with screencaps? Gauss (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The arsenic thing being debunked didn't get all over the news. Three people brought this story up in main page talk but nothing happened with it, it is very un-andy like. --Opcn (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, headlines-turning-out-to-be-wrong never generate headlines of their own - what's Andy so worried about? Us? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell it's Andy anyway, even if the story was debunked with more publicity than the original story got, he'd just ignore the second part. Maybe he hasn't said anything about this because the results came from some godless european science lab rather than the bible. X Stickman (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida Straw Poll

I wonder what the reaction^img will be given that a pizza salesman beat Andy's (and TerryH's) anointed? –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is Andy's anointed? In terms of the guys who are actually running he seems to favor Ron Paul, which makes no sense, as issues like legalizing drugs are anathema to Andy. Terry threw Paul under the bus a little while ago. He doesn't like Perry for some reason, and Mitt is obviously too liberal. Maybe Bachmann is the top pick? I think he might still be holding out for Christie. Then again, little about andy makes any sense. DickTurpis (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is pulling for Jeb --Opcn (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy and Replying to criticism

So I've been watching the latest round of Everyone vs User:Conservative and Andy has yet to reply to any of it which he is the same he did right before Rob was removed. Is there any good theories of why? I'm pretty sure he has had a chance to read it. My idea is that he thinks that if he gets rid of Ken then no one will contribute to his blog/wiki. Quazywabbit (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few possibilities:

1. He genuinely believes that ignoring a problem makes it go away.
2. The real business is going on behind the scenes.
3. He doesn't give a fuck.

Occasionaluse (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

4. He simply doesn't know how to respond without making himself or CP look bad. He'd either have to come out with a specific defence of bestiality splashed all over his family friendly wiki, or he'd have to agree that Ken has overstepped the mark (which makes himself look bad too). He can't do either of them. X Stickman (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply lacks any leadership qualities whatsoever and is unable to take control. Or put another he has not an ounce of ma-cheese-mo. StarFish (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no theory. He's a pussy and the sysops have more control. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He's stupid. He just looks at his page views (Main page: This page has been accessed 11,124,320 times.)and thinks he's winning. It's the likes of Ken's Krap that really pulls 'em in so he welcomes it, not seeing that 99.999999...% are either taking the piss or aghast. Scream!! (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Both X Stickman and StarFish are correct. Andy's pride has painted him into a corner. He will do anything to avoid a reposnse because no matter which way he goes, it will hurt. Either support Ken

and lose any remaining credibility he has with social conservatives, or oppose Ken and admit to himself something his pride simply cannot handle, that he was wrong to allow this to happen in the first place.  The fact it did happen in the first place is due to Andy's very poor leadership skills.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Andy literally can't afford to lose any more of his inner circle (inner triangle now?), no matter how crazy they might be. At this point, they're irreplaceable and the ones he does have are rapidly losing interest. He must realise that once his last reliable sysop goes, there's no good reason even for the parodists to continue to play their game. CP will be done for. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides, you know, those people who would want to make CP something... useful?--SmithRob (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if he kicked Ken off, he'd have his suicide on his conscience. Scream!! (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Conscience? «-Bfa-» 19:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have wondered if Andy keeps Ken around out of some kind of fear of what he'd do if he got kicked off, or generally out of pity. I don't think Andy is unaware of Ken's issues, I think he's just being stubborn as hell about acknowledging them, but even he must wonder what'd happen to Ken if he lost conservapedia. X Stickman (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

EC) He'd be back spamming loads o' sites under his 7432 pseudonyms - so there's something to thank Andy for. Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, you're endowing andy with some kind of empathy and intelligence in that comment. Personally I doubt he has much of either, and I'm not joking. I don't think andy has any kind of consideration towards his other human beings. He regards them simply as 'political' pawns in his religious power game. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably true for the majority of people, but unless someone deliberately goes against the party line (like Rob did), he must have *some* form of affection for the long time sysops, even if it's just a soldier-like "we're fighting the same war" thing. I can't accept that Andy is just plain stupid; he's arrogant, egotistical and blinded by his beliefs, but plain old stupid he isn't. He can't think that what Ken is doing is a good thing, even in terms of pure page hits. X Stickman (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But look at how he treated his other former lieutenants: TK had been in close contact with him for years, yet when he suddenly stopped editing, he didn't make any attempts to find out what happened. And when he finally learned that TK had died (via RW, of course), all he did was to forbid any mention of this topic on CP. When Rob desperately tried to get his backing during his recent fight with Ken, he didn't even acknowledge that the whole issue existed, despite the fact that two of his long-term sysops were at each others' throats. He similarly refused to hear PJR's pleas, or those of any other serious editor being openly bullied by one of his senior admins. He's just totally aloof and afraid to personally engage any sort of conflict, even one he could decide with a single comment or click of his mouse due to his position on the wiki. Röstigraben (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A little birdy told me that there's no evidence TK had any personal contact with Schlafly except in the email discussions groups and occasionally by email off the group. That Andy never said anything about it when TK publicly claimed to speak with him frequently is explainable by reasons already stated on this page. 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy isn't stupid, intelligence isn't the issue here, it is a mixture of enormous pride and simply awful leadership skills. The latter has allowed this sort of thing to happen, the former keeps Andy from stepping in and solving the problem (because it would mean an admission of an error of judgement on his part to allow Ken to go on as he has in the first place).

There are sincere editors on CP, I was one. Heck I still have an account and thought of editing again just to inject some real science into the place. After Ken's

bestiality spree, I can't possibly bring myself to edit on a wiki that allows him to go on inserting bizarre bestiality thoughts in all these non-related articles, destroying the credibility of innocent editors who wrote those articles in the first place.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy wants all the power of being the leader with none of the responsibility. He wants CP to say whatever he wants it to say on his pet issues, post without fear of revert, brag about page hits and speak publicly for CP. He however doesn't want to solve a dispute between Ken and Rob that goes on for over a week, on his fuckin' talk page no less. He doesn't want to do anything about Ken making his "encyclopaedia" into an even bigger joke. TK used this to become the de facto leader of CP. I'm kinda surprised another troll has filled in his spot yet. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but no one else has TK's "leadership skills" --Opcn (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, and isn't that terrible (or perhaps hilarious, depending on your point of view)? The sysop with the best leadership ability (and one who still had fatal flaws) was most likely a deep parodist. Looking at the current sysops, none posses any leadership skills to any measurable degree and all posses flaws that are instantly detrimental if not out right disqualifies.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only a deep parodist, but one bent on destroying CP. At least in that respect, Ken has him beat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well TK was the only person ever really involved with the leadership of the project that had any kind of leadership position in the real world wasn't he? --Opcn (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy loves a good flame war -- provided the conservative position wins. When things go sour, the banhammer is invoked. And he's saddled with sysops, Ken & Karajou, who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. These are the arguments Ken convinced Andy and others that reform threatened:

Many atheists, for example, do not accept a "middle ground." Many atheists accept nothing short of censorship of Christianity, such as censoring prayer in the classroom even when all the students want to pray.

There is no middle ground by the Nobel Prize committee, which insists that the award not be given to a critic of evolution, no matter how deserving.

So the lack of symmetry is a problem: conservatives are fine giving equal time to liberals, but many liberals are not fine giving equal time to conservatives.

And of coiurse you bring up the thing you were part of, not the other times--Mikalosa (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you gave some context to whatever your talking about; as it is now, you're the sole reason the private mailing list data has not been leaked because of your incessant stalking, hounding, and bullying, which you've been asked numerous times b y several editors to cease. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just show that stupid fuck two can play the same game: somebody start the Ken DeMyer and bestiality article and chronicle the whole sad affair. And if Andy remains silent, or pulls the same crap he's done in the past, start the Andy Schlafly and bestiality article chronicling his part. I warned these motherfuckers about their cavalier use of slander. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) And if Brian McDonald wants to get involved start the Brian McDonald and bestiality article, as well. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this theory

who else thinks that this is the case?^img--Opcn (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservative being blocked repeatedly sounds illogical. I think he's being blocked by trolls

The title of my post explains it all. It is a little odd that conservative (KEN) is being blocked numerously for no apparent reason. It's obvious that he's being blocked by anti conservapedians. But I'm still not sure. Nashhinton (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(continued)... No I take that back, it's highly improbable that he's being banned by trolls now that I think about it. Nashhinton (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the fuck you are, you made my day and this video is my response--SmithRob (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Well I'm glad I made your day. Nashhinton (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By CP definition they are certainly trolls. Troll=bad=liberal=anyone who disagrees with anything on CP. Therefore they are ipso facto trolls merely for disagreeing with Ken. Oh, and does anyone else find it odd that Sam refers to Conservative as "Ken"? That's not done over there. DickTurpis (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this thread make no sense at all? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not just you. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He called him Ken. where?--SmithRob (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here^img. DickTurpis (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At some point SamC also refered to demeyers law and told people to do a search beggining with G. I can't link it as I've had browsing blocked for almost the entire day today. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean this^img. --Longbow (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

SeanS called him Ken as well, by the way, in pretty much the same place^img. --Longbow (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What a well-deserving featured article^img!

It's Elevatorgate^img! A beautifully crafted account of the horrid scandal involving pre-obese atheist Richard Dawkins. This wonderful piece of investigative journalism leaves no stone unturned and omits no detail of the lurid event — except, of course, what it was that Dawkins said and why it was so horrible. Well, no matter. The important facts (that Dawkins was once not very nice to a female audience member, that some people think Watson is a hypocrite for posing in a calendar and that there are more male than female atheists) are all there. Brilliant! Phiwum (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All there and Ken took the initiative this time and wrote it like an article so for the most part it's riddled with factual errors that are his own rather than other peoples factual errors that he quoted. --Opcn (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic article! A+! I do like how for no reason he mentions that women are more religious than men. Therefore being religious must be a feminine trait. I guess that makes Ken a girly-boy lacking any machismo. DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just another quality article from CP, they really keep 'em coming. But "In 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist Rebecca Watson about an incident which occurred in an elevator." made me wonder, what exactly is "widely criticized" for Ken? AFAIR it was something like a 50:50 split. --★uːʤɱ pirate 21:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind the UN Security Council has 15 members, so it couldn't have been a 50:50 split exactly. I recall it was something like 7:6, with Portugal and India abstaining. DickTurpis (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dick, I think you misspelled ma-cheese-mo WeaselNation (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I find it funny User:Conservative takes Watson's rather than Dawkins' side. I would assume User:Conservative is not much of a feminist, which would make me suspect that, if there was no potential to attack Dawkins here, he would have been more likely to favour Dawkins' viewpoint. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I only see two options if Dawkins wasn't involved: 1. Ken ignores it. 2. Ken calls Watson a radical feminists that wants to censor the speech of free men. --★uːʤɱ heretic 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) So what's the actual origin of that article? I didn't think Ken could simply invent something like that, so a quick google search yields these articles. I take it she mentioned something about not liking propositioning, and Dawkins (or a commenter using that name; I'm always sceptical when someone on the internet comments randomly like that) posted a potentially harsh reply. Not to demean the situation, but that's it, right? άλφα^Ταλκ 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes it was the man himself. He wrote a satirical response, comparing Watson's plight to oppressed women in Iran and Saudi Arabia... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

She made a carping response about getting attention from some guy in the elevator because she's an unattractive man hating lesbian and Dawkins called her out on it, as he should have. Not much of a story, really. 22:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Elevatorgate"... if that exists, so should "RobSmithgate" on CP. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

She is still married isn't she? --Opcn (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at her and sid's facebook pages, neither of them seem to wear wedding rings any more, guess they got divorced while I was busy not stalking them. --Opcn (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

She is in the mist of a divorce I believe, although it isn't relivant to the fact she was hit on my some drunk in a closed elevator at four in the morning. Ken only mildy takes her side because he hates Dawkins that much; he couldn't give a shit about women's issues. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, "a shit about womens issues" is exactly what I want to call his latest string of contributions... --Opcn (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I like how there's an Elevatorgate article^img and an Aftermath of Elevatorgate article^img with, basically, exactly the same content apart from one small section at the bottom, Dawkins' picture removed, and a picture of some 'Hong Kong Christians' added to it. Why have one article when you can have two with the simple use of Ctrl-C & Ctrl-V? 86.163.113.90 (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because Ken thinks quantity is better than quality, especially where Google is concerned. I also love Ken's faux moral outrage at Elevatorgate, given he's a sysop on a site where the official position would be "Why wasn't that bitch at home baking cookies?" --PsyGremlinHable! 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, the people behind the Ken account have generated at least the following:

• Elevatorgate
• Richard Dawkins' Elevatorgate comments
• Richard Dawkins#Elevatorgate
• Rebecca Watson
• Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate (eventually deleted by Ken himself)
• Aftermath of Elevatorgate
• Women's views of Richard Dawkins#Elevatorgate (making up about a fourth of the "entry")
• Atheism and women#Elevatorgate
• David Allen Green
• Atheist factions
• Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline
• Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?#Rebecca Watson vs. boorish atheists men: Epic atheist battle of the sexes (the section's whole content is: "See: Elevatorgate")
• Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd#Rebecca Watson vs. boorish atheists men: Epic atheist battle of the sexes (the section's whole content is: "See: Elevatorgate")
• Essay: Atheists say the darnedest things!#Rebecca Watson vs. boorish atheists men: Epic atheist battle of the sexes (the section's whole content is: "See: Elevatorgate")
• Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline#Rebecca Watson vs. boorish atheists men: Epic atheist battle of the sexes (the section's whole content is: "See: Elevatorgate")

I have no doubt that they will return with more ideas about where else to copy-and-paste the exact same content. Of course, the funny part is not so much the shenanigans of this Ken persona, but Andy's reaction to it all.--Xyr (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I can only see Andy's reaction being two polar opposites: He's either face-palming and cursing himself for not being able to control Ken, or masturbating furiously at the thought of all the record-breaking page views Ken is generating. There is no middle ground. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, appending "gate" to absolutely everything is pretty annoying to me. Is that in vogue in the media, too, just to draw parallels between Watergate and almost everything else? I've rarely heard the term "Climategate" outside of CP, I don't believe I've ever heard Jobsgate outside of there, and I doubt "Elevatorgate" exists outside of Ken's mind. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken is a bot and I think I know how it works

The first part generates simple "X and Y" pairs. Then whoever is operating the bot picks a few he/she/it finds humorous and writes the actual article. The operator then feeds the article into the bot program, which posts the article to CP over a preset time period. The genius part of this program is that it also probably makes random small edits and to Ken's articles. This explains why he always takes 45 edits to do anything, and the oddly repetitive nature of his articles. The reason he protects everything he writes is to keep the articles in a known state to keep the bot software happy. In the User and Talk spaces, I suspect he's fully automated most of the time, explaining his stock non-answers. The subpages in is own User page space are a testing ground for when he updates the bot software. --Roofus (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Which would explain why Kenbot doesn't wish to reveal its gender - it doesn't have one... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 00:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could make bots of the regular admins and run a pretty convincing CP mirror. We'd just have to run a few parodist and wandal bots every now and then. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If I knew how to I would totally pitch in to do that. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone should port the Schlafly Quote Generator --Roofus (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Now I'm wondering what a Terminator-like Skynet controlled by this theoretical Kenbot would be like, and quite frankly I'm terrified. X Stickman (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be so bad - the Terminators would all run away at the first sight of a Human; any actions the computers initiated would have to be looped several times to remove syntax errors; nothing would actually change, because Skynet's "destroy humanity" program, exists only on a small, damaged chip, and will never actually be run... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure Andy isn't a (slighly) more sophisticated bot? I mean, 'lamestream media' appears five times on the mainpage. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit's aren't random. The content comes out of a guided generative grammar; it's very similar to the mechanism the Postmodernism Generator uses. The string of shit edits is a three-step process. First you run the generator not one time but several times so you have a few versions that are grammatically coherent but semantically distinct. Then you apply a Markov chainer to it to create plausible typos. Then you ut all your versions in a random sequence (but make sure the sequence ends with one of the typo-free base versions) and treat them as a sequence of LCSS problems. You use insertions and deletions of the same tokens that go into the Markov chain as your atomic operations and the 1988 Myers algorithm to find the edit paths. It's an unholy jumble of perl, shell script, and makefiles that falls apart if you look at it wrong, but it actually works most of the time. Mountain Blue (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You're ken aren't you you mother fucker? --Opcn (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Penn Jillette talks about Conservapedia

Someone might have posted this allready, but just stumbled on this on youtube. Timppeli 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh^img my^img Yes^img, we^img know^img about^img it^img. and ken^img knows^img about it as well! --Mikalosa (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Misery loves company

Wow, Andy can be a prize douche at times^img - user throws Andy the "neutrino walks into a bar" joke. Andy doesn't see (or get) the humour:

In response to your second edit, that's a joke for a relativist. If relativity is false as long shown here by the Counterexamples to Relativity, then the joke isn't funny.

Actually, I would have thought the whole "faster than light" thing, would be immensely funny for Andy. I'm guessing he didn't understand the joke. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we to understand that "there was no real humour before Christianity" could be joined by "only jokes about real/true things are funny"?--Xyr (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Only jokes about liberals are funny in the crazy world of Schlafly, even when they aren't. (See Karatoons.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WINDMILLS NEUTRINOS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"A house divided"?

Catholics and protestants have been literally killing each other for centuries, and Kendoll thinks a silly spat about when it's appropriate to ask a woman back to your room represents a significant schism? Is he insane? Oh, yeah. Never mind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the facts, it's about making the other side look bad. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@Uhm - CP in a nutshell... άλφα^Ταλκ 18:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The little fascist

Oh yes, this one will climb the ranks^img. Ace^ace 05:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing how Assfly finds a never-ending supply of brown-nosing proto-fascists? I'll never again wonder how Hitler managed to staff the camps. --Longbow (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whats an "Assfly"? Ace^ace 05:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your allegations of fascism are without foundation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The rumors of your fascism have been greatly exaggerated? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A user behaves in a manner which, by their own admission, is juvenile, and is banned from a website. And some people here want to compare that to vicious regimes which killed many thousands, even millions, of innocent people, and started wars which killed many millions. Some people have a severe lack of perspective. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets write Maratreanism and Bestiality together. Ace^ace 06:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maratrean. Lets check shall we. Selective (mis)quotation of SamCoulter - check. Brown nosing andy - check. Sucking up to ken - check. Call it what you will, I call it brown nosing crypto-facism as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of fascism are unfounded? Let's see: Authoritarian? Check. Pursuit of a single ideology? Check. Indoctrination? Check. Attempt to dictate family policy? Check. Doesn't seem that unfounded. And it's sure no surprise that being juvenile as a reason for a block is only applied to non-sysops. By the way, I'm new here. Hi folks.Ego (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratreanism opposes bestiality. I didn't misquote or selectively quote SamCoulter. He said he was being juvenile. His attempts to justify his juvenile behaviour I did not quote because they did not seem to me to be relevant. How on earth am I sucking up to Ken? I've said I don't agree with on this topic. (Well, we probably agree on some aspects of it, but certainly disagree on others.) I agree that Conservapedia at times displays authoritarian streak, but this instance is not an example of that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So SamC's explaniation of why he made what was a 'juvenile' post is to you irrelevant to the point in question? Are you deliberately being thick or doing naturally? You are sucking andy and ken, you are crawling up their arses to try to appear reasonable instead of admiting that SamC made a post which was DELIBERATELY juvenile in order to highlight the double standards that you are now supporting. Would you care to comment on ken now blocking SamC for the heinous crime of inserting a fully referenced fact into one of kens piles of dribbling shit thta you support and then calling ken on his reversion? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think it's time Manwhatawanker makes a choice - does he want to hang around here and plug his phoney religion, or strut around CP in his jackboots? --PsyGremlinTal! 08:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Us against them. And enough of breaking Godwin's law already. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Godwin? No one broke godwins law. Hitler wasn't the only fascist dude. calling you a fascist =\= Godwin violation. Ace^ace 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think if you were one of Mussolini's or Franco's victims, you would consider comparing arguing about whether someone should be banned from a website to fascism to be in extremely bad taste. The principle that applies here is basically the same as that which applies in the case of the Nazis. And we have already seen references to Hitler in this discussion, from Longbow above, and the rhetorical use of the term "jackboots" originates in reference to Nazi Germany. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh get over yourself. And fuck off to CP, you have to do some more sucking up to Ken to do. --PsyGremlin講話 09:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Everytime you assholes talk to Maratrean you're giving him a reason to stay. His sole purpose is to get negative attention. Ignore him so he'll finally fuck off. 12:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ace. Could you troll Maratrean on his own talk page? It's not like anybody else really cares what he does anyways. --★uːʤɱ secularist 10:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So I read this section and it arouses more questions than answers. If Maratreanism doesn't support beastiality, what religion does (just wondering)? If Maratrean thinks Sam should be blocked for inserting something factual (assuming), why stay silent against Conservative? Is Maratrean female :3? I'm dumb, what's so fascist about the statement made on Sam, besides he being blocked ideologically? I seriously lost THE GAME on this section. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the big deal is. A user added snark to an article and got a 3 month block for it. Par for the course at CP. Nothing to see here. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So is Maratrean one of Andy's students? I can only assume so since he hasn't been banned from CP based on the user naming rule. Ego (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what religion supports bestiality. That is an interesting question. User:Conservative does actually have a valid point, in that to my knowledge, belief that bestiality is ethical and should be legal, seems to be more common among atheists/agnostics/etc than among others, although I don't get the impression it is a common viewpoint among anybody. But, if you take the viewpoint that all sexuality is OK so long as it is non-harmful and consensual, then that sex with animals is sometimes OK, would be the logical conclusion, although I guess quite a few people here are trying to avoid logic. The only way out, is to decide there is more to sexual ethics than non-harm and consent, something many people don't want to do. However, that said, he goes rather overboard in his presentation on it, goes after PZ Myers' family, and seems to be drawing some conclusion "some atheists are OK with bestiality, therefore all atheists are evil/crazy/whatnot", which really doesn't hold water - I think pro-bestiality atheists, and pro-bestiality people in general, are at least somewhat mistaken, but I can't fault them that much when they are just following their basic principles to their logical conclusions, even if I think those basic principles are faulty. As to Sam's contribution, at least User:Conservative is posting what he really believes, but Sam was just posting nonsensical parody. An article says that, they thought that bestialists were mainly people of low intelligence, yet they found people of average and high intelligence engaging in it too. Sam seemed to be arguing from that, therefore, smart people are bestialists, so bestiality is good? Now, User:Conservative is responsible at times for similar leaps of questionable logic, but at least User:Conservative, as I take it, genuinely believes those leaps, while I'm quite sure Sam was just engaging in parody. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Conservative is a nonsensical parody of a human being. Sam's making a (valid) point about a maniac with a bit of satire is not even close to the same level as ranting about ponies and flying kitties on a website that seeks to be taken seriously within the conservative movement. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mara seems to conflate ethical with legal. A lot of sexuality law is not even concerned with ethics it's more a case of personal mores. I'm not "pro-bestiality" but as a liberal (UK usage) I don't think that sexuality is an area where governments should get involved except for the protection of the vulnerable. On the other hand I see a lot of what I would regard as unethical behaviour which is entirely legal and causes society more misery and harm than some perverts shagging a few sheep. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mara seems to conflate ethical with legal" - no I don't. To quote myself, "However, while I think bestiality is immoral, I don't think this is a proper function for the law to try to enforce that moral rule. Non-sadistic bestialists/zoophiles need some help, not legal persecution" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy's sanity

This is actually a serious question, not a slur. When doing some edit last night, i linked from here to CP's talk on the "conservative bible", specifically about the word, "Word". It was, as with most links, the middle of the conversation, but clearly Andy had made a pronouncement that "logos" should be truth cause "Word" no longer meant "word", 400 years later (than what, i don't know.) As i kept reading, he insisted that arguments to the contrary were just closed minded. he also was challenged on the whole teens have made the most impact, shit. anyhow, what struck me is how with each and every statement, he seemed to reinforce his random pronouncement. And it seemed, reading it happen like that, to be very very very strange. like mentally ill strange. like not just joking that you're living divorced from reality but really being so. In all seriousness, is this man sane? Cause it was truly freaky to read that serries of talk pages (I'm hesitant to call it a conversation, as he never actually talks with others, he just agrees or disagrees.)--GodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be 400 years after the King James Version of 1611.--Xyr (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think if Andy suffers from anything it's extreme narcissism coupled with a very singular view of the world. This results in him making pronouncements (or creating an encyclopaedia) about things of which he knows nothing. However, once queried, he cannot back down and digs in his heels, grabbing at anything that justifies his position to his mind, no matter how insane it is to others.

There's also a degree of social ineptitude. We always laugh at Ken, but AFAIK Andy hasn't been away from CP for more than a day, in the 4 years I've been here. Even if he goes on holiday - of which there's been no sign, even in the SD groups - he carries on editing CP. As WfG pointed out, Andy doesn't hold conversations, even with his sysops. He'll make a statement and then either agree or disagree, or say nothing. He clearly hates conflict situations and freezes at the thought of having to be involved in one.

Thus he's the tragic combination of somebody who insists his POV is correct, but lacks the social (and communication?) skills to firstly convey that point and secondly to convince others that he's right. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as long around as Psy, only a year about now, but I think he is mentally sane. He's just really really troubled. He grew up in a house with a very strong mother, but was told the complete opposite was good. He is told to be a strong man, not a sissy and all that, but when his mother tells him he is going to study law he does. Around the same time he has to have realized that he doesn't know it all. But as intelligence is the only things he has, he has to keep up the illusion that he knows it all. In with a lifelong frustration comes a cultural hatred of anything different from him - especially everybody who was able to tell his or her "oppressors" where to stick it (atheists, liberals from conservative family, gayz) - so all the frustration he feels about his family, his mother and his un-freedom he puts into that. He doesn't blame himself or his mother for it, he blames the liberals, atheists and gayz for his misery and for being happier than he is.

And then Obama. That black guy who is everything he hates in one person (free, happy, self-confident, good-looking) comes along. That guy is so popular and Andy is a nobody. 17-years later that guy becomes President, something Andy wanted to be to make mommy proud of him, now he really goes batshit. Now he has everything he isn't infront of him every single day for at least 4 years. Now he has to prove even stronger how awesome he is: he doesn't need to lead, he is above that. Yes, what Ken writes is funny, No, Rob is disruptive force. Obama keeps losing and losing, everybody who cooperates with him is a traitor to the real cause. The others are influencing everything. Everybody is against him! The whole world is against him, everybody is wrong excpt him. He can't be wrong, he can never be wrong — that wouldn't make mommy proud.

If it wasn't real, it would be a damn good novel. --★uːʤɱ soviet 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As one human being to another, if he has some disorder or retardation of the mind, yes I have a concern for his well-being. Same goes for Ken.

As the owner of CP who thinks Ken is an asset and makes great contributions, he's a fucking retard, to which I have no sympathy towards. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been my suspicion for some time that Andy's sanity has been slowly slipping away. I believe we have indications that in his more formative years he was conservative and all that, but not in the batshit nuts way he is now. I honestly don't think he could get any sort of respectable score on the LSATs if he were to take them today, let alone get into or through law school. The man has no sense of logic whatsoever, and he can't have always been that way. There really has to be something mentally wrong with him. DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My own feelings on it are that Andy's enthusiasm for CP has long gone and now he just doesn't care enough to make valid points, or enough to put effort into making them. All of the stuff he comes up with isn't that unusual, for example, it's stuff that any of us would come up with for a few seconds. But where we realise "wait a minute, that is dumb and here is why" and then don't actually tell anyone we thought it, Andy just thinks "eh" and writes a post. Then his arrogance kicks in and he feels he has to defend his brain farts rather than just say "yeah it was just something that popped into my head and I didn't think it through that much". Either that or, I guess, he's just using CP as his diary and writing down whatever pops into his head. He seems almost surprised when he has to defend his claims sometimes. X Stickman (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy explains TK's de-sysoping

Andy doesn't know how to influence his sysops. He selects them as bodyguards to watch his back, but can't control them when they come up with hairbrained schemes, such as Karajou notifying the FBI. He opposed the idea, but couldn't articulate it clearly on the mailing list. Karajou misread the sentiment and acted unilaterally. Of course it had the unintended consequence of making the whole project look stupid, but he never reprimanded Karajou or publicly divorced himself from the idea. He just showed blind loyalty to what was perceived as a consensus cause nobody had the balls to say it was a stupid idea. We've seen this repeated a hundred times. He expects blind loyalty and he gives blind loyalty in return. His desysoping of TK was because "Several Sysops insisted to me privately, with lots of alleged evidence, that TK was an enemy." Deja Vu. He only gave in cause he felt outnumbered. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah. That wasnt why. See this: http://cp.noym.net/bf4601def8a51047 "Why I suspended your Sysop privileges". Quote: "you responded with a vulgarity to my comment of Godspeed, and that's an insult that I can't allow." A.S. de-sysopped T.K. for cursing him out in a PM convo. Must I post up the actual IM? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks is missing the discussion thread started by Andy entitled, TK blocking explained for new members, which is reproduced at the start of that linked thread. Note: "1. He antagonized and nearly drove away some of our very best editors." Everyone, EVERYONE, knows "our very best editors" were and remain Rationalwiki parodists. Andy knows this, and Andy knew this when he wrote that. Why isn't this standard applied to User:Conservative and Karajou? "2. He blocked, without justification, many new editors..." Same question. "6. He seemed to rely more on RationalWiki for information than our own site." Well, duh, ever hear of 90/10, Andy? nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

News flash: TK drove away a lot more than RW parodists. In fact, RW parodists were probably a small minority of those he drove away - since parodists agree with Andy on almost everything, they're the few sorts who were generally welcomed. (Does the name Bugler ring a bell?) Those few from this site who tried to honestly and in good faith improve some of the most ridiculous aspects of CP were the ones TK banned in droves. DickTurpis (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what I said, isn't it? Yet Conservative & Karajou do daily exactly what got TK de-sysoped, as per Andy's own explanation. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what you said. You said "'our very best editors' were and remain Rationalwiki parodists." I said RW parodists were not the ones who were blocked by TK, and were only the "best" editors if by "best" you mean "those intent on destroying CP through unrestrained sycophancy". Was Bugler ever one of your best editors? DickTurpis (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugler was a sysop or editor with enhanced rights, AFAIK. I never knew him or interacted with him. I'm referring to common, lowly editors; Andy has known since Spring 2007 that, with very very few exceptions, the only consistent, knowledgeable, and literary editors he's had have been, and continue to be, Rationalwiki parodists. Very few, other than FOIA and one or two others, who have not been RW parodists, quit over the lack of any semblance of a collaborative interactive community. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our disagreement arises over the word "parodist". If you're talking about "consistent, knowledgeable, and literary editors" being folks from RW, then they're not the parodists. They're the honest editors from this site who actually in good faith tried to improve CP by removing the most blatant erroneous and, let's just call them "Kenesque", aspects of the site to make it into the semblance of a Conservative, but not batshit insane, encyclopedia-style project. That's not parody (although some might have misrepresented their political views), but acting in reasonably good faith. That parodists are the Buglers, the JacobBs, the DouglasAs, etc. They were never the best editors by anyone standards other than Andy's, who cared more about blocking dissenting opinion than building anything resembling an encyclopedia. DickTurpis (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is what Andy said on the matter July 24 over the blocking of User:BobSherman (alleged to be RW user SoCal) which Ken DeMyer transformed from a discussion over blocking accountability into a personal attack on me:

As a general matter, "parodists" -- a misnomer to some extent -- can be hurtful to the site if they are allowed to edit many entries. What can happen, and what has happened in some cases in the past, is that this can lead to bragging on other sites about how a parodist supposedly fooled our site.

But see, while I was proposing a definition of "parody", Ken was calling me a useful idiot of an atheist website. And none of the sysops following that private mailing list discussion ever attempted to help me or Andy out by defining "parodist." They are just so overwhelmed with hatred of Rationalwiki and anybody connected with the site, even Andy caves to their pressure for fear they'd leave as well. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The weirdest thing about that is that that's exactly what fundie Christians shouldn't do. They have a set of ideals and should stick to that set and judge everything from that set. Instead we have people pledging blind loyalty. This is evidence that these people (and I will exclude Rob from this because he stood up for what he believes in) simply don't understand their own ideolgoy. --★uːʤɱ heretic 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Tk WAS an enemy though (in the real sense), and so were you (in the sense you wanted to pretty much french revolution the entire structure of CP)--Mikalosa (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If anybody was in agreement that RW editors could be contributors to CP, it was Andy. He's said as much numerous times on the discussion lists. But Ken, Karajou, TerryH, and lesser extent DMorris and Jpatt, they are dead set against it, and regard unblocking of certain editors "appeasement". They convinced him allowing certain RW editors back in was unChristian, proAtheist, and a threat to an anti-evolutionist ever winning the nobel prize. Such is the level of discourse in Conservaleaks. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never cared much about Conleaks. And that would mean hes doing a democratic forum, thing, not being a shitty leader. Or did ignoring your subordinates become the traits of a leader?--Mikalosa (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's caving in to the will of the mob for fear of a massive revolt. It's easier to offer up one sacrificial lamb, like TK or myself, to appease the angry mob of sysops, than have all of them walk off the job because of shitty working conditions. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the presence of RationalWikians on CP was going to impact the Nobel Prize committee? I'm sorry but that gives both websites a delusional amount of credit (and a creationist wacko isn't going to win any scientific Nobel prize anyway). DickTurpis (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That's what Ken and the other's convinced Andy. That Vidkun Quisling (User:RobS) appeasing RW editors by unblocking them was thwarting Ken's efforts to get an advocate of Intelligent Design a Nobel Prize. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Pleasepleaseplease tell me how a middle aged recluse with the mind of a 12 year old was going to engineer a Nobel Prize victory for a fundie? DickTurpis (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't privy to those discussions. I was only notified by him (see quotebox) as to the basis of his reasoning in removing my user rights. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And gleaned more substance in private messages from DMorris and TerryH, as well as statements by Ken & Karajou on the public wiki. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

HAving unlimited power as long as you didnt touch andy was shitty work conditions?--Mikalosa (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)