Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive262

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 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>, <260>, <261>, <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)

Karajou defends the status quo

You gotta be polite^img, present your refutations, and then drop it (so they can completely ignore you and hope it goes away). Ah, yes, Karajou, ignore the fact Conservative has been uncivil since the beginning. Also kinda funny SeanS and JamesWilson tow the line by ignoring Conservative's incivility. I bet a majority of Conservative's talkpage comments for 3 months have been trolling/insults to others. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then Kendoll will say you're a fat, sheep-raping evolutionist atheist who can't provide proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, and you can't answer the holy 15 questions and that you are brain damaged. The article will be locked and no corrections will be made. Then you'll probably be banned. That's a quality control process you can believe in. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can accept Ken being a complete dickweed because hey, he's an Internet troll who has been doing this since before CP even existed, so this is just him acting on the knowledge that he can't be touched. But Karajou channeling both Ed and Ken to defend the latter? I still can't believe my eyes. Oh, and Andy is still ignoring all of this - it's like the Rob vs. Senior Sysops all over again! --Sid (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the sysops stuff, I just know theres no point in arguing them.--Mikalosa (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Even you're not immune from the banhammer. Hell, look what happened to Rob for arguing. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And what's the point of even trying to add proper content to CP when everyone's reaction is going to be, "Oh, that's that bestiality site. Ha ha, no thanks." Nope, Ken's raving is destroying all remaining credibility. --Longbow (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The worst part is the cumulative effect: If this was just a brief lapse of sanity, it would eventually sink to the bottom of the wiki, and people would be able to forget it even exists. But Ken not only builds a link-network of all his idiocy and ties it into high-profile articles, he also keeps going. So now we have a wiki full of ma-CHEESE-mo, debate challenges, bunny holes, clowns, Indian dancers, pedophile economics and bestiality. There is no way the other editors can counter this flood of bullshit, especially not with Night Editing cutting their time in half and Ed or Karajou randomly fucking them up for arbitrary reasons. --Sid (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at Karajou's latest megalist of blocks. I see that he's blocked AmirK and TennaK on the grounds that they're "sock of LeonardS." Well, I was LeonardS and I can assure the imbecile that they weren't socks of me. --Longbow (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Even without Ken's well thought out insightful articles, there's always "Oh wasn't that the site that called Prof Lenski out?" and that was the Grand Poohbah himself making the site a laughing stock. Scream!! (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A very valid point, and much-needed perspective. It's easy to forget things like the Lenski Affair and the Conservative Bible Project when faced with Ken's obsessions. --Sid (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's quote just might have made my day. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fess up, Longbow. You're also Human, too!^img AHA! KARAJOU SEES ALL. EVEN THE LIES. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. LeonardS was me, but Human wasn't. His paranoia is probably preventing ANY new users from joining CP. Of course this is an excellent reason to make it worse. --Longbow (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of human....is he dead? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, he just smells funny. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see from his WP account that he is probably not dead. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

*hiss*

[1]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost willing to bet that Karajou and Jpatt are right now active in the mailing list, considering to write The True Story about Ameriwiki. --Sid (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone capture the article? I hope to use some of Karajou's original Rationalwiki article proposed by Karajou at Ameriwiki. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I remember seeing, there wasn't much on it besides "Ameriwiki is x"--Mikalosa (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that communists are all atheists when they are out a murderin' but when communists build a hospital that doesn't count?

That's total bullshit accounting! --Opcn (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The atheist hospitals thing was torn up on several occasions in several places, mostly on Andy's talk page. The tl;dr version is basically "Atheism is not a group of any sort, it is the absence of religion- hospitals built by atheists are thus generally not built as 'atheist hospitals.' They are just hospitals."--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as an argument it's been toast for the last 50 years, but I thought Andy still used it anyways, he has no problem with bullshit reasons (counterexamples anyone?). I was just reflecting on Hugo Chavez going to a hospital in Cuba, and Andy bragging on it being a crappy communist hospital, I'm tempted to ask him what religion the people who built the communist hospital ascribed to. --Opcn (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh. That's why you should post links. I thought you were dredging up that old topic, my bad--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Link^img --Opcn (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Be wary, and check your facts. Andy would have no problem keeping a straight face while saying that if a hospital was "built" 300 years ago by Catholics, that's what counts, and you must ignore the subsequent extension, refurbishment and even demolition and reconstruction of the hospital by people unaffiliated with any religion, because they're not building the hospital. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's blog

Someone mentioned it above, so I followed the link to his most recent blog post and I noticed a few things. He really doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong with the messages in Conservaleaks; it's just general chit-chat, banter, etc. Also, he doesn't seem to understand at all what constructive criticism actually is... since calling someone a "lying lunatic" and "trash" isn't constructive. It also annoys me that he's always referring to the reader. "Did you read this, reader? For those of you reading this..." etc. I guess he thinks if he continually mentions people reading his blog, people will actually read it? All right, I know I just gave it a hit by clicking on it, but it's a worthy sacrifice for my entertainment. The entire setup just seems like the ranting of an angry, lonely person. άλφα^Ταλκ 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Any way we could get a Google Cache of Kara's articles? I'm morbidly curious, but I'm not giving him pageviews. --Sasayaki (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. I tried to use a capture on the most recent but CaptureBot blocked out most of the text for some reason. άλφα^Ταλκ 13:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And here's the most recent one. άλφα^Ταλκ 13:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"The ravings of a lying lunatic" - well, yes... Cantabrigian (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Also, CaptureBot just does not like blogger pages; even in the google cache's, it blacks out all the text. Can someone take a screenshot of those through their machine? My linux screen capture tools aren't up to the challenge of a scrolling web page, unfortunately. άλφα^Ταλκ 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There you go. I saved it under a different name. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, "recent" being a relative term, seeing as Kara seems to have given on his blog. And - at the risk of blowing my trumpet (damn that extra vertebra!) - here's my reply to his post, seeing as I was the "lying lunatic." The again, we are talking about a man who thinks the DDoS attack on CP was because of his cartoons upsetting liberals. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought his last entry was in June. Just like CP, can't be arsed with responsibilities. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, uhm. Saved me having to boot over into Windows to use FSCapture. άλφα^Ταλκ 19:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There are several Firefox extensions that can cap whole web pages (can't remember which one I have around here, should probably scoot there - but there are several that probably work nicely). Of course, I also think that using screenshots for web citations is kind of lame; pros use Zotero. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two of the nice add-ons I've seen (Screengrab and Fireshot) don't work with Firefox 7 or Linux, respectively. Zotero might be nice, but I really don't need something really designed for citations when I'm literally only looking for screenshots. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt, an idiot

Not worth a wigo, just thought it was a tad humorous in it's attempt to glorify the FRC..

"Thanks to the FDA Family Research Council^img, we now know 14 deaths are directly linked to the abortion pill RU-486 (or drug overdoses or murder, we're not exactly sure, but who cares)." (emphasis mine) Occasionaluse (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I was impressed with his mention of RU-486 hazzards as well. A Freudian slip perhaps? Surely Jpatt wasn't thinking about pregnancy and Daisy Duke at the same time? --Longbow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy rules with a silent fist

Can anyone figure out what ~4,000 bytes he just vaped? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the entire section where Kara defended ken is gone...--Mikalosa (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the "beasts" For the record, the critics of the present bestiality articles have not refuted the evidence against the information included in those articles. But they want the articles themselves hidden and/or removed from the site, which begs the question: do they want to get away with themselves or their ilk having sex with animals? In my opinion, these articles may be reduced or streamlined to one or two, but when it comes to some loud-mouth atheist supporting bestiality and demanding that it be removed from certain psychological definitions so the mainstream accepts that filth, yes, this website is going to expose it. Whether or not the critics like it is their problem. Karajou 09:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT) It is being slathered all over a site that is supposed to be, as Andy says, an educational resource for children. Why do we need need 10's of articles all saying the same thing over and over when you could add a small subsection to the main article on the topic which I can't even type. And do you know the reason I can't type it? Because I am on a shared computer and network! Even looking at recent changes for anyone who isn't at home on a personal, private network and computer is against many obscenity laws/rules! The other issue is the only "facts" are that Peter Singer said something on the topic, as did PZ Meyers daughter, and some countries don't have laws against it(including many States in the US!). MaxFletcher 15:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT) I don't think that people are objecting to the exposure of some atheists condoning bestiality, so much as the way it's being done, the number of articles which all basically the same thing and the attitude that's been shown to those who have concerns about it. Personally I think it could all be done with sections on the main bestiality article, seeing as most of the others only contain information that's already in that one anyway. It does look like an issue that's causing a lot of controversy, unfortunately. --MarkSlough 09:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT) And do the words "family friendly" mean anything to you? Given that Conservapedia was created to avoid the smut and filth of WP, it's doing a good job of wallowing in filth at the moment. RayMcCauley 09:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT) What evidence, Karajou? The original article made reference to ONE atheist's comments and from there it's grown into some weird strawman about evolutionists and Swedes and Britons all loving them some down and dirty time with animals. There isn't a single fact mentioned that links an atheist (or evolutionist) with being charged with an act of bestiality. Not one, in all the repeated articles. There's plenty of innuendo, but no facts. Typical of kdbuffalo's work. And as has been mentioned - what happened to the "family friendly encyclopedia"? Conservapedia manages to talk about sex without mentioning genitalia, and yet badly-worded, non-factual smear articles about bestiality are ok? --AlexB2 12:21, 28 September 2011 (EDT) No, there IS evidence. Skatje Myers is also an atheist, so there's clear evidence that some atheists don't have a problem with bestiality. The problem is that there's nothing to show that atheists are more likely to approve than Christians are, or more likely to be involved in it. The fact is that bestiality has been illegal in the UK (the subject of one of the articles) for nearly 500 years and that it's legal in more of the 10 MOST Christian US states (5) than in the 10 LEAST Christian (4.) What we need is evidence to show that atheists are more likely to approve/commit bestiality than theists. I agree though, it's not very family-friendly. --ThomasMacD 12:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT

Happy to oblige! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an odd section to remove - he kept the complaints but removed the defense. Perhaps he doesn't want it defended on his page? Thinking if he remains silent then he can say, if someone in real life complains, he never supported it... Ace^ace 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kara was basically asking for people to attack it on its merits with his defense, which was a stupid idea. --Opcn (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The critics don't want to improve CP's reputation, they want to have sex with animals. That's basically what Karajou said. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RABBLE RABBLE ROB IS A VICTIM STOP BEING A BABY RABBLE -Mikalosa (Senator Harrison (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

(EC - Rob wasn't playing the victim? What the fuck?) Well, who wouldn't want to have sex with hot fairies? They may not be human, but I'll be damned if I don't jump at the chance if they came onto me. They're in the bible too, SO THEY MUST EXIST. Sex with mythical being, or improve CP... hmm... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough< I wasn't going to comment on what rob said. Harrison is just being stupid atm.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You know those things that you sometimes do that you immediately regret but you can't take it back? This was one of them. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya well in Ace/Mikalos case its wp:Wikipedia:Common knowledge they're endeared to sheep.nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Still harping that im a sock of Ace rob? Also, fuck you. --Mikalosa (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I just have random spouts of anger and sometimes I take it out on this wiki. This isn't the first time, but it's just the worst time. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It really is rather priceless that Andy saw fit to zap the above section but leaves all of Ken's droppings intact. It's like picking up a discarded cigarette butt in your yard but leaving all the dogshit. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I really hope the next time some newspaper or whatnot interviews Andy about Conservapedia they ask him about this bestiality stuff. Whether an alleged homeschooling education site should have it. We saw in the Ledger piece the interviewer asking him to justify Ken's crap. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there's actually a category at CP for Bestiality^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And the Sweden Bestiality article is back too^img. Fuckin' comedy platinum! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is very telling that Andy started the delete with Karajou's post; evidently he's displeased with that line of defense. But is also an approval of Ken's dribble. Most important, he's paying attention to the nuance and direction of the discussion and controversy. I'd advise not engaging in ad hominem's against the Bestiality series author on Andy's talk page, focus on substance, sources, and CP's image on the wider-internet. Bring in links to Andy's talk page and document the reaction. Andy loves a flame war. But avoid discussing or attacking the series auther. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 17:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, the problem I see is that Ken's articles aren't really "wrong", they're just bizarre and distasteful and subtly use rhetoric to make unstated, fallacious implications. It's just weird. No one wants to be around a guy obsessed with bestiality. It is about him and not so much the articles. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the chances of Andy doing anything about it are now zero; Ken say the articles have brought in more traffic^img and although I think KhalidM's next comment was spot on, Andy won't agree. --Longbow (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor will return to Conservapedia...

... on Oct 1, 2011: that's when his latest ultimatum runs out. Remember:

I asked for an instance of ideological censorship. If I don't get one by the end of this month, I'm going to stop asking. --Ed Poor Talk 10:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

I predict that he not only will stop asking, but will not have addressed RonLar's example of censorship presented to him here. And of course he will ignore any further example, perhaps by citing his deadline.

OTOH, stating this prediction will change the course of history (hi Uncle Ed!) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If Ed still reads RW, it's only to enforce his perception of it as a hate machined geared towards him. Ed does/says terrible things. Ed reads about himself doing/saying terrible things. Ed thinks "Oh, they're saying such terrible things about me!" Ed has all the reason he needs to dismiss you. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed can dismiss like no other. It's either a sign of great mental discipline or a sign of a brain whose mind has vacated the premises. --Opcn (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask Ed if User:Conservative 's claim RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website, and the resulting fiasco, is ideological censorship. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How could it be "ideological"? You did the same shit they did (smear liberals, whitewash conservatives) when you were there. Godspeed (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

-looks at Robs block- Locked for... what exactly? You toed the party line greatly--Mikalosa (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well duh, Mikalos, we'll spell it out in slow sentences just for you: the subject here is "censorship", not blocking. The posted link argues for de-sysoping, not blocking. Now, if you would like to actually contribute something to a discussion, you could try beginning with the context of the discussion, and leave your bigotry and bullying at home. Thanks. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bah, the whole thing is silly because how will you prove ideological censorship? This is just as silly as "We don't block for ideological reasons here!" The censorship is happening because you have a bunch of whiny douchebags not being able to handle honest debate, and you have blocks because people refuse to blindly bash liberals/atheism/evolution as is expected of them. Neither of those reasons is an ideological one. Just like "I don't like you, so I will ban you" or "It's Friday, so I'll delete a talk page" are not examples of ideological censorship/blocks. Sure, it's dishonest, despicable, douchebaggish, and deceitful, but it's not ideological. They do not block or censor because you're a liberal, and that makes it all okay in their eyes. --Sid (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And yes, Ed is the Grand Master of looking away. He knows that if he acknowledged that something bad is happening, he would feel the need to interfere - but that would lead to him losing his precious, precious sysop powers. So he simply refuses to admit that anything is wrong and will invent more and more excuses to be able to look away. In the meantime, sysops are oversighting and burning talk pages left and right, anybody who speaks up is conveniently silenced, and Ed simply moves over to Wikipedia whenever he feels his presence is needed on Conservapedia. "If I close my eyes, the evil surely stops existing!" --Sid (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed's made the jump to Ameriwiki already. He see's the writing on the wall. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He made the jump? I don't think so. He's just as damned as the rest of them and he knows that just as well.--Mikalosa (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) He saw the writing a long time before, Rob. Why else do you think has he been trying his best to fit in at Horribly Biased, Evil, Family Unfriendly Wikipedia? He knows that CP is a failure (even if he won't say it in such strong words) and that it wasted all of its chances of attracting big-name writers to salvage it. Just check the Conservaleaks, where he brings this up at least once. Ed's been running backup solutions for years, I think. --Sid (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If Ed Poor officially leaves CP, I'll eat my hat. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As RJJensen, who realized with a little help by TK that wikipedia may not be an ideal place to edit, but it is certainly the best place - Ed Poor has seen that it is more impressive to be User No. 188? at wikipedia than Sysop at Conservapedia.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All these cases, TK's troubles, Phil Rayment, RJensen, RobS, not to mention those who quietly left on their own, Chip Peterson, Geof Plourde, Bert Schlossberg, show it is not simply a matter of ideological blocking. It's power-mad bullies and a lack of direction from the top that sanctions it. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kenny shits on mpr wigo

Capture bot seems tyo be borked so I've capped the entry in question here Oldusgitus (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be only that one. You can't read that cap, btw... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 08:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Try it now, reloaded in a larger form. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody with the proper user rights wanna baleet cpscreencap.png? I uploaded it in the proper place. I think.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Ace^ace 13:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ace, but you don't have delete rights, lol.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Leave me alone. just because my wikifu is crap doesn't mean you should hassle me. And yes, I have been in the pub all afterbnoon. Now I go to sulk. 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wo, hey, I actually need you here. Can you please delete the old one, now that it isn't necessary? BTW, it was your screenshot I used. I uploaded it straight from the RW URL.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberals and atheists believe the universe came from nothing? Since when is this a "liberal belief"? What about liberals would are Christians and creationists? Oh wait, creationism teaches the universe came to be Ex nihilo --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There goes the neighborhood

Ed Poor joins Ameriwiki^img. Any hope for that site is now lost.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He is also has an account at Rattional Wiki. Never been there, is it nice?--thunderstruck (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear at RattionalWiki people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. Ace^ace 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, not gonna lie, that was way funnier than it should be.--^talk 09:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, challenge accepted.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tonight, it's your turn to seduce me. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"If I don't see any examples of ideological censorship by the end of the month, I-" *jumps ship to Ameriwiki* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Years opposed to atheism: 34". I found this quip far more interesting. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I like how he misspells RationalWiki twice in different ways, and doesn't notice. I also enjoyed "Stuff to work on: scientific integrity". Indeed. 110.66.67.210 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He had to misspell it to get it through the filter. You can't write "RationalWiki" on CP. Scream!! (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace, you are one of the funniest people on this wiki. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quoting the Simpsons makes someone one of the funniest people on the wiki? -Lardashe

I don't watch TV. To me, and this is objective, Ace is one of the funniest. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed won't last long - h's no good at debating on sites where he doesn't have the banhammer. His visit to ASoK was equally brief. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Cosmodicy, a crucial American concern

Ameriwiki is doomed. Not only is it a haven for rejects like Rob and Ed; Google seems to favor its articles related to Maratreanism and "cosmodicy" over any of its on target-content. And our article is the second hit, increasing the likelihood that any well-intentioned potential editors will soon see the place as part of the CP-RW hate spiral. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cosmodicy is the problem for atheists of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil." LOL.. Who the fuck came up with that concept?!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Maratrean created the Cosmodicy article... on Ameriwiki, Conservapedia, RationalWiki, and even Wikipedia. --Sid (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Did he make it up himself? I'm no philosopher of religion, but I've never heard the term and haven't found a reference for it aside from the various wikis. Phiwum (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can head over to Cosmodicy and check out the references there. For what it's worth, the term at the very least exists - I didn't check beyond that because I'm still frowning at the "fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil" part. --Sid (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(Also, apologies to B♭maj7, but I moved the image slightly since it otherwise borks the indents of the following posts. --Sid (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Oh it's bollocks and anyone with half a brain and no delusions realises it. The fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil. Yeah, tell that to the prey of the parasitic wasp that is eaten alive from within that the universe is fundamentally 'good'. Tell that to the slug being eaten alive by the ground beetle, I'm sure they'll appreciate that the universe is fundamentally good as they slowly get their life munched away. And lets not get into the galaxies which are slowly being devoured by other galaxies destroying tens of millions of stars in the process. Only a moron could even begin to think the universe could give fucking shit about us or anyone and anything else. But then I suppose I've just indulged in a tautology really. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes , but what makes it insipid is that he tries to shift the burden on atheists to why there is "evil in the universe" by making the claim, without backing it up, that atheism asserts that the universe in itself is somehow "fundamentally good". Maybe there are a few atheists who say this, but no one I am aware of and it isn't a belief that's remotely common to atheism or secularism. I for one would state that the universe is fundamentally indifferent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean has made the same article on Wikipedia as well. Seems he likes the subject.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean is... how can I say this? A cock. --Longbow (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the universe is indifferent. The universe just is. And by the way, the correct spelling of his neologism should be Cosmidiocy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That would work too. Just there is no reason for non-theists to think there is some sort of "fundamental goodness" to the universe, and he is just trying to shift the burden as the question is normally a problem for theists since almost all claim their diety(s) are "good".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My recent concern with the relationship between atheism and cosmodicy comes from this article in the New Yorker, Is That All There Is?: Secularism and its discontents., James Wood, August 15, 2011, which I have to thank AD for bringing to my attention. Maybe you are right, that many atheists never ponder the question "Is it worth it all? Would it have been better if the universe had never existed?" — but as the beginning of that article makes clear, at least some do, and maybe more than you think. Now, as someone who has always been a fervid fan of Nietzsche, the concept was immediately familiar to me — but, seeing this commonality between that New Yorker article, and the works of Nietzsche, made me think, there must be a term for this — so I coined cosmodicy on analogy of theodicy, but was pleasantly surprised to discover the word already existed, with roughly the definition I intended — I suppose it is an obvious coinage. I was even more pleasantly surprised to find one philosopher (Mark Balto) had already linked the term to Nietzsche; and that some theological papers on the topic (e.g. J Matthew Ashley) had stated quite well my own insights into the relationship between atheism and cosmodicy—even though Ashley doesn't explicitly frame the issue as one of atheism, it seems to me the worldview he is addressing is the post-theological one of materialist atheism. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the assumption that it is a problem within atheism, it isn't though. There is no reason to think the universe, an entity with no conscious or self-awareness is "fundamentally good". The universe is indifferent to our plight, it is indifferent to the fact people do evil things, that horrible stuff happens to us; because as Khan put it very well, the universe just is. No, the problem of evil is a theistic one, theists claim their deities are good, often the pure, absolute, all-powerful standard of good, yet these same god(s) allow evil to happen, and appear completely indifferent to the plight of people. It is as if they don't exist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, to quote James Wood's article: I have a friend, an analytic philosopher and convinced atheist, who told me that she sometimes wakes in the middle of the night, anxiously turning over a series of ultimate questions: “How can it be that this world is the result of an accidental big bang? How could there be no design, no metaphysical purpose? Can it be that every life—beginning with my own, my husband’s, my child’s, and spreading outward—is cosmically irrelevant?” In the current intellectual climate, atheists are not supposed to have such thoughts. We are locked into our rival certainties—religiosity on one side, secularism on the other—and to confess to weakness on this order is like a registered Democrat wondering if she is really a Republican, or vice versa. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive house cleaning

Andy emasculates Kendoll^img and memory-holes Rob^img. I love it when Andy tries to make his wiki less embarrassing without actually criticising the people who fucked it up in the first place. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The magic of "trim" solves all problems, doesn't it? άλφα^Ταλκ 04:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

At least he's trying.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

At least he's not totally disconnected from reality, as ken is. I've grown fond of the little guy...--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He is when it comes to evolution, relativity, whether or not humor existed before Jesus... --Durbinator^Durbinating 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Timewarped Conservative?

Ken has finally found time to respond to some old talk page posts.

May 2011^img

Feb 2011^img

Sep 2008!^img

As you can see, he is indeed a very busy guy. It only seems like these responses come late so that the other fella has left the conversation and thus ceded any "points" Ken makes. Rather, he just now got around to responding. Phiwum (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Where the fuck is the discussion that was here yesterday?

The one where Bat-Boy was saying that Ken was right about bestiality and atheism? B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 14:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It was archived a bit ahead of schedule due to worsening trolling conditions. Röstigraben (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Should probably do the same for the "Moses" section, seeing as Fuckhead has managed to make it all about him and his fairy tale again. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of everything past my new header and the section is fine again/.--Mikalosa (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a last resort that shouldn't necessary if people would stop feeding the troll.--^talk 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor opens the memory hole

Having blocked RonLar for "trolling," everyone's favourite fat specky sysop burns the awkward facts^img. --Longbow (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But you'd be a liar and a commie to say there's ideological censorship on CP. I see bestiality gets the Ed Poor touch.^img --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no ideological censorship on CP, mainly because "he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future." Poor Ed is a cut-rate fascist and a waste of oxygen. --Longbow (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully he has time to stop by and create a completely useless red link^img<capture>. Maybe he's hoping that since it's glaringly obvious on the main page, someone will make an article out of it? How ridiculous is it to create an article named "legitimise homosexuality" anyway? άλφα^Ταλκ 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, as Ed creates <capture>another wonderful stub!^img άλφα^Ταλκ 15:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that Ed is now trying to make his bulky presence felt on Ameriwiki, too. Perhaps he should stop to consider that it was set up by people who didn't like the way CP was run and that, as one of the people responsible for CP's atmosphere of petty harrassment and censorship, a little humility might be in order. --Longbow (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RonLar, NEVER FORGET. "I don't see any ideological censorship" Poor censors RonLar and DavidZa, oh the irony (ideological since he refuses to address Ken's trolling). He isn't blocked from RW because he doesn't do (or hasn't done) jack shit. I hope to see Ameriwiki boot him and his response is to cry and whine on CP about it. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam has already thrown the first punch. Has anyone heard of a useful sysop that tells people to "try and figure it out" when it comes to abiding by the rules? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that RW isn't exactly known for handing down infinite blocks to every fool that comes along. We haven't even blocked Rob! άλφα^Ταλκ 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Ed's higher-than-normal level of douchebaggery. --Sid (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying what I think of Ed gets me in to trouble, so please interpret the following line of asterisks in the manner most pleasing to you. Ed Poor is a ******* ***** **************** ******* ****** ***** **** ********* * *** *** amd a half. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit to easy on him tbh. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So DavidZa gets blocked for "defending a troll," but CamilleT doesn't. I have a theory that Camille is being kept around on CP just so sysops can point to her as an example of allowing people they don't ideologically agree with on the site. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think ****** is going a bit far actually. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"Ed Poor is a reddish brown unindustrialized storage closet puffy with cheez-its & yoo hoo and a half"? I don't get it. Phiwum (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. "Ed Poor is a moronic idiot enthusiastically shaving Andy's balls with eagerness & hot luv." Well, that is a rather personal judgment, isn't it? You really have poor taste in saying something like that. Phiwum (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmph. "And a half" is killing me, dammit. Phiwum (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the amount of time you put in thinking about it, though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It was either that or be productive. Grading sucks. Phiwum (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We missed something

Soccer isn't a socialist sport anymore^img and nobody cares.^img --★uːʤɱ heretic 15:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I still have that screen capped in my pictures folder.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Need context... what screencap? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick! Someone get over there and "revert vandalism" or "revert censorship"! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Soccer+socialism. I screencapped it way back even before I was part of RW--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

UHM,I'd seen it but decided not to mention it to a) See how long it lasted and b) see I happen to agree. The fact that FOOTBALL (not fing soccer) was a working class sport when it was created as opposed to rugby (also known as american football albeit with some variations) was a rich mans sport is immaterial. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@Oldusgitus: I agree too, but I am pretty sure I saw Andy making "the point" that soccer is a socialist sport. The fact that it is standing there now for almost 5 days and nobody does anything, is further evidence that nobody on CP cares about CP anymore.

@brxbrx: That's amazingly not-commentworthy. (And I mean that in no way as insulting) --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And it's reverted...^img. άλφα^Ταλκ 17:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dance little puppet, dance for your masters. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't count. It was reverted by ColSharp, who created the account just yesterday. We only get "dance for your masters" points for commands obeyed by long-established editors, preferably admins. Phiwum (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Vain? Not much.

At least nobody can accuse Ed Poor of underestimating his own importance^img. --Longbow (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And back on CP^img, he's too chicken-shit to criticize Conservative by name. But if you need any changes or help guiding policy, he's your man! Phiwum (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you two saps don't know who you're talking about here. This is Ed Poor. Uncle Ed. He's user 188 on Wikipedia, y'know. Know what that means? It means he was the 188th user on wikipedia. Why, he practically built that site with his own two hands. Hundreds of thousands, no, millions of articles are all down solely to Ed. In fact, the entire concept of "wiki" was created by Ed back in the day when he mentioned, offhand, that he "liked those encyclopedia things". X Stickman (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he's a bit short of admirers at Ameriwiki, though. I feel for him. --Longbow (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that his article on Winona Ryder^img broke new ground in what counts as encyclopedic content. Whatever happened to "Two meters" anyway? Phiwum (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed's AmeriWiki user talk page is seriously cracking me up. The guy is effectively holding his own wiki hostage to force RW to bow to his demands:

• Now, if you can get all the "rats" to agree to stop the name-calling, I might be able to broker some sort of deal [re: putting Ken on a leash].

And I see he's back with his old "Block review = you apologize to the blocking sysop for your mistake" idiocy. God, I think that's the part of him I hate the most. He doesn't even consider that a block may not have been justified (see also his "Sid was trolling." remark on his CP user talk page - I'm almost willing to bet money that he can't produce evidence) and thus has no interest in "Why was I blocked?" questions. He assumes guilt and simply works from there. --Sid (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed gets a gentle reminder^img that Ameriwiki is not CP. --Longbow (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed strikes at ken

Deleting Bestiality and Britain^img because it annoyed other users--Mikalosa (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Credit where it's due. Is this as a result of discussion on his user page at Ameriwiki? Can't believe Ken won't revert it though. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he said he did it here after max harassed him about it^img--Mikalosa (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What ken really said: Bitch, this is MY article and you don' touch MY things.^img--Mikalosa (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll ain't gonna stand for none of Ed's editing by deletion shit. I wonder if Ed's going to care that his random decision was countermanded. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fairly certain Ed knew exactly that he'd be reverted, so no, I bet he won't care. This was just a token good-guy gesture to make people forget he recently banhammered RonLar, DavidZa, and BrentH for poking him. --Sid (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Poking him? Brain bleach, stat. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed is the next Rob.^img --★uːʤɱ socialist 22:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Max: DAMNIT KEN I AM NOT AN ATHEIST!^img. --Mikalosa (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't write parody this absurd. Unhealthily obsessed with bestiality vs. unhealthily obsessed with young girls. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed earns himself a new nickname

Ed "Legitimize Homosexuality"^img Poor. Actually, before long, I think we'll just be calling him The Nightman --Roofus (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed is just about the biggest closet case in the world. No one can hate gay people with that much bile without having a few repressed urges. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting discussion from Maddox concerning the pedosmile^img. Anyone else think Ed wouldn't look out of place in that gallery? --Longbow (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, MY NEIGHBORS A PEDO! I'm not leaving my house with out my glock again. Even though im 23 and really should have nothing to fear...BUT STILL!--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuckin atheists, why aren't you listening to Moses?

Obviously a message from ken to the Atheists here, why are you worshiping the one true god Conservapedia and it's Messenger Ken?^img ., and not The god Moses talked about? No word on how ken gets around the fact you don't believe in the God of Moses in the first place so his commands mean jack shit to you.--Mikalosa (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Whuh? Where's the bestiality? I mean, this is merely a rehashing of old essays with a blurb on Moses designed to allow Ken to infuriate the people here.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wowzaa, it is really amazing how fucking far gone Ken is now. And, by extension, I think we can close up shop on Conservapedia. TK couldn't do it, Andy tried but it is Ken who has now doomed the project. Interestingly as RW was a refuge from CP by a bunch of banned user CP has, ironically, become a response to RW. Ace^ace 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an impressive display of inept phrasing. I only got as far as 'Moses declared: “You shall have no other gods before Me..."' before I had to laugh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The little picture section is a monument to his trolling. It is almost like he is declaring "I can say whatever shit I like and no one can stop me". - π 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. "Atheism is a clown and does not know it." I forgot about that one. Even the wording makes me laugh. X Stickman (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll really is a sad, bitter little man isn't he?Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Trolling past this point

He does have a good point though — a lot of people here are really obsessed with him, and that makes them even sadder than he is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is he now, 47? Living on his own, still a virgin, turning CP into some bizarre fundie-obsessive kiddies' scrapbook, acting like some modern day Don Quixote tilting at atheist windmills. Trying to get our attention is now all he lives for. A sad character indeed. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know whether he is a virgin or not? You don't know him, you don't know anything about him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop defending him, you pathetic fart. --Longbow (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How about an end to the User:Conservative hatefest? The guy is far from perfect, but this website is just stalking and harassing him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How're we 'obsessed' with Ken? Sure, when we come on this website we might type a sentence or two about him - but I doubt that any of us spare him a single thought when walking through the street. RW isn't filled with articles like 'Ken and atheism and bestialty in regards to Sweden'. No-one spends twenty-hour long stints obsessively logging and analysing his every edit. Just because people comment doesn't mean they're obsessed - especially when the object of the attention is such an attention whore. Stalking and harassing? Give some examples. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just yesterday, I was envisioning him cheering on his Buffalo Bills wearing a moldy old OJ Simpson jersey. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So what if we're stalking and harrassing him? The cunt's earned it. Anyway he's obsessed with page hits and we're giving him exactly what he wants. Without RW, would ANYONE be reading his pathetic "articles"? --Longbow (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What bollocks you talk maratrean. You really do live in a completely different reality don't you and it's completely imaginary? Today I intend to go fly a private aircraft, then I may go out on the motorcycle and after that I will probably either continue trying to learn to play the piano, go to the pub (and drink less than yesterdsay don't worry my dear 'god' brxbrx) or do something else. At some stage I MAY check cp to see what is the latest drivel that ken has shat over there. What will kenny boy do except obsessively edit the same articles hundreds of times in a backwater blog on the internet in an effort to send message to RW editors? Obsessed? You have no f'in idea do you. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean is just trolling. ignore him. Ace^ace 09:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He seems touchingly protective of Ken. Maybe he knows something about Ken's virginity that we don't? --Longbow (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Trolling is what you call anyone willing to call out this site for what it is... anyone who dares to disagree with the groupthink... like the "trolls" who said the Emperor was wearing no clothes... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good analogy, considering that the Emperor was, in fact, not wearing any clothes. How's the foot?Remarcsd (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rem, I wish I knew how to do the facepalm gif. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Maratrean's accusation of RW being obsessed with Ken. But I do think that too much attention is being spent on him.

Some of us obviously think it's amusing to taunt him, to get him react in so many contradictory ways, to goad him into posting ever more ridiculous nonsense on CP, to big-up his imaginary standing on the internet, to mock his writing style....

It's essentially defending against his and by extension CP's idiocy by using mockery. Perfectly valid tactic. Claims about his virginity, while childish, are simply a WTF? reaction to seeing him edit CP obsessively with little more than rest breaks day after day after day. And if it's Ken who's producing the most crazy on CP at the moment, then it's Ken who's going to get most of the attention on WIGO.

However, it is obvious that Ken must be afflicted in some way. I don't mean that cruelly or in any way ad hom. But the evidence (such as it is from a looking at postings on a website) is pretty compelling. His affliction may be anything from being ill to being a few sandwiches short of a picnic to having a tenuous grip on reality to having an extremely over-inflated sense of his own status. Or all of the above.

In any case, I for one am uncomfortable with the more vicious mockery directed Ken's way. Even if he himself is often pretty nasty (and incidentally un-Christian as I understand it) in his criticisms of atheists, liberals, fat people, homosexuals and "evolutionists".

Stooping to his level is not big and it's not clever. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken seeks negative attention (just like Maratrean). It amuses some people to give it to him (just like with Maratrean). All parties seem to be getting what they want out of the exchange. Ho hum. Godspeed (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want negative attention. I want people to realise their mistakes — or at least respond with some serious rational argument, which is something they are generally not very good at. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, pimping a made-up religion featuring a giant bat at a website where atheism (or at least rationalism) is the predominant religious viewpoint is part of a grand scheme to make people realize their mistakes? It's not just simply inviting mockery? You honestly expected people here to engage seriously with "Maratreanism"? Godspeed (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because they claim to be rational, and if you are really rational, you will take all ideas seriously — you will evaluate ideas and arguments in detail before dismissing them, and always be open to new lines of argument, which you had not considered before, which might prove you wrong. That does not describe many editors of this site, however — many seem to adhere to the kind of doctrinaire atheism which isn't interested in rational argument or debate with the religious, just ridicule. Their claims of rational superiority are just empty posturing, for they talk the talk but will not walk the walk. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the giant bat was always a nursery rhyme style tale, like "Humpty Dumpty", not a doctrine of my religion (these were but tales which he told for the amusement of children, to quote the very first version of the relevant article on my wiki). It is only people here who have distorted it into being something else. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that everyone has evaluated your "religion" - this takes about ten seconds - and dismissed it as attention-seeking made-up bullshit? --Longbow (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If all the time you've spent on evaluating it is ten seconds, then you haven't seriously evaluated it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is there to evaluate? It's a religion that you made up. Ten seconds is being generous. --Longbow (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could try reading some of my essays, and engage with the arguments therein. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Essays about stuff you made up? Why bother? Maratreanism is not a real religion and isn't worth wasting time on. --Longbow (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has time to evaluate every idea with the sort of thoroughness you expect to be accorded your religion. It is impractical and unrealistic to expect Maratreanism to be somehow elevated in stature above any other crackpot idea. Ideas that have a much longer history (such as homeopathy) or ideas that are perhaps based upon previously accepted ideas and engrained into society (such as Christianity), are rationally dealt with here.

Your religion is built on a premise that almost everyone here rejects with good reason. The rest of the contents of your essays are irrelevant. That you disagree is also irrelevant.

Just because your precious invented religion is mocked and ridiculed says nothing about the rationality of this site. Perhaps in another universe... Ajkgordon (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it sort of interesting that Maratrean is calling for an end to the persecution of poor Ken...when that would be quite possibly the worst punishment anyone could inflict on him. Seriously, Maratrean: take a good, long look at Ken's behavior. He doesn't suffer from the attention; he LIVES for it. Given the sheer amount of time he spends on edits which boil down to "Look at me, Rationalwiki! I'm saying things to make you mad! Ole! Ole! Ole!" I don't think it's stretching too far to say that it's the main source of pleasure in his life. And, yes, I think that's extremely sad, and, yes, I think Ken has serious, serious issues, which is why I generally don't respond to the guy, here or on Conservapedia.

But let's not pretend that he's suffering from all this "persecution." It's quite possibly the only attention he gets. --Phentari (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit an edit by ken that is NORMAL!!!!

My god^img--Mikalosa

*squint* What the fuck, you seem to be correct. O_o --Sid (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a normal Ken edit. I bet that this is intended to be some creepy red telephone message, like when he edited all the Sunzi and loudspeaker stuff a while back. Röstigraben (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So… is he reading about Genghis Khan to prepare himself for the time when the uprising army of conservative Christians give him control over their forces to conquer and burn all of Great Britain? --★uːʤɱ pervert 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he already has wet dreams about meeting^img him... --Sid (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain that this is the only future. @the rest: I know. I looked for other motives myself and was "wait... no way. ". Mut be a sign of the end of the world.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Too lazy to get the link, but he has a Ghengis Khan reference in his repertoire, the whole "User:Conservative, what is best in life?" thing. He's riffing on that, albeit indirectly. Look for more in that vein in the next couple of days.B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, even if it is a red telephone message he managed to knit that message into the article in a constructive manner. That's really quite a good thing. --Opcn (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly after his brief ascent in to sanity, he's back pouring over google for any article vaguely relating to Europe and bestiality. I'd really hate to see what sites are turning up as he sweats over the keyboard, hunting for that perfect link that will destroy atheism forever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely it is pretty obvious what Ken was doing. It's a red telephone message aimed at me. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more Ed...

...and this^img time, I don't even know where to start...

...oh, wait, I do...

There. --Sid (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

She also gets shanked straight through both shoulders and even lifted up by the blades still inside her, and has a cockpit literally explode in her face exposing her to the vacuum of space, and she even crashes a shuttle straight through a mountain and at the end of all that she's walking around smiling and laughing after receiving no medical treatment at all, and yet what Ed focuses on is that she smiles? I guess smiling women are something Ed doesn't see a lot. BAM. X Stickman (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually as a stub, it's pretty accurate.

If you agree that militaristic fascism is "quintessentially conservative", and that the film was intentionally a parody of the book. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly an admission of parody or a lame attempt at a joke - particularly the use of the word "quintessentially", no one uses quintessentially seriously. It just doesn't happen. IIRC, the book is actually more open about the government being incredibly fascist and the film tries to keep the whole Nazi vibe quite muted by comparison. So we assume either he isn't aware of this (plausible), or is aware of it and using it as parody/satire (also plausible). ADK^{...I'll riot your gelato!} 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have recently re-read the book, I don't think their government really is incredibly fascist. It's no liberal utopia of course, and fear of communism runs through everything - but do you even remember the name of the glorious leader? There should be a glorious leader in a fascist regime, and the world of Starship Troopers instead talks about people grokking the importance of voting if they've seen military service. No point voting in a fascist country, you can't vote for anybody except the fascists. Some critics say that with the franchise restricted to ex-servicemen there is no reason for them ever to let anyone else vote so it's fascist for that reason. But this thinking would apply just as well, over the past few centuries of US history, to the poor, women, young adults, and blacks. If Rico wants to vote for people who will relax the restrictions on the franchise, it appears he is free both to do so and to advocate that others do too.

If you're a roleplayer and like the imagery (power suits, bug-eyed monsters, spaceships) of Starship Troopers, I categorically recommend Greg Hutton's game "3:16 Carnage Among The Stars". You can have fun splattering green-blooded reptoids... or fragging a disliked colleague, but then slowly you have to face up to the big picture: Why the hell are you out here, doing this? The answers are not pleasant. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Ed, he's having a real hard time at Ameriwiki. Everyone there seems to be against him, even George. In fact, George told Ed to submit a writing plan. P-Foster is taunting him to create Two Meters there and SamCoulter got in a war with him. I wonder how long until George finally bans his ass.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That made my day. lol --Roofus (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely great. I love Starship Troopers. To be honest, I'm not sure why Ed wasn't more focused on the co-ed showers. It's also really amazing that he actually understood the movie. If a viewer wanted to, it's possible to take the movie seriously, as a conservative pro-war movie. I've read the book, although it didn't stick with me very well. It seemed unusually dry, and overly focused on the wrong aspects. -Lardashe

Now Ken^img is beating off on Ed's talkpage, immediately breaking two rules: reverting a sysop, and trolling. Poor Ed, what's he to do? Do his job on CP, or climb that ever-increasing uphill battle at Ameriwiki? I have no sympathy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is Ken's endgame?

Not only is ken shitting all over everything (see anywhere) but he just bad mouthed^img one of Andy's stupid pet projects. Maybe we are seeing his end game? --Opcn (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The fuck is with ken and being intelligent today?--Mikalosa (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he remembered his meds? Normally when you get Ken off his obsession subjects he is actually quite reasonable. --Opcn (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Andy will just ignore this, like he did when Ken said that "YMCA" and "Macho Man" were not conservative songs. If "meritorious editor" Conservative actually wants to make Andy angry and bring about a muy macho mano a mano showdown, he's gonna have to try harder than that.--Spud (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken seems to at have a better grasp of how CP works than Andy:

I have noticed that parodists like to try to suck up to Andy via his various projects

--Night Jaguar (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing sums up CP's paranoia better: suck up to Andy and agree with everything he does = parodist; criticise Andy and CP = troll. No wonder they have no serious editors yet. As for Ken's plan, I don't think there is one per se. I just think that after all the years of being ignored - hell he wasn't even in the SDG and they used to bitch about him there and they used to ignore him in TZB - he's suddenly realised he has a modicum of Teh Powahz and, in true CP sysop style, it's gone straight to his head. All we're seeing now is "I are Ken, see I roar! You complain, I keel you dead, like I did RobS!" --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You know I've been thinking this morning and I can easily see this being the start of an attempted putsch by ken. We know he thinks andy is easily led by parodists and we know he thinks his drivvle brings page views in, which I guess in his mind equates to having influence within the conservative movement. It would only be a small step for him to decide the project would be better off without andy at all and from there to open rebellion against andy's rule. Go ken, go. I think you'd be brilliant as the site's main sysop. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken as a bureaucrat would be awesome. I think he deserves it. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken already is the site's main sysop. He makes all the decisions. Nothing can be done without his approval. Damo^Hi 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that could work, though; Andy isn't just another sysop who can be quietly demoted, blocked, and oversighted (like Rob, or even PJR). What's Andy going to do, send Ken the information to access the server? I can't see Andy turning over the one thing in his life that he believes makes him worthwhile and something more than a dismal failure. άλφα^Ταλκ 12:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course there will be no active takeover. Not only would that be close to impossible, it would also be stupid. Right now is the perfect state for Ken: No responsibilities, absolute power, and a free platform to host his insanity on. Andy won't hand over the keys, but he doesn't have the ma-CHEESE-mo to throw out Ken, so he basically ends up paying the bills for Ken's growing insanity. --Sid (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that, and the fact is that Conservative is very busy with personal matters and will be devoting almost no time to CP for the foreseeable future. Phiwum (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He's officially busy til sometime in November per the blocking review committee discussion--Mikalosa (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken's #1!

on a search engine begining with G. Bestiality will soon be destroyed on the internet! --PsyGremlinTal! 14:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Based on internet averages^img, goodsearch.jp is visited more frequently by users who are in the age range 45-54, have no children, have no college education and browse this site from work."

--Longbow (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no, Ken only uses Alexa results when he can someone stretch them to justify his bizarre conclusions (women don't like Richard Dawkins, etc.). Otherwise they don't matter, or liberals are skewing the results, or... something. άλφα^Ταλκ 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's goodsearch.jp, and all "confidence" marks are low. Goodsearch.com^img users are over 65, about average in the have/don't have children category, and have at least some college. Confidence high. (I use both Goodsearch and iSearchiGive in order to give to a charity I'm involved with; and I'm an atheist, or at least an it-doesn't-much-matter-one-way-or-the-otherist. I'm too po' to give actual money.) Random surfer (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Conservapedia's fine articles occur in the "sponsored links" as well. For most search engines, a "sponsored link" is paid for by someone. Who the heck would pay to sponsor a CP link? Surely not Andy and co., right? Or does this fine engine have a novel notion of "sponsored"? Phiwum (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Goodsearch uses Yahoo as its actual search engine; whatever sponsors have signed up on Yahoo, that's what you get. Random surfer (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy gets on the dickish bandwagon

Is it that time of the month for all Conservapedians? Has their stupidity synchronised? Andy: Those Nobel idiots voted to give the prize to a dead guy^img! Except even a cursory glance at the linked article would tell you he died in the interval between their decision and the day the awards are distributed. He can't really be that stupid.... can he? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course he can. He runs Conservapedia, after all. --Longbow (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy's days are filled with misplaced anger. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see great opportunity here. Remember the prestigious international award for revolutionary scholarly accomplishment whose greatest problem was they were awarding it to a woman and a yellow guy? If they destroy the credibility of the Nobel prize by awarding it to dead people Andy has to step up and intervene. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, apparently 20 minutes after he posted that "news" he actually read the article^img. So now we have another rehearsal of Andy's more general complaint against the Nobel prize, that it isn't given to him due to prejudice against creationism. I guess admitting a mistake and just deleting it would be too much for Andy's ego to bear. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

mmm...Andy equivocates^img on "awarded a prize". It's funny that there's a rule for this specific situation. It's hilarious that Andy can't admit it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

LMAO: "Liberals refuse to give a Nobel Prize to anyone who criticizes liberal falsehoods like the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity, and instead the Nobel Prize in Medicine is given to a dead man against the rules." More proof that CP uses 'liberal' to mean anyone who disagrees with them. (Andy does seem to be more obsessed with prizes in math and science than actual math or science.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Prizes are how you tell who's winning. Or, they would be, but the damned Liberals keep thwarting the process and keeping them for themselves. Phiwum (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who forgot^img --Opcn (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, someone named "Ben Green" won it. We should write Mr. Green and ask if the honor has helped his career in any way. We could also ask about the "medal" itself: is it shiny? metal? wood? 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I'm almost disappointed that no one has used some variant of "If he's so good at medicine how come he's dead". That *really* strikes me as the kind of article Ken would write. X Stickman (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

'Atheism and Incest' strikes me as the kind of article Ken would write. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is the only one out there claiming that the Theory of Relativity is a "liberal falsehood"; I don't know anyone else outside of CP that makes any similar claim.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my theory is that he's talking about himself. After all Obama got a Nobel prize, why not meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the liberal-relativity conspiracy is so powerful that only Andy can see it.

Do any of his minons on CP even follow him on the liberal-relativity connection? Most seem content on leaving Andy to charge at that windmill alone . --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Virtually no one takes his side on this "issue". Of all the sysops, none voice any support of Andy's insistence that Relativity is wrong; it could very be they all disagree with him on this one issue but as Andy is Il Duce of Conservapedia, none are willing to directly challenge him on it. This leaves it up to Roger, who due to being Andy's sibling, is tolerated by Andy and quite possibly seen as "untouchable" by the other sysops (what noble wants to kill the brother of the king).

I believe that Andy's lone assistance that Relativity is dead wrong with logic such as this:

"Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold."

Where he has no evidence of whatsoever, weakens CP even more than Ken's crazy Bestiality spree, or his bizarre "atheists are fat, hur" binge.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not just Andy, they all avoid stepping on each other's crazy toes. Ken's essays, Ed's movie-blogging, Karajou's bird-spamming, Terry's link-whoring, JPatt's idiotic rants...none of these ever get called out by a fellow sysop, despite the extremely low likelihood that anyone besides the principal author will mistake them for quality contributions. That was also the reason for why Rob had to go, he'd broken the cardinal rule against criticizing another sysop or his work in public. Röstigraben (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My, oh my... Andy is already getting desperate: He has to resort to the old "Defend bullshit claim by declaring it a truism"^img tactic. --Sid (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a weird defense. It doesn't matter if they picked a dead man for the prize or not. It's a truism that they would do so, so the headline is totally right, regardless of what they actually did. Phiwum (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. Wasn't Andy born on the Dickish Bandwagon? DickTurpis (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Christie might not run after all??

Look, I don't know much about politics, but I understand that every time Christie has been asked, he has unequivocally stated that he will not run for President in 2012. But leave it to TerryH to set us straight. Despite all his denials, Christie won't run after all^img. Insightful commentary, I'm sure, but I didn't read how the man who says he won't run apparently won't run. Phiwum (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The last time he was asked, he directed the press to a two minute montage of him saying "no" over and over again. Pretty awesome. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But that was just playing coy, surely? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The great thing is they mentioned "X is to liberal to win", which prompted andy to RAISE his position, then the next one mentioned "isnt probably going to run"--Mikalosa (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. What a fascinating passive-aggressive site. Someone disses Christie, so of course Christie "trends" higher according to Andy and is more likely to run except... Oh, no he isn't! (says TerryH) It's the silliest attempt to argue with one another while pretending that there is no disagreement. Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Last week, he did say he would reconsider after being stalked for weeks by big Republican donors who won't take "no" for an answer. Apart from a very small crowd of journalists, nobody really expects his final decision to be any different from what he's repeatedly said, though. Röstigraben (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Andy^img, of course. That MPR item can even be read as a direct response to Andy's latest hyping^img. Röstigraben (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Atheists and charity

It's mighty funny that Conservative likes to talk about how uncharitable Atheists are. His favorite atheist, Peter Singer, is well-known for his extraordinary stand on so-called foreign aid charities. For Singer, it is simply wrong to live a life of relative luxury when we could do with less and save some of the lives of those who are starving, dying of curable disease, etc. (I say so-called charity, because giving to these organizations is not charity on Singer's view, but rather a duty it is wrong not to do.) So, here we have an atheist with principles so stark that almost no living person (Christian or otherwise) fulfills his duty of helping his fellow man, a much more demanding moral duty than one can easily find in the Bible (I think).

Somehow, I doubt that Conservative will mention Singer's views on "charitable" donations. Better to talk about bestiality.

For the record, I have no idea whether Singer is an exemplar of his own moral judgments. I don't know anything about his personal life, nor is it relevant to understanding his arguments about what moral duty requires. Phiwum (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I always explain the fact the atheists "don't do" as much crap as the christians in the fact that the christians already have. "The Christians built a hospital in X location? Wonderful! What, im terrible for not building one there? Why should I, they already built one, two would be redundant"--Mikalosa (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you should build a hospital even when it's not needed. That's what 900-foot Jesus advises and it worked out just swell for Oral. Phiwum (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anwar Al-awlaki

I dislike the wording of the WIGO. Jpatt has a point, his MPR doesn't show outrage. It clearly lists Al-awlaki as an Al-queida leader. I personally don't think he was super important as a planner and leader but more as a preacher. He was certainly a bad dude, but I'd rather bad dudes lived than we tore down our due process protections in order to turn them into dead bad dudes. I will admit a little twinge of irony that the least due process loving place on earth (conservapedia) is upset over a due process issue, but it's still a real issue. --Opcn (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite on topic but: I now live in a country where the use of military force to conduct the extrajudicial execution of a citizen while that citizen is in a country against which we have not declared war is the new normal. I would liker to find the guy who lived across the street from me in 2008 who had an "Obama/Peace" sign on his front lawn and beat him around the head and neck with it. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 04:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what the beef here is. If it's hypocrisy, I guess a) clarify and b) link to where he was all for executing US citizens w/out due process. As it stands, this ought to horrify any Americans here as being at least as bad as any of Bush's offenses. 66.241.90.110 (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the BoN. This was not a cop shooting an armed suspect in a dark alley, or a soldier shooting an insurgent in battle, or an asshole becoming collateral damage in a legitimate military operation; this was an execution. Executing your own natural born citizens without trial, without even formal charges, without in fact any kind of judicial supervision at all? Wouldn't this have been considered murder just a few years ago, or at least unconstitutional? Didn't you hang a fairly large number of Germans and Japanese for shit like this? Much as I hate to say this, JPatt is right to be outraged because an outrage is what this is.

Worst. Wigo. Ever. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say that I don't see a problem with it. Al Awlaki was an open member of al Qaeda, which has basically declared war on the USA. I don't see any need to waste money on a trial, which carries certain risks anyway. I know that US and European citizens caught fighting with the Taliban are generally shot on capture by ISAF, and this is just the same, only a bit more high profile. --Longbow (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

US and European citizens caught fighting with the Taliban are generally shot on capture by ISAF,^{[citation needed]} Godspeed (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If they surrender and are captured, then shooting them ("summary execution") is a war crime. However, given the marytrdom complex most of these people have, I doubt many of them would be willing surrender, they would rather die fighting, so they end up killed. But if they were to surrender, it would be a war crime to shoot them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your disdain for due process and habeas corpus, you don't have a problem with conducting a military operation against a country with which a state of war does not exist? ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 12:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The fucker had to go, he knew the score. He wasn't no Troy Davis...Ace^ace 12:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a problem with the killing of US or British citizens who were captured fighting as Taliban in Afghanistan? Not at all. For the Brits at least, summary execution is the only way they CAN be executed. --Longbow (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's illegal for the British to execute someone. It's illegal the same on Sunday as on every other day of the week, and in a warzone the same as any other place. If you capture somebody, you can hold them as a POW, or you can try them as a criminal or you can let them go. Right now it may seem like you can be smug and say "Who's going to stop us?" but remember that's what a bunch of fine upstanding Germans said to themselves. They were hung, the modern International Court doesn't hang people, but it will lock them away and lose the key. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you capture one of your own nationals fighting with the enemy there's no requirement to treat him as a POW, and if you capture them in Afghanistan they obviously don't have any protection under their national law. Captured Afghan Taliban are insurgents and entitled to due process under Afghan law, but "foreign fighters" are essentially mercenaries and shooting them out of hand is not an issue. --Longbow (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the three options. Inventing nice words for a fourth option doesn't make it legal. The same technique of making nice words for a fourth option works for everybody, which is why it's not allowed for anybody. We can be "foreign fighters" or "infidels" or "aliens" or "defilers", it doesn't matter what kind of gloss you put on it. Historically we've even tried declaring the enemy non-human. You say "obviously don't have any protection under their national law". But the treaties aren't written that way, not like the US constitution that lets men rot forever without trial so long as it's not on US soil. The British state can't execute people, whether it's in a prison block in England or on a battlefield in Afghanistan. It has renounced that power, just as it once renounced the power to enslave people. And because the state can't do it, it can't authorise its troops to do it either, any British soldier who executes a captured fighter, no matter their POW status, is breaking the law. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, British law is irrelevant here. Even if Parliament passed a law authorizing British soldiers to execute soldiers, that would still violate the Geneva conventions, to which Britain is a signatory. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions only apply to legal combatants of the belligerent states and to non-combatants. Someone found in Kandahar with an AK and a British passport doesn't fit either category and is basically shit out of luck. And after JW Lindh's involvement in the Qal'i Jangi uprising, a US passport isn't going to impress ISAF much either. Look, it's really not hard: if you don't want to get shot, don't travel to Afghanistan and sign up with a bunch of murderous fanatical thugs. Simples. --Longbow (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong on one point: England hasn't "renounced that power" - there's no way for an English parliament to do that. There's a long-standing principle of English law that "no parliament may bind its successors", which means that any law passed by one parliament may be undone by a later one. While there are a few cases where undoing previous laws would be problematic at best, the principle remains. Re-instating the death penalty doesn't even register on a "problematic" scale. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Er, except the UK would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe. Which would be problematic. Not impossible but very problematic. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but which part of "no parliament may bind its successors" do you not understand? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand all of it. Which bit of "problematic" do you not understand? To re-instate the death penalty, the UK would have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (which expressly forbids capital punishment even in war), which would mean leaving the Council of Europe, which would probably also mean leaving the EU. I only disagree with you saying that re-instating the death penalty would not be problematic. The rest, agreed. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the death penalty isn't relevant to the shooting of UK or US nationals caught fighting with the Taliban, because that's not an execution. They're not entitled to POW status, troops don't have the power to arrest them for treason (or anything else) and clearly they can't be turned loose, so their deaths are effectively deaths in combat in the course of a war which they had no legal right to be fighting in anyway. The Taliban DO have a right to fight (as long as they obey the rules, which they don't) but disaffected scrotes from Washington, DC or Bradford DON'T, and there's no point in crying about it when they get shot. It isn't actually illegal to shoot them, so by default it's fine. --Longbow (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No future binding is pure pragmatism. Binding a future parliament is futile, we can start over at any time and loose any bindings. But we don't, that's pragmatism again. As to Longbow, if I say "Shooting Longbow in the face and burning the corpse is legal" that doesn't make it legal, do you see how this works? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously your definition of "problematic" differs from mine. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all to do with context, isn't it? Shooting me in the face and burning my body would be perfectly legal if I was an illegal combatant fighting against my own country, but becomes murder if you do it in the street because my T-shirt offends you. Anyway, what's the big deal? They're only fucking jihadis anyway. --Longbow (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the answer to my question is "No". As to "They're only fucking jihadis anyway" well I think you're illustrating my point. try that sentence again, "Longbow is only a fucking jihadi". Is it legal to kill you now? I've said (what you believe are) the magic words. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

THIS. It is the hypocrisy of it all. We all know that if this was some conservative Republican administration, CP would be openly celebrating the death of this Al-Qaida operative. Their personal hatred for the current president is so deep that he can not possibly do anything right, even if its actions they would otherwise wholeheartedly endorse without reservation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is really unfortunate that CP and conservatives in general discovered the concept of due process exactly the same moment they lost the Presidency. But it has to be admitted that (a) most conservatives aren't really so upset about this and there's not a general outcry, barring the small (but vocal) libertarian segment, and (b) the fact that this is suddenly a priority for them doesn't make it any less important on its own merits. The fact that the President can unilaterally declare a person an enemy combatant in a pseudowar, and then unilaterally have them killed without further process or habeas corpus, is a very bad thing. It is a gross extension of executive power, part of the creep that has been in action basically since the enactment of the Constitution. It is also extra-legal - there is no option of redress at any point. The lawsuit by this fellow's father, that sought to enjoin a writ of heabeas corpus, was simply dismissed as covered by national security secrecy.

Obama is a much more effective proponent of Bush-era national security policies. He is actually competent, and now the leadership and members of Al Q are falling all over the place. But his competence makes the policies no less reprehensible.--^talk 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised the headline wasn't "Obama murders young religious conservative leader." Stile4aly (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can determine, most conservatives supported this action; the one big exception is Ron Paul, but at least he is consistent in his views towards the War on Terror. CP's views did a 180, not because of some sudden realization after some deep introspection, but because the current occupant of the White House has a D after his name, and has the "Muslim name" of Obama; that is the only reason. Also we need to remember that Conservapedia does in no way, represent mainstream conservative political thought in America.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, crazy ass right wingers seem to support this. What I find strange is that Cain seems to be jumping on the bandwagon to bash this murder, even though his strong base of right wingers isn't. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy trims away...

... all these annoying^img questions^img. Sigh. The only difference between Ed Poor and Andy: Ed is looking for a reason to ignore an inconvenient topic, Andy doesn't need to have one - he just shuts his eyes larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy's cowardice is simply breathtaking. No point in saying anything though, he is very good at not seeing inconvenient things.--Damo^Hi 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether Andy is a coward or just lazy: he avoids doing actual work at all costs. Thus he isn't able to learn anything new (e.g., how a wiki works) or look behind the first hit in a google search. Ed is absolutely lazy, too. That's why he will be defeated by Ken....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I think its cowardice. He knows perfectly well that he should stop conservative's antics but he doesn't want a confrontation. He is too chicken to act so he just ignores it and hides any evidence of his wrongdoing. Ed's problem isn't laziness so much as delusions of absolute grandeur. Damo^Hi 11:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The one thing you can really compliment Ken on is his doggedness. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only is Andy trimming, he's oversighting the latest wandal (CowardAndy or something). Funny how a wandal can hit 30 articles with edit comments like "NIGGER SHIT FUCK FAG COCK SUCK" and all of it simply gets reverted, but calling out Andy is totally out of line and must be vaporized. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He's sending a message to sysops: (a) no change in the way things are done; (b) users posting there are trolls and possibly in 90/10 violation; (c) it is okay to revert other sysops comments, in this case, User:Conservative had no less than 8 comments reverted. Why isn't User:Conservqtive disciplined for trolling Andy's page? nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anger bear has a valentine for Human

Do I hear wedding bells^img? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. What the hell is he referring to? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo^img that Human is LeonardS is ColSharp? --Sid (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that'd be really embarrassing if he were some kind of idiot who had no idea how to interpret the data checkuser gave him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Beats me but it's fucking nuts. I doubt Huw's edited RW more than two dozen times this month and he sure as shit hasn't edited CP since he was permabanned without ceremony following the great RobS purge. Pst, Karaturd. Human had to use Tor and proxies because Andy blocked all of New Hampshire from even looking at CP. There's a pretty good chance that one of the actual troublemakers used the same IP. PS you're not very smart. 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I was GlennH, LeonardS and ColSharp, but never Human. BTW, has it ever occurred to that fucking throbber that if he'd stop banning people just for breathing there'd be no need to create socks? I've never actually vandalised anything at CP, just tried to gently point out some of their more howling fuckups. --Longbow (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why they (Karajou) must ban you. Their fuckups must not be known, only displayed. Every day. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's just how he rolls. I was JefferyA and I originally created that nice template at the bottom of every Conservative Dictionary page. He discovered that someone had used the same IP as me and blocked me, then deleted everything I'd contributed. Interestingly, he gave me a chance to apologize for whatever the other guy did, which I did. Karajou never bothered me again after that. --Roofus (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunches of my socks have been banned as LeonardS and Human. I was NicholasF most recently, and Karajou undid my 100% correct edits to the Alchemy article out of spite. --Opcn (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as ColSharp I fixed some extremely shitty punctuation in the "Militant atheism" article and the cretin reverted that, too. Any "encyclopaedia" with a knuckle-dragging fuckwit like that as a sysop has pretty much doomed itself. --Longbow (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to use a proxy, too, because my location came under attack after criticizing User:Conservative. Everytime I used it, I reported it to the private mailing list prior to make a record and to alert anyone who knew how to use Checkuser properly. But no one a CP knows how to read Checkuser properly, and they're not even aware innocent users have been blocked over the years because of Karajou's vendatta against a handful of users. Now, if Karajou actually created content that brought in traffic, as User:Conservative does, it would make sense to keep him around. But all he does is block thousands, if not millions, of innocent users, thinking he's protecting Andy's project. Interesting how 1014 users have been active the past 90 days, while 1500 individual blocks were handed out. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 18:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Same way TK did, I guess. He's got Andy convinced that all these people he's blocking are actively trying to harm the project. Either that or Andy just plain doesn't notice all the blocking (or is actively ignoring it). I don't think Andy actually cares much one way or the other about the "wiki" side of the project, he just expects it to carry on without him, so he leaves the management of that side up to other people (he probably thinks Ed is in charge of it). Andy himself just uses CP as his own blog, and he's obviously, blatantly not interested in debating his points, so seeing Karajou banning people who dare to ask him (Andy) questions is pleasing for him. As for the rest of the blocks, he just assumes other people know what's going on and can't/won't publicly disagree with them for reasons that have been rehearsed a lot on this board. X Stickman (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, plus he's a cunt. --Longbow (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything has already been mentioned, but I'd also like to point out that KJ doesn't know what a fascist is, on top of everything else he doesn't know. Human may be a dick, but he is not a fascist. That is all. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't care

What a delight it is to watch Ken basicly take a shit on any possible positive reputation he might have:

User: I would like to add to this article (Atheism and charity) and look, I have brought with me some sources. Could somebody unlock the page please?^img

Ken: Yeah, I don't think Bill Gates and his wife are atheists, actually his wife is a Christian, right?^img

User: Yeah, you are right about that. How about the other stuff?^img

Ken: *rave about atheism* Anyway, either you provide sources that go along with my bias and what I want the article to say or you won't be allowed to edit it.^img

Ok. So I was mildly offended with the whole Atheism and obesity stuff, simply because the logic was absurd — generally it was more facepalming than anything else. With the Atheism and bestiality stuff I thought he is really going off the rails there and now really nobody will take him seriously anymore. But now, that he openly admits to a heavy bias, lying about and rejection of facts and censorship, I simply feel offended as human being. The worst thing is, I actually would buy the idea that he is so far removed from reality, honesty and common sense that he believes to be, ehm, within the realm of all that.

This is pretty much one of those times where I wish I would belief in a god so I could pray that this guy is just a parodist and not really a human being. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 07:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I might be struck down for saying this, but a normal person might agree with Ken's primary claim. This article is about comparisons of per capita giving and the existence of "atheist charities" really is more or less irrelevant. So, Ken's admonition to keep the focus on the point of the article really makes certain sense.

Or it would, anyway, if this weren't said by User:Conservative, who has never worried about article focus before. The man discusses UFOs in an article on atheism and obesity, for Christ's sake. He adds the whole contents of every tangentially related article to each article he writes. Complaining that others should keep focused when they want to add information that conflicts with Ken's overarching point (which is "Atheists BAD") is, of course, obviously hypocritical. Phiwum (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken's lack of focus has to do with his fixation on SEO. He seems to think that if he crams EVERY article with EVERY random thought he has, sooner or later Google will wake up the fact that 1000s of articles are talking about atheism, bestiality and UFOs and he'll rocket up to first place on a search engine beginning with G. If we aren't there already, we're heading towards a state when Ken will create 100s of identical Atheism/Bestiality/Dawkins/Evolution/Sweden/Gay Bowel Disease articles, just with different names. And then atheism will be dead on the internet. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And he would be right if the article title was "Atheism and uncharitability", but it's "Atheism and charity". Instead of making an article that merely states facts and has the normal bias of a conservative writting it, we get this pithy little line: "If you could provide more data showing that atheists give less to charity per capita in various countries populations compared to the Christians in those countries that would be greatly appreciated and I am guessing that will be the case for every country you do research on." We all know what the "I'm guessing" part means here: "You better not make an argument that goes otherwise". Of course the sources are themself not noteworthy, but instead of asking for better data (comparison of numbers of organizations) he asks for the data he would like.

The article is completely onesided. An article named "Atheism and charity" should cover much more ground: Real statistics and how a high atheist population in a country change the country in terms of social welfare (Scandinavia anyone?). Famous or influential atheists on this matter and reasons why Atheists give less, for example because — and let's not kid ourselves here — most atheists are more left-wing than right-wing they don't try to keep the corpse alive with blood transfusions but try to change the fundamentals of the system and therefor are trying to fix the problem in the long run. But instead of anything that would constitute a good article we get a sentence full of stuff that has been refuted a thousand times: "Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable." and a heart-warming "I'm going to manipulate you right now" picture of a girl begging taken in one of the poorest and most religious countries on earth.

Sorry for the rant, there's just no way I could have made that any shorter. --★uːʤɱ federalist 13:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was with you until that bit where you say it's natural for liberals to let the poor suffer so they can change the system. Phiwum (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ehm... that comes out badly, but is recurring them in left-wing thought. Also "natural" might be the wrong word, they are trying, just in a different way (state welfare instead of charity). And to a degree it makes sense, because if the people don't suffer from an ill system, then they will think the system actually works. And I don't really think that the majority of liberals are atheists. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Man, Atheism is gonna be KILLED by QE

Just another topic im making about your impending doom from Question evilotion. When did this thing start again?--Mikalosa (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for it to go "full throttle".--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for it to make any impact whatsoever. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? They've called so many churches in Texas! Surely that means atheism will be coming to an end really shortly. I mean, the only problem churches were having in converting atheists is the lack of a list of canned questions about evolution to ask them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be surprised

But this^img does make me so. An encyclopedia has had a badly formed ref tag for TWO years since 2009^img and not only has it not been corrected but noone sems to have even noticed. Who wants to bet if my sock goes and corrects it then karajerk or jpatt will revert me? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need your help at CP, Human! Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The twat is absolutely convinced that I am Human. Personally I'm not so sure... --Longbow (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the red missing refs message only something that was introduced by a MW upgrade? So it was probably an unreferenced ref which nobody noticed at the time - and who visits any of those concise articles when there is nothing to be gleaned from them? Andy's homeskool lectures and Ken's drivel are all that matters any more. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This can't possibly be real

can it? Because if it is, it might just make a believer out of me. --Roofus (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish it were real. But it looks like a parodist. Then again, with Kara you never know. Shakedangle (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess not. Then again, nobody knew TK was gay either. Could be fun watching go over there... "You WILL delete this page, or face the full wrath of the LAW!" *froth* *froth* *rolls on floor* --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll go easy on the noob but this is very old and definite parody. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was old news; its been up there for a while and occasionally pointed back to on here. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm....^img "Roleplaying between fat furs also include sumo-like wrestling. However, unlike modern professional sumo there are no exclusion of women, though only men are preferred." --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dissonance

Oh, JPat. To support Obama or to support congressional Democrats?^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ameriwiki but from Ken

take a guess what article it is^img--Mikalosa (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Already deleted as vandalism. Phiwum (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Was that Ken proper or some parodist taking the piss? DickTurpis (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who knows. My favorite part about that article was it was literally the CP article, which left a god awful amount of red links.--Mikalosa (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wonder if George will hit him with the banhammer, like he said he would.^img -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

your a bit late love^img--Mikalosa (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

American=/=Conservative. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bull. CP User:Conservative is not active at Ameriwiki. It's all socks of Ace/Mikalos (who, incidentally, started this discussion thread). nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, for a while I didn't believe your story about Ace and Mikalos being the same person, because it seemed crazy and nonsensical at first. However, the more you keep mentioning it, the more I think that it's totally plausible. Keep it up! (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A new CP manoeuvre

I think we've just observed a new tactic, joining the distinguished ranks of the Schlafly Rearguard and the Rob Smith Idiot Grin. Now introducing the Kendoll Cascade. Kendoll, incapable of demonstrating intelligence or foresight, only reacts to his immediate stimuli and his preprogrammed ideas. This results in a cascade of unrelated refutations when he's repeatedly proved wrong about everything he ever says.

Peon: Your Britain and Bestiality article is a load of horseshit^img.
Kendoll: S'not bullshit! Look at this bestial British farmer!^img
Peon: That's an Oregonian farmer, Kendoll. You fucking moron.^img
Kendoll: Yeah, because Oregon is LIBERAL!^img
Peon: So liberal that they've outlawed bestiality^img.
Kendoll: Liberals don't intend to obey laws!^img

He really is about as intelligent as Eliza. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Last comment is by Karajou, actually. DickTurpis (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? They're both cunts. --Longbow (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No argument there. DickTurpis (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, my funny is ruined :( --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think there would be. Karajou strikes me as the sort of brainless thug who just stands around drooling until he finds a master with a cause he can serve. Right now the master is Ken and the cause is bestiality. I bet his mother is proud. --Longbow (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The karajou / conservative alliance makes me chuckle. I've gotta say, out of all the things I expected CP to do over the last few years, this is one thing I did not at all see coming. X Stickman (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The poor guy has no one left to defend. Andy is silent. Ed is so catastrophically stupid that he only sees what he wants, and everything he sees is fine. Jpatt is perfectly capable of responding in cryptic sentence fragments on his own. Terry doesn't give a fuck. Karajou has proven himself incapable of being his own man, so it's not like he needs to defend himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially cute when Karajou deletes^img inconvenient questions on one of Conservative's pet projects. Since ColSharp was blocked as a troll, no reason to acknowledge, much less answer, any questions he's raised. Phiwum (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This shit^img is the best. Nothing but pure, impotent rage. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I seeing that right? Karajerk went back and reverted ColSharp's correction of typos just because he offered some stats that might upset Ken?? Holy fucking shit. --Longbow (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You read that right, it is pettiness laid bare for all to see. Also reading the series of posts linked by the OP; never have I seen so many red herrings and obfuscations used to deflect from legitimate questions users bring up.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The generous interpretation is that he simply didn't bother to read his contributions and just reverted them under the assumption that CP was okay before so it will be okay with out the improvements. --Opcn (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Yeah? Well conservatives don't recycle."^img Who wants to bet this ends with a linkwhore to one of his articles about charity.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that was from our old pal Kettleticket. Maybe if we say his name enough times he'll appear. DickTurpis (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Recycling is for socialists. Breaking socialist laws isn't really breaking the law. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This new Kara x Ken pairing is pretty mind-boggling. Kara has had nothing good to say about Ken ever, even buying into the thought that Ken is the "notorious internet troll, kdbuffalo." I can only think, now that Ken is trolling his nipples off and Karajerk is defending him, is that Kara thinks it more important for CP to portray a "united front" than have shit smeared all over it. I did try and ask him nicely, but all I got in return was, "Gaarr!! Proven liar! Argh! Argleblarge! You're protecting filthy atheists who want to have sex with animals! garrrr!" <insert sounds of somebody foaming at the mouth and rolling on the floor> I'm starting to wonder if everybody's favourite swabbie isn't the deep-seated parodist the soopah seekrit e-mails have been talking about... --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

GUYS you are missing the point! There are GOATS on that page! LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A marvelous September 2011

	With more than 15,000 revisions* (some 13,400 edits** still visible), Conservapedia has seen the busiest month since Feb 2008!
	Andy Schlafly was particularly impressive: his number of more than 1,900 revisions is the second best in his record, only surpassed by more than 2,000 edits in July 2007. So why wasn't mainpageleft all over this? No number of new records? Not even the numbers of edits and page-views are updated... And one didn't get the feeling that Andy was very present at his blog, monitoring any detail and contributing to every debate.
	So, what happened? September 2011 was a spring for vandals. 2,500 of the 15,000 revisions were actually reverts, so that less than 10,000 real edits were made. Andy personally reverted more than 1,300 entries. His remaining 600 edits were mostly spent on his World History Project. That's why the presence of the leader felt like absence...

On a (somewhat) more positive note: Conservative is now able to use revision revert instead of the preview button. That is slightly less intrusive than deleting whole pages, and the percentage of deleted revisions dropped to 10% for Sep 2011 (so far), but it is still fricking madness! (Andy, please, please, make him a bureaucrat: remember, CP is a meritocracy, expertise doesn't play a role...)

---

^*,^**: generally, I try to use revision for any entry made to Conservapedia and edit for the still accessible (i.e. not deleted) revisions.

---

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I do a little work with figures and numbers and junk and just when I feel a tinge of pride in what I've done, Larron comes along and takes a huge shit on all of my numerical accomplishments. Good work by the way X Stickman (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I like how the third graph clearly shows CP has become just Andy and Ken's Crazy Blog. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So Andy revert more than half of all vandalism. C'mon, CP is a meritocracy, there's room to move up. And some of Senior sysops aren't pulling their weight, are burnt out, or don't care anymore. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The end of CP?

Do you know, I think I actually feel sorry for Andy. He had a nice idea for teaching his home-skoolers some useful computing skills and learning all sorts of stuff, and had the Schlafly family money to put it into action. And he's ruined the whole thing through his total lack of leadership skill as well as complete stupidities like the Conservative Bible Project, to the point where the whole thing has become a blog for one complete weirdo with nothing constructive to say. If I were Andy now, I'd take a deep breath, re-launch CP as an encyclopedia written largely by and for his home-skoolers, forget the fuckwittage like CPB, tell Conservative, Karajou, Jpatt and their ilk to get lost until they've rediscovered their manners, tell people like us that we're welcome to comment (politely and factually) on talk pages but please would we leave mainpages alone unless we're going to be genuinely helpful, and invite conservative educators and academics to contribute to articles in home-skooler-friendly language. Is he capable of recognising he's made a mistake and taking decisive action to put things right? The Real James Brown (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if I were the sort of guy who used those animated emoticon thingies I'd have the one keeled over bawling with laughter at the prospect of Andy realizing and admitting a mistake. (Instead, for some reason, I'm the sort of guy who describes emoticons instead of using them.) DickTurpis (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All CP did was push me even further away from EVER joining the conservative movement. So, I hope he never realizes and admits his mistake and keeps CP up forever. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the sense that anything the likes of us do to try to damage CP is a mere pinprick compared to the comprehensive trashing it's getting from Kenny-boy. Does Andy really not have the brain-power to realise this? The Real James Brown (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Now I remember. Lenski. AJKG is right: the answer to the questions in my last two postings is 'no'. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about feeling sorry for him. As soon as he decided it was going to be a conservative replacement for wikipedia, that's the very second it came apart. Just having a wiki for homskollars to mess around in is a laudable project that could have prospered, despite Andy's complete lack of talent for teaching. Building an online encyclopaedia for wingnuts, well that was a predictable failure. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It WASNT for wingnuts though. thats just how it ended up being BECAUSE of andys major personality flaws--Mikalosa (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As long as Andy is willing to pay for the server costs each and every month, the site will stay, and Andy's can easily afford it. I did seriously consider giving the place a second short during Rob's short lived Perestroika on CP (including, to Rob's credit, ending my banishment). Once the hard-liners decided reform would open them to accountability and deposed Rob, I wasn't sure if I would give the place a shot again. What really sealed it for me is Ken's Bestiality spree; who in their right mind wants to be associated with that?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Who in his NON-right mind wants to be associated with that? How many editors has Ken driven away? And some of them had been there for years, faithfully backing Andy's every lunatic project. --Phentari (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this then?

In the not-too-distant future, night mode is enacted permanently under the weight of incessiant wandalism - no new members from this point. Some time after this, Ken succeeds in driving off everyone - including Karajou, who does a rob - except Andy Schlafly (obviously). Around this point five-year blocks begin to expire and Andy, who is rapidly losing interest in the site, panics and ensures (by some method) that nobody except him can edit. Ken, now locked out, petitions him by email - Andy does not reply. Andy only returns to the site to update MPR, and after no more than a year even that ceases. By this point, WIGO:CP is as busy as WIGO:CZ.

Or has somebody already guessed that? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, Conservapedia is Andy's only claim to fame: Andrew Schlafly, founder and leader of Conservapedia So he will keep it going until he gets another gig: making an utter fool out of himself (and his tea-partying friends) in various court-rooms springs to mind. Then (only my prophecy) he will make a Sanger (i.e., abandon his project without leaving adequate financial resources behind), stating that he - sadly - hasn't enough time for this valuable project left.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely Andy must look at this sort of thing - Ken-boy's latest all-night frenzy^img and think, "why the hell am I paying for this?!" The Real James Brown (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy's the kind of scumbag that doesn't do this shit for free. I'm sure the money is coming from some Schlafly wignut trust. Hell, he probably manages to pay himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RW

Here are the pics for RationalWiki:

• more than 400 logged- in editors contributed to RW over the last month - not to shabby
• I'm glad that there enough of us so that not everyone_{especially not me :-)} has to occupy him/herself with our current concern-trolls :-) I don't envy the moderators who have to actually read the comments I'm just skimming...
• Conservapedia is getting boring - at least for me (I'm not in into bestiality.) So, perhaps RW becoming even more omphaloskeptical is an answer to that: Citizendium just hasn't the stamina to replace CP in the long run...
• but rejoice: someone will always be wrong on the Internet...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the few times I've actually lol'd out loud/more Bestiality

Opening line: Washington state has the highest bestiality rates while only being the 13th highest population in the US^img oh ken. Then the only content is some poll that said "it has the second highest rate of non-religious people", and therefor, it MUST love bestiality. --Mikalosa (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's a lol'd? Ace^ace 03:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit like an ATM machine. --Damo^Hi 03:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx vomited money? Ace^ace 03:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Laughed out loud? I don't exactly ever use it in a past tense that often.--Mikalosa (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you look at the data he cites, its five whole cases. Given that Washington has 6.7 million people, that is hardly an epidemic, and it be hard to correlate such a low number to either Washington's high secular population or its theistic majority. I will even wager the majority, if not all, of those cases where by people who profess some level of theism of not Christian theism just based on Washington's 73% professed theist population if we make connections using Ken's research "methods".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"the highest bestiality rates while only being the 13th highest population" Reminds me of this: Fuzzy math: O'Reilly says higher Canadian life expectancy is "to be expected" because "we have 10 times as many people". O'Reilly: "That translates to 10 times as many accidents, crimes, down the line". Fuckin' rates, how do they work?

Also, as has been pointed out here before, many states don't have laws against bestiality so absolutely silly to compare every state based on bestiality convictions. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Conservative is right that, using the data set he points to, Washington appears to have both the highest overall, and the highest per capita, rate of bestiality in the US. But I agree with Night Jaguar, just because there are more reports of bestiality in Washington, doesn't necessarily mean it is really more common there — it could well be that it is most reported in Washington, but no more common there than elsewhere. And his attempts to link the rates of bestiality in Washington, to its religious or political makeup, strike me as rather silly — while I do think that liberals and/or atheists are more likely, as an abstract matter, to reject the idea that bestiality is immoral, I do not think that significantly translates into an increased tendency to actually engage in the practice. Oh, and BTW, people who think I agree with everything Conservative says, it should be clear from this comment I don't — I just believe in treating him fairly, and I don't start out by assuming everything he says is nonsense — I read his work with an open mind. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I am calling parodist on this guy. Ace^ace 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And, pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to be parodying? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You do sometimes come across like you could be some sort of humorous pedantic weirdo kind of character.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, I don't think anyone is arguing that Ken's numbers are wrong in this case, just that they are utterly meaningless. You can come up with any sort of numbers to try to prove anything you want. East Fuckleton has the third highest rates of vodka eyeballing even though it is 39th in population but ranks third in consumption of wasabi mustard, therefore eating wasabi mustard leads to people putting vodka in their eyes. It makes no sense, and in this case all reported cases of bestiality are so few as to be statistically meaningless. DickTurpis (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

First off you are taking the dribbling of man who's "research" would be rejected with an F if done for a High School paper, let alone university or pray tell actual professional level. No one takes his stuff seriously except perhaps his buddy Shock. It he post this anywhere but Conservapedia, it would be rejected outright for what it is, stringing together misinterpreted factoids to make an erroneous conclusion simply based on the fact he hates and wishes to maline a certain group of people (atheists).

Its only accepted on Conservapedia for the most selfish and cynical of reasons. Andy allows it only for the pageviews, which to him is everything, plus immense ego never allows him to admit a mistake. Karajou defends it only to protect his own position and powerbase. Ed ignores it or will only criticize without naming names because he doesn't want to be the next Rob. Terry ignores everything that doesn't bring revenue to his personal blog or involves his worship of Ayn Rand. JPatt just pretends it isn't there and focuses on his conspiracies.

Look at the facts and look at his conclusion. Washington has five reported cases of Bestiality, a number so small it likely doesn't say anything other than Washington's police are lucky or that more people are willing to call the authorities. Washington has 6,744,496 people (estimate), 74.3% which are adults (or 5,011,161 people), meaning from the numbers that is less than one out of a million adults (less than that as only 3 were convicted)[2] Washington has a 25% population that claims to have "no religion"[3], which is far from saying they are atheists or even non-theistic. This means 75% are theists of some organized religion, thus based on that percentage alone, one can make the claim that the chance of anyone convicted of this crime in Washington has a 3 to 1 shot of being a theist belonging to a particular faith (Biased? Sure, but no more than Ken's own conclusions). Should we then make the conclusion that most people who doink animals are religious? We may as well, it certainly wouldn't be more of a stretch or poorly researched insinuation than what Ken is doing; I did put in as much effort as he after all, (the difference is I wouldn't claim this is nearly enough research, nor would I outright imply bestiality is tied to the overwhelming number of religious people in Washington, or anywhere else for that matter).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, South Dakota seems to have the highest per capita bestiality rate, with approximately 1 per 814,000 compared to Washington's 1 per 1.3 million. South Dakota ranks #5 in states with fewest non-religious people, thereby proving beyond a doubt that Christians fuck animals. DickTurpis (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else wonder why Ken isn't taking the bestiality project "full throttle"? Ken, you're so close to another viral clusterfuck. Don't stop. This could be huge. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How long would it take all the clickbots we can muster to make bestiality articles 9 of the top 10 most viewed at CP? DickTurpis (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You would have to be a complete half-wit to read anything Conservative writes "with an open mind". Everything he has written for five years has been drivel, literally without exception, so no, I don't think I will treat it as if it merits impartial consideration.

When the first few episodes of a programme are bilge, I stop watching. I don't keep tuning in every week to see if it will suddenly get good. Who has the time? Who has the energy?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, there were a couple times (literally 1 or 2) in which Ken was the voice of reason at CP. Yeah, it put us all in a collective state of shock, but it happened. I forget what it was. Maybe him disagreeing with Andy's "Obama is a secret Muslim" or something? Anyone else recall that? DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

His finest hour was probably when he rained on TK's "Let's nuke the Middle East!" parade. Other than that, I dunno. But he's much less hung up on liberals in general than other CP sysops - he cares only about the Christianity vs. atheism divide, the other elements of conservative othodoxy seem to be rather unimportant to him. Röstigraben (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He was not a fan of the CBP either, but one swallow doesn't make a summer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Stopped clock ... Scream!! (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a look through the neutron bomb thing. It's almost surreal to see Bestiality Boy coming across as a voice of (relative) sanity. I wonder why he stopped taking his medications? --Longbow (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 3)I too can think like Ken (only with large amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, however.) I give you Conservatives and bestiality. Now Ken, come over and refute any of my facts. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I read your article charitably, and despite the problems you have expressing yourself you seem to have a valid point that conservatives fuck sheep. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My God, TK really was a dick, wasn't he? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that was less about TK being a dick and more about his plan to make CP look as bad as possible. Which worked. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. The TK persona then. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that trying to get CP to fail by pretending to be a loyal contributor also counts as being a dick. Phiwum (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just another quick question with regards to Ken

With regards to his fields of interest, am I the only one to imagine Ken as an obese closeted homosexual whose gerbil died under dubious circumstances? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt you are. --Longbow (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That's almost exactly what I've always assumed. WeaselNation (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I picture him as being about 5'3" and weighing 110 pounds, but other than that... DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

5'3 and 210 lbs, surely? You can't stay skinny on a diet of crisps, no matter how often you masturbate over your articles. Don't forget pasty white skin, from never having seen the sun. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes volunteer for the local Round Table's Christmas dinner delivery as the occasion doesn't mean anything to us and it's nice to see how much it does mean to the poorer and usually elderly residents of our local town. One house we visited called "Te Deum", was a skinny, shabby but clean, single old guy with furniture that my grandparents would have had back in the 40s, brown faded wallpaper and hand written bible verses hung all over the walls. I imagine Ken being like that except living in a more modern abode with internet access. I don't seen him as a closeted homosexual just as a sad single guy who is subconsciously envious of the sex that other guys are having (homo or hetero). As for stopping taking his meds, it's probably more a case of not always being able to afford them because he obviously has no real job. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I picture him as a rather sad, think rain man, hetero who DEARLY wants to find a woman but is unable to, not even a pro he can pay. He sees nasty atheists and others getting lovely ladies like Lala and can only 'rationalise' it with his atheist are gay pig fuckers and that's why Dawkins is married to Lala and I'm not meme. Seriously I don't think he's gay. Just fucked up.
Karajou on the other hand is so far into the closet he's into narnia and meeting the white 'queen' already.
and add what ghengis just said to mine and you get what I think ken is. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I picture him as tall, very thin and with a mustache and slight hare-lip. --Roofus (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for CP. Debate: Conservatives are the way they are because they're either on medication or have stopped taking the medication. The Real James Brown (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)