Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive269
AugustO pokes Andy[edit]
[1]img 
--★uːʤɱ sinner 14:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Might be my fault, I didn't realise there were links to screenshots next to the links to the pages, so I was back and forthing between here and there for the first week I was around. And I drew a bit of attention to it in college too, and one guy I know, Whelan, he lost the will to live after looking at about three pages. So, my bad. If seppuku on my part is in order, then I will oblige.
- Although, on the other hand, it's not that hard to break a record of 4. --
16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Remember the recent vandal waves? Yeah, they count, too. Just like CP's pageview records are mostly thanks to people laughing at them, CP's unique-visitors records are also thanks to vandals (and people laughing at CP). --Sid (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy: "No, I think the results in October and September were similar to November. I'll check later. The focus on this site is to learn and to teach, so I don't spend much time marveling at the traffic growth."img --Roofus (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Remember the recent vandal waves? Yeah, they count, too. Just like CP's pageview records are mostly thanks to people laughing at them, CP's unique-visitors records are also thanks to vandals (and people laughing at CP). --Sid (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Did CP get a software update?[edit]
Something seems ...different. Maybe it's just me. I checked their version page, but I don't know how to look if there's been a recent change. Also, is anybody 403'd anymore?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno about something seeming different without more clues. Also dunno if people are still 403'd, but I at least still run into sudden "taking too long to respond" errors, which seems to be a side effect of some misconfigured anti-DoS software. Usually happens when I've been rapidly opening a few too many tabs (to revert vandalism), but right now, I can barely open more than ONE page without timing out (even after getting a new IP from my ISP). Also, got a few more "500" style errors especially today. --Sid (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For Conservapedia Day: some thoughts on wigos (Part 1)[edit]
Perhaps the best thing which came out of Conservapedia was Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?. Since voting was introduced, more than 4,400 wigos were created and more than 225,000 votes were casted.
As these 50,000 votes from May 23, 2010 - Oct 3, 2010 indicate, there have always been runs of negative votes, either triggered by really crappy wigos, or representing individuals who vote all present wigos down.
Here are the 50,000 votes casted from Feb 2011 - Nov 2011: over the last 4,000 votes, someone developed an obsession with downvoting wigos. But that is only one factor which influences the final result of a vote: it shouldn't be ignored, though nothing should be done about it, IMO.
Over time, the final outcomes have become more extreme: Here you see the voting history of the wigos who got at least 125 votes. That happened only once in 2008, but is now fairly common
The ever increasing number of votes per wigo shows the continuing success of Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?.
But part of this increase is due to the fact that there are much less wigos than in earlier times...
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Do you make these graphs in R? (And they're excellent, btw). άλφαΤαλκ 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Superb! I especially like the voting history graph. ONE / TALK 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- @α:Thanks - yes, all graphs are done in R.
- @1: Thanks!
- larronsicut fur in nocte 16:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any way to use this data to rework Best of Conservapedia so that WIGOs are ranked according to how much better they do than other WIGOs from the same time period? It's dominated by more recent ones which are mostly shit, while the oldest ones got fewer votes just since there were fewer voters. The grading whining is nice, but honestly I don't even think it's even a top ten moment in CP history. Soon that page will be the only monument remaining to CP, and it seems fitting that the truly great moments should be there. It might be the only CP page worth actually fixing these days. --Benod (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- My observation is that the voting tends to follow trends. WIGOs that are already voted up tend to get voted up further, WIGOs that are voted down are further downvoted. You can do the experiment yourself. Compare a WIGO's score if you initially vote it up yourself after you submit it, leave it at a neutral 0 votes, or if you initially downvote it to -1. It's quite striking. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's very much correct; people like to follow popular opinion (even if everyone is anonymous). A way around it might be to actually hide the votes until voting is closed. But I don't think we should obsess over how the voting works. ONE / TALK 15:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't that clear cut: yes, the first vote is a predictor of the outcome: P(Neg. total vote|First vote = -1) ≈ 25%, while P(Neg. total vote|First vote = 1) ≈ 4%. But one would expect a similar outcome if people just were able to spot crap:
- I think that's very much correct; people like to follow popular opinion (even if everyone is anonymous). A way around it might be to actually hide the votes until voting is closed. But I don't think we should obsess over how the voting works. ONE / TALK 15:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- My observation is that the voting tends to follow trends. WIGOs that are already voted up tend to get voted up further, WIGOs that are voted down are further downvoted. You can do the experiment yourself. Compare a WIGO's score if you initially vote it up yourself after you submit it, leave it at a neutral 0 votes, or if you initially downvote it to -1. It's quite striking. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any way to use this data to rework Best of Conservapedia so that WIGOs are ranked according to how much better they do than other WIGOs from the same time period? It's dominated by more recent ones which are mostly shit, while the oldest ones got fewer votes just since there were fewer voters. The grading whining is nice, but honestly I don't even think it's even a top ten moment in CP history. Soon that page will be the only monument remaining to CP, and it seems fitting that the truly great moments should be there. It might be the only CP page worth actually fixing these days. --Benod (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Superb! I especially like the voting history graph. ONE / TALK 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Total vote neg. zero pos. Σ First vote -1 255 31 702 988 0 7 14 125 146 1 155 13 3115 3283 Σ 417 58 3942 4417
- A way around it might be to actually hide the votes until voting is closed That would annoy most readers and the number of votes would drop. But for many votes on the internet, you have to cast you vote first before the current result is presented to you. That could be an interesting approach.
- larronsicut fur in nocte 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
LArron these graphics you produce are really excellent. By almost any measure they're the best content on RW. Infoseek (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well thank you! I hope you keep enjoying them! larronsicut fur in nocte 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- You know that grammar and spelling are not my strong suit, but shouldn't it be "fewer wigos" rather than "less wigos"?--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I bow to your superior knowledge of the English language. Would less wigoing be acceptable?
- As English isn't may native language, I'm prone to make errors of spelling and grammar, and generally I'm thankful if those are corrected!
- larronsicut fur in nocte 10:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- You know that grammar and spelling are not my strong suit, but shouldn't it be "fewer wigos" rather than "less wigos"?--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For Conservapedia Day: some thoughts on wigos (Part 2)[edit]
Wigos are present at Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? for one to three months. They should be enumerated consecutively, but sometimes editors have problems with this concept: outliers show errors which got rectified, jumps in the graph indicate errors which are kept. We had some jumps into the 30,000s which can't be seen on this scale. But one thing is obvious: the automating of the numbering was a success!
Who creates the wigos? Most wigos were made by an anonymous user: 118.98.170.171 made exactly 1000 wigos! But as it did so in one single go, I just ignored it. How do I attribute a wigo to its creator? I look at the editor who made the revision in which the number of a wigo is mentioned for the first time. Generally this means that the editor added the wigo, but in some cases, someone just took care of the enumeration or botched it.
Does an experience in writing wigos guarantee good wigos? To a certain extend.
larronsicut fur in nocte 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, dear; I never knew I created that big a chunk of WIGOs. It must have been all those evenings when one trawl through Conservapedia recent changes could net you 10 WIGO-able moments.
ListenerXTalkerX 07:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is another view of all those who contributed to WIGO. The blue line indicates the overall average of results: it's surprisingly high larronsicut fur in nocte 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
For Conservapedia Day: some thoughts on wigos (Part 3)[edit]
Every vote is represented by a red dot, they are connected by a pink line: all is a little bit blurred
so let's look on 2011 only: now, some wigos who get votes after a very long period of inactivity are recognizable. IMO, voting on wigos shouldn't be allowed to last longer than two-three months.
Here, the manipulations in Nov 2011 are visible. And one can spot two main ways of voting (which become clearer in the next pic)
New wigos attract great numbers of voters: the history line is made just from red dots. OTOH, there are visitors who read quite a few of the wigos present and vote on all of them, resulting in vertical line of red dots on each of the wigo-histories.
Obviously, some use these stile of voting to vote every wigo down, as can be seen on Nov 15 and Nov 18.
By using various IPs, this process can be repeated in relatively short time. larronsicut fur in nocte 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For Conservapedia Day: some thoughts on wigos (Part 4)[edit]
Virtually all of the 4,400 wigos on this page address actions from sysops and editors at Conservapedia. But whose? Looking at the text alone, that isn't easy to calculate: nick-names, insults, or other variations of the names are used. So I took a different approach: Most of the wigos include links to diffs at Conservapedia - ≈ 6600 in total. I looked up the authors of the revisions at Conservapedia, a fairly straightforward way to answer the question whose...
But at least 42% of revisions where deleted, and many of those may have been authored by Ken.
I'm able to retrieve most of the deleted revisions since Aug 2011, that's why the number of unknown authors dropped in these months - and Ken's star is rising. E.g., in Sep 2011, 20 diff of Andy were posted, 17 of Ken and 21 diffs where created by other editors. --larronsicut fur in nocte 20:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Amazing! I'm glad that wigo vandal struck now... else we might not have had all this :D ONE / TALK 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Question Question Evolution![edit]
Somebody actually gets away with thisimg essay, and Ken's having a hard timeimg defending himself (to put it mildly). --Sid (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- He's made the mistake of not vanishing it before it evolved. Scream!! (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have to laugh at Ken's wild flailing. No! No! It's working - look an online community is forming... on the blog of the only other guy who seems to care... and only forming now after how many months? We can go back to ignoring Ken's little project, because we know it'll make Ken scream even louder. (and for it's worth, our article for QE ranks higher on Google than Ken's) --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find the whole Q?E! thing utterly boring; Ken's flogging a long-deceased pony. However, I notice that the essay Sid links to says "If it wasn't for the fact that these articles and essays were created by Ken" - what's the 'Wo/Man of Mystery'® going to do about that?
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- His usual shit: bleating "No true skeptic claims to know my name!" Of course EVERY true skeptic claims to know his name, but when did accuracy or truth ever worry Ken?--Longbow (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can't help but think this should be put on the main WIGO page before it gets burned by Kenny. It probably already has been burned, actually, but still. Might have been nice. -- 19:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's still there and even improved.img Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've WIGO'd it since the main actors were now all banned/blocked by Ken's loyal henchmen, meaning that the "debate" is pretty much over. Phew, for a second there, I thought that CP had lost its touch and now allowed people to actually voice criticism of admins! --Sid (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's still there and even improved.img Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can't help but think this should be put on the main WIGO page before it gets burned by Kenny. It probably already has been burned, actually, but still. Might have been nice. --
- His usual shit: bleating "No true skeptic claims to know my name!" Of course EVERY true skeptic claims to know his name, but when did accuracy or truth ever worry Ken?--Longbow (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find the whole Q?E! thing utterly boring; Ken's flogging a long-deceased pony. However, I notice that the essay Sid links to says "If it wasn't for the fact that these articles and essays were created by Ken" - what's the 'Wo/Man of Mystery'® going to do about that?
- I have to laugh at Ken's wild flailing. No! No! It's working - look an online community is forming... on the blog of the only other guy who seems to care... and only forming now after how many months? We can go back to ignoring Ken's little project, because we know it'll make Ken scream even louder. (and for it's worth, our article for QE ranks higher on Google than Ken's) --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
“”A zealous Question evolution! campaign volunteer is going to be doing videotaped man-on-the-street Question evolution! interviews (in Tennessee).
|
Seriously, I want to watch those - they'll be hysterical. I reminded of the clips where people couldn't tell Batman and George W saying apart. --PsyGremlin講話 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Do they think they're actually proving anything with this? Reminds me a bit of Penn and Teller's dihydrogen monoxide stunt, where they got people to sign a petition to ban... water. So what's this interview going to be like?
- Interviewer: "Hey there, do you think evolution is true?"
- John Doe: "Uh, sure, I guess?"
- Interviewer: "How did the DNA code originate?" (<-- Second question from the 15 Questions)
- John Doe: "..............what?"
- Interviewer: "The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?" (<-- Rest of the second question from that page)
- John Doe: "........................."
- Interviewer: "Can you answer the question?"
- John Doe: "No, because I'm not a fucking scien-"
- Interviewer: "VICTORY!"
- Maybe somebody should make a similar campaign against Creationism: "Are you a Christian? Do you think God created the universe? HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE STARLIGHT PROBLEM?????????" --Sid (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- You see sid, that's the problem, creationism isn't a science. No matter what evidence you find godidit is always the answer.--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ken's eeays compared to Soviet propaganda. #nserk#. MDB (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- You see sid, that's the problem, creationism isn't a science. No matter what evidence you find godidit is always the answer.--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars[edit]
Andy newest Insight: "Most sports stars are probably conservative."img --Sid (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know I'm a filthy foreigner, but I only know 1 name on Andy's list of the "greatest" - and there's no definite qualification of his conservativeness next to his name (Sampras). Hey Andy, what about the guy who won the TdF and then got booted because of drugs? what about all the steroid taking baseballers? Where's Ali in your list? Floyd, DiMaggio, Ruth, Bonds, Gretsky, Owens, Gehrig? Why are you as bad as the Morons - grabbing anybody you can and dragging them into your religion. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Andy you might be right with the "great conservative" stuff, but dude's name is Curt Schilling. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 13:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Basil d'Oliveira. Vijay Merchant. Great conservatives, both of them <insert irony here>. I'm Spartacus! 18:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC) PS If you don't know who either of these gentlemen were, read a reliable encyclopedia to find out...
- Dunno if even CP-heads will take this "sportsmen are probably conservative" crap seriously but just in case: the only reference I can find to Pete Sampras (probably the only person on Andy's list with a reputation outside the USA) being conservative is from a blog calling itself National Reform Society. Other so-called conservative celebrities names in the same blog are Neil Armstrong, who has shunned both ends of the political spectrum equally and Clint Eastwood, who has described himself variously as moderate or libertarian but not a conservative. The Reliable Encyclopedia, forsooth. That's enough research into Andy's fantasies for one day. I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Imran Khan, another non-conservative cricketer. But there you are - cricket. Mostly played by bolsheviks. Therefore not a sport, therefore Andy's right. I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy's a bit like the Mormon church in that regard. Once you're dead, he'll work diligently to baptise you in to the cult of Conservatism. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Imran Khan, another non-conservative cricketer. But there you are - cricket. Mostly played by bolsheviks. Therefore not a sport, therefore Andy's right. I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno if even CP-heads will take this "sportsmen are probably conservative" crap seriously but just in case: the only reference I can find to Pete Sampras (probably the only person on Andy's list with a reputation outside the USA) being conservative is from a blog calling itself National Reform Society. Other so-called conservative celebrities names in the same blog are Neil Armstrong, who has shunned both ends of the political spectrum equally and Clint Eastwood, who has described himself variously as moderate or libertarian but not a conservative. The Reliable Encyclopedia, forsooth. That's enough research into Andy's fantasies for one day. I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Basil d'Oliveira. Vijay Merchant. Great conservatives, both of them <insert irony here>. I'm Spartacus! 18:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC) PS If you don't know who either of these gentlemen were, read a reliable encyclopedia to find out...
- Wow, Andy you might be right with the "great conservative" stuff, but dude's name is Curt Schilling. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 13:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The stupid, it hurts![edit]
After reading this, I need pain killers.img --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ed's gonna have a Niemöller moment...[edit]
- First they came for the Darwinists,
- and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Darwinist.
- Then they came for Theistic Evolution,img
- and I was all "WTF, DUDE, THAT'S A FORM OF OLD EARTH CREATIONISM, THE STUFF I BELIEVE IN!"
Then again, Ed also didn't speak out against cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth, so I guess he really values his power more than his beliefs. *shrug* --Sid (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are rather large differences among the various schools of old-earth creationism. ListenerXTalkerX 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Newt is Number One!!1!!11!!![edit]
A big shift in the standings.img PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- A reaction to the Union-Leader's endorsement.--
talk 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, at least now, the prediction finally matches the "Proven right" entry again! ;) --Sid (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- So Newt "retook" the number 1 spot, was he in the number one spot at any point in time before? Can you retake something while taking it for the first time? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- He was, actually. The "proven right" entry picked this versionimg of the page, but I was too lazy to check who moved him there or how long he stayed. --Sid (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- So Newt "retook" the number 1 spot, was he in the number one spot at any point in time before? Can you retake something while taking it for the first time? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, at least now, the prediction finally matches the "Proven right" entry again! ;) --Sid (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Change to WIGO format[edit]
A lot of the time when I am reading the WIGO's it is a bit confusing as the entries run together and it takes a second too figure out which WIGO a line belongs too. Could we put a line between the WIGO's? Preferable something subtle and classy, like a line that is opaque in the middle and fades to transparency before it reaches the edges. What do you guys think? Infoseek (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have been having this problem too. I'm okay with it but I have no idea how to do it. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go to MY preferences and under Gadgets, tick
Draw a box around entriesyou get this this. - π 02:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh that's much better, thanks! Maybe we should consider defaulting it. Infoseek (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is fucking brilliant. I'm doing that straight away. Thank you π--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Love you Mr.π Senator Harrison (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is fucking brilliant. I'm doing that straight away. Thank you π--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh that's much better, thanks! Maybe we should consider defaulting it. Infoseek (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go to MY preferences and under Gadgets, tick
Yay JPratt![edit]
Now here is an editimg I can really get behind. JPratt restores the fabulous Counterexamples to Evolution article to its pristine "pre-troll" version. Just look at the quality of those counterexamples! Stunning. Now that is the sort of stuff that I read CP for. --Horace (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- You know, my parents always taught me not to laugh at retards. They never said anything about typing "HA HA" though...
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Those are... absolutely hysterical. Pure dross!!! Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mhhhh, tastes like concentrated idiocy. --Sid (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to decide with is my favorite, either the "For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it" idea or that "if evolution was true, other species would have religion" one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course Andy just piles on the stupidimg. — Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs
- Screw. That. I evolved a second kidney for good fucking reason and I'll need it soon enough.
17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I spat my soda all over my monitor when I read the section about how the human mouth perfectly fits the number of teeth human have. Nevermind that "form follows function" (or vice versa, whichever is more relevant), but apparently NOBODY ever gets their wisdom teeth removed or wears braces to correct abnormalities! -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- His reply is that wisdom teeth put pressure on the front teeth and "make them look crooked on television". So basically he's saying that they fit perfectly but at the same time they're made crooked. «-Bfa-» 22:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds an awful lot like shoehorning to me...literally, and figuratively...-- Seth Peck (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- His reply is that wisdom teeth put pressure on the front teeth and "make them look crooked on television". So basically he's saying that they fit perfectly but at the same time they're made crooked. «-Bfa-» 22:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have two kidneys, a liver, AND swollowed a brita filter because its the christmas season and I LIKE EGG NOG.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if Andy still has 2 kidneys. It would be pretty hypocritical if he hasn't donated one of his by now. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- But... donating is FOR LIBERALS SEEKING HANDOUTS! --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention very anti-Randian. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Know who else didn't donate a kidney? Jesus. Plus, I'm sure St REAGAN had both of his.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention very anti-Randian. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- But... donating is FOR LIBERALS SEEKING HANDOUTS! --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if Andy still has 2 kidneys. It would be pretty hypocritical if he hasn't donated one of his by now. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I spat my soda all over my monitor when I read the section about how the human mouth perfectly fits the number of teeth human have. Nevermind that "form follows function" (or vice versa, whichever is more relevant), but apparently NOBODY ever gets their wisdom teeth removed or wears braces to correct abnormalities! -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Screw. That. I evolved a second kidney for good fucking reason and I'll need it soon enough.
- Of course Andy just piles on the stupidimg. — Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs
- Trying to decide with is my favorite, either the "For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it" idea or that "if evolution was true, other species would have religion" one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mhhhh, tastes like concentrated idiocy. --Sid (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Those are... absolutely hysterical. Pure dross!!! Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Sports stars essay[edit]
Does Roger Staubach, of "Hail Mary pass" fame, not even rate a mention? 
ListenerXTalkerX 07:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder... I note they listed some who refused to play on the Sabbath. Will they include Sandy Koufax, who famously refused to pitch the opening game of the World Series, because it fell on Yom Kippur? MDB (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Meritocracy in action[edit]
- Anupam:img "Hey, Andy, User:AK signed up a few days ago and hasn't edited since then. He wants to copy his stuff from WP to here and says he needs edit rights."
- Andy:img "Of course! Request grantedimg since you're a senior editor!"
Though looking at the new guy's Wikipedia talk page (assuming Anupam is telling the truth), he'll fit right in... --Sid (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring? POV-pushing? He'll be an asset. I predict he'll be sysopped in a jiffy. – Nick Heer 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Goad[edit]
Can anyone goad Andy into the beauty of sunsets being poof of gOD? Splendid atheistic one here tonight. Scream!! (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, with a long enough pole. About two inches should do the trick, given what I know of Andy. Because sunsets are obviously proof of God, not the result of the sun penetrating the atmosphere at a shallow angle relative to you, thus meaning the light has to travel through more air to reach your perspective point resulting in the scattering of shorter wavelength light, which filters out the blue-through-yellow, depending on the angle the sun is at at the time, or rather, the angle it was at eight and a half minutes prior. Of course not! -- 20:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- What gets me is how they think that humans beings think the world around them is beautiful = goddidit. Because obviously evolution would have us think our surrounding environment is ugly, right? Flitzertalk to me :D 21:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ken's getting personal again[edit]
Essay: PZ Myers, is your wife an atheist?img
But let's not bother with the obvious idiocy and rather focus on one of the hard-hitting questions Ken asks PZ: "Also, why hasn't a major figure within the legal community who is an atheist ever published a work on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Indeed, that's a compelling question. --Sid (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- As compelling as the question "Why hasn't a god-believing member of the food service industry ever published a work about Santa Claus?" The idiocy is paramount, and I SO BADLY want to talk about it. But I think a more important question is: "What is the likelihood that PZ Myers will (a) read these questions, (b) take them seriously (as they're so horribly loaded), and (c) bother to respond?" -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but wouldn't it be wonderful if he did? I mean admittedly it would be like HMS Vanguard attacking a small leaky rowboat being rowed by a village idiot, but it would still be so cool to see the size of the slap-down that PZ could deliver. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Man the forward triple guns! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- yes but then we will see the same reaction that penn got: WHY ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO STOP THE GLOBAL FIRESTORM THAT BURNS DOWN THE HOUSE THAT IS ATHEISM (which apparently save the people living there from radon)!!!!!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can somebody explain to me why it is important for Ken that an atheist activists wife is also an atheist or a believer in something? I'm relatively sure a husband or future husband won't ramble wildly to his wife or future wife how dumb her believes are (and vice versa), so huh? Is this some kind of paternalistic thing with the salt & pepper of a submissive wife? Or is Ken just cuming hard everytime a theist isn't converted because of one "debate"? --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Proof atheism is in decline, along with proof that atheism is a turn off to woman. Also, cheap potshots at somebody who actually is successful. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Even Ken has some sense of shame; it's been deleted. MDB (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its right back up with a link on the main page left, so not that much shame. What is funny is that Ken is trying to make fun of atheists for what? Being so tolerant as to love and marry people who have religions beliefs? The ability to overcome such difference to form a bond of lifelong love? For having the freedom to marry people who believe different when it comes to gods and the supernatural (something Christians are forbidden by the Bible to do ala 2 Corinthians 6:14)? Respecting the beliefs of a spouse enough as to not attempt to convert them? Or is it the fact that unlike Ken, these people can actually get women to be interested in them?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- MDB, the only shame involved is Ken trying to hide the fact that he is spending so many editsimg on this particular taunt. --Sid (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Only distantly related - my father is an atheist, and my mom is a church organist. They've gotten along just fine (I think I heard two arguments in the 30 years I've been alive). He goes to church every week in her support. He's worked on the vestry. He provides support for their treasurer. -Lardashe
- If I may ask, what kind of church is it? That would be nothing unusual in a Unitarian church, for instance. MDB (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- My mom played a Presbyterian church for about 30 years, and now she's at an Episcopal church, with a nearly entirely black congregation. He's been much more active in this one than he was in the Presbyterian one, but that might just be because the Episcopal one is more disorganized. I think most adults grow up to realize that, unless these beliefs are forced on others, most people don't care what others believe. -Lardashe
- I know it'll never happen, but I'd love to PZ challenge Ken to a debate, just to watch Ken run screaming for cover. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd imagine he would wrap his acceptance up in so many impossible conditions that it wouldn't go anywhere. He would then claim victory. But yeah, it would never happen because Ken simply isn't on anyone's radar outside this place as far as I can gather. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know it'll never happen, but I'd love to PZ challenge Ken to a debate, just to watch Ken run screaming for cover. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- My mom played a Presbyterian church for about 30 years, and now she's at an Episcopal church, with a nearly entirely black congregation. He's been much more active in this one than he was in the Presbyterian one, but that might just be because the Episcopal one is more disorganized. I think most adults grow up to realize that, unless these beliefs are forced on others, most people don't care what others believe. -Lardashe
- If I may ask, what kind of church is it? That would be nothing unusual in a Unitarian church, for instance. MDB (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Only distantly related - my father is an atheist, and my mom is a church organist. They've gotten along just fine (I think I heard two arguments in the 30 years I've been alive). He goes to church every week in her support. He's worked on the vestry. He provides support for their treasurer. -Lardashe
- MDB, the only shame involved is Ken trying to hide the fact that he is spending so many editsimg on this particular taunt. --Sid (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its right back up with a link on the main page left, so not that much shame. What is funny is that Ken is trying to make fun of atheists for what? Being so tolerant as to love and marry people who have religions beliefs? The ability to overcome such difference to form a bond of lifelong love? For having the freedom to marry people who believe different when it comes to gods and the supernatural (something Christians are forbidden by the Bible to do ala 2 Corinthians 6:14)? Respecting the beliefs of a spouse enough as to not attempt to convert them? Or is it the fact that unlike Ken, these people can actually get women to be interested in them?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Even Ken has some sense of shame; it's been deleted. MDB (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Proof atheism is in decline, along with proof that atheism is a turn off to woman. Also, cheap potshots at somebody who actually is successful. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can somebody explain to me why it is important for Ken that an atheist activists wife is also an atheist or a believer in something? I'm relatively sure a husband or future husband won't ramble wildly to his wife or future wife how dumb her believes are (and vice versa), so huh? Is this some kind of paternalistic thing with the salt & pepper of a submissive wife? Or is Ken just cuming hard everytime a theist isn't converted because of one "debate"? --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- yes but then we will see the same reaction that penn got: WHY ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO STOP THE GLOBAL FIRESTORM THAT BURNS DOWN THE HOUSE THAT IS ATHEISM (which apparently save the people living there from radon)!!!!!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Man the forward triple guns! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but wouldn't it be wonderful if he did? I mean admittedly it would be like HMS Vanguard attacking a small leaky rowboat being rowed by a village idiot, but it would still be so cool to see the size of the slap-down that PZ could deliver. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Fricken ponies man![edit]
The hell is with all the ponies?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I myself prefer ponies to atheists. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, ponnies are tastier, and have less gristle. I hate that stuff.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Gristle? I think you mean fat. Obese fat. Obese atheist evolutionist fat. Phiwum (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the atheist is female I'd prefer to eat her, otherwise I'd take the pony and sell it. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone knows Twilight Sparkle is an atheist. :P--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The mere thought of discussing Twilight's religiousness is giving me a headache. XD Though I find the idea of "Dear Princess Celestia, are you an atheist? Here are 15 questions sun-raising rulers can't adequately answer! Faithfully yours, Twilight Sparkle" most amusing. --Sid (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Dear gentlepony at a certain royal city starting with C…" «-Bfa-» 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is coming awfully close to ruining broniehood for me. 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is coming awfully close to ruining broniehood for me.
- "Dear gentlepony at a certain royal city starting with C…" «-Bfa-» 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The mere thought of discussing Twilight's religiousness is giving me a headache. XD Though I find the idea of "Dear Princess Celestia, are you an atheist? Here are 15 questions sun-raising rulers can't adequately answer! Faithfully yours, Twilight Sparkle" most amusing. --Sid (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone knows Twilight Sparkle is an atheist. :P--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the atheist is female I'd prefer to eat her, otherwise I'd take the pony and sell it. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Gristle? I think you mean fat. Obese fat. Obese atheist evolutionist fat. Phiwum (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, ponnies are tastier, and have less gristle. I hate that stuff.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy...[edit]
...couldn't care less.img --larronsicut fur in nocte 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- At last! He has some shred of sense! -- 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Sysop pecking order[edit]
I always try to arrange the Newcomer's guide with sysops in their current pecking order. I know this is highly subjective, so LArron won't be able to make us graphs on this, but what do people think it is? Currently I have them arranged:
Joaquín Martínez always seems to be at the bottom. Ed was number 2 for a long time until TK returned. These days Ken seems to get away with pretty much anything unless Andy slaps it down. Thoughts, opinions, alternative orders, pretty graphs? - π 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'd rank Ed above Jpatt - the latter only pops up now and again to deface MPR and add bits about how Muslim Big O is. Ed at least creates "content" and abuses the editors like a good sysop should. Agree though that Ken is the undisputed #2 sysop and has surpassed TK in almost every way. --PsyGremlinTal! 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The way to do this would be to pick out the times when a smackdown was delivered from one Sysop to another. Jpatt is difficult because, as far as I'm aware, he's never delivered a smackdown nor been subject to one. Also, has TerryH ever received a smackdown? And yes, I agree that Ken has number 2 all over him (in every sense). ONE / TALK 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd argue that some on the list simply fall outside of any pecking order since they're not really part of the community. Jpatt, JM and TerryH practically never interact with the community, at least not on the same scale as Ken, Kara or Ed. Okay, Jpatt is a borderline case, maybe. They just do their own thing, and if you don't intrude, you'll never even know they exist. Look at TerryH and look at the discussion about the whale fossils in the desert. I don't think he commented on CP at all, and he's the one who wrote both the blog post and the news item. --Sid (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- You have to hand it to Ken. This is the man that was excluded from the SDG, where the other sysops all spoke badly about him and Karajou (rightly!) accused him of being a troll, who was soundly ignored every time he posted some rambling screed to TZB... and now he's effectively Andy's 2IC. And he only had to step over the bodies of TK and Rob to get there. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Terry just link spams to his personal blog site as some sort of legitimate article citation or news source and preaches the religion of Objectivism; other than that he couldn't be arsed to give a damn about CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is why I put Terry so low, anyone is allowed to simply remove his news items if they feel like it and he won't even respond. - π 03:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is why I put Terry so low, anyone is allowed to simply remove his news items if they feel like it and he won't even respond. - π
- Terry just link spams to his personal blog site as some sort of legitimate article citation or news source and preaches the religion of Objectivism; other than that he couldn't be arsed to give a damn about CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- You have to hand it to Ken. This is the man that was excluded from the SDG, where the other sysops all spoke badly about him and Karajou (rightly!) accused him of being a troll, who was soundly ignored every time he posted some rambling screed to TZB... and now he's effectively Andy's 2IC. And he only had to step over the bodies of TK and Rob to get there. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd argue that some on the list simply fall outside of any pecking order since they're not really part of the community. Jpatt, JM and TerryH practically never interact with the community, at least not on the same scale as Ken, Kara or Ed. Okay, Jpatt is a borderline case, maybe. They just do their own thing, and if you don't intrude, you'll never even know they exist. Look at TerryH and look at the discussion about the whale fossils in the desert. I don't think he commented on CP at all, and he's the one who wrote both the blog post and the news item. --Sid (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The way to do this would be to pick out the times when a smackdown was delivered from one Sysop to another. Jpatt is difficult because, as far as I'm aware, he's never delivered a smackdown nor been subject to one. Also, has TerryH ever received a smackdown? And yes, I agree that Ken has number 2 all over him (in every sense). ONE / TALK 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'd rank Ed above Jpatt - the latter only pops up now and again to deface MPR and add bits about how Muslim Big O is. Ed at least creates "content" and abuses the editors like a good sysop should. Agree though that Ken is the undisputed #2 sysop and has surpassed TK in almost every way. --PsyGremlinTal! 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Um...[edit]
Hang on a second... You know how Ken's been masturbating furiously posting on MPL about the wave of Creationism swamping evolution in Tennessee? Well, it's just dawned on me, that TN is the state with the insane GOP lawmakers passed the Creationism Bill. So, to be honest, it sounds like Ken's buddies are taking the easy way out here. Go to New York, Ken! Ask your questions in Times Square! Film yourself being beaten up! --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- New Yorkers would just ignore him, the worst that would happen is he would get laughed at. Preaching atheism or giving free public lectures on evolution in a town square in TN would get your ass kicked. Pimobile (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, Ken wouldn't actual be attacked for asking those questions or preaching in Times Square, at least not physically. Now verbal ridicule is another story entirely.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And the Most Random Post of the Week Award goes to...[edit]
...Ed Poor for postingimg a link to an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show on MPR. --Sid (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably to dull to WIGO...[edit]
... but Andy::Gay softball team discriminates against heterosexual players!img
Reality:: The league allowed a certain number of straight players per team; the issue was that the team in question exceeded that limit with ringers pretending to be gay. MDB (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's still bullshit though. Why do you need a fucking gay softball team, and have 'straight quotas'? But then again, they could be necessary because of homophobia in mainstream sports, just like women-only gyms are probably necessary because of sexism and patriarchy and whatnot. Flinttalk to me :D 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- RTFA. The league was founded with the express purpose of showing that you can be gay and good at sports. Their right to exist was questioned in court and they won. The issue was indeed that a team was deemed to be using ringers - one guy was married to a woman which puts their self identified gay status in question. It has echos of teams entering the Special Olympics which include persons whose abilities are not particularly limited. Bad Faith (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the dilemma of having a Black Police Officers' Association at the same time as knowing that a White Police Officers' Association would be considered racist. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as black groups vs. white groups goes, as a friend put it once, "history and context matter." All white groups have been historically set up as explicitly racist groups.
- And as to the general issue of softball teams, I can see the point to a degree about an all-gay team being discriminatory. However, this is a softball league. Plenty of amateur sports leagues have teams that are affiliated with something -- a church, an employer, an affinity group, a bar, whatever. I don't think any court would consider it discriminatory if the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's softball team required its players to be Pastafarians active in that church. (Or, more specific to this case, if the league enforced that requirement.) And you could even have an all-church league that requires its teams to be affiliated with churches -- again, I doubt there would be a legal case there. At least in part, because you'd have to show actual damages, and it's difficult to show you were harmed by not being able to play in a softball league.
- And again, the issue in this case was not "can there be an all gay-team?"; the issue was the team was accused of cheating by having straight players. MDB (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't the conventional fix for something like the "Black Police Officers' Association" that you just write that in the name and you make damn sure there is no racial requirement for membership? Certainly "Women in Engineering" would always get one or two guys at early meetings, who had shown up to see what special treatment the members got, they found out the answer is maybe someone pays for coffee and biscuits, and then they'd get bored and stop coming. I'm 100% sure nobody got kicked out of my university's gay-lesbian-and-generally-queer-in-whatever-way group for having straight sex, otherwise I wouldn't know any members. I think I'm actually more puzzled by the "straight quota" idea than the general concept of a gay softball team, even though I think the latter is pretty silly. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's an affinity group, nothing more, people who have two things in common -- being gay and a desire to play softball.
- As for the "straight quota", I could be wrong, but I don't think it was a quota, but an allowance -- they could have up to a certain number of straight players. I really don't understand that myself, unless it's so some of the players could have their straight pals on the team. MDB (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't the conventional fix for something like the "Black Police Officers' Association" that you just write that in the name and you make damn sure there is no racial requirement for membership? Certainly "Women in Engineering" would always get one or two guys at early meetings, who had shown up to see what special treatment the members got, they found out the answer is maybe someone pays for coffee and biscuits, and then they'd get bored and stop coming. I'm 100% sure nobody got kicked out of my university's gay-lesbian-and-generally-queer-in-whatever-way group for having straight sex, otherwise I wouldn't know any members. I think I'm actually more puzzled by the "straight quota" idea than the general concept of a gay softball team, even though I think the latter is pretty silly. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the dilemma of having a Black Police Officers' Association at the same time as knowing that a White Police Officers' Association would be considered racist. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- RTFA. The league was founded with the express purpose of showing that you can be gay and good at sports. Their right to exist was questioned in court and they won. The issue was indeed that a team was deemed to be using ringers - one guy was married to a woman which puts their self identified gay status in question. It has echos of teams entering the Special Olympics which include persons whose abilities are not particularly limited. Bad Faith (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It makes you wonder though...there's no reason you can't be a man with a wife AND be gay, right? Or, to be on the team, do you have to wear some sort of breast-detection device that alerts the league commissioners if you come to close too a woman? Carlaugust (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy using video games to dance on graves... AGAIN.[edit]
Without further comment because I don't feel like ranting today.img --Sid (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well if he isn't going to break the "no gossip" rule, might as well BREAK IT LIKE A CHAMP!
NorsemanCyser Melomel 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hate how people think that if someone commits a serious crime and is found to be insane then they get off scott free. It's actually worse. He most likely will never get out, and will spend the rest of his life in the company of the criminally insane being medicated, poked and prodded. Maybe I'm just thinking of Arkham. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unlike a real high security mental hospital the inmates get out of Arkham whenever the writers run out of ideas. It's so common that IIRC at one point Batman has been implicated as somehow responsible for the poor security there. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but if Arkham actually was able to keep the inmates locked away permanently, then Batman would quickly run out of good villains. It's the same reason Batman (and most other super-heroes) don't kill the bad guys -- if the villains can be eliminated permanently, you can't have good recurring villains. Think of how much less interesting Batman's history would be if he had only faced the Joker once. (You can certainly argue they over-use the Joker, but that's a different debate.) MDB (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unlike a real high security mental hospital the inmates get out of Arkham whenever the writers run out of ideas. It's so common that IIRC at one point Batman has been implicated as somehow responsible for the poor security there. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hate how people think that if someone commits a serious crime and is found to be insane then they get off scott free. It's actually worse. He most likely will never get out, and will spend the rest of his life in the company of the criminally insane being medicated, poked and prodded. Maybe I'm just thinking of Arkham. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy's teeching iz in trubble![edit]
Little does TerryH know that the very site he's posting onimg is a perfect example of why homeschooling in New Jersey needs regulating. His examiner articleimg goes into detail, but I won't go to his website and make him a few pennies, the damned spammer. 
NorsemanCyser Melomel 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, he knows. The thing is that he wants people like Andy to brainwash kids into becoming good little pro-life Creationists without being subject to government oversight. --Sid (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see Ken put it well: "In addition, biblical creationists are continuing to build up their grassroots soldiers of Christ to wage an all out assault on secularism/evolutionism."img --Sid (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is Kenny's grasp on reality paper thin or nonexistant? This "all out assault" he's talking about, from what I know of the size of the QE! "campaign", will probably amount to the effect of firing a smaller-than-average paintball at the side of the USS Enterprise CVN-65 in unnaturally calm weather. Especially seeing as most of their points amount to PRATTs. -- 12:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't that so much as it is him really try to get our attention; we are his validation that his life and campaign has any sort of meaning, because who else bothers to notice? It isn't like the QE campaign has a real world impact.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- That Bill is kinda awesome, especially given that paper's takedown of Andy's homeschooling methods. Although I do feel sorry for Andy's little victims when they're confronted by a real history test. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't that so much as it is him really try to get our attention; we are his validation that his life and campaign has any sort of meaning, because who else bothers to notice? It isn't like the QE campaign has a real world impact.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- According to Ken's link "We now have about a dozen volunteers in our group and it keeps on growing." With numbers like that, success is guaranteed! (And they can't even get the link to the main campaign page right.) Cantabrigian (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should all go to CMI's page and post the most over-the-top testimonials and see which ones get printed by them! "My biology teacher was reduced to tears when I kept insisting that she answer the questions. She ran from the room to the sound of the whole class cheering me!" --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nice idea, shame that now it's posted here the Man Of Mysterry With RationalWiki Obsesssive Compulsive Disorder will know about it. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us may have done that already....Aceace 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should all go to CMI's page and post the most over-the-top testimonials and see which ones get printed by them!
- Some of us may have done that already....
- College evolutionist biology professor stumped and very mad!img
- LOL OH U GUISE! Many internets for your successimg. NorsemanCyser Melomel 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- My god, Ken is actually falling for this or is he just trolling us?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- At this point it doesn't even matter. If he's fallen for it then he's stupid (news flash) and would be easily fooled again. If he's trolling us then he's hurting CP so he can get a response, we facepalm and suffer no ill effect, he cackles to himself and tries to think of "new" ways to bother us. Either way they lose, we break even, and he descends further into his bunny hole of wingnuttery. «-Bfa-» 01:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- My god, Ken is actually falling for this or is he just trolling us?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us may have done that already....Aceace 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nice idea, shame that now it's posted here the Man Of Mysterry With RationalWiki Obsesssive Compulsive Disorder will know about it.
- I think we should all go to CMI's page and post the most over-the-top testimonials and see which ones get printed by them! "My biology teacher was reduced to tears when I kept insisting that she answer the questions. She ran from the room to the sound of the whole class cheering me!" --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is Kenny's grasp on reality paper thin or nonexistant? This "all out assault" he's talking about, from what I know of the size of the QE! "campaign", will probably amount to the effect of firing a smaller-than-average paintball at the side of the USS Enterprise CVN-65 in unnaturally calm weather. Especially seeing as most of their points amount to PRATTs. --
JimmyRa is being disappeared[edit]
Jpatt to the rescue, with oversight and banhammer:
- (diff | hist) . . m Talk:Main Page; 06:25 . . (-313) . . Jpatt (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by JimmyRa (talk) to last revision by Aortuso)
- (Block log); 06:25 . . Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked JimmyRa (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation disabled) (Trolling)
Jimmy's last non-oversighted activities included a chat with Andy about 90/10 and pointing out that pageviews are not a good indicator of encyclopedia success. Yeah, no major surprise that he was silently unperson'd. --Sid (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah well, it was a fun sock while it lasted. But you shouldn't get too attached to them. Infoseek (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes blocked?[edit]
Hey, is anyone able to view recent changes? I'm getting variously "proxy says remote server says no response", or a direct "empty response error" on different computers. The rest of the site seems to be working fine. 192.148.117.93 (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's you. I got in fine. "Gayrepublican" went on a one edit vandal spree before being blocked. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I get my own article on CP[edit]
So a week or two ago I posted this comment on the Question Evolution site: "This is great. I brought these up in my introductory biology class and the professor was completely stymied! She had no response at all and awkwardly tried to change the subject. She must have talked to the Dean about me, because I later got an official warning from the administration. However, this has only strengthened my resolve!" I knew it was only a matter of time before Ken touted it as proof that evolution and atheism was breathing its dying breath, and sure enough he took the baitimg. I even used the name "Marten Zones" (which they didn't print in its entirety, unfortunately), it being an anagram of "ersatz nomen", a very loose translation of "fake name". Needless to say, Ken and CMI were gullible enough to fall for such an obviously phony story. I never thought it would get its own article. I was merely hoping for it to get a breif mention on the QE article. Well done, Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought there was something weird about that story. Creationists are such loudmouths that if a live one showed up the professor would be more likely to try and appease him. ListenerXTalkerX 06:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was pretty obvious BS. Needless to say CMI didn't make any attempt to verify the story by contacting me (though they had my email address) even to ask what college this incident occurred at. They wanted to believe it, so they believed it. DickTurpis (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody should get a screen-cap of the CMI article before news of the ruse trickles back to them. ListenerXTalkerX 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you're fast enough with a knife, you'll find the invisible hand is made from delicious invisible meat. (attr. the dude with the black hat) By the way, what does CMI stand for? -- 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cretins, Morons & Idiots. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well done and everything, but crowing about Ken's stupidity for "taking the bait" seems a bit much. There was nothing ludicrously over-the-top in your post.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing ludicrously over the top, if you compare it to other posts on the same page and the fantasies of the people involved. But a "stymied" professor calling the dean because she was intellectually challenged in class? Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. (The dean? Is this Animal House? Who the heck calls the dean for disciplinary matters?) Phiwum (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
- Well done and everything, but crowing about Ken's stupidity for "taking the bait" seems a bit much. There was nothing ludicrously over-the-top in your post.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cretins, Morons & Idiots.
- If you're fast enough with a knife, you'll find the invisible hand is made from delicious invisible meat. (attr. the dude with the black hat) By the way, what does CMI stand for? --
- Somebody should get a screen-cap of the CMI article before news of the ruse trickles back to them.
- Yeah, it was pretty obvious BS. Needless to say CMI didn't make any attempt to verify the story by contacting me (though they had my email address) even to ask what college this incident occurred at. They wanted to believe it, so they believed it. DickTurpis (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does beg the question, how many other "testimonials" are fakes sent to CMI by trolls and parodists? I have no doubt a good percentage are as it is obvious CMI does not fact check and accepts favorable comments without reservation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it seems they found out about your hoax; unless I'm missing something, it no longer appears on the page. MDB (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Damn, that was fast; even Ken hasn't reacted over at CP yet. Can CMI read us as obsessively as he does? Doesn't seem possible. DickTurpis (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it seems they found out about your hoax; unless I'm missing something, it no longer appears on the page. MDB (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does beg the question, how many other "testimonials" are fakes sent to CMI by trolls and parodists? I have no doubt a good percentage are as it is obvious CMI does not fact check and accepts favorable comments without reservation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not over the top? It reads like a fucking Chick Tract
Hideously Deformed Teacher: "Evilution, children, is how we'll put the Devil inside you!"
Beautiful Young Student: "But sir, have you heard of Intelligent Design?"
Hideously Deformed Teacher: "WHAT!? Get out of my class, before my students learn the TRUTH!"
Students: "We want to hear more about Intelligent Design that we've never heard about before due to Liberal Censorship!"
Teacher: "But I haven't finished indoctrinating you with pure evil yet! No, class, come back...! Dean! DEAN, HELP ME!"
Dean (AKA Adolf Satan): "Children, don't read the Bible! Just live your lives without morals, do whatever you want! It's the Darwinist, Relative Morality way! Do drugs! Rape your parents! Evolution is the first step! HEIL HITLER!"
Beautiful Young Student: (random quote from Genesis)
Students: PRAISE JESUS! If only some brave, tall, handsome Bible-believing man had shown me that Ponies are more popular than Atheism before today I would never have turned away from God!
Dean (AKA Adolf Satan): "Nooooooooooo, I'm melting! MELTING, IN THE FACE OF BIBLICAL TRUTH AND DEFENSIVE WEAPONS OF BAT'LETH!"
User:Conservative: Sounds reasonable to me.
I don't know why I made this. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I like it. Though you omitted a reference to bestiality. DickTurpis (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It works nicely, yes. I can almost picture the Jack Chick illustrations. MDB (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines a bit on the original post, I assumed that the Questioner was overly forthright and ruined the class, which was why the Dean got involved. Some universities do have a dean who looks after disciplinary matters.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Surely you agree that this is not how Ken or CMI interpreted it. Phiwum (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I do. I just didn't think it was so obviously bogus that there was much mileage in laughing at them for believing it. Only a small point. Of course the campaign itself is daft.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Giving it the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Embracing it with both arms and making it the centerpiece of a new article, while holding it as proof positive that academia is cowering in fear of the QE! campaign, is quite another. I was just hoping to get it added to the rest of the quotes on the campaign's article, with little fanfare. As usual Ken goes all in and turns the buffoonery up to 11. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I do. I just didn't think it was so obviously bogus that there was much mileage in laughing at them for believing it. Only a small point. Of course the campaign itself is daft.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Surely you agree that this is not how Ken or CMI interpreted it. Phiwum (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines a bit on the original post, I assumed that the Questioner was overly forthright and ruined the class, which was why the Dean got involved. Some universities do have a dean who looks after disciplinary matters.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It works nicely, yes. I can almost picture the Jack Chick illustrations. MDB (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking, some student could post some story like this on CP, which is actually based on their personal experiences, whether or not it is an accurate account of those experiences; and then someone else could come along, and falsely claim on this page to have posted that account and made it up, in the hope that CP might remove it and be embarrassed, and the original student who originally posted it might not be around to witness the fallout and challenge the false claim of forgery. Not saying that is what happened, DickTurpis, just saying how can we know that isn't what happened?. (((Zack Martin)))™ 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- We can't, but the people at CMI can certainly know whether Dick is telling the truth or not. The posted story had the name "Marten Z." and Dick said he chose the name "Marten Zones". Not only is Dick's explanation a good reason for the odd name "Marten", but the folks at CMI will know whether the original post had the last name Zones.
- Notice that CMI removed the post. I guess that's a good indication of whether Dick's telling the truth or not, no? Phiwum (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- {Edit conflict] :[In which I make almost the exact point made above and then:] There's also the reply I got from them (which I actually didn't notice til today; it got mixed in with the junk spam they've been sending me since I signed up to leave my comment). It says: "Dear Marten, Thanks so much for telling us of your experience; that is an encouragement to us and will be to others as well. And here we were thinking that universities like to encourage students to question things! Silly us! [smiley emoticon] I will get your comment posted. Every blessing to you! Don Batten (author of 15 Questions)". Again, not proof, but who's going to make all these details up? Also, interesting that Ken hasn't memoryholed anything yet. I wonder what he's waiting for? DickTurpis (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- People should go troll him by asking him exactly where this testimonial is, after all they can't find it. *whistles innocdently* --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- {Edit conflict] :[In which I make almost the exact point made above and then:] There's also the reply I got from them (which I actually didn't notice til today; it got mixed in with the junk spam they've been sending me since I signed up to leave my comment). It says: "Dear Marten, Thanks so much for telling us of your experience; that is an encouragement to us and will be to others as well. And here we were thinking that universities like to encourage students to question things! Silly us! [smiley emoticon] I will get your comment posted. Every blessing to you! Don Batten (author of 15 Questions)". Again, not proof, but who's going to make all these details up? Also, interesting that Ken hasn't memoryholed anything yet. I wonder what he's waiting for? DickTurpis (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, thanks to Ken you also managed to troll the question evolution blog and shockofgoat's blog. I wonder how many of those posts will be quietly disappeared. Or maybe a troll is as good as an honest testimonial in Kendoll's world. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- For sure. Ken doesn't seem to have noticed this, so who do you think informed CMI? I wonder. Godspeed (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those posts are now gone, like the below. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken takes notice[edit]
Goodbyeimg. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Took him long enough. DANCE, MOTHERFUCKER, DANCE!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This won't last longimg, so I'll preserve it here. DickTurpis (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ed[edit]
2 Sentences does not an essay make.img PS, you owe me a new irony meter, for writing about "Incoherence of liberal thought" --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Short and to the point atleast, would you rather he ramble on or copy paste like Ken?--137.48.72.198 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- What I'd like is for Ed to have less of an amoeba-like stimulus-response approach to editing, and actually engage what passes for his mind before he hits 'save page.' --PsyGremlinTala! 15:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to Ed's newest essay "Maybe I'll have toast for breakfast today". DickTurpis (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps Ed has CP confused with Twitter. MDB (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be the source of Ed's droppings today. ONE / TALK 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's getting his knickers in a twist because somebody called Franco's regime "right wing." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be the source of Ed's droppings today. ONE / TALK 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps Ed has CP confused with Twitter. MDB (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to Ed's newest essay "Maybe I'll have toast for breakfast today". DickTurpis (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- What I'd like is for Ed to have less of an amoeba-like stimulus-response approach to editing, and actually engage what passes for his mind before he hits 'save page.' --PsyGremlinTala! 15:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- CPalmer highlights the conciseness: The list of categoriesimg is almost as long as the actual essay (size jumps from 320 bytes to 614 bytes). --Sid (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Ken[edit]
Just FYI, rather than pester other users about translating their articles into foreign languagesimg why don't you think about it first. If nearly 5% of CP traffic comes from India, it's pretty clear those people already speak English, so translating it into Hindi isn't going to help (also, India has well over a dozen official languages). Also, if CBP taught us anything it's that none of you (except Joaquin) know shit about any languages other than English, so you'd have to use translation programs, which never do a good job. Besides, where would you host these translated articles? In regular CP space? Yeah, Andy's going to love you polluting his wiki with less conservative languages, especially when it's just the same article translated a few dozen times. I'm sure those Koreans who swarm to CP to read about atheism are going to find it a great resource, with its one Korean article, filled with hypertext links to articles in a language they don't understand. Brilliant. Then again, it's pointless anyway, since no one uses CP as a source for anything other than ridicule (yes, we know, except Shockofgod - your one loyal reader). DickTurpis (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- And if Shockofgod is Ken, then that just makes it even more pathetically pathetic. Fuckertalk to me :D 18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine that that five percent is in fact Anupam on vacation or whatever. Conservapedia's readership is just that low.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- English is one of India's official languages. It'd be like translating your site in to French because 5% of your traffic is from Canada. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine that that five percent is in fact Anupam on vacation or whatever. Conservapedia's readership is just that low.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
ix-nay on the artisanship-pay[edit]
I think Andy missed the memo that they're supposed to pretend Fox Newsimg is a "fair and balanced" alternative to the biased liberal lamestream media. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Prehaps you are unaware of Conservapedias definition of Neoconservativeimg? If you did, you would know Fox favors big government and hates religion. Why else do you think they fight a War on Christmas?--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Just.... what[edit]
" Leftist protest Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing anti-capitalism rally and rapists' playground, beginning as an astroturfing campaign funded by a George Soros group called Adbusters, with the ultimate goal of replacing the United States Constitution with a form of government akin to communist totalitarianism[1img"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and the screenshot is horrible dated, anybody knnow when that line became the intro?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Quite some time ago, and in sections. Just grab the latest.img Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 02:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If there's one thing positive I can say about Occupy Wall Street, is that it's not astroturf. It was "grassroots," started by anon wannabes and those Adbusters shock artists. The rest of the people came after it started getting attention. But there's not much else good to say about them.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I may have to visit New York City, what with all the "public deification" going on. 江斯顿What is it now? 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and here's where the "rapists' playground" came inimg. 江斯顿What is it now? 07:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I may have to visit New York City, what with all the "public deification" going on. 江斯顿What is it now? 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see the gigantic, invisible hand of parody in that article. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 10
- 00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe you see the invisible hand. Phiwum (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Irony, how the fuck is that supposed to work? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Irony, how the fuck is that supposed to work?
- I don't believe you see the invisible hand. Phiwum (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- 00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken and Karajou show how to win a debate[edit]
I don't even have to go into content. Just look at the logsimg (times are in the German timezone, not the server one):
- (cur | prev) 08:37, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (115 bytes) (-20232) (Replaced content with "Archive 1 Archive 2")
- (cur | prev) 08:35, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (20,347 bytes) (+80) (→"Question Evolution" Link)
- (cur | prev) 08:33, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (20,267 bytes) (+1) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 08:09, 2 December 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) (20,266 bytes) (+2484) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 07:20, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (17,782 bytes) (+32) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 07:18, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (17,750 bytes) (0) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 07:17, 2 December 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (17,750 bytes) (+347) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 06:25, 2 December 2011 FRodgers (Talk | contribs) (17,403 bytes) (+448) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
- (cur | prev) 05:48, 2 December 2011 VOT2011 (Talk | contribs) (16,955 bytes) (+252) (→Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!)
And hereimg is the last pre-archive version of the page.
My fav quote (after skimming) comes from Kara, as usual:
- Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience".
Half an hour later, the entire discussion was archived. Olé, olé, olé! --Sid (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- We should have an article on the Karajou Challenge. "I'd like to believe your story that the sky is blue, but first you have to interview every blues singer who ever lived about what makes them so blue. Then you can can talk about things that are blue." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- If so, that article should have the weirdest instance the Karajou Challenge: What you'd have to do before Karajou accepts that Noah's Ark doesn't exist.img (The same talk page also has the same Challenge as today's: Prove that God doesn't exist, using the scientific method.img) --Sid (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Going a bit off road here: My favorite quote from any creationist ever comes directly from Karajou: "I don't care what the evolutionists say "theory" and "hypothesis" means, evolution is still just a theory." (One or two words may be wrong here, but the basic gist of it stays the same) It's one of those things you read and never forget. --★uːʤɱ socialist 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- If so, that article should have the weirdest instance the Karajou Challenge: What you'd have to do before Karajou accepts that Noah's Ark doesn't exist.img (The same talk page also has the same Challenge as today's: Prove that God doesn't exist, using the scientific method.img) --Sid (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken throws a bit of a tantrum[edit]
In eight edits at cp:Talk:Main Page (seven of which were oversighted) Ken composes this little masterpieceimg:
- If you think the world cares about what a bunch of childish and dishonest atheist babies with filthy mouths engages in, think again! According to Alexa, their traffic has flatlined over the last 6 months. If you want to recruit a few babysitters to help their website out, the world might appreciate it. In the meantime, don't look for much free PR here. Creationists are going to keep moving forward up the beach and then the creationist soldiers are going to "flamethrow" the pillboxes of evolutionary indoctrination. Creationists are certainly not going to get distracted by a bunch of childish and dishonest atheist crybabies or give them the spotlight. Have a good day! :) Conservative 03:30, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Lucky for AugustO, this diatribe seems not addressed to him, but to us lords, ladies and gentlemen.
- Alexa shows that we are doing quite well, at least in direct comparison with Conservapedia
- The key to Conservapedia's "success" are vandals:
No wonder that Ken gets pissed - and takes it out on poor cp:User:MaxFletcher: he is not only blocked for five years, but his user and talk pages are deleted for good measure.
larronsicut fur in nocte 10:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Other titles available in the Ken series alongside Ken Throws a Bit of a Tantrum are:
- Ken Goes to the Dentist
- Ken and Co's Bogus Adventure
- Ken Learns How to Poop Like a Big Boy
- Ken Goes Shopping for a Couch
- Ken Shoots a Bunny
- Order now and we'll throw in Ken's Day at the Beach free! Dickonatheists Publishing 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I like how Ken uses flamethrowers in his rhetoric. Weapons so horrible that even the US army has stopped using them specifically because of the PR nightmare they create when their results are shown. But no, we're the horrible violent ones. Nice. X Stickman (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's even worse in context. "You are all little babies and do you know what we do to little babies? We flame 'em! Just light 'em right up, like kindling! Because you're bad little babies." Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I remember Karajou tried to tell us our site is failing and CP is rising, but it was the complete opposite (according to alexa). Why do they do this? Senator Harrison (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a quite usual form of propaganda also used by many fascist, communist and totalitarian ideologies and governments. It's a mixture of spreading of fear and spreading news that you are successful in destroying the enemy. "Atheists are destroying the world!" while at the same time "Atheism is declining by 300 each day!". The smallest things are celebrated monumentally (That fake story of a student by Dick got an essay, the Atheism and Obesity essay, Socialism is cause of Europe's financial troubles) while the constant fear of a changing world has to be kept up (Abortion is murder!, Our children are tought evolution!, etc.). Normally it works for motivation of a large population, but normally such things are not done by a bunch of complete fucktards. What is so hilarious when Ken does it, is that he fails almost always very hard — his essays remind me a bit of how Hitler is portrayed in movies when he get's news that some of his divisions just lost even more ground while hiding in a bunker (with the miracle weapons being QE!), Saddam Hussein or Milosevic claiming the courts in front of which they were brought are not legitimate or Gadaffi believing the rest of Libyan people would support him while an international coalition bombs the living crap out off his bases. At some point the delusions have to be kept up within the leaders themselves and that's when they lie there asses off or make raging claims that just nobody takes seriously anymore. It's just as longer as the enemy exists Ken has to justify all of it to himself and becomes more and more crazy in his claims, until at some point he just makes stuff up. Don't get me wrong here, this is not a Godwin — I'm not saying that Ken is a genocidal maniac — it's just an observation on the rethoric he uses. --★uːʤɱ sinner 12:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I remember Karajou tried to tell us our site is failing and CP is rising, but it was the complete opposite (according to alexa). Why do they do this? Senator Harrison (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's even worse in context. "You are all little babies and do you know what we do to little babies? We flame 'em! Just light 'em right up, like kindling! Because you're bad little babies." Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I like how Ken uses flamethrowers in his rhetoric. Weapons so horrible that even the US army has stopped using them specifically because of the PR nightmare they create when their results are shown. But no, we're the horrible violent ones. Nice. X Stickman (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how a so-called religion of peace, such as Christianity, relies on such militaristic language. "Onward Christian Soldiers"! Then I remember that Christianity formed out of the ashes one of the most oppressive empires ever, and I go back to just trying to make the world a more peaceful place. Jimaginator (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually feel bad for Max. He was treated so poorly after getting rights from Andy, but it can't be any better or clearer evidence that Andy cares nothing about how Conservative treats others. In fact, none of the sysops cared how he was being insulted and abused. Guess it's better he got banned rather than just linger on and let Ken carry on like the proud christian he is. NorsemanCyser Melomel 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this should be WIGO'd...[edit]
...because the initial suggestion has to be a parodist, but...
let's rank languages by conservatism!img MDB (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can't connect to CP anymore (me casually clicking through the diffs of the Presidential Ranking made the server think I'm an evil DoS attacker... yet again...), but Andy called the idea intriguing. Might be worth a WIGO, even if "Andy is an idiot who wouldn't recognize a parodist if he smeared the words I AM A PARODIST onto his door with blood" is a somewhat overused punchline. ;) On the other hand, maybe just capture the links now and wait until Andy gives his implied blessings by editing the actual yet-to-be-created article. --Sid (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is gonna be awesome…img --★uːʤɱ heretic 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll bet that French is not a very conservative language. Those atheistic, effete, wine drinking snobs who look down their noses at good old salt-of-the-earth Yankee types. There is no way that they are speaking a conservative language.
- This is gonna be awesome…img --★uːʤɱ heretic 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll also bet that there is a correlation between the commercial success of a country's inhabitants and the conservativeness of its language. Ooh! I just had an *insight*. Look at me. So English (American English obviously) is a conservative language because it is used in the hugely commercially successful US of A. Whereas Bulgarian is the language of socialism (and look where it got those liberal (read socialist) Bulgarians). The same could be said of Bantu: obviously socialist. They have never sent a man to the moon or invented a cola that is drunk worldwide.
- This is one of the most promising developments in a while. Kudos to you Mr. Bowen. --Horace (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bantu??? Presumably as spoken in Vervoerd's Bantustans? Uyisiphukhuphuku! U hlaba Msunu wa nyoko wena! --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. Wherever the hell Bantu is spoken. Somewhere in Africa I believe. --Horace (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bantu is a language group, like Indo-European. Nobody speaks Indo-European, and nobody speaks Bantu. Apparently the most popular one is Swahili, says WP. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. Wherever the hell Bantu is spoken. Somewhere in Africa I believe. --Horace (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bantu??? Presumably as spoken in Vervoerd's Bantustans? Uyisiphukhuphuku! U hlaba Msunu wa nyoko wena! --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to see someone continuing the Bowen family tradition. Just watching them sort out English dialects should be entertaining. --Benod (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of the most promising developments in a while. Kudos to you Mr. Bowen. --Horace (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It Begins![edit]
Well American English is only #2 at this pointimg, second to Aramaic as that is the language of Jesus. Coming in third is a fictional language, lol. Personally I expect Hebrew to take the #1 spot from Aramaic, with Greek possibly being #4 (points given for the New Testament, points taken for being associated with such a socialist nation). As the fictional languages of Middle Earth are seen as "legit", think they will consider Klingon?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Klingonese gets bonus points for being associated with a race that loves warfare, but minuses for being from a leftie TV show.
- As a complete aside, now that I think about it, Andy would make a good Klingon.
- No, really. He could have a mostly defensive weapon of bat'leth, and compare "Shakespeare sounds best in the original Klingonese" to "George Orwell was a conservative." MDB (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Weapon of bat'leth." LOL Jimaginator (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) For once, I agree with Kara.img Another sign of the end times? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Leftie TV show?img--Willfully Wrong (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- C'mon, someone with a sock go and add the Perl programming language. The father of Perl is an evangelical Christian and the name is a reference to the "pearl of great price" referred to in Matthew 13:45-46. Surely, that makes it the most conservative programming language! MDB (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done.PhillyDom (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- As any fule kno, the universe washacked together in perl Bad Faith (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Now all that's missing is adding Java under liberal languages for being open source. DragonTist (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Leftie TV show?img--Willfully Wrong (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the real world, would you not call French and similar languages that are regulated to maintain their "purity" the most conservative? English, with all its foreign lone words, is clearly the most liberal.— Unsigned, by: 95.150.16.173 / talk / contribs
- As I heard it said once, "English doesn't 'borrow' words from other languages; it knocks them over the head in dark alleys and goes through their pockets looking for loose grammar." MDB (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The worst example being "douche". It means "shower" FFS, nothing else. Americans! No! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, the French douche means "shower" now! but originally it just meant a pipe. Go back a while and vaginal douching with a douche-bag and pipe was quite common for alleged cleanliness and contraceptive properties. The US use of douche is just a contraction of douche-bag. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, the French douche means "shower" now! but originally it just meant a pipe. Go back a while and vaginal douching with a douche-bag and pipe was quite common for alleged cleanliness and contraceptive properties. The US use of douche is just a contraction of douche-bag.
- Every time I hear "kinder" as a short form of "kindergarten" I'm creeped out a bit. Sounds like you have children stored somewhere… --★uːʤɱ libertarian 19:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would that be a Kinder Surprise, then? ;) --Sid (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Now I have joke for an unwanted pregnancy situation. :P--★uːʤɱ sinner 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- OT: Kinder eggs are prohibited in the US? What the hell is wrong with you people? Vulpius (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine there's fear that the toy will be eaten along with the chocolate egg. And looking back, those things were overrated. I loved them as a kid but I was wasting my opportunity to acquire delicious treats by getting a hollowed out egg with a cheap toy. Childhood is wasted on children.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, you've reminded me of an old bit from Hollywood Squares:
- Host: The poet said that this is wasted on the young.
- Paul Lynde: A spanking. MDB (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, you've reminded me of an old bit from Hollywood Squares:
- I imagine there's fear that the toy will be eaten along with the chocolate egg. And looking back, those things were overrated. I loved them as a kid but I was wasting my opportunity to acquire delicious treats by getting a hollowed out egg with a cheap toy. Childhood is wasted on children.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- OT: Kinder eggs are prohibited in the US? What the hell is wrong with you people? Vulpius (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Now I have joke for an unwanted pregnancy situation. :P--★uːʤɱ sinner 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would that be a Kinder Surprise, then? ;) --Sid (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- The worst example being "douche". It means "shower" FFS, nothing else. Americans! No! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I heard it said once, "English doesn't 'borrow' words from other languages; it knocks them over the head in dark alleys and goes through their pockets looking for loose grammar." MDB (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
America is #1![edit]
American English kicks the language of Jesus to the curb and takes the lead; because why? Well because well spell color without the "u" (as in colour) unlike them inefficient atheists in Britain. Yeah, seriouslyimg. Meanwhile Elvish still holds the lead over both Greek and Hebrew!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Article development[edit]
This article will die on the vine unless Andy gets involved. If we can get Andy onboard, this could be the Article of the Year, and the Talk page could be epically stupid. Hurry, socks! - there's only a month to go! DogP (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I personally like the "Aramaic - The language spoken by Jesus" line. Didn't Andy claim Jesus spoke Greek somewhere? And Perl in there too... Larry may be evangelical and religiously inspired for keywords in the language ('bless' is how you cast a reference to a particular class), but when you read interviews with him... he's a rather humble hippy (and an evolutionist too!). Given that Perl (a computer language) is there, we need to get Quenya and its kindred there along with Naffarin and Gautisk too... because Tolkien was a christian too (and even converted C.S. Lewis *to* Christianity from atheism). --Shagie (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- What does "conservative" mean in linguistics? Who cares?img ... of liberals? (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Germanimg is apparently more liberal than Perl. Words fail me. --Sid (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, Sid. Not only is our native tongue the language of Freud, but also the one of Marx and Hitler (although modern standard German is less screaming). And look at the way our language works. In English a clear word order, something very conservative, dominates the language — in German we make the word sound so that we automatically now what it is supposed to be — that's completely unecomonical and the relativity of Einstein (another one!!1!!). Not only that, political correctness has gone so far that we change words just so make them apporopiate to the sex of the noun! And were shall I begin to even explain the waste that makes our children use "ch", "sch", "äu" "ieh" — but then in typical liberal doublestandard we use "ä" instead of "ae", "ö" instead of "oe", "ü" instead "ue" and "ß" instead "ss"! On the other hand we abolish such liberal pervesity as the difference between "zusammen lesen" and "zusammenlesen"! And instead of borrowing precious words that the dwarfes of France so whole-heartedly mined in their Latin word-mines for the English language, we make up our own words by just putting words together (even those of the same sex!!1!!) and giving them new meaning! We are as anti-Christian in this practice as the pagan Japanese and the socialist Finns! On top of that our subordinate clauses are the pure liberal linguistic elitism! We are so concerning with redifining the rest of those conservatives words that the old Germanic tradition left us, that we keep and keep explaining the context just to make you think and think again that thinking otherwise is not allowed. Our tongue, the very language in which our thoughts run are so liberal, so much made by the devil and socialism and homosexuality that I will immediately stop thinking in it, I will immediately become a Christian and move to the glorious lands of the United States of America, GOD's holly land, as therefor I give up my my cultural routes to be blessing by being an American! --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I must admit, when I think of the German language the first thing I think of is all those damn liberal words it contains. You know, like Panzergrenadier and Schwerpunkt. --Longbow (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- American English is unique in an evolving language and borrowing words from other languages, bet you didn't know that! LOL, this gets better by the moment. Also, Uhm, its the "ß" that convinced me you all are commie pinkos! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservative pundits who fancied themselves experts in linguistics used to insist that American English remain static and in particular not absorb new words. That position was ridiculous, but at leat it was more authentically conservative than "conservative = whatever Andy likes." ... of liberals? (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fück Yäeh!img And there's … Hitler!img --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are mine. Fuckertalk to me :D 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fück Yäeh!img And there's … Hitler!img --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservative pundits who fancied themselves experts in linguistics used to insist that American English remain static and in particular not absorb new words. That position was ridiculous, but at leat it was more authentically conservative than "conservative = whatever Andy likes." ... of liberals? (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- American English is unique in an evolving language and borrowing words from other languages, bet you didn't know that! LOL, this gets better by the moment. Also, Uhm, its the "ß" that convinced me you all are commie pinkos! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Germanimg is apparently more liberal than Perl. Words fail me. --Sid (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Attention: Every official language of the EU is liberal!img (That's 25!)
- You pay for victims of atomic bombs and give them free health care? SOCIALIST!!!!img Yup, just letting them die an unbelievably painfull and slow death certainly is more Christian.
I don't know if these people are parodists, but god I hope so… --★uːʤɱ pervert 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I love how British English is ranked in total opposition to American English. Considering they are almost identical, that's quite a stretch. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for Enochian to show up. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If this demonstrates one thing[edit]
It's that Andy is utterly blind to parodists.
If it demonstrates a second thing, it's that the best way to be a parodist is to press Andy's personal buttons. MDB (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The thing that worries me is that some of the contributors to this pile of dog toffee might NOT be parodists. --Longbow (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A new leader emerges![edit]
Japaneseimg. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- That'll be parody. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 23:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) ED: yep.img 23:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I like how Spanish is the second most conservative language down at 2nd to last place --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The only sysop to realize it's parody[edit]
It's really sad when only ONE sysop realizes that this entry is clear parody. It's even sadder when said sysop is KEN.
But that's the way the cookie crumbles, so Ken decides to get some lulz of his own by rolling outimg his trademark taunting against his own language. XD --Sid (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kara doesn't seem to fooled by it, i think. but, That made me sit there and think about myself for a minute, then i had to keep from laughing since im at a public kiosk. but... I don't get it, whats kens angle? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken's angle is simple. He doesn't care about CP except as a way for him to get free hosting for his stuff. Karajou lives to bully, though, so I'm surprised he's not all over that shit, but it does have a hint of Andy-approval, so maybe he's being cautious. Or he's too stupid to see parody. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And it's over[edit]
The article seems to have gone down the memory hole.PhillyDom (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- See Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Preserved_for_posterity larronsicut fur in nocte 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Shit, that was funny while it lasted. – Nick Heer 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I miss the CDP[edit]
It was a great way to kill time there. img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that. The talk page led me to this fine piece of scholarship. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's about quality, not quantity. The Conservative Dictionary Project is a rousing success, since it included definitions of all the really important words in English. The rest is just filler. Phiwum (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I loved the CDP. I came up with some good ones: my personal favorites were Natural Born Citizenimg, personimg and Christian in Name Onlyimg. Looking back at those, I have to wonder why wallimg was over the line. --Roofus (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because the other ones were inline with CP dogma and therefor challenging them would have threatened my still existing goal of why I was on CP. Plus it made no sense anywayss--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I loved the CDP. I came up with some good ones: my personal favorites were Natural Born Citizenimg, personimg and Christian in Name Onlyimg. Looking back at those, I have to wonder why wallimg was over the line. --Roofus (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's about quality, not quantity. The Conservative Dictionary Project is a rousing success, since it included definitions of all the really important words in English. The rest is just filler. Phiwum (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The Conservative Dictionary Project was obviously a parodist pulling one on Andy and he fell for it hook, line and sinker. After seeing that, the ranking of languages by conservatism and the motherfuckin' Conservative Bible Project, I'm wondering if we should have a contest to see what's the most outrageous thing someone can goad Andy into. Essay: Best Conservative Foods? Creating a new conservative language, Conservapedish? Getting him to declare Conservapedia the word of God? Go for it, people. The sky is the limit! --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is honestly little you can do after re-translating the fucking bible/other holy text.. And we could go for the constitution, language (which is actually fun to do if you are world building like me), CP is already the de-facto word of god with Andy, a de-jure statement would be a waste of time. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- An 'update' of the constitution in the style of the CBP is really all that is left at this point. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, someone already proposed a Conservative Constitution Projectimg. Andy didn't go for it. Apparently there are limits to how silly he can be. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- An 'update' of the constitution in the style of the CBP is really all that is left at this point. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Aaaand full lockdown again[edit]
Editing once again restricted to admins only. I know the "CP is dead" meme is terribly overused, but when your regular response to vandalism is to lock out everybody except for the sysops (even Edit right users are left out), you've got some major issues. --Sid (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. When asked about it a while back, Andy implied it was an error of sorts.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds even stranger than an intentional cut-off. How can you fuck up a MediaWiki installation so badly that it randomly decides that editing "is limited to users in the group: Administrators"? Weirdness. --Sid (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure Ken has the keys and just shuts it on and off when he feels like it to frustrate the gentleman at a rather liberal wiki. Aceace 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds even stranger than an intentional cut-off. How can you fuck up a MediaWiki installation so badly that it randomly decides that editing "is limited to users in the group: Administrators"? Weirdness. --Sid (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just had an interesting though. From my perspective, I could all argue that you all (and, in fact, EVERYONE) are God's socks. Sure, you appear to be genuine humans like me...but maybe it's just a supernatural version of Poe's law. Carlaugust (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Like... wow. That's totally deep and original.
- Hey, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at your hand? Phiwum (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck you. I'm Jesus' sock. He's wearing the other one. Apparently it's a bit brisk in Mexico. – Nick Heer 20:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Check out a dollar bill man, there some creepy shit going on there. And its green too. Aceace 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- They call them "fingers" but you never see them "fing"...oh, there they go. Carlaugust (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Check out a dollar bill man, there some creepy shit going on there. And its green too. Aceace 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Two hours of enforced silence on CP. Nobody but the sysops can edit, and the sysops are apparently out to dinner. --Sid (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- green: all registered editors may edit
- darkred: only administrators and members of the group
editmay edit - red: only administrators are allowed to edit
- grey: missing data
- shaded:
account creationis activated
larronsicut fur in nocte 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Terry vs The Whale[edit]
I try to make it a point not to to comment on the link whoring of Mr Chuckass, (partly because he blocked me from commenting. The douchebag) But this postimg gave me a headache. Question, How did whale fossils get on the mountain? The EVILoutionist in me wants to point out how whales were land creatures once. But the part of me who knows about YEC says GREAT FUCKIN FLOOD. This guy should stick to his birther nonsense.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think this was dealt with earlier. It's not that they were land mammals once - these were whale fossils that were found. The real misery of his posting is that the fossils were found only a few miles from the coast anyway. Classic example, like Ken's and CMI's acceptance of the spoof posting about challenging a biology teacher to answer the already answered questions, of creationists seeing what they want to believe and not bothering to check the detail, assuming that their audience is as blinded from facts as they are. Which in most cases, of course, they are. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Terry actually wrote another article about it, so this is new. Instead of admitting his mistake, he just doubles down on the idiocy. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Well I ain't clicking on his blog. I might catch stupid. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I did. I think I got away with it.
- So something was a mystery nearly 500 years ago. FFS, progress, man! And this man is a doctor or a vet or something. I just don't get it, I really don't. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think I do get it, actually. Just like Ken and Andy, Terry lives from the feeling that he and his little group of Real Scientists (CMI/AiG) are the only ones on the planet who truly understand how the Universe works (Spoiler: God did it.) and that he is fighting the noble fight to completely reform science and usher in a new age of enlightenment. He'll never admit defeat and he'll always find some new loophole to claim that science is completely wrong, which means that it's impossible to convince him he's wrong. So he'll simply claim that he is right until he is proven right. Think about it: Terry will one day die as a happy man, being absolutely certain that he is smarter and more in touch with reality than the entire scientific community (with the added perk that he'll go to Heaven, from where he can laugh at atheists and gay people who are doomed to eternal agony in Hell). --Sid (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- When he talks about the "subcrustal waters" breaking out and leaving a vacuum behind (presumably for a whole year!) I really feel like I need Morbo from Futurama to scream at him "PRESSURE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!" Did this guy really not take enough physics classes to realise that what he's saying isn't merely preposterous, it's also impossible? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had a few discussions with the IDiot on his earlier whale blogs and have had to lie down in a darkened room for a week. Really these guy's just don't seem to understand what geology says, fr'instance, his hero Walt Brown says "Furthermore, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils." - er no, geologists don't claim that the sediments were laid on the top of a mountain, the mountain didn't exist then. Also if you want to invoke the laws of physics, how about kinetic energy? On 24 Nov Terry said "So how did the uplift take place? It was the sinking of the Andes Mountains, after they in turn formed from the buckling of the continental plates. You see, I also see each continent as riding on a plate. But in my view, those plates move a lot faster, and then come crashing down, skidding to a near halt, and buckling as they do. (Almost every mountain chain in the world lines up north-to-south. Wonder why?) Mountains sink; the land to either side of them rises." ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would have wanted to smash my head against a table after that. And then point point out that the Alps don't run north to south... or the Carpathians... or the Tibetan Plateau... or the Pyrenees... or the Atlas Mountains... Oh wait, he's an idiot isn't he? Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those are liberal European mountains. The conservative, God-fearing American Rockies, Appalachians and Cascade Range all run North-South as God intended.
- I would have wanted to smash my head against a table after that. And then point point out that the Alps don't run north to south... or the Carpathians... or the Tibetan Plateau... or the Pyrenees... or the Atlas Mountains... Oh wait, he's an idiot isn't he? Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had a few discussions with the IDiot on his earlier whale blogs and have had to lie down in a darkened room for a week. Really these guy's just don't seem to understand what geology says, fr'instance, his hero Walt Brown says "Furthermore, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils." - er no, geologists don't claim that the sediments were laid on the top of a mountain, the mountain didn't exist then. Also if you want to invoke the laws of physics, how about kinetic energy? On 24 Nov Terry said "So how did the uplift take place? It was the sinking of the Andes Mountains, after they in turn formed from the buckling of the continental plates. You see, I also see each continent as riding on a plate. But in my view, those plates move a lot faster, and then come crashing down, skidding to a near halt, and buckling as they do. (Almost every mountain chain in the world lines up north-to-south. Wonder why?) Mountains sink; the land to either side of them rises."
- When he talks about the "subcrustal waters" breaking out and leaving a vacuum behind (presumably for a whole year!) I really feel like I need Morbo from Futurama to scream at him "PRESSURE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!" Did this guy really not take enough physics classes to realise that what he's saying isn't merely preposterous, it's also impossible? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think I do get it, actually. Just like Ken and Andy, Terry lives from the feeling that he and his little group of Real Scientists (CMI/AiG) are the only ones on the planet who truly understand how the Universe works (Spoiler: God did it.) and that he is fighting the noble fight to completely reform science and usher in a new age of enlightenment. He'll never admit defeat and he'll always find some new loophole to claim that science is completely wrong, which means that it's impossible to convince him he's wrong. So he'll simply claim that he is right until he is proven right. Think about it: Terry will one day die as a happy man, being absolutely certain that he is smarter and more in touch with reality than the entire scientific community (with the added perk that he'll go to Heaven, from where he can laugh at atheists and gay people who are doomed to eternal agony in Hell). --Sid (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Well I ain't clicking on his blog. I might catch stupid. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Terry actually wrote another article about it, so this is new. Instead of admitting his mistake, he just doubles down on the idiocy. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nov 2011[edit]
are now updated. --
23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ohhhhh, that's some awesome shiny! Gotta check it out in more detail once I recovered from my current sleep deficit! --Sid (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Three reds in a month. who the fuck is Markman?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- A typical, hyperactive parodist. Signed up Oct 18, SkipCatpcha rights Oct 27/28, Block rights Nov 7, Edit rights Nov 18. Loves to fluff up his edit count with category edits and occasionally bans uncomfortable people whenever he thinks he'll get away with it. --Sid (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- What happened to Conservative in March 2011? άλφαΤαλκ 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without going into any detail, it was probably when he moved out of his parent's house. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- That would require ken to have a job, which theres no way in hell he would be able to keep down with his personality and edit times. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, try and think a bit more creatively. But as I said, lets not go into details. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, try and think a bit more creatively. But as I said, lets not go into details.
- That would require ken to have a job, which theres no way in hell he would be able to keep down with his personality and edit times. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without going into any detail, it was probably when he moved out of his parent's house.
- What happened to Conservative in March 2011? άλφαΤαλκ 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- A typical, hyperactive parodist. Signed up Oct 18, SkipCatpcha rights Oct 27/28, Block rights Nov 7, Edit rights Nov 18. Loves to fluff up his edit count with category edits and occasionally bans uncomfortable people whenever he thinks he'll get away with it. --Sid (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Three reds in a month. who the fuck is Markman?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken indulges in some old-fashioned stereotypes about the gays.[edit]
For the record, Ken, I know some bears and leather freaks who could kick your assimg. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Added some cap tags. Jegus, Ken. What is wrong with you? When was the last time you went outside? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rob Halford Would beat the dumbass out of ken, then shove a leather jacket up his ass.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I can beat gays in an arm wrestle, therefore gays suck"? That.... that doesn't even work as a metaphor, an analogy, or anything. It just plain doesn't work. At least his "christian soldiers committing warcrimes and genocide" rhetoric actually makes the point he wants to make (albeit in a horrible way), but what point does *this* make? That he enjoys lording his superior arm strength over people he knows are weaker? That's what cowards do. Also "whether User:Conservative is male or female, he can..." Heh. X Stickman (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- im afraid I have to do destroy some brain cells to rid myself of said vision. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "because limp wristed homosexuals are not certainly not known for their arm wrestling prowess" - I'm not sure what point she's trying to make there but I think she's got her negatives a little mixed up. StarFish (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He'll get over it eventually. Give him time. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He can beat gays in an arm wrestle because his right arm is engorged from wanking too much. SJ Debaser 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's trapped in a box he didn't manufacture. He'll escape from it eventually. And as he goes, so goes us all. (((Zack Martin)))™ 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec - bring it! Handbags at dawn!)I'd pay good money to see Ken say that to Gareth Thomas's face. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He can beat gays in an arm wrestle because his right arm is engorged from wanking too much. SJ Debaser 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He'll get over it eventually. Give him time. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "because limp wristed homosexuals are not certainly not known for their arm wrestling prowess" - I'm not sure what point she's trying to make there but I think she's got her negatives a little mixed up. StarFish (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- im afraid I have to do destroy some brain cells to rid myself of said vision. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I can beat gays in an arm wrestle, therefore gays suck"? That.... that doesn't even work as a metaphor, an analogy, or anything. It just plain doesn't work. At least his "christian soldiers committing warcrimes and genocide" rhetoric actually makes the point he wants to make (albeit in a horrible way), but what point does *this* make? That he enjoys lording his superior arm strength over people he knows are weaker? That's what cowards do. Also "whether User:Conservative is male or female, he can..." Heh. X Stickman (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rob Halford Would beat the dumbass out of ken, then shove a leather jacket up his ass.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- What happened to that other stereotype of gays as spending all day in the gym? ... of liberals? (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are really funny things coming out when you just negate the manly Christian, beer drinking, homo/liberal/atheist hating, wife ordering, fottball game watching and at the same time at the TV screaming man image they hold up in their heads. Meanwhile in the basement Ken jacks off to that fellow that had a bad TV show in the everything-fucking-goes-80s. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Kendoll makes another bid to dethrone Andy[edit]
After his failed bid to get the Conservabible deleted, he's apparently not deterred from taking on more Andy dogma. Now he's challenging Andy's theory of relativityimg garbage. This should be interesting to watch. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's kinda cute to see Ken take Andy to task over lack of references given his own devotion to misrepresenting resources (see Atheism and Obesity, obviously). But I really prefer his recent scholarship on linguistics. Know what the most conservative languages are? The one God speaks, followed by the one angels speak. And then maybe German or Spanish. 'Cause they're totally macho. Ole! Phiwum (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken is at least consistent in his insanity. Ken is quite happy to spout canned CMI bullshit and ignore anything that contradicts it. Andy is desperate to prove some kind of link between Christian bullshit and science, and this often means he rushes to accept some idea or other and defend it against all comers with no idea what he's talking about. That tends to mean he contradicts himself with each post. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree TK. We can only hope that there will be Andy vs. Ken arguments about this issue. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I personally like how Karajou sits there and stays out of it like a bitch. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- You forget - Ken haz powers! Ken haz destroyed other sysops. Of course Kara is going to keep his head down. Well, until some puny editor comes along and sides with Ken. Then we'll see Kara in all his glory - dealing with somebody who can't fight back. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I personally like how Karajou sits there and stays out of it like a bitch. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree TK. We can only hope that there will be Andy vs. Ken arguments about this issue. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken is at least consistent in his insanity. Ken is quite happy to spout canned CMI bullshit and ignore anything that contradicts it. Andy is desperate to prove some kind of link between Christian bullshit and science, and this often means he rushes to accept some idea or other and defend it against all comers with no idea what he's talking about. That tends to mean he contradicts himself with each post. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken -- not as dumb as you think.[edit]
He's on to you...img PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken, Ken, Ken. If you want to talk about damaging CP and alienating their audience, you might want to look closer to home. PsyGremlinPrata! 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah, much more successful parodists simply don't tell anyone their gender at all… But we see it still doesn't have a handle on "preciseness": Lately, most of the liberal parodists have been women lately. So, when one says lately twice in a sentence, is their some weird dimension of time created we didn't yet know about, maybe that weird time dimension on the y side I've been hearing about? Or did the parodists change their gender mid-game? --★uːʤɱ soviet 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Kendoll is exactly as dumb as we think he is. It's just that however much of a simpleton he is, Schlafly's personal deficiencies make him infinitely dumber in certain areas. The old styles work just as well on Schlafly as they always did. Witness the recent case of SeanS, a dickhead in the old style who everyone at RW pegged as a parodist from the word go. Andy's reaction? HAVE A BANHAMMER, GOOD BOY! Schlafly just can't see through people who flatter his ego, I have no idea why he's so incapable of telling who has his best interests at heart. Perhaps because he's so crazy that he's never met someone who genuinely agreed with him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Shorter Ken: They're acting just like me and anyone acting over the top like me is obviously out to hurt this wiki/blog. Oh, and I don't know irony. NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't see it. Capturebot didn't get it either (redirects mr to file upload). Someone want to give the tl;dr version?--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was Kendoll crowing that he's discovered the best way to sniff out parodists is to read RW and block who we tell him to. He's nuked the whole conservative languages thing now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just as well I didn't mention that Jpratt, Karajou and TerryH are all deep-cover parodists, isn't it? --Longbow (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't help but notice how Terry H mostly uses cp for free (as in anti free market) advertising for his suspiciously TOO right wing blog. HINT HINT ken you confused S.O.B.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken basically repeated his ideas on Andy's talk page. Here's a cap.img --Tabrcg23 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Love the repeated use of "Snell". Wotsit supposed to mean? Could he mean the German for rapid or quick? Scream!! (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just to spell that out for you Ken, S-C-H-N-E-L-L. Dance, you silly little man, dance for us once again. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 21:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Aww! I wasn't gonna tell him: just leave him wondering what he'd cocked up now. Scream!! (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken, you know what really offends people? When you use cheap stereotypes to make a point. Not all Germans are "hard working", actually a lot of us are really lazy. And neither does having German ancenstry mean that you are hard working, particularly not when those ancestors moved to the US 150 years ago. Why? Because that's just racist. --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well of course not all germans are hard working, they have universeal health care. Therefore they are socialist, and atheistic, and...Hitler...and beastiality....obese...charity...
- Hey, I just wrote an essay.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No you didn't. You have to write it as a caption to a vaguely related picture for it to be an essay. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken, you know what really offends people? When you use cheap stereotypes to make a point. Not all Germans are "hard working", actually a lot of us are really lazy. And neither does having German ancenstry mean that you are hard working, particularly not when those ancestors moved to the US 150 years ago. Why? Because that's just racist. --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Aww! I wasn't gonna tell him: just leave him wondering what he'd cocked up now. Scream!! (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just to spell that out for you Ken, S-C-H-N-E-L-L. Dance, you silly little man, dance for us once again.
- Love the repeated use of "Snell". Wotsit supposed to mean? Could he mean the German for rapid or quick? Scream!! (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken basically repeated his ideas on Andy's talk page. Here's a cap.img --Tabrcg23 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't help but notice how Terry H mostly uses cp for free (as in anti free market) advertising for his suspiciously TOO right wing blog. HINT HINT ken you confused S.O.B.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just as well I didn't mention that Jpratt, Karajou and TerryH are all deep-cover parodists, isn't it? --Longbow (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was Kendoll crowing that he's discovered the best way to sniff out parodists is to read RW and block who we tell him to. He's nuked the whole conservative languages thing now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't see it. Capturebot didn't get it either (redirects mr to file upload). Someone want to give the tl;dr version?--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Shorter Ken: They're acting just like me and anyone acting over the top like me is obviously out to hurt this wiki/blog. Oh, and I don't know irony.
- Unfortunately, Kendoll is exactly as dumb as we think he is. It's just that however much of a simpleton he is, Schlafly's personal deficiencies make him infinitely dumber in certain areas. The old styles work just as well on Schlafly as they always did. Witness the recent case of SeanS, a dickhead in the old style who everyone at RW pegged as a parodist from the word go. Andy's reaction? HAVE A BANHAMMER, GOOD BOY! Schlafly just can't see through people who flatter his ego, I have no idea why he's so incapable of telling who has his best interests at heart. Perhaps because he's so crazy that he's never met someone who genuinely agreed with him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Preserved for posterity[edit]
User:Diebot preserved the articles for eternity - you can find them here:
- User:Diebot/Essay:Languages ranked by Conservatism
- User:Diebot/Talk:Essay:Languages ranked by Conservatism
You can use the revision histories to see the earlier versions:
larronsicut fur in nocte 00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit]
Wow... Wobblebottom's going off the deep end in the comments section - start here and work your way down.img Is there any mention anywhere in Andy's correspondence with Lenski about another scientist? --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's pretty impressive. Schlafly is his god, isn't he? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Occasionaluse - Isn't that how all the sysops at CP are? Terry just happens to be the one who has found another equally irrelevant place to promote his mindset. Unrelated to the title, but Terry's comment, in reference to evidence that is consistent with slow fossilisation: "I do not accept that. Not without more evidence than just your word. In fact, I suspect a lot of papers on that subject are tissues of lies." How lonely and paranoid he must be, when almost every scientific paper on a subject is simply a lie. άλφαΤαλκ 13:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's similar, but not the same. Karajou sees him as a ranking officer who must be respected and groveled at. Ken knows Andy holds the keys, so he doesn't intentionally ejaculate crazy all over him. JPatt doesn't seem that hard up on him. But Terry is different. Terry idolizes Andy like no other sysop does. I thought I remembered seeing a video of Terry talking about Andy once where you could see the stars in his coked-out eyes. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- If i remember it was terry who used quotes from the bible about not questioning God in order to get people to stop questing andy, twas in the discussions i think. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see Terry's now done his usual when challenged: he fucks off, then comes back a few hours later and sneaks in a reply. --Longbow (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He also boasts of his ability to remove any posts at the same time. Whoever managed to steer Terry into the direction of the Lenski event, my hat and pants goes off to you. His usual "I claim (evolution is hiding something) without proof, now you prove me wrong" is all over the comments. I didn't think someone's glasses can magnify their tunnel vision, but apparently it does with him.
- I reserve to myself the right to assess the credibility of any source that I consult, and to select those sources that I consider worthy of consultation and reliance. = Fancy way of admitting he is cherry picking. Beautiful quote. Surprised no one has accused him of linkspamming on CP for monetary gain, but I can guess he'd censor those comments. NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He moderates - no let's be honest - censors any comment he doesn't like if he can't come back with a riposte. Ceratinly he blanked my last comment on the original whale page so that he ends up having the last word. I think his recent comments have shown a lot of anger and vitriol. No wonder Kettleticket found him so creepy. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't Andy demand samples? I thought the purpose of said samples was to hold them until he could find a creotard to give them to to analyze with stone knives and bear skins and then pronounce it all bullshit. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, Terry's dancing around semantics "Oh, Andy said post - well to us Yanks, that means "upload to the internet."" It's beautiful - never mind how insane his posts are, the true crazy comes out in the comments - when he isn't saying "I reject that", of course! --PsyGremlinTala! 10:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't Andy demand samples? I thought the purpose of said samples was to hold them until he could find a creotard to give them to to analyze with stone knives and bear skins and then pronounce it all bullshit. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- He moderates - no let's be honest - censors any comment he doesn't like if he can't come back with a riposte. Ceratinly he blanked my last comment on the original whale page so that he ends up having the last word. I think his recent comments have shown a lot of anger and vitriol. No wonder Kettleticket found him so creepy.
- I see Terry's now done his usual when challenged: he fucks off, then comes back a few hours later and sneaks in a reply. --Longbow (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- If i remember it was terry who used quotes from the bible about not questioning God in order to get people to stop questing andy, twas in the discussions i think. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's similar, but not the same. Karajou sees him as a ranking officer who must be respected and groveled at. Ken knows Andy holds the keys, so he doesn't intentionally ejaculate crazy all over him. JPatt doesn't seem that hard up on him. But Terry is different. Terry idolizes Andy like no other sysop does. I thought I remembered seeing a video of Terry talking about Andy once where you could see the stars in his coked-out eyes. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Occasionaluse - Isn't that how all the sysops at CP are? Terry just happens to be the one who has found another equally irrelevant place to promote his mindset. Unrelated to the title, but Terry's comment, in reference to evidence that is consistent with slow fossilisation: "I do not accept that. Not without more evidence than just your word. In fact, I suspect a lot of papers on that subject are tissues of lies." How lonely and paranoid he must be, when almost every scientific paper on a subject is simply a lie. άλφαΤαλκ 13:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken's "sleeplessness"[edit]
For crying out loud - Ken was on about his illness and sleeplessness when I was a sysop. It's getting old. — Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs
- Maybe Ken's about to keel over like TK. Would Andy then admit that, given just how often Kenneth edits Conservapedia that CP might be fatal? And, indeed, could very well be many times more fatal than any video game? --Sasayaki (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember any claims of Ken about his health. I thought his typical mantra was to state that he has no time for replying as he had to attend to some other urgent projects... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken has made many comments about his 'health problems' and lack of sleep. Mainly at aSoK, if my memory serves me correctly. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- @larron - didn't mean it as a crit of the WIGO, but rather that ken's been using his illness and lack of sleep for years. Earliest example I can find in the leaks is 31 Dec 2008. Ironically he claims that with God's help, he'd be cured in a month, back on 26 Nov 2009. Oh yes, how did his fellow Christian sysops react to this news? Silence. So basically either Ken has a serious medical condition, in which case Andy should warn him off editing so much, or he's making shit up. PsyGremlinPraat! 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- absolutely no offense taken :-) I havn't read the leaks back to back - normally, I just search for keywords. But I think that this is the first public announcement of Ken's difficulties... larronsicut fur in nocte 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- @larron - didn't mean it as a crit of the WIGO, but rather that ken's been using his illness and lack of sleep for years. Earliest example I can find in the leaks is 31 Dec 2008. Ironically he claims that with God's help, he'd be cured in a month, back on 26 Nov 2009. Oh yes, how did his fellow Christian sysops react to this news? Silence. So basically either Ken has a serious medical condition, in which case Andy should warn him off editing so much, or he's making shit up. PsyGremlinPraat! 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ken has made many comments about his 'health problems' and lack of sleep. Mainly at aSoK, if my memory serves me correctly.
- Sorry, I don't remember any claims of Ken about his health. I thought his typical mantra was to state that he has no time for replying as he had to attend to some other urgent projects... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
<-- Bipolar? 101.161.50.206 (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Is CP going to say anything about Cain throwing in the towel?[edit]
Andy has to know by now right? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Jpatt has put it on main page right. He was number 3 on their list, so they were proven right again. - π 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "false allegations." Heh. The world must be a really nice place when you can discursively construct your own reality. Anyway, look, I gotta go. Natalie Portman and Winona Ryder are waiting for me in the hot tub. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cain was a fucking lunatic who didn't understand at all how an election works (bitching that people are using his past fuckups to discredit him like thats anything new for any politician ever). Also, pint... interesting choice in woman., --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is why people become congress people or senators first before tilting for president. Get your past aired out while you are still a junior, develop a national profile based on actual governance and policy positions, then run for president. Nobody wants to hear old news from a decade ago again, they want fresh scandals, bad time to have them. - π 00:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is why people become congress people or senators first before tilting for president. Get your past aired out while you are still a junior, develop a national profile based on actual governance and policy positions, then run for president. Nobody wants to hear old news from a decade ago again, they want fresh scandals, bad time to have them. - π
- Cain was a fucking lunatic who didn't understand at all how an election works (bitching that people are using his past fuckups to discredit him like thats anything new for any politician ever). Also, pint... interesting choice in woman., --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "false allegations." Heh. The world must be a really nice place when you can discursively construct your own reality. Anyway, look, I gotta go. Natalie Portman and Winona Ryder are waiting for me in the hot tub. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The Bible defended, with relativism[edit]
Andy would probably poop out a kidney if he realized that this is an argument from moral relativismimg--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think he probably does realize it -- he just doesn't give a shit about inconsistencies/hypocrisies, as long as an argument is for something believes in. Fuckertalk to me :D 04:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- We know from long experience that Andy will say absolutely anything if it supports his idea of conservatism, even if it's the total opposite of what he said last week. If he was good at it he'd be minister of propaganda somewhere, but he's so obvious it's laughable. Rennie McGreet (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jpatt shitting on Ron Paul b/c of Donald Trump[edit]
There's something so sad about our favorite teenage conservative, Jpatt, that he's willing to shit on anyone, including Andy's fave Ron Paul, because he won't take part in a reality show clown as a debate moderator. Really, does nothing else say more about Jpatt and his Generation Y (sic?) thinking than his buying hook-line-and-sinker a reality show fake billionaire's self-aggrandizing theatrics? Stop embarrassing yourself, Jpatt - and accept some people who cream your intelligence and yet are still on your ideological side don't accept the side show that the conservative movement has become, and that you represent. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't comprehend your logic, sorry BFF. Trump's giant ego and tough talk will make for the highest of ratings. This isn't another GOP debate, do you favor Coke or Pepsi? No, it has buzz. I don't care for Paul or any double-digit loser from 2008. User — Unsigned, by: 74.63.112.139 / talk / contribs
- So the level of political discourse in the US has lowered itself to the level of employing reality TV stars in order to boost TV ratings? How delightful. Why don't they have a judging panel consisting of Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and David Hasslehoff to round the whole thing off. Aceace 06:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I like how hunstman was thrown in there as if he were choosing not to debate because of the donald and not because he is working his ass off in New Hampshire. I feel that huntsman may right now be running for the 2016 ticket, having realized that in 2012 the Republicans will relearn that going too conservative means going home with out the trophy. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although Jpatt might write like an ill-educated teenager, he's a lot older. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I remember emailing back and forth with him a few times and always feeling bad for him, since he admitted to truly struggling with the English language. Despite his vitriol and hateful disdain for everyone remotely different than him, he still represents a disadvantaged part of American society, in my eyes. So I feel a little bad for him. άλφαΤαλκ 21:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although Jpatt might write like an ill-educated teenager, he's a lot older.
- I like how hunstman was thrown in there as if he were choosing not to debate because of the donald and not because he is working his ass off in New Hampshire. I feel that huntsman may right now be running for the 2016 ticket, having realized that in 2012 the Republicans will relearn that going too conservative means going home with out the trophy. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- So the level of political discourse in the US has lowered itself to the level of employing reality TV stars in order to boost TV ratings? How delightful. Why don't they have a judging panel consisting of Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and David Hasslehoff to round the whole thing off. Aceace 06:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Minor pet peeve[edit]
AK has no friggin' clue what formal logic meansimg. I know this isn't very significant or humorous, but it just gnaws at me and I have to holler about it.
There. All better now, honest, I am. Phiwum (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's very humorous in the large picture since that is the guy who got edit rights before making any edits simply because somebody else (not even a sysop) asked nicely. (See here)
- Looking at this particular thing, he's just quoting bullshit from that book, so it's at least not his original bullshit, but he should've seen through the bullshit before copypasting this "argument".
- But his section above thatimg is just as odd in my eyes. --Sid (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Despite the whole complex specified information thing being so much hogwash, lets see what else we can "prove" with this logic.
- Despite a thorough search, no coca-cola bottling plants have been found in Afghanistan.
- Mexico has a number of coca-cola bottling plants
- Therefore, all coca-cola in Afghanistan was bottled in Mexico.
- QED! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's one in an industrial estate in Kabul. It's good Coke too; made with sugar, not that corn syrup crap. --Longbow (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Curse the omnipresence of the coca-cola company! OK, try Antarctica. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's one in an industrial estate in Kabul. It's good Coke too; made with sugar, not that corn syrup crap. --Longbow (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Countering vandalism[edit]
Conservapedia has often tried to counter the rampant childish vandalism with which the site is pestered. With their lack of technical skills, Andy and friends are limited to the use of a few measures, of which the two preeminent are the (de)activation of account creation and the switching to nightmode: then only administrators and members of the group edit are allowed to comment.
| legend | |
|---|---|
| green | all registered editors may edit |
| darkred | only administrators and members of the group edit may edit
|
| red | only administrators are allowed to edit |
| grey | missing data |
| shaded | account creation is activated
|
Here we see a typical pattern from Feb 2011: nightmode is active from roughly 6 a.m until 2 p.m. (GMT) It seems to be activated manually. Most of the time, the creation of accounts is allowed, this feature is switched on and off arbitrarily.
A disastrous experiment: you are only allowed to create an account when you aren't allowed to comment: very frustrating for an editor who wants to dive in. And you have to wait till it is after midnight in the U.S. to create your account - not the best time for high-school pupils. Furthermore - and typically for Conservapedia - the policy wasn't announced anywhere an the site (especially not on the Log in page), leading to much irritation. OTOH, nighmode may have been semi-automatized, as it is activated regularly at 6:30 a.m.
Nightmode is reduced to four hours a day, account creation is switched off (automatically?) at 11:45 a.m. (GMT) until someone remembers to switch it on again...
A new version of nightmode is introduced, during which only administrators, but not even the members of the group edit may comment!
The main problem with the nightmode: those who can switch it on and off aren't inconvenienced when it's on. Heck, they aren't even informed about the current status, as the mode isn't announced (as it should be) anywhere! So, if someone administrator turns it on, it takes the others quite a while to realize that this has happened - if they realize it at all. Andy was informed about this problem a couple of times, but choses to ignore it (quelle surprise!) --larronsicut fur in nocte 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can also put Ed on the list of people who are aware of the problemimg without showing signs of actually caring that much. --Sid (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The power of deflection is great in that one! larronsicut fur in nocte 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Last edit to that section is 30th of November, and Ed has edited since. Another classic example of Ed's teasing backfiring on him, and he flees from the scene entirely. NorsemanCyser Melomel 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Last edit to that section is 30th of November, and Ed has edited since. Another classic example of Ed's teasing backfiring on him, and he flees from the scene entirely.
- The power of deflection is great in that one! larronsicut fur in nocte 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of the mouths of JPratts...[edit]
"Bombing a civilian population is as old as war itself.img"
Really, JPratt? Really? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- So if the Kaiser was the first one to do it and it's as old as warfare itself, does that make warfare not even a hundred years old? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 01:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the idea of civilians being killed through warfare is as old as war itself but specifically bombing (in the modern sense) civilians... isn't. I suppose launching stuff over the walls of a besieged city might count? Maybe? X Stickman (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ero, the bible is a lie. QED --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness)
- Hey Chumley, I just thought Ed would understand where I am going with this -- which is aviation bombardment is separate. On the other hand, you knobs, (not Nobs), fool nobody. The Bible's main "characters" are documented throughout different cultures, not just the Bible. So the Bible is a lie doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All fiction with real characters? N-O-P-E User — Unsigned, by: 95.154.230.254 / talk / contribs
- Excellent. So, just give me a non-biblical contemporaneous mention of Abraham and I'll become a Godist. Sound fair? --Longbow (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see a mention of Adam and of the Flood from the same times from somewhere other than the Bible, please. I would also like to see accounts of all of Jesus's miracles from observers who recorded them in places other than the Bible. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a comic of Sigmund Freud punching terrorists to death. Sigmund Freud's existence is documented outside of this comic. Therefore, Sigmund Freud punched terrorists to death. This is history. X Stickman (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's not quite an exact analog. It'd be more like finding that comic one-thousand years from now and concluding that since they have solid evidence that Sigmund Freud existed, it's fact. Fuckertalk to me :D 04:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a comic of Sigmund Freud punching terrorists to death. Sigmund Freud's existence is documented outside of this comic. Therefore, Sigmund Freud punched terrorists to death. This is history. X Stickman (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see a mention of Adam and of the Flood from the same times from somewhere other than the Bible, please. I would also like to see accounts of all of Jesus's miracles from observers who recorded them in places other than the Bible. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. So, just give me a non-biblical contemporaneous mention of Abraham and I'll become a Godist. Sound fair? --Longbow (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Chumley, I just thought Ed would understand where I am going with this -- which is aviation bombardment is separate. On the other hand, you knobs, (not Nobs), fool nobody. The Bible's main "characters" are documented throughout different cultures, not just the Bible. So the Bible is a lie doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All fiction with real characters? N-O-P-E User — Unsigned, by: 95.154.230.254 / talk / contribs
- Ero, the bible is a lie. QED --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness)
- I guess the idea of civilians being killed through warfare is as old as war itself but specifically bombing (in the modern sense) civilians... isn't. I suppose launching stuff over the walls of a besieged city might count? Maybe? X Stickman (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Conservapedia here (don't worry, it only has to happen once). "Bombing" has a loose definition, but throwing fireballs into enemy cities has indeed been as old as organized warfare itself, dating back to ancient Inca and Greek times. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Warfare is much much older than use of fire. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Conservapedia:Memes[edit]
I think it would make sense to create a list detailing the memes that we use and reference here, like 'trusworthy' and 'defensive weapon of gun' and whatnot. Flubbertalk to me :D 07:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Try here first. Also, as memes they are mainly RW's doing. Something like "defensive weapon of gun" is said far more here than on CP, where it was only said once or twice long ago. We simply take an absurd statement and run with it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)