Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive271

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

I'm very disappointed in all of you[edit]

It's been two days and nobody has trolled CP by inserting Andy as Gingrich's expected attorney general pick. I can't help feel like that was what Andy was ego fishing for, and it makes about as much sense as Sarah Palin for secretary of state. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow! That never even crossed my mind. (Not that I have ever trolled CP, mind you.) Especially not after someone pointed out that Andy should head up Education. Phiwum (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Andy who? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I just a sudden thought - what if Andy was Gingrich's choice for SecState? By the time he'd finished absorbing all the correct information on them durn furreigners it would be 2016 and he'd be out of a job! Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
When has a lack of correct information ever stopped Andy? I envision this conversation in Secretary Schlafly's office at Foggy Bottom:
"I have decided to sever all diplomatic ties with Britain because it's an atheist nation!"
"But... but... Mister Secretary... they're one of our most important allies. And they have a state Christian church. You know... the Church of England."
"Silence, liberal! As Secretary of the Treasury Trump would say, 'you're fired!'"
QED. MDB (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point, but I was thinking more on the lines of: "Ok, what does SecState need to know? Oh.... rewrite everything in his brain. Hm, tricky. Well, if he's driven into a catatonic state then that'll make things easier. Get the books, the overhead projector and that chair from a Clockwork Orange!" Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone get away with adding Mama Skeksis as Secretary for Kitchen Affairs? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
lolimg --ʤɱ pirate 02:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken-an the Barbarian?[edit]

What is best in life?img MDB (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What a nut. ONE / TALK 14:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly he's just refilled his prescription again. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
So what is best in life is Ken holding onto a single unsourced claim in an online article by a biased columnist; videos by a mallcop in California talking about his successful campaigns on Battlefield 3 (because what other campaigns does he really do); and some other random guy on the Web lamenting over this? I guess one takes what one can get. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Or, his prescription is in desperate need of refilling/the lack of socialistic medicine means he can't afford his prescription--"Shut up, Brx." 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't funny the last timeimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I like that the article contains a section headed with and containing a link to this articleimg, which is just a copy of the lead section of the parent article. However I must thank Ken for providing me a link to an article with a picture of an adorable ratimg. Makes me want to get pet rats again. ONE / TALK 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
And the guy can't work out why I called him a freak. - π Moderator 00:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's calling Andy wrong, to his face, on his own site, with his own bandwidth and Andy's too stupid to realise it! "A Conservapedian" is always code for Andy in his pathetic attempts at self-promotion. Ken's going to get away with this act of trolling that puts TK to shame because Andy's caught in a catch 22 situation. If he leaves it there, Ken's saying he's wrong. If he takes action and removes Ken, then he was wrong to promote him and suffer his antics for so long. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What? On all the things to call Andy wrong on, a love of the open steppe seems like an odd choice.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
When has Andy ever admitted to being wrong about anything? Ever? That being said, the dramatis persone speak for themselves, Conservapedia (the site) has a question on philosophy/outlook/future plans, A Conservapedian (code for Andy) is wrong and the voice of truth is Ken. This is utter genius from him. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess the open steppe in this metaphor stands for wildly pulling shit out of your ass. --ʤɱ netlabelist 18:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can only pull so many things out of there before it starts to be open, as well as dry. Like the steppe.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If history has taught us anything it's that Andy is never caught in a catch-22, he will trim anything if it get's to be bad enough. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It does seem that unlike Andy who hates all things non-American, Ken seems to have a fetish for foreign cultures. He loves "cultural high class Christian Indian dancing" (as opposed to American athiest dancing, whatever that is) and now Mongolians. We all know he has a fetish for writing gibberish in Chinese. His love of foreign was sealed when he deleted the "Conservative Language" page for slandering foreign cultures. So slandering PZ Myers, Athiests and AugustO is OK, but noone's allowed to make digs at the French on CP? Doraemon話そう!話そう! 01:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting theory. If it's correct and Andy is the "Conservapedian," does that make "Genghis Conservapedia" a personification of a certain Trusworthy Encyclopedia? And if so, is it merely a narrative device, or does Ken really believe Andy's blog is alive and communicates with him? --Roofus (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken's latest CMI link[edit]

[1] I'll tear that up for you.

  • vomeronasal- no clue what that is, I'll let you have it
  • When a person is chewing, or smiling, etc. the ear muscles move the ears. This gradually moves the wax outwards, cleaning the ears. But there could be other functions also That's wrong. When you chew, it's your jaw muscles that move, and if they wiggle the ears at the same time, great, but it doesn't explain the function of the auricular muscles, or the reason why most people can't even use them. This is interesting because similar muscles exist in animals, where they do have a clear purpose- moving the ears to capture a wider range of noises. Of course our ears aren't that great, so we've grown out of our auriculars.
  • Wisdom teeth? A straw man. Only a fool would use that as an argument for evolution as the origin of species. It does, however, illustrate how we are evolving within the trappings of society- something even creationists would be idiots to deny.
  • cervical ribs- don't know much about that
  • third eyelid- I know even less about that one
  • Darwin's point- seems plausible that it would be vestigial, but I'd need to know more about it to refute you
  • subclavius- I don't know who it is you're trying to disprove, since you've so conveniently removed the link to the article, but if they said the subclavius was vestigial then you shouldn't be acting like they're a big face in biology
  • palmaris longus- removing it has no effect whatsoever, although I can't recall the explanation of a possible obsolete purpose my anatomy instructor taught us.
  • Male nipples- I didn't click your link because I'm currently in a rush, but I can tell you that some cultures use make nipples as pacifiers. That, however, is irrelevant to the next nipple point I'd like to make: we are lined with nipples, like a dog. They're rarely evident, but they happen. One anatomy teacher told us of a story where he was examining a woman with a nipple on her shoulder. Why would we be designed with so many extra tits?
  • erector pili- again, who is this paper written in response to?
  • Appendix- useless, and generally harmful. No one contests that except for you.
  • bodily hairs- I think the leading theory on body hair is sexual selection, where people with less hair weren't swarming with as many parasites. That doesn't mean body hair is useless, it just means our distant ancestors found lice to be gross.
  • plantaris- I don't know much about that
  • thirteenth rib- don't know much about that, but it begs the question as to why an intelligent designer would allow us to be born with so many deformities
  • male uterus/vas deferens- don't know
  • fifth toe- not necessarily vestigial, but not particularly useful for humans. I'd have to look at chimps and their use for it to tell you anything more
  • pyramidalis- don't know
  • coccyx- it's great for muscle attachments but why does it give the appearance of being fused together and why do we have the genetic information for it to become a tail?
  • paranasal sinuses- don't know

Finally, aside from the suspicious subject of the page (who is it refuting? Certainly not someone that knows what they're talking about), you missed the sternalis as a vestigial muscle- although there are competing theories regarding its presence. Anyways, that's all. I've an appointment at two and I'm reminded of the comic where this guy won't go to bed because someone was wrong on the internet.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR. AceAce For Mod! 19:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting question for CMI, Why would god give man (the sex, not the species) nipples? Also, why do mine itch?--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
On muscles. When a muscle goes unused the fibers get thinner, they only disappear altogether if they are disconnected from any efferent neurons (which deliver neurotransmitters which signal the muscle to stay alive). I can and do move my ears (I can move them up and I can move them back), but I'd wager that most people who cannot still have the muscles, even if they are truly never ever used. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
CMI has a male nipple page, which concludes they're for sexual stimulation. They tackle the thorny "was Adam created with nipples?" question with, "yes because God knew he had Eve up his sleeve all the time." The best bit of pseudo-science babble is
The only explanations consistent with evolution are that humans evolved from an all-female species, or that males once helped to breast-feed their babies.
That incredibly stupid assertion is evidence that anti-evolutionists are really anti-science. Just as evolutionists don't study cosmology or abiogenesis or quantum mechanics or all the other fields that these paranoids lump into "evolution," other disciplines (like genetics and developmental biology) provide simple answers to male nipples. But because they don't need to invoke evolution, the answer is somehow an epic fail. What morons. --Whoover (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one with ADHD, Ace--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The only explanations consistent with evolution are that humans evolved from an all-female species, or that males once helped to breast-feed their babies.
[2] I just leave this here... 217.249.144.233 (talk)

"Atheistic" England[edit]

One thing I can't stand is when Andy keeps using the word "atheistic" as if it's a bad thing. But, here's something I found out, that if he found out it might blow his little brain. In the UK, all schools up to and including sixth-form level are required to give an act of collective worship daily. Last time I checked, Andy had something of a fetish for classroom prayer. (There is an opt out thing, by the way, if yopu have a written note from your parents or, at sixth form, you just don't feel like it) There are, frankly, a lot of schools that flout this rule and it's not greatly enforced, but all the schools I went to, with the exception of the college I am attending, went along with it. Even I, an atheist, went along with it because I can distinguish between spiritual moments and the science labs (att. Richard Lenski). So, do you reckon he should be informed about this even if for the sake of the look on his face? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 11:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that filthy RINO, David Cameron saying that England is a "Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so." and that Christianity provides a 'moral code' to counter riots, expense scandals and Islamist extremism... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Pedantic question: how could David Cameron be a RINO when he's not a Republican? MDB (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to make a play on Andy's "all conservatives are Republican" nonsense. Maybe I should have said CINO instead, seeing as the Tories fail dismally when it comes to Andy's definition of conservative. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Outside of the United States, there are no conservatives. --ʤɱ sinner 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If anybody mentions it to him, Andy will probably find a way to prove that David Cameron didn't really mean what he said. Largely because he thinks that no non-American has ever said anything of any consequence since 1776. Ken, on the other hand, is likely to see Cameron's recent comments as proof that the Question Evolution! Campaign and User:Conservative are converting the world to Christianity and grinding atheism up into dust.--Spud (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Oooh - in that case I'd love to see them pit against each other. Andy who hates anything non-American, and Ken who thinks that Indian supposidely-Christian-but-actually-Hindu dancing is the best thing since sliced oversight. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 22:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The daily worship thing never happened for me beyond primary school. That's maybe due to the type of school, but I went to a standard mainstream comprehensive so I can't think why we would be exempt. Load of nonsense anyway. Worm (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not that you were exempt, it's that the rule is not enforced. There isn't some government agency tasked with visiting schools at random and checking that they spend a few minutes on daily "collective worship". So if the head teacher says "Fuck it, these kids have better things to do than sing Jerusalem every morning" then the collective worship doesn't happen. In the US teacher-led prayed is prohibited, but it happens because again, no government agency is checking, so it takes individual complaints to change anything. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
it could fall under RE and they have inspecions for thst. Or it could be covered in a section5 inspection. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Fluffy and Rover can't drive....[edit]

...humans are not animals. Le sigh. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The explanation that stuff like this is linked to intelligence really makes you wonder whether Ken would get a license… --ʤɱ libertarian 14:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken obviously has no concept of 'sets', what a dork. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
See, Ken? It works like this
.
Humans aren't animals? News to me! BRB, going to open my male flower and let bees take its pollen while I absorb some fucking sunlight and drink water from the ground to survive. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
What's in the "things that can drive" circle that isn't also in the "animals" circle? Robots? DickTurpis (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Robots. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah. But aren't the sizes supposed to be somewhat proportionate? According to that diagram there are about as many driving robots on the planet as there are animals. I'm pretty sure that's not true. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"Venn diagrams do not generally contain information on the relative or absolute sizes (cardinality) of sets; i.e. they are schematic diagrams." So they can, but it's not necessary when you just want to show general relations. --Sid (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if you tried to scale some Venn diagrams they would be unreadable. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
And I'm thankfull for that. The Venn diagrams of logic courses would have been a real pain in the ass: all things with the color black, all things with the color red, all things that are black and red. Would have been a real pain in the ass to count. --ʤɱ sinner 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Very well, but do allow we to point out that the subset of people who don't drive is larger than the subset of robots that do. DickTurpis (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is easily the most brilliant bit of logic I've seen! Ken is a genius and the (Bible-believing) DMV is obviously more knowledgeable about these matters than atheistic biologists who probably live in atheistic England and eat atheistic food. Phiwum (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken is a genius. Trolling atheists by littering a purportedly legitimate conservative Christian website with the weirdest horseshit rantings of a madman possible. Brilliant.

Nitpick: it annoys me when people call humans 'people' to exclude them from other animals. Dolphins and other primates are people too! Fallacy (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick. That's whack. define "people." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Creatures with a sufficient amount of intelligence, sentience, personality, etc. Fallacy (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well Fallacy, while you where pulling definitions of peopledom out of your ass, I was busy finding proof for evolution. --Marlow (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of my ass? What definition would you use? Fallacy (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
People create zoos, animals live in zoos. I should be a fucking anthropologist with insights like that. X Stickman (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Fluffy and Rover take exception to this statement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Fallacy, there is no generally accepted use of the word people that includes anything else other than.... you know.... people. At least not in the real world. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In some contexts, philosophers use the term "person" (plural:persons) to mean "rational agent". Whether dolphins or any non-human primates count as persons or not is unsettled, far as I know. Perhaps Fallacy is using "people" in this sense. Phiwum (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes... obviously. :| Jesus, sometimes it feels like I'm talking to chatbots that haven't passed the Turing test. Fallacy (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
But that's a particular bit of technical jargon that has no currency in everyday conversations. It makes no sense to complain that others use "person" in its normal sense (essentially synonymous with "human"), rather than the specialized sense invented by philosophers in order to satisfy their own needs. You might as well complain that people use "agent" differently than philosophers, too. Phiwum (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That's why it was a nitpick. And maybe I'm being too harsh, but I think it should have been pretty fucking obvious which definition of 'person' I was using, especially on a site like this. Fallacy (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Then why on earth does it "annoy" you that people use the word "people" when referring to.... people? This is a conversation where including dolphins and other primates (because you arbitrarily assign them rationality and/or intelligence) is invalid. It should have been "pretty fucking obvious" to you that the definition being used was the everyday one synonymous with humans. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Meh, the reason we have "Human rights" (resulting in bullshit where people want to give them to an unthinking blob just because it's technically human) rather than "People rights" is that the Powers That Be were worried they'd get lunatics trying to grant people rights to dolphins and chimps based on dubious rationales like the above. I'd argue that if you spend time with Kanzi, Glenn Beck, and your neighbour's five year old daughter, you will be left in no doubt that Kanzi is not the same kind of thing. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm. My wife and I have three cats. One would crash the car instantly, just for the hell of it, one would fall asleep by the heating vents, and one would use the car to plot some terrible crime, purely because she's that kind of cat. They sound human to me. Darkmind1970 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
some chimps have been taught to drive. They are not very good at it though. Does the law requiring a drivers licence apply to animals ? Hamster (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No, animals are not subject to the law in modern societies. The law manages relationships between people, who are capable of understanding and obeying the law and are therefore subject to its sanctions. The responsibility for an accident involving a chimp driving a car would lie with the car owner and the chimp owner who permitted this circumstance to occur. If somehow a wild chimp were to build a car from first principles, drive it into the city and knock down a pedestrian so that no person was responsible for the accident -- it would just be a natural phenomenon, like being struck by lightning, and of no more direct interest to the law than any other such phenomenon. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dolphins and other primates Gosh. — Unsigned, by: 82.23.210.230 / talk / contribs

FFS[edit]

So what's up their on MPR? A story about hundreds of people dying in the Phillies? No. A story about ongoing clashes in Egypt? No. Israel and Palestinians reaching an agreement? No. Elections in Brazil? No. Vaclav Havel dead? No. Butthurt from Texas? Yes!img

I know it's supposed to be "what the MSM isn't fully covering." but come on! There are people living outside of the US, you know? --ʤɱ atheist 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Um Karajou, I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the word "persecuted". People who wave their dick in people's faces at every given opportunity are not persecuted when a law enforcement officer tells them to stop. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
With due respect, putting up a nativity scene is not well-described as "waving their dick in people's faces". In fact, though I agree that it should not be displayed on public property, I think that reasonable, well-meaning persons can disagree over whether this is a natural consequence of the first amendment. Phiwum (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I swear Christians bitch about nativity scenes just to make trouble. They know government is supposed to be secular. There are already nativity scenes on every lawn, why the hell do they need yet another on land that is bound to cause a problem? Senator Harrison (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
As a Texan, Karajou, I applaud your efforts to highlight the utter persecution and harassment my state's born-againers dole out to anyone they disagree with have to endure. Junggai (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Tebow...7-2?[edit]

After weeks of worshiping Tim Tebow, it looks like the broncos are going down. Now I don't want to call it yet. Yes the score is 41-23, and yes, there are 2 minutes left. But still, stranger things have happened in the world of sports. How do you suppose Andy will take the news that the New England Patriots beat the almighty one? (We will never know, because it will get no mention). Still psyched my Pats are the ones doing it :D --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's final. I don't usually follow football, but Andy made me follow this one because of all his Tebow hype. SamHB (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Another game I wish both teams could lose. Yeah, I figured this would happen as soon as the Broncos played a decent team (which the Bears minus cutler apparently aren't). I don't think anyone expected Denver to win this one. DickTurpis (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody "expected" Denver to win, but the line was only 7 points. New England has historically done very poorly in Denver, with Brady going 2-7 I think in Denver in his career. The Pats are VERY weak defensively, and Broncos have a VERY STRONG defense. So with a 7-point line and the way Denver's defense has been playing, it was very possible for them to win. Of course, they got stomped and then some, so we'll have to wait until next week for more Saint Tebow talk on CP. 12.16.112.2 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
God is angry! Quick! Sacrifice more virgins! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
For Andy patriotism (by name, not by deed) is as high a calling as God. No conflict. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Go Lions!!! Suh for president!!!--66.68.86.111 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Broncos amazing fourth quarter comeback-laden winning streak under Tebow is the best evidence for the existence of God. Logically, I believe that makes Tom Brady God now. Go Pats! Sam Tally-ho! 03:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So what I don't understand is how bible-bashers claim that when a bible-basher (or his team) does well it means God loves him/her, but when a bible-basher does badly it doesn't mean God hates him. Example: Euan Murray and Scotland's crap rugby union team. Can anyone explain the logic here? I'm Spartacus! 13:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's good, god did it. If it's bad, it's your fault. There really is no "it's bad and god did it" and neither is their a "it's good and you did it". It's not an equation but a sudden switch of who's to blame. It's one of those problems coming with the definition of god as loving. Also these are mostly free-marketeers, so blaming something that is not in control of a contender on some outside force open up the possibility of blaming it on the system, so it always has to be the contenders fault. There really is no logic in here, it's straight up doublethink on the rocks. --ʤɱ federalist 14:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't surprised that Denver lost, although I wouldn't have been surprised if they won either, as the Patriots have a terrible overall defense. In fact in the first quarter the Bronocs did really well and look like they may dominate through their rushing game, but because of some untimely fumbles in the second and third quarter, the Patriots manage to take the game away. Tebow, to his credit, took the loss well. As for the team, well there is still a good chance we will see Tebow in the playoffs, as their final two regular games are against the Bills and Chiefs, both which are rather weak opponents (although neither team has anything to lose at this point so they may go all out against the Broncos to win and play spoilers to Denver's season).
As for Andy, I am not sure how he feels. Jpatt proclaimedimg "Tim Tebow is still a winner", despite the loss as he has "won over millions with his public devotion to God." So at least one of the sysops is sticking by Tebow for now.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't knock the Chiefs off just yet ("neither team has anything to lose at this point"). If the Bills can find a way to beat the Broncos next week, then either Raiders will be tied with the Broncos if the Raiders win---and they split the regular season matchups, or the Chiefs will be a game back from the Broncos if they win, and the Chiefs will face the Broncos in the last week of the season for the playoff berth. So it's not just a spoiler for the Chiefs---they could be playing for a playoff berth! 12.16.112.2 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Tebowing is mockery of Christian prayer!" WIGO PHAIL.[edit]

Whoever wrote that wiki fails at basic reading comprehension. Andy was arguing that to mock Tebowing is to mock Christian prayer, not that Tebowing itself was a mockery. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confusing terminology. "Tebowing" doesn't just mean "Mr. Tebow doing his thing on the field" but rather "people imitating his pose" to have some fun. Andy felt that that Tebowing was mockery of Tebow's on-field prayer. And a few weeks later, Tebowing in school halls suddenly is prayer, and Andy went along with it: "Tebowing: bending on one knee in public to give glory to God". I admit that my attention isn't fully focused due to work, but I don't really see the reading comprehension fail. --Sid (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I loved the WIGO. It went from mockery to prayer in no time flat and only public schools could have been the medium for such a dramatic change. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't know that taking a Tebow pose was something that people did to take the piss--I read the thread in terms of the people who were doing it "legitmately" (the "hall blocking" incident). My bad. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 13:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Evolution NZ![edit]

Oh Ken, you are a dear. As one of the 1/3 of New Zealanders that have no religious beliefs or affiliations I look forward to seeing the Quesiton Evolution! Campaign striking SS. NZ Atheism broadside. Roll out the heavy artillery. By the way Ken, NZ has navigated the financial storm very well indeed. New jobs are up 9.3%, business confidence has been steady not to mention your own linked article reads: ..the nation in is relatively good shape as it faces "the global storm ahead." Good luck Ken! AceAce For Mod! 03:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be fun to watch. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The advantage at least of all these "local" blogs is that Kendoll isn't involved in them. If they can possibly avoid the temptation of giving him author privileges, they'll be much the better for it. On the other hand, well, they aren't actually doing anything. At all. So I have no idea what they're going to fill all these blogs with. Variations on the theme of "We hate evolution!" I guess. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This is going to give me a chance to get involved at a grass roots level. AceAce For Mod! 09:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I've got Z$1,000,000 that sez all these "international" blogs end up being run by Ken (who'll use clever, undetectable nicks like "QuestionNZ") and all he'll do is publish exactly the same articles across all the blogs, al a his buddy Mariano.
May I make a suggestion and some clever people start cyber squatting. I see Ken has already grabbed questionevolutionza, which is currently empty. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
How much will Z$1,000,000 buy you these days? Half a cup of tea? Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that was yesterday. Today it'll get you a sniff at the empty cup. Tomorrow you get to look at a picture of a teabag. --Longbow (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec x 2) If you're lucky (although they have scrapped the currency now - use dollars, Pula or Rands). Last time I was there, a meal for 4 of us cost something like Z$7 trillion AND the price actually went up while we were eating! --PsyGremlinSermā!
Anyway, it might be an idea to grab some US state abbreviations. Ken forgot to get Texas, for example. --Longbow (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do already think that all of those blogs are written by Ken. From the apologetic Canadian:

We understand the creation vs. evolution issue is sensitive subject for many and this blog is in no way meant to be an offense to anybody. Please understand that if you feel that all of evolution is a fact then we'd like your feedback as well. We only wish that it be in nonaggressive manner.

to the Ken-funny sounding Australian

The website is continuing to be developed and we are seeking volunteers to assist in the management and development of this website for Australians.

to the redundant Kiwien

We will be adding posts of interest for anyone who wants to read or discuss the latest news related to Creation and Evolution, especially if it relates to New Zealand.
As you can guess by the blog title, we will be providing information to support belief in Creation, specifically YEC (Young Earth Creationism).

Ken's stereotypes of the people, using the animals instead of real icons like the flags (which Ken is probably doing so he doesn't confuse the Australian flag with the flag of New Zealand), using the exact same design for all 4 websites and also his speech patterns are all over it. This is Ken. --ʤɱ structuralist 11:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Don't call me Ken. Wish me luck with the blog, as I'm not a great writer. Hopefully some like minded people will join me after a bity of promotion. Merry Christmas from Roscoe. 60.234.242.74 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, I'm sure Ken will glad to know there's a lot of grassroots people just waiting to help his blog when QE SA finally goes live, and they'll write some wonderful Afrikaans and isiZulu articles for his blog. I'm also seeing some familiar names in the testimonials. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's push him to open a QE! Germany blog in German. The Google translations would be hilarious to read. --ʤɱ secularist 11:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It does bring up the possibility that, in fact, all the members of the "Question Evolution Campaign" are Kendoll himself. OK, it's not terribly likely. At least some of them have established internet personas. But at least 4 of the main blog authors are Kendoll pseudonyms, if he has that many accounts why not more? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Three days and nothing. Pity... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Evolution Switzerland![edit]

Oh, c'mon,  K e n  D o l l , you can do better than that!

You announce Question Evolution Switzerland! and you don't compare evolution to Swiss cheese? (All the holes in it, y'know...)

Or maybe you could demand an evolutionist explanation of why this guy has human hands! Okay, I just wanted to post my all-time favorite Swedish Chef bit.

You're slipping! MDB (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Swedish =/= Swiss. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The initial entry was clearly written by Ken himself. I'll be interested to see how he translates it into German, French and Italian for his Swiss audience. --Longbow (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"Alps"? Obvious Kendoll sock is obvious. Jesus H. Christ but he's unimaginative. Is this what the "grassroots" question evolution campaign is? Just an endless series of spamblogs created by a demented troll? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You got it in one. --Longbow (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Which country will join our Question evolution campaign blog network next? The United States? The UK? South Africa? Scotland? Ireland? Korea? Singapore? Somebody buy this guy a map for the sake of my desk and my head. --ʤɱ structuralist 19:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, aren't the Swiss big in to Atheism?--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia says: "The 2005 Eurobarometer poll found 48% to be theist, 39% expressing belief in "a spirit or life force", 9% atheist and 4% agnostic. Greeley (2003) found that 27% of the population does not believe in a God." So I think, if you count "spirit of life force" as "not god" or at least "not religious", then yes. On the other hand 91% are in some Christian church, but being legally in a Church does not mean one actually believes. --ʤɱ anti-communist 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which country will have evolutionists trembling in fear next?[edit]

Okay, so, we've got evolution being questioned in England, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland so far.

Which country will  K e n  D o l l  aim his mostly offensive weapon of evolution questioning at next?

  • Monaco? "You can take your chances with the roulette wheel of evolutionism, or you can take the sure thing of creationism!"
  • North Korea? "Kim Jong-Il is dead, and evolution will be soon!"
  • Russia? "Join us and overthrow the Tzars of evolutionism!"

MDB (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's still being questioned in the US as well, but only by Mormons morons IDiots. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, was evolution being questioned? I'm sorry, I didn't notice. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FFS, calm down[edit]

C'mon you guys it's almost Christmas. Please lay off Ken, he's obviously losing it and you guys are only encouraging him to greater insanity. Let the guy have some rest. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just so excited about Question Evolution! NZ. AceAce For Mod! 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Losing what? There's nothing there to be lost in the first place. --ʤɱ pirate 19:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
His continence. He can't afford both Tena Men and his meds. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken seems to be wanking himself into a coma completely believe that these "questions" really do finally sound the death knell for atheism on the internet. I don't think he is capable of believing that anyone could read them and seriously think that they are either answered or not proper questions at all. The self-delusion is strong in this one. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Either that or he's the best troll in the history of the world. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
perhaps he started as a troll and now, drunk with power, has gone native. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I went with ignoring him when I realized that the majority of the posts on his "Question Evolution" blog was written by Ken (he is Question and Keepquestioningevolution, who do more than half the posts). There appears to be a whole two other active users on the blog at this time; never any commenters though, which shows the complete lack of interest (except by trolls and folks like us who just snicker). So he just duplicates his efforts on Blogspot for the audience of none in other countries somehow thinking that means increased presence. Go fig. In short he is ignorable unless he does something really interesting (rare), or he works up the courage to challenge one of us (extremely unlikely). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I figure that any post without a handful of tortured metaphors, mixed like a gumbo, is not really from Ken. If it doesn't talk about how QE! is a tiger and Evolution is a ham sandwich floating in the ocean and the tiger is going to eat the sandwich and then a spaceship with lasers and blasters and POW! ZAP! POW! (which is also QE!) is going to come in for a landing on the library shelf of atheistic Satanism and so on and so forth, then tain't from the Master. Phiwum (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to teach myself web programming. As a project I'm considering creating a bot that will replicate Ken style articles. You will enter a few variables like atheism and bestiality or lesbianism and charitableness; and the program will insert these into Ken style sentences and photo captions. I think this simple approach will result in articles that are nearly identical to what Ken produces. So much of his articles are cut and paste anyway that I think the problem will be very amenable to this technique. When I'm done Ken will finally be able to get some sleep. Infoseek (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey! A labor-saving device like that would put thousands one of people person out of a job hobby! Fallacy (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to anonymity on the Web, Ken is the worst at it; all thanks to his unique brand of word salad. We will always know when he opens his virtual mouth. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jensen shit[edit]

When somebody is posting that kind of shit, what's the best course of action? Delete it, let it be? At first I deleted it, but then I thought about the 'don't delete talk page comments' rule here, so I put it back and reformatted it -- but then it got deleted again by Pint, so now I'm not sure. Fallacy (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My take is that we are not a site that condones or supports vandalism, and should not be used as such. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Glass of delicious ale is right. AceAce For Mod! 02:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite a hypocritical policy for a site known by some as the 'vandal wiki'. Fallacy (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, atheists are known to some as morally deranged beings, that doesn't mean every atheist should run around killing people. --ʤɱ kant 02:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Only approximately 15.76% of the atheist population should run around killing people. The rest should just pillage towns, develop super viruses, and continue the unending War on Christmas. Fallacy (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I pillage the villages and take all the peasants food and livestock, so I am doing my part, are you?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know I have no sense of duty or fairness, that's why I became a socialist. --ʤɱ secularist 09:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I sailed along England's coast and raided monasteries for gold and loot, then eventually buried it in countrysides so lower classes could find it. Socialism! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if it was buried in England it was probably done by the locals to stop you horn-headed bastards getting your grubby Scandinavian mitts on it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I was doing fantastically... then somebody pointed out it's first pillage THEN burn. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
They're all a bunch of Saxon atheists anyway. What will be their excuse during the great battles of Ragnarök?!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't make this stuff up[edit]

I don't know how many are following the Hydroplate 'Theory' debate on TerryH's blog but Terryy posted this on MPR after openly admitting that he'd run a checkuser at CP on the IP I used to comment on his CNAV blog. Given Karajou's antics in addition to TK's, I reckon Fergus Mason has every reason to be circumspect. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of blogpost and a lot of comments. Can we have a rundown of the exchange, formatted as an amusing shouting match between exaggerated caricatures? ONE / TALK 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do these loonies think their theory will gain acceptance via a debate with an anonymous person on the net. If he has the evidence and his theory is sound (ha!) send it out to geologists for peer review. Of course, the paranoia and persecution complex is so massive in these people that the sound of the world's geologists collectively going, "WTF?" will become a conspiracy by atheists to deny the flood. The best part of it is that creation "scientists" are pretty useless at peer review... which results in flood geology being refuted... by flood geology. And yes, given the antics of Terry and especially Karajou, I'd be loathe to hand over personal info to them too.
This whole debate thing is a farce anyway. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
^This. Any attempt at peer review will fail, and failure during peer review will be because of conspiracy. Why accept responsibility for the failures of your hypotheses when you can hide behind the façade of a god who does it all with DA MAJIKS!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW if Fergus is a reader here please email me, I won't divulge any information. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I did. I'll just add that among my comments that Terry has censored were three pointing out that, although he said on his blog "If Mr. Mason is serious about pursuing legal action against Conservative News and Views..:" I have in fact not said a word about pursuing legal action against CNAV or anyone else. All I expect is for Brown to show me the basic fucking courtesy of not forwarding everything to people like Terry, but he's not willing to oblige and has been extremely arrogant in his emails to me. --Fergus Mason (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Honestly dude, you're better off staying far away from this crackpot and his groupies. If he was seriously wanting to promote his "theory", he'd be arguing with professional geologists who edit journals in the field, not with you. Terry is, in my opinion at least, a dangerously unhinged conspiracy theorist who you don't want anywhere near you. His pet creationist may or may not be as whacky as he is, but I wouldn't be prepared to take the risk. Just leave them to rot at their irrelevant website. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but serious journalists and professionals tell these people to fuck off all the time, because they allready refuted the same shit 52 times that year. --ʤɱ secularist 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah, these are arguments that are old and dead. The disagreement that Brown brings up was probably valid when he was in school but he probably stopped paying attention to the other side and went into creationist mode dodging all disconfirming evidence. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I was speaking about it generally, not specificly about this case. --ʤɱ constructivist 12:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing that made me LOL was Terry's threat: "If Mr. Mason is serious about pursuing legal action against Conservative News and Views, then he knows the quality of legal representation that CNAV shall immediately have available to it." I presume that this is the same representation that performed so well for the Recall NJ and ND movements? The representation that served AT&T so well? Way to pick a winner there, Terry.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the whole prospect of a lawsuit involving Terry and Andy should be encouraged, simply to see if Ken turns up shouting "Ole! Ole! Ole!", dressed as some androgynous being as to hide his true sex.Doraemon話そう!話そう! 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Kara's Kourtroom Fantasies about pointing the finger at the opponent and ending the entire case with "YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A CYBER TERROR WEBSITE!!!" --Sid (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
"...dressed as some androgynous being as to hide his true sex." You meant "...dressed as a group of androgynous beings as to hide their true sex. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken wouldn't dare appear in public unless he could do so in the form of a disembodied voice. ONE / TALK 08:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I see Terry's also hiding comments asking why his beloved Walt doesn't submit his work for peer review. Good to see conservaitve deceit in full cry. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Terry quotes George Washington: Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation, for ’tis better to be alone than in bad company. Yet he is perfectly happy to be associated with Conservapedia and all its jabbering smears.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the text of my latest email to Walt Brown, sent yesterday; he hasn't replied yet.
Dr Brown,

The latest development is that Hurlbut has reproduced large sections of our email exchanges on his blog and prominently linked to it from the front page of – guess what – Conservapedia. The link is here: http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Conservapedia is a hate blog. It promotes discrimination against a whole range of ethnic and other groups, of the sort you have informed me you don’t tolerate. It is frequented by people who give every impression of being mentally unstable; I invite you to look at the behaviour of Ken DeMyer, known as User:Conservative, and indeed Andy Schlafly himself. Internet wingnuts are not all harmless. You may be aware of the case of Anthony Powell, a prominent contributor to the VenomFangX YouTube channel, who murdered a fellow student because she was an atheist and then shot his worthless self; VenomFangX’s response was to post a video entitled “RIP Anthony Powell.” Then there’s Dennis Markuze, also known as David Mabus, who graduated from spamming atheists to sending them death threats and finally to turning up at conferences and behaving in a threatening manner; he’s now been arrested and is awaiting psychiatric treatment.

Many of the regular contributors to Conservapedia show exactly the same hysterical intolerance and violent urges that were apparent in the behaviour of Powell and Markuze. I am politically conservative myself but the level of hatred, ignorance and bigotry on Conservapedia is utterly horrifying. Now, despite your insinuation that I am being paranoid by associating this malevolent blog with our (hopefully) forthcoming debate, I find myself brought to their attention by a comment in their front-page news column. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid by asking you not to pass my information to anyone associated with them.

I am still perfectly willing to debate you and I am sure that we can find a mutually agreeable level of information disclosure that will satisfy audience concerns as well as mine. However at this point, we can only proceed when I have your word that no further private emails between ourselves will be passed to anyone associated with Conservapedia, and that includes Terry Hurlbut.

Sincerely,

Fergus Mason

I've also posted it on Terry's blog, but it's unlikely that he'll let it stay there so I'll use RW to make sure my side of the story isn't being suppressed. --Fergus Mason (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And sure enough, it's disappeared from Terry's blog. As well, Terry's last comment says "You two keep saying that, but you won’t talk to Dr. Brown about it when he offers you the opportunity. How sure of your ideas can you really be?" I have now tried three times to leave a comment saying that I WILL talk to Brown about it, and Terry keeps deleting them. Looks to me like he's trying to set up the narrative of "EVILutionist scared to debate." --Fergus Mason (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, you were on a hiding to nothing even trying to debate those morons. Brown showed extremely bad faith by passing on your info to Terry. He has no reason to do so, no matter what Terry says about "the recipient being able to do whatever he likes with the mail". Plus, you'd have found the goalposts moving so fast, you wouldn't have been able to keep up. The fact that Terry has been reduced to the usual CP-esque name calling, referring to you as a "troll" and to RW by the usual epitaphs, is sign enough that you're well enough out of there. Much like CP, nobody cares about Terry's ramblings except us. His target market don't know he's alive. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you're right. I accepted Brown's debate challence because I'd had a few and I was getting irked with Terry's promotion of his ludicrous "theory," but it's now obvious that Brown's just playing a slightly more subtle version of Ken's "Atheists are too scared to debate me, and the $14,000 I demand they pay has nothing to do with it" game. If he's willing to act in good faith from this point on I'm still happy to demolish his claims - which isn't hard as soon as the Gish Gallop is ruled out as a debate tactic - but right now the sticking point is his insistence on being allowed to pass my emails and personal information to whoever he likes. That's completely unreasonable. --Fergus Mason (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm not in your shoes (penny loafers, sweet!), but what's the big worry over them obtaining your information? If Brown keeps in contact, I'd be specific about what CP's staff have tried to done to RW members in the past. As for Terry's "oh you mention RW, so you MUST be associated with them, and probably an admin there! <insert accusations without merit while censoring anything bad about CP>", that's lol funny. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that some details of my career deal with sensitive/military things. My impression was that there was no big deal about that and it didn't need to come up, what with it being utterly irrelevant and all. However when I tried to explain to Brown why I wanted to withold certain details he passed it all to Terry Fuckwit, who's now plastered it all over his blog and raised the profile of the issue. Why it matters? Well, not all terrorists are muslim. In the UK we've had some ongoing issues with christian ones too, and that's not even starting on the subject of dangerous psychos like "David Mabus." --Fergus Mason (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
How exactly would a phone debate work here? Sure, you could present the evidence against his claims, but wouldn't he just say "no, that doesn't show that my claims are wrong" or "no, those studies are flawed"? How, in speaking to someone who would refuse to admit that you have a point, can you show that you have a point?--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AugustO takes aim, blows Andy out of the water[edit]

Hey, remember Andy sticking to his end-times earthquake rate predictions even after everybody proved him wrong?

Well, AugustO chimes inimg with a new study: "Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past."

Conservapedia proven wrong again, I guess. --Sid (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That whole talk page is extremely laughable. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh my Fucking God that's a beautiful citation. It hits every tender spot: PNAS, Monte Carlo analysis, inapplicability of chi-square for n<5, rejection of earthquake doubling, criticism of cherry-picking data, and so much more! Andy's best bet is to ignore it completely, of course.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I bet Andy will think that these scientists read the crap on Conservapedia and did this study to disprove it. In some way, some how, scientists are taking Conservapedia serious or view it as a threat and are coming up with studies to disprove it, that is how he is going to play this. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait for it, WAIT FOR IT. HERE COMES...Ken?--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you sure are hung up about math! Why don't you show us your erudition by writing articles about the Poisson distribution or multiple regression? Other than your Ed-esque copy-fests from another web site? And you could answer my challenge to you on the generalized linear model with something more manly than a picture of a chicken. SamHB (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ken's article on the generalized liner modelimg seems to have confused it with the general linear model. *sigh* - π Moderator 05:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
AugustO: Don't do it! Don't improve those articles. Make Ken do it. Make him show what he learned in those math classes that he did so well in. Or persuade them to unblock me. not that I would fix itSamHB (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
AugustO: Well played! SamHB (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys sure do like your Navy analogies. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else." Am I reading this wrong, or is Andy actually saying that societal disorder (not sticking to conservative rules) causes the Earth to move? --ʤɱ netlabelist 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's just more of his "everything is getting worse" shtick. Since Jebus isn't exerting himself to keep things perfect, inevitably everything is decaying. Including, apparently, whatever force he imagines keep continental plates stationary. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting: AugustO claims that when everything is getting worse, than earthquakes should get smaller... larronsicut fur in nocte 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I saw it...[edit]

... I knew it was another JPratt masterpieceimg. That's hi-larious, Johnny Sedition. You should buy a copy or two. It's a few grades above your reading level, but just call us if you need help with some of the more challenging words. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What words? It's 200 blank pages by some banker.
Now I do wonder if Obama knows something about "economics". Fucking idiots. --ʤɱ socialist 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Dude, when someone makes a joke implicitly calling someone else an idiot, it's best to at least pretend to get it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Great I'll just pretend that the joke made any sense at all then. --ʤɱ pirate 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I heard this joke in the 1980s - and back then, people didn't completely overdo the joke by, you know, making actual books. Insert weak jokes here about certain groups of people with long fuse, or something. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Back in the 80s it was released under the title The Wit and Wisdom of Dan Quayle or something. Some jokes never get old. This was did after 5 minutes. DickTurpis (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm just annoyed I didn't think of it first and milk the rabid right-wing for as much money as possible. ONE / TALK 13:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, there's still time. All you need to do is think up a title which will cause them to froth at the mouth. How about Useful Things The Government Does For Us. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of making my own hardcover. [3] (talk)

This is unusual[edit]

A worthwhile link on CP's MPR. (Sadly, despite the fact they call it Candidate Match Game, Gene Rayburn, Brett Somers, Charles Nelson Reilly and Richard Dawson are no where to be found.)

It's a quiz on which Presidential candidate best matches your views. Unsurprisingly, I got Obama in a runaway (81.2% match, 8 of 11 issues). John Huntsman came in second (52.9%, 4 issues) and... Heaven help me... Newt Gingrich was third (36%, 2 issues). MDB (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama, Huntsman, Romney here, but if I push the experience slider up, I get Perry in third. Should I pray for a white Christmas? Rennie McGreet (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Depending on how I set a few of the sliders (though there were a couple questions in which I liked more than one answer or none, allowing for further variability), I got Obama (61%), Paul (41.4%), and Huntsman (39.3%). Interesting. DickTurpis (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Obama (66.1%), Paul (37.9%) and Perry (32.2%). But that test has the political horizon of a bred crumb, when I klick that the social security system is broken it counts for Ron Paul. who'd cut the whole thing, while I would built up a new welfare-y state-y system — the exact opposite of what Paul would do. --ʤɱ pirate 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I got Obama, Paul and (ew!) Romney. Who do you vote for when you think almost all the answers to all the questions are lunacy? (Answer to trick question: nobody, because you're not an American.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Obama (83%, 7/11), Perry (2/11) and Gingrich (1/11). I was shocked that Perry appeared high on my list because I know he's looney with guano (previous experience and an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants were somewhat important factors for me), but given that I didn't match with Romney, Santorum OR Bachmann makes me feel VERY GOOD about myself as a reasonable, rational individual. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, I should not vote, because nobody with a shot at getting power even defines the issues in a way that makes it worth talking about. This does not come as a surprise to me. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for fun:

Afghanistan: maybe not pull out immediately immediately, but yeah, we should end this fucking stupid war, so I picked that option. 4/5 importance
Energy: the environmentalist option -- we need to do everything we can to promote greenness. 5/5 important
Healthcare: i believe in universal healthcare, so none of the options worked for me. 5/5 importance
Medicare: i'm not exactly sure, but i didn't like any of the options, so none of them. 3/5 importance
Immigration: i think we should make it a lot easier for people to immigrate here, if it not open the borders completely, so none of the options even came fucking close. 4/5 importance
Experience: don't really care, honestly, so none. 2/5 importance
Social Security: same as Medicare.
Climate change: Cap-and-trade. 5/5 importance
Taxes: expire Bush tax-cuts, close loopholes, make sure the rich pay their share in taxes. 4/5 importance
Defense spending: significantly cut it. 3/5 importance
Gay marriage: i like polygamy and don't even believe in government-sanctioned marriage, so definitely none of them. 4/5 importance
And I got... 1st: Barry 'Bama (obviously) at 44.8%
2nd: Ron Paul at 38.4%
3rd: Oh god -- Michelle Bachmann, at 25.7%. Seriously? She's my third place? Jesus F. Christ. Fallacy (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

88.5% agreement with Obama (!) on 9 out of 11 issues, the two being he doesn't like nuclear power as much as I do, and he's up for civil unions while I'm more for actual gay marriage. If the Church would oblige. Anyway, 32.8% agreement with Romney (based on power alone), then, rather annoyingly, Perry at 30.9% on the experience issue. The only other dude I had any agreement with was Jon Huntsman on defence spending. This is why I don't make a point of supporting the Republican party if I can help it. Not that it really matters, seeing as I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic for my opinion to make much of a difference. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It won't make a difference in the election (unless you're a deployed soldier, American abroad or dual citizen), but the opinion still matters. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul: 10/11

Gingrich: 3/11

Perry: 2/11--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. And you're running for mod here... DickTurpis (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Given the list of candidates and their platforms, I can't say I was surprised by those results. Also, how would they affect me running for mod here?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered: if you leave the importance sliders as is and give the first answer for each question you get Obama at 60.1% (agreeing on 5 issues) and 0 for Paul (0 issues). Someone please point this out to the Paultards as an example of his despicable treatment by the media. DickTurpis (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama 1st (5/11); Santorum 2nd (2/11); Gingrich 3rd (2/11) There weren't enough "put them against a wall and shoot them" options. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On Experience[edit]

I've remarked before that the only job that gives you the experience to be President is President; no other jobs comes close. That being said, I'd considered the ideal background for a candidate would be a candidate who has been:

  • A Governor
  • A Congressman/Senator
  • A Cabinet official
  • Optionally,
    • Military experience as a mid or upper grade officer or senior enlisted
    • Ambassador to a country that matters (not one of the ones you give to political supporters)

I know Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has been Governor of Tennessee, and is a current Senator from there. He was also Secretary of Education under Reagan or Bush the Elder. He's got experience, but unfortunately, he's right wing as all get-out. Can anyone else come up with someone with a strong resume? MDB (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now it's been a while since Lamar was in the limelight, but thinking back to the mid 90s when he was, it seems to me he'd be on the moderate end of the spectrum when compared to this years crop of cretins. DickTurpis (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I lived in Tennessee when he was Governor (and I can remember "impeachment, Tennessee style" when he took office from Ray Blanton a few days early). I was pretty young, but he was pretty moderate then. The only thing I remember him doing that really annoyed me was vetoing a bill that would have allowed a referendum on establishing a state lottery, because he was personally opposed to a lottery. I thought it was rather presumptuous to say "I don't want to let the voters choose, I oppose it so it's not gonna happen." He was also Chancellor or President of the University of Tennessee when I was a student there, and he was good at that. But I've gotten the impression he, like much of the Republican Party, has swerved to the right since he went to the Senate. MDB (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd consider the ideal candidate to be Mike Gravel. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Experience for me is important but only to an extent. There is a minimal amount I deem necessary, and beyond that I'm not sure more is necessarily better. Last election Obama cleared the "experienced enough" bar, but just barely. Plain didn't. McCain and Biden did with flying colors. That doesn't mean I would have preferred McCain or Biden to Obama by any means. The type of experience is only somewhat important. For pragmatic reasons if nothing else, some government/political experience is basically mandatory for the Presidency, if only to know how things work, whether or not that's how they should work. Governors have executive experience, which is good, but general lack foreign policy experience, which isn't so good. Senators often just the opposite. Congressmen are usually small fish in big ponds. Private sector experience is nice, but the public and private sectors are different, and anyone who think the latter should be run like the former is delusional. If I had to rate the experience of this crop of candidates I'd probably rank them something like this: Obama at the top (would certainly not hold this position 4 years ago) the only one who has actually been President. After that it's hard to say. Perry, Huntsman, and Romney have some good experience as governor. Perry for quite some time, though I remember reading that Texas is weird in that the governor isn't nearly the most powerful position in the state. Huntsman has excellent foreign policy credentials too, which would likely put him ahead of the others. Newt has a unique position as House Speaker, which is far above your standard congressman. Hard to quantify that though. Santorum's 2 terms in the Senate are nice, but hardly set him apart from many others (not sure what he's been doing since his bad loss 5 years ago). Paul and Bachmann are both just one of 435 people in the House, though Paul has been there a lot longer and seems to have done a lot more. Cain (were he still in it) would be pretty far back. But there is only one candidate who can appreciate just how damn high the rent is. DickTurpis (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I took it just now and I got Obama (84.6%), Paul (29%) and batshit crazy Bachmann (27.1%). My wife took it as well and she got Obama (84.5%), Bachmann (31.2% and Gingrich (31.2%). She was more than a bit horrified about the fact that she agreed with Bachmann about anything at all and is now walloping butter to make cookies, which is a great way to get rid of stress. I share her horror and will soon be slaughtering orcs. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The percentages are gibberish. If you disagree with them on EVERYTHING, you still manage 18-25%, depending on weightings. Why? Badly designed addition. PubliusTalk 11:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I just checked up on that and you're quite right. While it seems you always have to agree with more than 1 person on something, I finagled a response in which I only had any agreements with Obama and Huntsman, and still there was Bachmann in 3rd place with 26.8% (with all subjects at full importance it's down to 18%). Clearly that's a flaw. Things like this are always a simplification, so we can't expect a hell of a lot from them, and I guess saying you agree with anyone 0% of the time is probably fallacy as well. Anyway, one sort of good thing about this is that, unlike those voter guide things, you didn't know whose opinions your agreeing with until the end (though really it isn't too hard to match a bunch of them up if you know anything about these guys). DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

....I never took it in high school or college, because I had to take other higher-order mathematics courses (algorithms, logic, linear algebra, game theory, discrete math, etc.). Not to offend anyone on this site or any other site, but I seem to recall statistics was a math class in high school for the students who weren't smart enough to take trigonometry (in fact, I think at my high school it was a business class, which makes sense--not from an intelligence perspective, but in application). And yet I seem to have a better grasp of statistics than most of the "scientists" on CP. Is this actually true, or am I fooling myself into thinking I understand statistics better because I simply think they're beneath me? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Being more intelligent about a topic than a CP sysop isn't anything to be all whoop-de-fucking-do about. I have a bag of flour that knows more about science than anyone on CP. AceAce For Mod! 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't looking for an ego-stroke or the "Who isn't smarter than them?", I was more concerned about my own understanding of statistics. It simply appears to me that the conclusions they make (on the real statistics that they don't make up) are wrong--everyone here may assert that same position, but I don't want to just think "Well, obviously they're wrong because they're stupid/biased/batshit/whatever" but rather because I know and understand that their conclusions are wrong. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So you don't know enough statistics to refute their arguments but you have a better grasp on it? Explain? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't explain it either. I think what I'm hung up on is the Courtier's Reply "I didn't take a class and they did" bit, not the Schlafly-esque "I'm smarter than they are but can't prove it" bit. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The point being? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The point is "Help me!" I need a rational explanation as to why their grasp on statistics is so poor, that doesn't involve me falling into the same traps that they themselves are stuck in. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you, you know, give some kind of example? I can't give an entire intro course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, a good one is the earthquake example from above. He seems to think there's a growth curve based on his numbers, despite there only being about 100 years worth of sampling data to analyze (and that seismological equipment has improved over that same time period, thus providing more information). I understand preconceived notions and fitting data to meet a theory, but his assertion appears to defy even basic non-statistical math. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You've completely failed to observe what's going on here. It isn't that he's mangling the statistics, he just doesn't have the data. He doesn't look at the data, he isn't even interested in seeing the data. In fact he gets quite angry if you direct him to the data. He gets an idea in his head, and no amount of actual evidence can shift it. His earthquakes idea was caused by observing just two major earthquakes reported in the news in close proximity. That's all he's going on. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The main problem with his "argument" is geological, i.e., "increase in disorder," whatever that means. The abstract notes that m>8 earthquakes are at a high, but not significantly higher than before. IOW, improbable things happen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, thanks, that helps a little. I'm not entirely convinced of my own competence but at least I can look at it through a few different lenses. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, full disclosure, I'm the son of a (retired) professor of statistics at a major university but, even so, the statement statistics was a math class in high school for the students who weren't smart enough to take trigonometry is horrifying. Stats is vital for the way in which we interpret the world, the way we separate anecdote from data, the way we tell myth from reality. It's the poor grounding in stats that allows so much woo to go unquestioned. To write it off as what the dumb kids do is sacrilege. Bad Faith (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't writing it off--I was just making an observation on the difference between it being a math class in college and a business class in high school (at least, for me). And in my high school, that's what it was--it was math for the those who weren't going to college, weren't going into calculus. Most of my kids in my high school never got passed Algebra II. To me, THAT is horrifying. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What the OP also seems not to realise is how important statistics is in science particularly research. In fact it's useful and vital in lots of areas outside business. However, that doesn't detract from how utterly stupifyingly ridiculous CP's (mostly Schlafly's) use of statistics is. From the "only 1% of Muslims" to "it's snowing in California", it is a perfect demonstration of conclusion-first reasoning that's so buttock-clenchingly at odds with reality. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Let us not forget his words project. Never before has statistics been subjected to so violent and so moist a shit as Best New Conservative Words. ONE / TALK 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, it's not really an abuse of statistics. His "conservatives words" really do double by century as he claims. It's just that he hand picks every entry on the list and makes sure they fit the pattern. For the lulz, go and try to add two or three 17th century phrases or words to the list so he's bound to go dig up 16 to 24 20th century neologisms to maintain the pattern. Watch how fast you get reverted. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
They double by century but when broken down by decade or other arbitrarily-chosen 100-year periods, they don't support his conclusions at all. Sounds like an abuse of statistics to me. If it's not, then what is? ONE / TALK 15:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, other arbitrarily chosen 100-year periods are arbitrary, whereas if we mark the centuries as God intended (namely, using the AD system), then we see the natural progress of conservatism. Duh. Phiwum (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That was really fun - Best words inspired many very basic tests, still to be found at CP: here or here --larronsicut fur in nocte 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I took stats in highschool, AP Stats. It was all the kids who finished calculus by junior year but didn't want to take DiffEQ at the university. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy needs to teach geology next.[edit]

Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.img Phiwum (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Earthquakes, as witnessed on Mars and Venus, will eventually stop as the core cools and the mantle solidifies into one plate. CS Miller (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
No. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that earthquakes on Mars and Venus will increase, and hence YMC (YVC, resp.) is correct! Do try to keep up. Phiwum (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with earthquakes? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything! Because second law of thermodynamics = less order = more disorder = more earthquakes = young earth = Jebus! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, earthquakes are made of heat. Didn't you know? You can fry an egg on a sidewalk while it's quaking. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
To be fair pedantic, Mars and Venus never had any earthquakes. Mars has marsquakes and Venus has venusquakes. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Taj's Christmas wish[edit]

While I agree with the general wish that the boring vandals would stop their idiocy, the rest of Taj's postimg merrily breaks irony meters and competes for the Blindness of the Year Award. --Sid (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In completely unrelated news: Niceimg promotion, Taj. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I earned it.
Oops :-D --Longbow (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Mah! GAWD! Is there a new Stalinist joining the rank of ADMIN? How can this be? Another person like Karabird or EdStub to abuse whiny ordinary editors around? I thought this would never happen again, after parodist after parodist joined the ranks. I bet he'll be a parodist as well. Now only to promote Jimmy...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Aah, Colonel, I believe that Taj is female. Scream!! (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? I don't see anything on Taj's userpage to indicate such, and I thought an unknown editor is always assumed to be male, since a vast majority of wiki users are apparently male. Most. I could be wrong.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy's now started his own wiki: http://realwiki.editthis.info/wiki/ Seems like a vengeful AW sysop has already had a dig at his security... --Longbow (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It moved... here.... What is the purpose of Jimmy's wiki anyway? To become an Elvis catalog?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's mainly intended as a penis extension. --Longbow (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah..... I should start trolling it like Jimmy trolled AW.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That's probably exactly what he wants. I think his ego was bruised when he got slapped down at AW. --Longbow (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll just sign up and see what he does. But at least his little playground will keep him from messing up AW again. He can plaster as much Elvis as he wants now, however
He sure got his ass handed to him at AW, eventually. Perhaps he is even the one creating those bogus accounts.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought he was back on AW? --Longbow (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but George put him on "probation".
Awww, Jimmy gave me a welcoming ban on Realwiki!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
What? Ameriwiki has a splinter wiki of its own now? Jebus, Conservapedia spawns wingnut wikis like a dog has puppies. I guess this is what happens when every members' purity test can only be passed by one person, themselves. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I should start my own wiki and fill it with my own special brand of Fallacious political and social ideology. Fallacy (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That's good for Taj, only took her 4 years to reach the hallowed ground. I always saw her a bit like Jallen - one of the more level-headed sysops. At least she won't have TK's misogyny to deal with... just Uncle Ed's leering. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone needs to draw up a family-tree of Wikis. Wasn't RW originally a splinter of CP by disaffected users too? ONE / TALK 09:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia --> Conservapedia --> Rationalwiki --> Rationalwikwiki --> MCWiki

                           --> aSK
                           --> Ameriwiki --> Realwiki

Am I missing anything? Fallacy (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahem......wasn't the United States originally a splinter of the British Empire set up by a few disaffected users?...Just asking! Mick McT (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 :) Rennie McGreet (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Does that make Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand half-brothers?

Most importantly, when is "Taj" going to start handing us the contents of the latest sysops list? Or don't they have one now after every one of the previous ones were compromised? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Terry's elaborate stupidity[edit]

So apparently gOD created a thick plate of rock over water and some of it sagged to form basins, pushing other parts up to form land. Oy, Terry, ROCK DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Liquids are incompressible and rock is inelastic. It doesn't matter how much the density varies, if you have a solid shell of rock over a liquid water layer (is that even possible? Someone less lazy do the maths please!) It's going to sit there forever in exactly the same shape. I think he's imagining something like putting a bowling ball on a water bed, but I don't think the earth is made of thin PVC. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rock sort of does work that way. All materials are compressible, in that they have a definable bulk modulus. It's just too high for most materials to be very apparent at human scales. All solids are also elastic to some degree, and most solids, including rock, can undergo plastic deformation (plate tectonics wouldn't work otherwise). However, rock is generally too brittle to deform at the speed invoked in the article at near-surface conditions (it would have to be near its melting point, hotter than the upper mantle). It's also not strong enough to support itself in a shell like that (the static pressure of the water would provide some support, but the invoked irregularities and rock's greater density would prevent stability, as rock has very poor resistance to bending stress). If God created the setup described, the rock shell would immediately fracture and collapse, producing an ocean about a mile and a half deep over about ten miles of chunky rock with some entrapped water. A single crack through the rock would cause the whole thing to pop, irregularities or no. Also, Terry probably should have made those diagrams to scale. 184.61.193.172 (talk)
I never knew Terry's stupidity was so aggressive. He's like Andy junior. (I bet Terry's dick just got hard) Occasionaluse (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
His dishonesty is quite impressive too. He's now blocked me from commenting on any of his articles about Walt Brown's "debate challenge," apparently to make it look as if I'm trying to pull out of it. Meanwhile Brown stopped answering my emails four days ago, which I think says it all about who's REALLY trying to back out. --Fergus Mason (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
So you've presumably done the maths on this in order to humiliate old Browny in debate. If you stack 10 miles of rock on top of 3/4s of a mile of water on a planet roughly the radius of earth, do you get 3/4s of a mile of ice as I suspect? Because that would pretty much put the bollocks on his little scheme right there. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't even looked at that aspect of it. What I can easily get him on is the energy release from dumping 650 million cubic kilometres of superheated water at about 400° (which is what the idiot proposes) into the oceans. Let's just say that if this had actually happened none of us would be here to discuss it. Brown seems to think that because the rapidly vapourising water would have cooled, the energy it contains would have simply disappeared, and also reckons that lots of it was blown right out of the atmosphere, cooled in space then fell back to Earth. His "theory" is riddled with holes that have leaked energy all over the place, but if you actually account for it all the planet would have been rather dramatically sterilised. Some extremophile bacteria might have survived, but Noah and his barge would have been poached. --Fergus Mason (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Some rough math suggests that putting 10 miles of rock on top of 3/4 miles of water would give you about .6 miles of (400 degree) liquid water. That's not hot enough to be supercritical, so it wouldn't explode like a bomb upon release, but it would be be nasty.184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be very nasty. Brown is proposing that about half of the water currently in the oceans came from this event, so it's simple enough to calculate how much energy this water would have held and therefore how much was dumped onto the surface. That's before I even consider things like the runaway greenhouse effect caused by so much water vapour. Actually the whole hydroplate thing is utter idiocy. Brown is simultaneously claiming that an event IN THE CRUST released enough energy to melt Earth's outer core and heat the whole interior to what we see today, but didn't release enough to boil a thin skin of water on top of it. --Fergus Mason (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so Brown is seriously proposing that the reason earth has a molten core today is because the whole thing was molten just 4000 years ago? I'm no thermodynamics expert, but that just seems plain ludicrous on so many levels. Is it even possible for the planet to radiate that much heat in so short a time? I can hardly believe anyone would suggest that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, it's worse than that. Brown is claiming that NONE of it was molten before the flood, but that all the activity in his hydroplates somehow heated/melted the core and mantle without roasting the crust. All the heat that was generated mysteriously headed inwards. --Fergus Mason (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to argue with idiots, so long as you understand that you're the only one who is going to learn anything. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly no chance of Brown learning anything; his mind is closed to anything outside his precious bible. On the other hand he's been avoiding my emails for days, so it seems clear enough that, like  K e n  D o l l , he has no intention of actually debating anyone so imposes unreasonable conditions to deter people. --Fergus Mason (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess that theoretically the layer of water under 10 miles of crust could have worked if everything was completely uniform, but once Terry starts to talk about denser portions spreading  like putty and the lighter ones sticking up and forming continents I'm afraid that any chance of holding super-pressurised water in place for 1600 years doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I doubt anything resembling a legitimate debate would come from negotiating with these two. I don't think of them so much as being malevolently dishonest as being so desperately in need to defend their beliefs that any pretext to support them is justified. It's like a form of Stockholm Syndrome, but they are being held captive by a belief system in fear of supernatural punishment.
I've already gotten Terry to admit that he can't use science alone to objectively date the age of the Earth to the YEC timeframe; in his view you have to start with a narrative and validate findings against it, because no scientific phenomena or test is free from interpretation bias. Once someone insists on that, there's no way to have a debate based in science.
As for Dr. Brown, he claims that a debate with him has to exclude references to religion and religious texts. If that's the case, what's his scientific theory for the formation of the hydroplate-model Earth as depicted in Terry's latest essays. I can't see how you can have a no-religion-references-allowed debate with someone whose theories for the pre-flood state of the planet are designed to explain & conform to passages from Genesis. He seeks debate with "the public" instead of peer review because only the former allows him to control the terms enough to guarantee the outcome he seeks.
And for what it's worth, I had emailed Terry after he called me a disgusting, dishonest character and told him to show me the proof. Nothing. Asked him again yesterday. Nothing. Put a civil post on CVAV an hour ago inviting him to present the evidence he said I'd rather the public didn't know. The post was deleted without being published. When that's the character of who you're dealing with, you can decide for yourself how worthwhile your time is going to be spent challenging them in good faith. --DinsdaleP (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's become clear that they're not operating in good faith. Terry continues to delete any comment I leave on his blog that mentions Brown or debates, and Brown himself is not returning my emails. I'm now convinced that he doesn't want to debate at all, and just manipulates things so he can claim that EVILutionists are scared to take on the mighty hydroplate theory. --Fergus Mason (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This is all just so... stupid. When you have no scientific knowledge all then everything is plausible.
But the thing I really can't stand about these guys is that their idiocy gives all believers a bad name. That, and YEC is bad theology because it tries to force God into a little box that the YEC types have designed (heh) for him. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me correct that for you, it only gives mostly American believers a bad name. I've travelled widely in Latin America and Catholic and Orthodox Europe and most of those religious people actively embrace the old Earth model despite maintaining a lot of superstition. Those Chilean whales -millions of years old; the island of Lanzarote where I am now - more than 20 million years old; the Galapagos islands - evolution at work; fossils in Mexico - all tens of millions of years old. This is how the locals present it themselves, not my interpretation; Catholic school kids are studying and learning this, it's only the moronic Christian fundies in the USA who really cling on to this Biblical literal idea and are promulgating it in places like Uganda and Nigeria. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm always amazed at the hoops these guys jump through to justify YEC. If they believe that a Magic Man in the sky created everything in 7 days, then why do they need all these machinations to justify how the flood happened. Why not just say "And God created rain." there you go, sorted. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This "ruthless economy of miracles" confuses me, too. I could accept the blanket excuse "God did it, so shut up!", but some convoluted "God did it, but almost entirely without using supernatural means!" would make no sense for me as a (hypothetical) believer. I mean, what is left to believe in?
  • In the beginning, God created the elementary particles, and the strong and weak forces, electro-magnetism and gravity then worked on them to create the earth.
  • And God said, "Let there be light," just in time for the electrons that fell into place to give off light. They would have given off light without him saying this, but God enjoyed some dramatic narration.
I mean, seriously, this is right up there with Andy's "Jesus didn't do miracles - he just used quantum physics!" explanation in terms of WTF. --Sid (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It's always fun to watch the fundies write God out of their own myths. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

House Republicans fold like a cheap suit[edit]

No comment at CP. The stunned silence is delightful. Stile4aly (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

All RINO's who were put in power in 2010 when the democrats/liberals lied they're way into/kept onto stolen power--174.71.98.185 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you translate that into an approximation of Standard Written English? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You might want to start by picking out a verb. That's an important kind of word. SamHB (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahem: "The honourable Republican Representatives who conceded their position recently were Republicans in name only. These nominal Republicans assumed office in 2010 when Democrats and liberals increased their power using dubious means." 184.61.193.172 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered: what does a cheap suit fold like? Does it get wrinkly easier? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 03:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one that read cheap slut?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks. Now I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. Sam Tally-ho! 03:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Feh, Congress should let those cuts expire, we really can't afford to squeeze the Society Security funding spigot like this. Long term loss for short term gain.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Randroids say the darnedest things[edit]

For your reading displeasure, a collection of Ron Paul newsletter scans. What's remarkable is how similar the Ron Paul views are to what Cokeeyes says over at CNAV. No wonder he wrote a column defending Ronnie. Exactly the same wild-eyed conspiracy theory content. All that's missing is the creationism. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why people fearing the end of civilization are always talking about buying gold. If civilization collapses, nobody's going to give two fucks about how many gold coins you have or how many ingots. You can't eat gold. At best, if you have enough, you might be able to make a radiation shelter. But you'd need an Thanksgiving shit ton of the stuff and it wouldn't be very sturdy.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
And no, the gold shelter idea was not intended to be feasible. Just illustrating the absurdity of gold bugging.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Obligatory. Vulpius (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
They are not hoping for a complete collapse of civilization, just an economic collapse to the point dollars are worthless and the economic system falls back to precious metals. The hope is that they can become the new kingpins and thus make the laws for a new America molded in their image. They hate our America, at least secular America with its annoying constitution,
In a full collapse, liquor is where its at, people will always been willing to trade for liquor.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to convince Mrs. Dark that building and stocking a wine cellar would be a good hedge against economic calamity, but she just gives me one of those looks. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rationalise Wandalwiki![edit]

Wandalize! Wandaluze! Wandalize! Wandalize! Wandalise!

This is the idea that has RationalWiki mods urinating in their pants!

K. D. aka A Br y ant is a cunt licker! She loves the taste of her own pussy, and she c h ee rs for c ha r lo t te h ig h s ch ool. She is also a mediocre troll at the Vandalplace. I wish I could call her a cunt to her face in real life, it would be funny

Psygremilin, why don't you get a life and stop obsessing over the other wiki? You know, the one the starts with a C and ends with an A? Everyone knows you are sexually turned on by Karajou and 8 year old boys, but still.

Brxbrx is as boring as a pile of bricks, so his name is very appropriate. Suicide is the obvious way out for a sad wanker like you. Or you could just suicide bomb your RatWiki account and do what everybody knows you want to do, which is vandalise the main page.

Merry Christmas to our allies! Also, Happy Resurrection Sunday!

M4 RCU$

SOMEONE LOCK THE DATABASE!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
sorry M$ RCU$ but you are either drunk, drugged or your computer has a major fault. Its a bit early for resurrection Sunday dont you think ? er do you think ? annnywayy.. merry Christmas , happy Hanuka , felice navidad , happy solstice, or any other seasons greeting. I think God may have made a little mistake and actually killed himself at Easter. It would explain a lot. Hamster (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
have you noticed how similar MC's rants are getting to  K e n  D o l l 's - I mean there's always the vague threat of something happening real soon now, you just wait and see, sort of thing. Two identical (ar)souls stuck in front of their PC's looking for a life. Bad Faith (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
BAN ALL NEW ACCOUNTS! Senator Harrison (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wait until MarcusLeaks hits. We'll all be cowering under our desks crying for our mothers. P-Foster 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

*scratches head* This whole section is entirely confusing to me. Ego (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The vandals are coming! The vandals are coming! Everybody run for the hills! Infoseek (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

INTRODUCE EDIT RESTRICTIONS FOR ALL NEW ACCOUNTS! --Sid (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
We already have that. If you aren't autopatrolled and autoconfirmed, you are braked.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
So, is this marcus guy someone who's been on RW before? Or is he a conservapedia fellow? His first post comes off like something I'd expect one of the less mature of Andy's students to come up with. Ego (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Are any of Andy's students dumb enough not to know what CP is like and to want to valiantly defend it? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Will CP Say Anything for Tebow?[edit]

Bets are now on if Conservapedia (or at least JPatt) will stick by Tebow on the front page now the Broncos lost two in a row. Last week it was against a playoff caliber team; this week though it was against the Bills, who are a lousy team that before this game, lost seven in a row and are not going anywhere. Worse, the Bills smashed Denver with a convincing 40-14 victory. Although Tebow would dismiss claims his god cared about his victories or the game; many of his followers (including CP) saw his victories as nothing short of the validation of Christianity and the superiority of Christians over the secular. How will they handle this resounding defeat?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you poke around the main talk page over there deep enough (possibly "trimmed", however), you'll find Andy got on the Packers bandwagon a few weeks back 'cause their QB is also an Evangelical Christian. I imagine JPatt will follow his boss's line now. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, Ken has posted this on the front page, proudly proclaiming (in bold) that "Tim Tebow’s four interceptions gift-wrap a win for the Buffalo Bills." Which sound AWESOME... until you realize that Tebow, "one of Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars," is not playing for the Buffalo Bills. Looks like Tebow is just some random loser now, and it's the Buffalo Bills who truly are God's Chosen Children who give glory to God. CP's admiration and support lasts exactly as long as your winning streak. --Sid (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
And where was God when the Bills lost 7 in a row? Obviously he was helping out the True Believers on the Jets, Dolphins, Titans, etc. who are really the evangelical Christians. DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Give glory to God"; more likely they celebrated like every other football player, with whole lot of chest thumping and butt slapping. Good to see Ken is still one of our more loyal readers though.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
What a horribly assumptive thing to write, "No doubt". How could they just make a baseless assumption that they gave glory to God for their victory? Who do they think they are? (Rhetorical question is rhetorical.) -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Saving this for posterior[edit]

One of the better analyses of Ken's "style"img --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That dude should get a medal. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 14:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I swore I wouldn't edit other people's comments, so please, change it to posterity (unless that was intentional?).--"Shut up, Brx." 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. Not only did you not get the joke, you've now caused a bunch of humourless IPs to come and edit war over over this. Golf clap. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry...--"Shut up, Brx." 18:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: still no reply from the Archbishop. The divinity of Christ is refuted and Rowan Williams is a chicken (but don't cook him up yet, Colonel Sanders)! DickTurpis (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

13-year old explains creationism[edit]

A thirteen-year old boy understands the origin of life better than the top atheistic scientists in the world. [4] Yes! This 13-year old man can “stop evilutionists in their tracks. Here’s his wonderful video that should show all evil atheists that they are wrong. And the baby Jesus looks so pretty in the manger. God is Lord (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"13 year old young man" *sigh* Ken, at least utilise all that spare time you have and enroll in a writing course. And before you send an FYI about how people pay you to write for them and how liberal professors thinks you're so smart, "LIAR!" Also, having watched that video, how do we know it was made by a 13-year-old. It looks like the sort of thing Ken would through together - "stop evolutionists in their tracks" is exactly the sort of thing he'd say. I call it a fail. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The part I like best is that all these damp squibs are given such an epic buildup by Kendoll you'd think the kid had hired Saachi & Saachi to create the world's best ever video smackdown of evolution. A couple of weeks worth of Kendoll promotion and no matter what the end product looks like, it still requires failhorn accompaniment. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
That just shows how pathetic their cause is; they are reduced to promoting this as front page news because they have no actual victories.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I see Wobblebottom has jumped on the bandwagon and is fawning over this prodigy with Uncle Ed like creepiness. "Remarkably, his video shows production values that easily rival those of any professional advertising agency. The music alone is worth the viewer’s time." Seriously? --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Well this is all they have to hang their hats on as they have converts and no progress. As pathetic as that is, I won't say anything more as it is Christmas and I am feeling charitable towards the promoters of a campaign as epic of a failure as the QE one; just today though, then its back to laughing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The only possible explanation I can come up with for that Chuckarse article is that the 13 year old in question is his grandchild. No other reason could cause him to take leave of his senses enough to describe the production values as rivalling professional work. Then again, I suppose he is a creationist. For him up is pretty much down, and black is pretty much white. So maybe he's just off his nut. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a "video"? I suppose I can understand why he wants to make a big thing about the music then.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It's little more than a slideshow with music. I like the comments, and even the author just calls it all "atheist hate". Sad to see such a young close-minded fool. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 23:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I finally got round to watching this, and it's pathetic. Psy's right, it's just the sort of thing that I'd expect Ken to come up with. Slideshow is even too grand a word for it as it is really little more than a trailer for a URL. It doesn't even say what the questions are and Terry and Ken are singing it's praises? Just goes to show how deluded that pair are. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 17:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone wanna chime in about the appeal-to-emotion factor this argument invokes? (Think of the CHILDREN! Think of BABY JESUS!) It reminds me of a similar argument that I saw on youtube in favor of the scientific data for global warming (and not the denialist rhetoric) espoused by an eleven-year old, which was relevant but simplistic. I'm not saying that an argument from a child's perspective is automatically wrong or flawed (look at Emily Rosa), but you have to wonder if it's the child's faith that is pushing the argument forward, or the impressed parents/church officials/whomever who want to show their propaganda/indoctrination is working (Good, Good!). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that a 13-year old did at least part of the work, (and we can't be sure even of that) we're dealing with a 13-year old victim of religious home schooling. A 13-year old like that has no experience of life beyond his narrow minded parents and the narrow minded community where his parents belong. God is Lord (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy is dead right about this.[edit]

Virginia is a serious kick in the nuts for Newt's campaign. Perhaps even worse? Newt's call for a write-in campaign in a state that leaves no such a space on the ballot reveals a profound organizational incompetence. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

But that would suggest that Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum also have incompetent camp---ohhhh.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Bachmann and Santorum are simply unpopular. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The same incompetence Andy displays keeping Jeb Bush on 3rd place for so long. Wait, it's Andy, everything is normal. --ʤɱ structuralist 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
how do you not get on a ballot if you are running a national campaign ? simple incompetance or your own staff hate the idea ? Hamster (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Failure to get enough petition signatures. MDB (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Your home state fails to get you into the ballot runnings. Conclusion: you're shite and you've got no chance. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Way-ull, Newt is only a recent Virginian -- his political career was based in Georgia. I'd say that's the state that most identifies with him. MDB (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
VA is where he lives, and what he calls his home state. He's toast. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I don't disagree this is a serious blow to his campaign -- I just question how much Virginia was going to consider him a native son. MDB (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken fails (once again) at basic reading comprehension[edit]

Ken: Strauss-Kahn says Europe's economy will collapse within a month.img

Strauss-Kahn: The bailout will take too long to have an effect, therefore the economy will collapse within a month.

Yes Ken, the way to argue for your point is to quote mine somebody who argued against your point. Please visit elementary school again. But hey, after long years of waiting you seem to have been able to find the preview button. Small steps Kenny boy, maybe before you die you'll be able to form a valid argument. --ʤɱ constructivist 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They sure do love to listen to people with the words "Former" in their title. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Your quote mining, Kenny, as ever, is unfaultable. If the word "unfaultable" is actually a word and not something I just made up because I couldn't think of any other synonymous words. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 17:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, when I'm looking for sane, competent and professional analysis of developments in the European political economy, I always turn to The Economist The Wall Street Journal The Financial Times www.israelidiamond.co.il. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you have against the Jews, PintOfStout??? Your anti-Semitism is not welcome on this sight !!!1!!one! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, at least he doesn't turn to the WSJ. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

When Republican John Anderson ran as an independent in 1980, he pulled more votes away from Jimmy Carter than from Ronald Reagan[edit]

That's not an analysis, that's (at best) optimism.img--"Shut up, Brx." 04:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Anderson was a centrist (even borderline liberal) Republican, so of course he would be more likely to take votes from Carter than Reagan. But Trump is just a nut job when it comes to politics - I'm not even sure if he's more liberal or conservative than the top Republican candidates, but I doubt he'll pull many votes that would otherwise go to Obama. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what effect Trump would have running as an independent. He's most recently been a conservative, but he used to be something of a social liberal and a centrist otherwise. My instinct is that if he returns to running as a centrist (and Presidential candidates generally do gravitate to the center for the general election, since that's where he swing voters are), he's likely to pull voters away from Obama, moderate Democrats who are disenchanted with Obama but not quite ready to vote Republican. On the other hand, if he stays in the GOP's lunatic fringe, he'll pull conservative voters aware from the the Republican nominee.
If you look at history, Perot probably cost Bush the Elder more votes than he did Clinton, and I think Nader undoubtedly cost Gore far far more votes than he cost Bush the Lesser. MDB (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If he keeps up his ridiculous birther act he will not draw any votes from independents or former Obama supporters, it is purely a Republican issue. - π Moderator 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable events of 2011[edit]

Bin Laden's killed, the war in Iraq ends... OBAMA PLAYS GOLF !img
Aurélie salut! 19:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? It makes the perfect conclusion to a year of financial calamity. Captain Clueless has achieved so much with so little time. --99.85.36.212 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, JPratt! Who's Captain Clueless? Is that CP's nickname for Kendoll? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Great. Now I have this mental image of Ken having a poorly-disguised superhero identity. Vulpius (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Have no fear. BESTIALITY MAN IS HEEEEERE!!!! PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, so he has Bin Laden killed, pulls the last US troops out of what has to be the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez, continues to cleanup0 the toxic financial debris from the fiscal fuckup that was the Bush administration, supports the Libyan rebels the smart way (without a single NATO pilot dying) but Jpatt thinks that that's bad? Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
EC You forgot the part about JPatt being not very bright. It all makes sense once you factor that in. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we're talkng about the guy that said Obama isn't black. --ʤɱ socialist 20:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Bestiality Man - member of the Bible Society of America that fights every day despite the gruesome and horrible danger of being exposed as stupid pussies! --ʤɱ kant 20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No mention of the QEC! I see. Its been around since about May, right? Suerly it did SOMTHING considering how much Smooth-As-A-Ken-Doll goes on about it.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry; Kenny will read this, click the link and the QE campaign will be up there lickity split!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
A parodist has beaten him to it.img Peter Urist for Mod! 23:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
So, was I right about May? That was just a shot in the dark. Also, I suspect we'll be getting a phone call soon.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Stanley Ann African American. Half white, half black means your gene pool has been forever tainted. Sorry sugar, no way you can call yourself white-your black.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
What now? You want to try that again in English, JPatt? Maybe get someone with a GED to help you out? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, what a monumental smack down. Just so you know, I am cancelling my Conservapedia account immediately to avoid further shame here. Give a kiss from me to your tranny girlfriend half-pint.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
In short Jpatt doesn't want to consider Obama as Black, no matter what Obama himself thinks. Yet again Jpatt calls people who are partially black as "half-breeds", so his racism is already apparent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh. "Half-pint". That's actually kinda clever, in a 1960's sitcom insult kind of way. X Stickman (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey elder geek BMcP. I am glad you feel better now pointing out how you're not racist. I bet you can count all the minorities you hang with in your life on one hand. Just an astronomy stooge--99.85.36.212 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Jesus would be proud of what you said to PintOfStout, you insecure, hypocritical little fuck. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, you forgot to call me stupid. Try again coward.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Just by not being JPatt I am a better human being. Also LOL calling anyone a coward when you are not even willing to put down your name because you fear your CP masters so much.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── May I remind everyone to not feed the troll? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What is with "2011 (MMXI) is the 2011th year of the Anno Domini designation"? What happened to the traditional "Year of our Lord two thousand and eleven"? - π Moderator 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Moar proofreading CP...[edit]

Hey, Popeye. If you're going to copy paste you might want to check your spelling first. I know your chronic anger issues mean you're totally unable to thank me, but I'm sure you're feeling it in spirit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

At first I was annoyed that you helped improve the quality of their stupid encyclopedia, but then I remembered that no one is going to go to CP to look up sharks, or anything. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry. Both Kendoll and JPratt are too stupid to figure out what the problem is, Karajou is obliged to pretend he doesn't read this and the Assfly genuinely doesn't. Since they've blocked everyone from here who might have helped them out, the error will stay there pretty much forever. Or at least until Andy gets tired of this charade. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Night mode[edit]

Dec 19 - Dec 25
  • shaded: account creation activated
  • green: all users may edit
  • dark red: only administrators and user of the edit-group may edit
  • red: only administrators are allowed to edit

I'm not sure what triggers the bright red phases: there is often no vandalism in the time before.

larronsicut fur in nocte 08:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As Sid pointed out before in a raging manner, they seem to use night mode as a way to shut people up lately. Although I haven't been watching CP all that closely to know what occured when lately. --ʤɱ netlabelist 15:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced.[edit]

There is no "13 year old young man", these videos are being made by Kendoll. For whatever reason, this insane old coot is now pretending to be a teenage boy. Creepy. It's the only explanation that accounts for the ridiculously overdoneimg fawning praise being heaped on them at CP and the QE! blogs. You're really going to compare these hopeless youtube daubs to The Ten Commandments? That won an Oscar, this was knocked up in paintbrush in five seconds. Even ShockOfGoat's videos about QE! don't get that sort of attention and, while they're still a load of crap, they're several orders of magnitude better than these. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You can tell it's Ken because all his work with the QE Campaign consists of "x person told x person, and that's like 10 people, right?! Olé! Olé! Olé!" and sending people round in circles with various pages that say the same thing linking to each other. The only thing I've seen outputted from the campaign itself is "15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer!!!1!1!!" which to my understanding have been answered numerous times. Poor Ken. Garçoncoffee! 11:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
When I have children, I was going to call one of them Kenny after the blond kid from South Park. I'm seriously reconsidering. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you were willing to name a child after a character who died repeatedly and horribly, but not after a dolt? MDB (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not just CP and QEB. To quote Terry Coke-eyes: "Remarkably, his video shows production values that easily rival those of any professional advertising agency. The music alone is worth the viewer’s time." Oh dear. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Watched the videos. At first I thought "alright, nothing special here, just text on plain backgrounds while using some techno music downloaded from the iTunes store, seems like the level of work expected of an average 13 year old". I didn't think more than that other than a fairly decent try from a very young kid. However when I saw that Kenny had bukkaked all over CP's front page about this kid, and even compared him to Cecil B. DeMille; yeah something is certainly not right (and downright creepy) about this whole situation. I am holding out some faint hope due to Terry's praise, that this was really done by a 13 year old kid who just happens to be Terry's grandchild, or a great-nephew, or some other relation. I say hope because the alternative that it's Kenny posing as a 13 year old boy, indicates some extremely disturbing possibilities and tendencies that frankly I don't want to think about but the Feds may.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I say it's not even the work of a 13-year-old. Even something basic like Vegas allows you to transition slides, etc. Not to mention the fact that most of the wording is straight out of Ken's mouth. I think they (read Ken) are so desperate for attention, that they'll use any ploy. Thern again, why shouldn't it be Ken. TK told me Ken hangs out in dirty chatrooms posing as a 14-year-old girl for his kicks, so why not a 13-year-old boy? Certainly I'd be embarrassed to use these to promote my campaign, but when has looking like a fool ever stopped Ken. I see voting/comments are disabled as usual. Bunch of cowards. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I just watched the video for the first time with quite low expectations, and it was significantly worse than I thought. They're really impressed with their typical "Christianity is great. Atheism is evil" mini-rant written with different color backgrounds and set to music? It is one of the least remarkable videos I've ever seen. Even for a 13 year old it is unimpressive. I know Ken cums a little bit every time someone mentions the Question Evolution Campaign, and it happens rarely enough that he has to hype it whenever it does, but what Terry's excuse? As far as I know he, unlike Ken, isn't mentally retarded (or whatever you want to call Ken; I know one can't diagnose specific things over the net, but he definitely has some sort of mental deficiency). DickTurpis (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Terry must be at least slightly retarded if he thinks Karajou's going to like him blaming the USS Liberty attack on the US Navy. --Fergus Mason (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I must say that I had come to a similar conclusion about the "video" being made by Ken or at least him having a significant hand in the making of it. As for the music, well I've bought a couple of video editing packages in my time and can say that some actually come with music tracks that you an use on your own vids. Just one more thing, and that is the puff piece on Terry's blog doesn't even read like his normal style, I reckon Ken may have even wrote it and Terry just copy edited most of the verbal constipation out of it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 18:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Related to Mr. Mason's post there, I looked at the linked article and found this interesting: "Ron Paul is not, and never has been, a conservative. He is a libertarian." In the meantime, on CP's main page: "As Newt Gingrich slips, conservative Ron Paul moves...", "Surging in the polls, conservative Ron Paul releases...", "Conservative Ron Paul dramatically improves..." If not even CP and Terry's blog can decide whether or not Ron Paul deserves the sacred "conservative" label, it's no wonder that the current battle for the nomination is still wide open. --Sid (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I watched the video this morning, after the comment about the music compelled me to check. Nope. It's a pretty bad quality loop. The video itself is something that could be tossed together in Movie Maker or iMovie in about 5 minutes (possibly less, since no video needed to be imported). The phrasing of the video gives it away, as well as the poorly chosen comparisons. I'm reminded of something from the Simpsons - "You have to offer people something... a joke, an opinion, an idea." -Lardashe

Even these videos are better by a few orders of magnitude... Peter Urist for Mod! 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...[edit]

Is there any reason to believe that  K e n  D o l l  isn't a 13-year-old? Occam's Razor, it's a better hypothesis than "he's nuts."--"Shut up, Brx." 13:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But he is nuts. That's a fact we know. Besides, if he's 13, that means he started all his web-stalking when he was like 6 or something. ONE / TALK 13:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, he does have that leval of maturaty.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If that were the case, call Child Protective Services, as someone is not sending their kid to school or letting him sleep regular hours. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we have it on good authority that Kendoll is around 50. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Occam's Razor would say that Ken is a demented middle-aged man rather than a 13-year old writing about Gay Bowel Syndrome and San Francisco bath-houses. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 21:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama and Chavez[edit]

...um, what? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your what refering to what exactly? --ʤɱ kant 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out the position he's taking. Is Obama the Socialist so bad that even a big socialist dictator doesn't like him, or is he quoting Chavez as a Trusworthy source?? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Say something Andy likes, and you're absolutely trustworthy. It works for parodists, it works for Chavez. As long as it's anti-Obama, it's great. --Sid (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is even dumber considering that Chavez has been calling Obama a capitalist and has been criticizing him as a sell-out from the get-go. But from CP admins I expect no knownledge of foreign affairs. Also it is fucking amazing how that mantra of Chavez being a dictator is just said by everybody and blindly believed by everybody without any evidence of such being the case at all. --ʤɱ atheist 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The stupid,…[edit]

…it burns.img --ʤɱ socialist 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A sentance loses ALL credibility when the words "Lamestream Media" appear in it. Andy is defenately a five year old in a 60 year olds body.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A sentence loses ALL credibility when there's are mispellings and typos in it. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That's is correct. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 04:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I finally got around to looking up "lamestream media". I've also decided that this may have been frustrating, but given the huge blood stain on the wall that's never going to wash off, I shouldn't have bashed my head against said wall in frustration that some people take this seriously. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that any one, ever, took Sarah Palin seriously does not say much about the state of conservatives in this country. --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Palin was the right's ill advised answer on family feud, ("named a part of your body...'doorknob'"), to which the right was forced to say, "good answer!" 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I've thought for some time that it speaks volumes about American conservatism that it's face has gone from Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. MDB (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this really nothing particularly stupid (for Conservapedia)? Seems very standard and unremarkable to me. Not even in the top 50% for stupidity from the great minds of Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
EC American conservatives need a "regular guy" voice who doesn't come across as an idiot so badly. The problem with Buckley is that someone like JPatt would never feel like he had anything in common with a guy like that, mostly because a guy like that has some serious loathing and self-superiority issues when it comes to regular folks. If they could find someone with Michael Moore's community-college-dad-worked-on-the-assembly-line demeanour (...no matter that Moore lives in Traverse City and is wealthy as fuck, he knows how to present himself/talk to people) and without Palin's sheer stupidity, they'd have a winner. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really, but I facepalmed. Basically because the truth loving Christian are either so handy with language manipulation that they let the other half just fall of the table, or they are too stupid to understand even the actual criticism. --ʤɱ structuralist 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)