Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive272

This is an archive page, last updated 7 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>, <271>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Vandalize Conservapedia! Campaign

Whomever is behind the Vandalize Conservapedia! Campaign, just thought I'd let you know you're more boring than annoying, give up or try harder. If this kind of trolling is that amusing to you, then I think you need help, professional help that is. DMorris2 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's stupid and childish, but at the same time don't you think you sort of bring it on yourselves? --Longbow (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we use this as a forum to discuss new and interesting ways to vandalize Conservapedia. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Nobody can vandalise it as effectively as Ken

. He's single-handedly destroyed any credibility it ever had. --Longbow (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an Occupy Conservapedia movement, those damned liberal apes. Then again, if a vandal needs professional help, I'd hate to see what kind of help CT staff need. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

DMorris, pretty much everyone here agrees with you. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't. I think vandalizing Conservapedia is hilarious. --66.68.86.111 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the best ways to play with Conservapedia is to insert incorrect but plausible facts. I usually don't get caught at it but here is an example of one time when I was. This eliminates the usefulness of the site as any kind of reference. If you know of any site on the internet, that is even semi-reputable, that has an incorrect fact you can use it as a citation. Don't use any one sock for too long. And you get bonus points if the errors you insert align with the ideological biases of the administrators (makes a revert less likely as well). That way when someone gets information from Conservapedia it will more likely than not include significant errors. Petty vandalism gets reverted fast but incorrect information correctly inserted persists and undermines one of the fundamental goals of the project. Infoseek (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Who cares. Nobody uses Conservapedia as a legitimate resource. It's nothing more than a glimpse into a few people's insanity. Move along.

18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is much truth in what your saying. But they do show up on the first page of Google results for some significant searches. I think it is important that their hatred is thoroughly overwhelmed by their disrepute. Infoseek (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely, they should earn the disrepute themselves. Phiwum (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What the Vandalize Conservapedia! Campain shouldn't do is vandalize Conservapedia. A bunch of BoNs should just have pledged to put a thousand hours of work in and then nothing happens. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Pledge all the generous help the Question Evolution! volunteers are giving so that Conservapedia can be just as successful. 19:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No vandalism is half as funny as the genuine stuff that comes out of CP. Also, the 'vandalism instructions' read like some shit Ken would have come up with. Congratulations for managing to sound as stupid as Ken DeMyer. That's a genuine accomplishment. (whoops, forgot to log in.) Ego (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't think about it as vandalism. We need to be more sophisticated and think about it in terms of information warfare. With the aims of making Conservapedia more extremest, less reputable, and less factually reliable. Of course Conservative and other editors are already doing much of this for us. But they shouldn't have to bear the burden alone. Ken is a sick man he needs help. Infoseek (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. If CP is unreliable, then shouldn't that be obvious already? Any attempt to make CP worse just in order to prove that it's really bad is simply silly. Why not leave their site alone and simply observe the stupidity from here?

What makes you think that we ought to make CP more extremist? What is the point? Phiwum (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's retarded to insert wrong information into CP. It's like inserting shit into shit and then saying "Hey, look, it's shit, lol." Look at CP's history. There have been so many parodists of various calibers, and yet, only one act of mild notice was not created by a Senior Sysop. And even that one act (the hit list, IIRC) never damaged the project as much as the Conservative Bible Project, Lenski, relativity-denial, or Ken's antics (both in his pet articles and his debate challenges and "essays"). Give it up, liberals! --Sid (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that the site is unreliable after a little exploration but it would be better if its unreliability was blindingly apparent after even at a glance. Readers who stumble onto it would be less likely to be deceived. Really, I insert falsehood in order to promote truth. Inserting errors also gives you the opportunity to get into the heads of the people who use the site, like the admins, and shape their understanding of the world to your whim. I wonder how many of the things that Andy picked up from his project and is carrying around in his mind are the product of some bored teenagers joke. Why do you spend time to monitor Conservapedia, a rather obscure pseudoblog. I think my justification would be similar to yours. Just because it's bad doesn't mean we can't do our little bit to make it worse. Infoseek (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This really makes no sense. You don't make a site more unreliable and then claim that it's unreliable. (Sid's description is even more apt.) I monitor CP purely for the entertainment. I don't think the site is any threat at all and I try not to get too fed up over the fact people are wrong on the internet, though I sometimes fail. But mostly, CP and its primaries are funny (and, sadly, sometimes it feels good to be superior, even superior to obviously deranged morons, but that's an ugly motive). Phiwum (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to make CP more extreme? It's a site that even hardcore republicans laugh at. CP is so extreme that even the people AT THAT EXTREME can't get along with each other. Information warfare? Ugh. Don't you have a highschool exam to study for or a bus to catch or something? Ego (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And how is your passive consumption of this materiel more worthy of praise? Infoseek (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'Worthy of praise?' What the fuck are you babbling about? Reading conservapedia is like watching a good sitcom. I don't need to be praised to enjoy watching a good show. Conservapedia isn't something that needs to be 'defeated.' It's inherently self defeating. Just sit back and enjoy the show. By the way, unless you're french and that was a typo, materiel is definitely not the word you're looking for --no one could possibly mistake anything on CP as something being involved in a war effort (outside of the folks at CP, perhaps.) Ego (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people like to sit on their asses and watch sitcoms others want to get in the game. Conservapedia is inherently self defeating but I want to do what I can to make it fail in the most edifying and entertaining manner possible. Much of what you find amusing on Conservapedia is the product of parodists (we probably wrote over half the site) or the admins reaction to parodists. Things like the Conservative Bible Project were given crucial assistance by parodists. Infoseek (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, see Sid's post above. BTW, posting your 'how to vandalize conservapedia' thing on the conservapedia talk page to get unceremoniously deleted a short time later? Not exactly quality parody. Or parody at all. Also, I'm pretty sure you're still sitting on your ass when you vandalize conservapedia. But good luck. I'm sure you're the next Bugler. Ego (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is signed Infoseek in this discussion is me, anything that is signed by someone else isn't me. I'm not the only one posting in this thread. And I'm not behind that copy and paste campaign, I do not view it as an effective strategy. Infoseek (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "people stumble onto CP while googling and might take it seriously as a source" idea, I think anyone that would use a website called "Conservapedia" as their main/only source of information on a topic in the first place isn't going to be put off by, or even notice, wildly inaccurate statements in articles. X Stickman (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DMorris, Sid, et al. Why vandalize Conservapedia? Don't you have anything better to do? I think it's a waste of time. Refugee^{talk page} 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for mistaking you for the Jensen fellow. Ego (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem identity can be a difficult thing online. Infoseek (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Phone call for the VCC

Two in one day. Looks like SOMEBODY has Rationalwiki Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Permant link^img - π 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Rationalwiki have such a strange codependent relationship. Their symbiotic but antagonistic. I think if either site shut down the other would follow in short order. Infoseek (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Half-disagree. I think RW would move on. I would have agreed with you up until about five months ago, when I started becoming more interested in other parts of the site and disinterested in CP. If RW shutdown, CP's pageviews would severely drop. They exist because we exist. We exist because we're fucking awesome. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Living well is the best revenge."~George Herbert. --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see why he linked to that video. A lot of sweaty muscular men. No Ken, not everybody get's a boner from this. It's just you and all the other gay men. --★uːʤɱ pervert 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are we supposed to be feeling the pressure of the question evolution campaign? Have they actually done something now? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any day now, then BOOM, full throtle.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fear of that day keeps me tossing and turning all night. Infoseek (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice for Jensen

Jensen, if you're reading this, I have a serious belief that you are in need of help that only a mental institution can offer, and I'm not saying this just to attack you or troll you, but because I'm hoping that you will go and get the help that you need. Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions, but normal people do not spend hours on end relentlessly attacking a website like you are doing, and even most of RationalWiki seems to agree that what you are doing is senseless. Based on your comments here on RationalWiki, you seem to think that you are some kind of superhero or something, like you're doing something for the common good, whereas what you are really doing is being silly and making an ass of yourself. Please, go and get help, do it for the common good. DMorris2 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, reverting and blocking wandals and reporting them to the FDACS does, in fact, make you a superhero. -- Nx / talk 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"normal people do not spend hours on end relentlessly attacking a website like you are doing" Oh, so you also know Ken Demyer? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For crap sakes, DMorris, read what you just wrote then look at Ken's efforts. Then read what you wrote again. If nothing clicks, repeat the process. Jensen is merely a lvl 1 troll. Geez. Brendiggg (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The dude isn't even terribly good at vandalising CP. In the many minutes that not a single sysop was looking at CP's recent changes you could have had a field day, but instead you did some ridiculously tame copy and pastes to just a few talk pages. A great attack would be to run two different bots on two different users. One which made vandal edits to pages and fed the page names to the other. The other would then make another edit, either reverting the vandalism or adding extra vandalism on a coin flip but either way adding an edit comment suggesting the edit was a revert. In half an hour you could make a mess that would take a couple of days to clean up for CP's 3 remaining janitors, considering their scripting knowledge is non-existent. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't the admins simply perform a mass rollback of all edits made by both users? Or do they not the know-how and/or the functionality to do so? άλφα^Ταλκ 19:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's the joy of it. While software exists that can mass rollback all the top edits by one editor, reverting back two revisions from two editors is more of a pain. If you do a mass rollback of the one, then your rollback revisions become the top revisions and you can't rollback the second set, so all you've done is revert every article to a vandalised state and you have to go fix them all manually. Even if they were using some mass rollback tool, the best counter to that would be to actually use your wandal account to revert some wandalism first before you do your own mass defacement run. That was some articles would be mass reverted back to the defaced state. If the wandals had half a brain they could have CP paranoid that everyone seen reverting wandalism was themselves a potential wandal :D --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Thought for sure this^img was a joke. --jdd (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd think he'd have been stuck under some sort of "great conservatives" list--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That staggeringly inept edit was made by Andy Pandy himself. What's he smoking this afternoon? I'm Spartacus! 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Churchill, like the character in Doctor Who? Yea, not important enough. Jimaginator (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Was he noteworthy enough?" No, not really, he just saved Britain from Nazi invasion and was instrumental in leading the Allies to victory in Europe. I suppose this is nothing compared to Conservapedia's mighty achievements of predicting Palin won't be President because she uses Facebook, observing "large earthquakes increasing in frequency" mean the Earth is 6'000 years old and not a second older, and uncovering a general correlation between all good things in the world being Christian, conservative, American while all bad things are conversely atheistic, liberal and unpatriotic.

What a cunt. SJ ^Debaser 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but he lost reelection. And politics is all that matters to Andy. «-Bfa-» 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He's just trolling the Brits here. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Churchill was not an American, and is, hence, not noteworthy. QED. (Even worse, he's from atheistic Britain.) MDB (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

His mother was, though. --Longbow (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Feh -- you think that's good enough for a birther like Andy? He'd want both of Sir Winston's parents to British, as well as all of his grandparents and five of eight great-grandparents. MDB (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But Churchill is a US Citizen, albeit an honorary one. MDB (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Attila the Hun? Pfft, choked to death on his own nosebleed. Not noteworthy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great? A homosexual and a Greek, and we all know how well Greeks are at maintaining their own country in times of crisis (Roman invasion, World War II, EU solvency problems). Not noteworthy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not like Churchill did anything really significant, like earn 121 merit badges^img. DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(unrelated) I love how Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Fanning are on that list...amazing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Added by Andy no less. DickTurpis (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who hates the fucking Tories I have to say that Churchill's achievements were astonishing - he kept Britain in the war, gaining the time needed to defeat one of the most despicable and murderous regimes in history. And Andy fucking Pandy thinks that he wasn't up to much snuff? He's even more stupid and petty-minded than even I thought! Right, that's got me angry. I'm off to slaughter orcs somewhere. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If he were important he would have been in the kings speech! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Remember though, he cost them the Gallipoli campaign because it was his idea, therefor, he is militarily and administratively incompetent, all accomplishments afterwards are obviously accredited to him and not people working for him! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Churchill's achievements were astonishing - he kept Britain in the war." That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to credit the millions of unnamed men and women from Britain and the colonies who did all the producing, heavy lifting, fighting and dying. Without Churchill, they still might have succeeded. Without them, Churchill is just another upper-class racist with a drinking problem. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

you filthy liberals - always trying to take away from America winning WWII entirely on its own. And jesus who was probably american and a republican anyway AMassiveGay (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to credit the millions of unnamed men and women from Britain and the colonies who did all the producing, heavy lifting, fighting and dying. Without Churchill, they still might have succeeded. Without them, Churchill is just another upper-class racist with a drinking problem." Oh FFS. Read some history. Churchill kept us in the war as France was collapsing and Allied forces were withdrawing to Dunkirk. When Chamberlain resigned there was a choice - Halifax or Churchill. Halifax would have tried to negotiate with Hitler - a fatal error. Churchill would never have. There was a ten-day period in May - June 1940 when Churchill's position was very precarious, but thanks to the evacuation from Dunkirk he held on. Without Churchill we would have had Halifax in charge. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a fashionable meme to discredit Churchill's achievements because he was a racist imperialist - which he no doubt was. The fashion also requires the follower to view anybody admiring his achievements as worshipping a racist imperialist. The idea that reasonable people can have both positive and negative views about a subject, particularly contentious ones, is incomprehensible. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

EC I'm not denying that Churchill's political decisions shaped outcomes in a generally positive way. But when I read the original claim, I read it as though someone wanted to argue that it was by virtue of one man's efforts that the British empire persevered through the dark times between, say, Dunkirk and D-Day. I just like to see the little guy (and the women, writ large) get their due credit. Not a big deal. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I think the little guy is given due credit. And just as with Churchill, we have a tendency to over-romanticise it. Crime in London was at its highest during the Blitz, for example. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Churchill wasn't any more racist than the average constituent he represented within Britain itself; he was a product of his time. It is like Creationists attempting to discredit evolution because "Darwin has racist views", but his views were really no different any middle-class white male in Britain (or Europe, or America) at that time, religions or not. It doesn't make those views right, but it certain doesn't make him a monster, nor does it nullify any of his achievements.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

McGovern wasn't any more racist than the average constituents within Alabama that he represented. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this was supposed to make a point, but since the only prominent person named "McGovern" I could find was George McGovern (who I've never heard of and who never represented Alabama), I'm having trouble figuring out what it is. Maybe that people who accuse historical figures of racism are often ignorant of basic history? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably meant Wallace. DickTurpis (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's who I meant, sorry I misremembered my history. I'm in the sciences. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So then we supposed to dismiss all his accomplishments because Churchill was racially biased and have that be the only thing we remember about him? Roosevelt wouldn't integrate the armed forced of America, does that negate all 12 years of his administration and what it achieved through the Great Depression and WW2?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget who topped the list of 100 greatest Britons. Noteworthy my ass. Just another sign of Andy's descent into delusion. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting list. I.K. Brunell at #2? never would have expected that. Guy Fawkes at #30 was amusing, but Boy George and Cliff Richard beating Henry V? Weird. DickTurpis (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Diana would be so high on the list if it was re-done today. That's always the trouble with these rankings - they suffer from recent event-itis (I know there's a term for that but I've gone blank). Ajkgordon (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Recency bias, apparently. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Greatest Britons" thing had a set of TV shows before the final vote, with the top ten people each presented (and thus argued for) by a different presenter, so it mattered a lot whether that presenter "sold" the person well as a Great Briton. Brunel's show was fronted by Clarkson. Yes, that Clarkson. Now it happens that Clarkson really likes Brunel. No need to swot up for a TV show, Clarkson could already tell you about various big Brunel civil engineering projects, and how awesome they are, and how they'd never have happened without Isambard. Lots of people who wouldn't have watched a TV show by some historian about some guy who built railways did tune in to see Clarkson talk about Brunel. So that's a big part of why IKB is so high on the list.

Churchill, though undoubtedly deserving of a place somewhere on the list anyway, helped himself no end by writing his own history of the events in which he was so instrumental. His history, backed up with documents only he as Prime Minister had access to, inevitably often paints him as the central figure in what was certainly an important period. Indeed political figures at the time complained that sometimes it seemed the only reason why this or that document existed was so that Churchill would be able to cite it later to his own credit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

what you all forget

is that Andy is the man who teaches kids that the East front may well have not existed...--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I just checked out CP's article on WW2. The bit about the Eastern Front isn't even pitiful, it's an insult. God, Andy Pandy really does have his head up his own bottom doesn't he? He's like a child with a crayon who thinks he's painting the Mona Lisa. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GTA V kills.. From the World of Tomorrow!

Article: "This has spark a speculation whether Ross was influenced by the recent burst of video games shooters such as Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. His style of the killing is similar to the upcoming Rockstar’s title Grand Theft Auto V (GTA 5)", (emphasis mine). As they currently have no motive, the article simply ponders if the recent popular FPS (First Person Shooters) has something to do with motivating the killer, but offer zero evidence.

Andy showing his piss poor research skills: Conservapedia Proven Right! Video games cause murderous violence tendencies in people, as shown by the Virginia Shooter! His style of shooting is similar to GTA V!^img

Fun fact: GTA V hasn’t been released yet; all the public knows is a few tidbits for a released preview clip that says nothing about gameplay. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And just to quibble: the GTA series are third-person sandbox games, not FPSes :P Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

EC I dunno; is it really like this game will feature never-before-seen-or-imagined ways of simulating the taking of human life? The games are violent and formulaic, and there are, IMHO, some interesting things to say about the popularity of incredibly realistic violent game play and what it says about us. Also, you're focusing on the edit comment; the actual headline draws a stronger comparison to other games. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are such interesting things to say, I'd prefer if they weren't just idle speculation for once. Mostly video games are escapist. In real life you can't drive an expensive sportscar on two wheels down a busy city street firing a machine gun. In real life you can't be a hedgehog (huh?) who runs so fast he's a blur,

Speak for yourself. MDB (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

nor can you achieve anything by rapidly matching identically coloured/ shaped/ patterned blocks on a grid, or become a celebrated detective by solving head-scratcher puzzles involving matchsticks or various sized jugs of liquid. But all these things are incredibly popular video games, with many sequels and clones. I doubt they tell us anything we didn't already know about human psychology, especially concerning violence. The contrast between real world violence and a video game is even more dramatic than the difference between movie violence and the real world, anybody who gets confused about the difference is probably also having trouble knowing whether advertising poster slogans are specifically directed at them ("Just Do It"). Anything might set them off, and blaming GTA V is no more helpful than blaming Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Lord of the Rings, or the Bible. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

True, GTA is specifically a "third person shooter" open world game. Call of Duty and battlefield 3 are both FPS. Interestingly enough in those latter two games you can't go around shooting cops and be the bad guy, you're in the U.S. military in some capacity carrying out missions on behalf of the National Security.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone seen the Bullshit! episode involving video game violence? (Sorry if this has been mentioned before) Throughout the course of the show (which basically unmasks the boogeyman), the producers interview and eventually take a young Modern Warfare-playing kid to a range to shoot a real assault rifle at a target. At the end, he takes up the assault rifle, which is huge compared to him, fires one round, sets the gun down, then goes to his mother (who has no problem with video games), hugs her and starts crying. Sure, it's an appeal to emotion, but it kinda drives the point home. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a fallacy right there though. Let's not pretend that is by any means representative of a standard response. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't played the single-player mode of MW3, but is there really a part in which you steal an SUV, shoot any undercover cop, then kill yourself? Seems like a stupid game. Or is Andy just saying that video games cause murder because they depict murder? If so, then we need to add the following to the list of things that cause murder: novels, TV, movies, comic books, The History Channel, talking to my Grandpa, and daydreaming while at work. C'mon, Andy, aren't you supposed to be in the party of personal responsibility? Wouldn't it be better just to say that this shooter was a huge piece of shit? Carlaugust (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound like Modern Warfare, possibly GTA or Saint's Row... and I think the fact that Conversapedia exists is evidence enough that any Occam's Razor (or, indeed, Hanlon's Razor) that Andy owned, if ever, rusted out a long fuckin' time ago. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Stout makes a decent enough point about GTA V probably not being too dissimilar to other GTA games (which are, if nothing else, uniformly violent) but that just makes me wonder why the hell they didn't just say GTA IV. Or GTA SA. Or VC. Or 3. Or any of the many, many GTA games that have *actually been released*. Why did they pick the *one* GTA game so far that hasn't been released? There hasn't even been any gameplay footage of it released yet (that we know of, I guess some of the trailer could be in-game). X Stickman (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Likely because the article specifically speculated that the shooter's "style" of killing was akin to GTA V. In short, they have no clue about the GTA series of games and figure since you can kill cops and civilians in the previous iterations of the game, that the shooter's style must be like that (yet to be released) game, Q.E.D.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Audie Murphy shot people in the same style as Day of Defeat (i.e. killed Nazis). Do you suppose he played video games too? DickTurpis (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean "with a shovel?" :P (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't Modern Warefare and Battlefield 3 both games which simulate military combat utilizing largely defensive weapons of gun in a potentially very pro-America way? Sounds just up Andy's alley. Also, I didn't really look into the whole recent V-Tech incident, but wasn't it a case of a guy getting pulled over and shooting the cop or something like that, a not a video game inspired rampage or anything? Last I checked there was no video game in which you shoot a police officer after he pulls you over for speeding. I don't see how this simulates anything from a video game in any way. I'll even grant Andy that there have been mass killings that were to some degree videogamesque, but this just ain't one of them. DickTurpis (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can do something like shooting a cop after xe pulls you over in GTA, but yeah. Fallacy (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah. Just to let you know, using those bullshit gender neutral pronouns makes you look like some genitalia of unspecified gender origin. Try "after they pull you over." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

^^What he said. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The only time using a gender-neutral pronoun is acceptable is when it's a nerdy in-joke. Hence I present: "after THON pulls you over" ^{ONE / TALK} 10:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys going to bring that up everytime I use them? Because if so, there's going to be a bunch of derailings. Fallacy (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battlefield games I've played aren't really pro-America, since you can play a bunch of different sides in the conflict and the multiplayer versions switch sides (I've slowly learned a few phrases of Japanese, Russian and Arabic from playing). The Battlefield: Bad Company series, at least in the single-player mode, are a mixed bag--the four members of Bad Company are decidedly patriotic, but fairly critical of the army that they are members of. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Ken

will attempt to argue that, as his BFF Shock plays Battlefield 3 excessively to the point that his playing sessions are a good sized chuck of the videos on his channel.  Or perhaps Shock is just another mass-murderer in the making! Dun Dun DUN!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Shooting sprees and crime existed before video games. This entire debate makes my head explode. Yes, the shooter may have copied something he saw in GTA or SR, or maybe he just fucking watched Reservoir Dogs or Natural Born Killers. But what's certain is that the guy was a sociopath and was going to do something like this either way. This thread is only here because stupid people like us pay attention to morons who hate anything that isn't reading the bible. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly that article was written by someone who has never played GTA. You need to kill the cops before they pull you over - if you wait until they actually pull you over, you get pulled from the car and arrested - no chance to kill anyone. Worm (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: actually read the article (my bad) The cop was stopping someone else. That also never happens in GTA to my recollection - the police only ever hassle you, they never pull over NPCs. Worm (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That was a problem in the original GTA III, and they changed it afterwards so cops will now both chase random criminal NPCs between missions and attack NPC criminals during missions. Sadly in Saints Row, they still really only seem to notice you.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given Ken's recent obsession with sexual perversions, I'm surprised he didn't make a comment and link it to Saints Row:The Third, home of the dildo bat. 86.146.241.54 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saints Row 3 is so over the top, it parodies itself.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bah, there was a pink dildo weapon in one of the GTA games as well - Vice City or San Andreas. Worm (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The WIGO misses the point

It's still good, but the funniest part about this is that Andy declared himself proven right when another person speculated the same thing he had speculated. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point! Along those lines, I speculate that when I get home, Jessica Alba will be there to greet with naught but a smile and a suitcase filled with $100 bills. Anyone else care to speculate along those lines, which will then make it a reality? Carlaugust (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this assumption and toss in really good beer also; therefore it must be true!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy is learning a bit

At least he did not accepted this obvious parodist suggestion as a "superb idea". --Tlaloc (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he can tell he is being mocked on this. - π 11:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm going to credit him with at least some intelligence now. But judging by that, I can't tell if or not he didn't do it because he could tell it was a parodist or because he genuinely thought that conservative food is a stupid idea. (French fries, anyone?) -- 11:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Dudes name is George Soros, I am suprised he wasn't blocked for that. - π 11:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He probably thinks it's the real George Soros--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the weird part about that is that JPatt actually welcomed him. Makes me wonder if he actually reads all his crazy wingnut blogs or if the information contained in them just kind of skips his higher reasoning faculties (such as they are) and goes directly in his hind-brain causing immediate rage. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Made me think of the innermost brain sparkles shown by the CDC guy in "The Walking Dead" after someone re-awakens from being dead. This could explain everything! Jimaginator (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Joaquin. You naive, beautiful fool.

Everyone else at CP has already come to the right conclusion that TK was the troll king to end all troll kings. But Joaquin still believes^img. It's kind of sad, really. Poor dopey Joaquin, I don't know what you're still doing at CP. You may be the only true believer left. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He is their Token.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How long will that memorial be allowed to stay on the main page? Will Andy once again deny he knows the bloke to be dead by saying, "TK chose not to use his real name" or will someone else pull it because they know he was just a big shite?--Spud (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bahaha, the first thing that leapt to my mind was "That Xmas image looks just like a goatse". Kinda fitting. Ace^ace 17:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I bet Andy won't delete it; he won't delete Ken's trash off there unless it's really bad.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated

Ugh, that link to "Make Believe Knowledge vs. Creation" (two articles below the TK post) is absolutely horrendous. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything we know and believe is based upon premises -- therefore, I'm going to be believe in magical flying ponies and dragons made of cheeseburgers. Fallacy (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I love both of those ideas. Let's get a bunch of people together who also agree and spread the word! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"It was the creationist Johannes Kepler" - that really does annoy me. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken^img comes to defend the post asking for — e… vi… dence? Uhh, boy... --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MOAR ELVIZ?????

What is up with all this?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You wanna tell us what you're talking about, that we may share in your excitement?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

Can somebody tell me from where the hell Joaquín is coming from here^img? Is in the alternative reality that is CP philosophy inherently atheistic or something? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 01:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I thought Ken or Andy had made that post. And he's just buying in to the whole Christian persecution complex, although the thought of making religion friendlier to science is appealing--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It involves thinking about really hard about things, so yes, they probably do believe it's atheistic. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Annnnnd Ken goes into another spiral. Nothing new here.

Is it just me or was Ken's latest incivility towards Sid an actual ploy to block him? As in, "I'm gonna block Sid because I'm uncivil to him!" _{Oh and everything said that makes me look bad, begone!} Ah well, can always count on the sysops to back each other up (not bothering with links, too lazy and much deletions happening). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 05:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a classic "Only one of us can get blocked for 90/10, so I'll just keep baiting you!" plot, and I only played along because the thought of being banned didn't worry me too much. "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" at its finest: One section in which I refused to let him hijack the subject (the "Where is the data?" thread) and one section in which he outright taunted me (as retaliation for daring to ask for data). Keep me talking, hope that I'll lose my head so he can ban me for incivility, and ban me for 90/10 if I don't. --Sid (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They really just hate science, don't they?

It's hard to blame Kendoll^img because he only parrots what various people tell him to say. But CMI... ugh. Can't you people fathom that it's just interesting in itself to know if there are planets orbiting other stars? Given that currently our best available propulsion technology would take about a century to get us to our closest star, and that's if we didn't want to stop when we got there (more like 150 years in that case), finding planets via indirect means may be our only means of figuring out what it's like out there. You fuckers want to stop us doing even that because you're scared that what we might find discredits your big book o' myths. The sooner your religion is confined to folk history museums, the better. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahaha NASA! Your preeminent science budget is going to be cut! The axe man cometh and he hates discovery. Ace^{Vote Ace for Mod!} 08:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I enjoyed how they attempt to cast doubt on the existence of any extrasolar world: "Although many extrasolar planets are assumed to exist, we should keep in mind the methods used to detect them. Firstly, we have never witnessed or directly observed (i.e. with our eyes through a telescope) a planet outside of our own solar system." Gentlemen may I introduce you to fuckin' Fomalhaut b, the first extrasolar planet directly imaged by Hubble. By the way, it isn't the only extrasolar world that we found through direct imaging. So there you have it; CMI, Ken, before you shit all over the idea of the existence of other words, DO. YOUR. RESEARCH! Also you do not need to directly image an object to detect and demonstrate its physical presence in space, and of course CMI offers no alternative explanation to these indirect methods of planet detection such as what else may be causing variations in the radial velocity of a star; or when a star dims when by being transitioned; or through using Astrometry and finding some planet sized mass causing the star to move in a small orbit itself due to that planet's gravitational pull; or when a planet sized object is increasing the Gravitational Microlensing affect of a star through its mass, and so on and so forth. If these indirect methods of detection, which are repeatedly tested and scrutinized to remove error, isn't cause by planets, then what are they caused by? Of course CMI has no answer, all they can do is cast dubious doubt on the methods of science itself and claim everything occurred because of DA MAJIKS!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gravitational pull? Please. Has anyone witnessed gravity? Directly observed it through a microscope? Keep your pseudoscience out of this debate. X Stickman (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationists like to throw all manner of doubt on scientific deductions - TerryH is always going on about the many assumptions required in stratigraphy - but they are quite happy to believe the Genesis creation story word for word, even though there were no witnesses and it was apparently not written down by Moses until 2500 years after the event. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate these kinds of people (CMI, not the ken person you name). Science is fulfilling for its own sake. 600 billion to learn about our universe, or 600 billion to go to war with a country that never really did anything to us? There is just something so wrong with these people.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

At genghis, I would say they are quite happy to use what science has provided, (MRIs for example) and never question the theories behind those technologies, yet they question things like the LHC, which uses the same theory, and much of the same technology though far bigger and more studly. "yes, yes, you have boats that run on nuclear energy, and missiles that harness the same thing, but that is *different* atomic theory from the theory behind radiometric dating, or using nuclear information to date the sun. cause it's not the same new-clu-er, don't you know!"GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing is that it looks like NASA's budget will remain the same or go up slightly. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of TK....

... Kendoll has really mastered his trolling technique^img. Referrals to the Arsefly which will be met by stony silence, no matter what the request, are surely the best way to wield power at CP. Other than the banhammer of course. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the TK is strong in that one. He also used it to declare the Civility Guidelines to be mere "Civility Recommendations".^img Of course, with the mandatory "Discuss it with Andy."^img pointer. --Sid (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Taunting of liberals"; a Liberal being anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how conservative in their views they really are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that I'm gone, Karajou finally dares^img to come out of hiding, and he rewrites history a bit and shows us how people are supposed to act at CP: "Show exactly how we are wrong, then shut up and never bring it up again (while we ignore you)." Yep, must be the season to channel TK. --Sid (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

CaptureBot

Since CaptureBot apparently went on an early Christmas vacation, I filled in some red links I noticed by hand. If you got some time, could you go through my recent uploads and fill in stuff like proper descriptions (I only added the link of what was cap'd) and categories? I'll be busy for the next couple of hours. Thanks! --Sid (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul and CP

Although I might be wrong, the note about Ron Paul seems pretty favorable.^img I also checked out his article, and although it's critical at times, it's very soft on him as well. I thought fundies hated libertarians? 108.88.165.73 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, fundies hate Obama. They don't like libertarians, but would make an exception because Ron Paul is white NOT Obama. Besides, Paul is saying some things that CONservatives like. Cut spending, cut taxes, let the uninsured die. Just don't bring up Israel...--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Ron Paul is a little unusual among libertarians in that he opposes abortion. MDB (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of his views are at odds with them, under Ron Paul, the commie states would allow gay marriage and outlaw capital punishment. He also wouldn't outlaw abortion at the federal level, or bomb them goddamn Muslims. Hell, he only agrees with them on fiscal issues. It puzzles me, that's all. 108.88.165.73 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Conservapedia stressing Newt as a "neo-conservative", seeming as their article on the subject is rather damning. On another note relating to Ron Paul being White, I had to keep lolling when Jpatt kept ratting on about the liberal media shooting down the opportunity for a Black man to become conservative, dismissing Obama as "white". Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 15:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's why they don't like Obama - not black enough AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul is the most libertarian candidate but he isn't a true, hard-core Libertarian (with a big "L"). He does hold several views that they agree with, especially when it comes to size and scope of government. Because of that, and because Gingrich and Romney are seen as too compromising/moderate/neo-con; they are willing to support Paul, even if he isn't the "perfect canidate".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They'd support a damn bowl of jell-o for president. So long as its not Obama. Also, unless I missed my guess, jell-o polls better then anyone else...--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's always room _{in the White House} for Jell-O. MDB (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's 3 point plan

Kendoll has a 3 point plan for never learning anything, ever:

1. Block.
2. Censor.
3. Don't read. It'll pollute your mind.

It's an unusually candid admission that his mind is permanently closed. But how is it that someone who constantly chides others for being "too cowardly to debate" with him justifies cutting off all avenues of actually having a debate? Even for someone that deranged, he must notice the hypocrisy surely? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything you do either wins or loses. Pissing bad people off is a win. Treating them with respect, openness and courtesy can only add up to a loss. What could be more obvious?

If this is how you view the world, then charges of hypocrisy are irrelevant. Refusing to debate a bad person? WIN! Claiming bad person is a coward for refusing to debate? WIN!

I just don't think Ken sees intellectual honesty as a virtue at all. Phiwum (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess just like civility, intellectual honesty is more of a recommendation in Ken's eyes. Also, wow, that's a stunning confession. --Sid (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When replying to people, he's also very keen on claiming the "fallacy of exclusion" if they don't respond to some irrelevance in his post. So I'm even more delighted to hear that he doesn't even read the majority of what's addressed to him.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that he does, of course. Avidly. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And what does this say about the Question Evolution campaign?

"I can answer these questions. Question the first...""

Block, delete.

"Evolutionists cannot anser these 15 questions!"

Ace^{Vote Ace for Mod!} 19:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Question evolution campaign has never been about intellectual honestly or sincere skepticism and most people see that, and that is why it is failing so badly.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, B. The campaign is failing badly because "overturning scientific consensus via blogposting" is not a thing. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the 15 questions are utterly moronic probably isn't helping much either. --Longbow (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And that one of the chief proponents of the campaign spend his days and night linking everything he disagrees with to bestality. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, Ken might just spur the evolution of flying kitties. He can't bugger animals that have flown away, can he? --Longbow (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And those that can't fly will kill themselves rather than taking another minute of him. Well, that is evolution… --★uːʤɱ federalist 01:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't get sassy with me!

Whole new levels of Ken crazy^img. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 02:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AT LAST, Ken tells us his full name. Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant. The first.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That goes nicely with the propaganda machine on the right side. - π 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bring down the banhammer early and often. It's fun and entertaining! What a sick, twisted sense of humour you have, Ken. Doesn't your Jesus teach you to feel compassion for your enemies? You sound more like a disciple of the Marquis de Sade. --Spud (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, that guy has^img got some balls on him.^img --★uːʤɱ structuralist 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, right? To move instantly and seamlessly from admitting you ban, censor and burn any dissent to calling dissenters cowards for failing to turn up is either a move worthy of big brother, or the lowliest epsilon minus mind. I'm betting on the epsilon one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Epic Karajou Rage

Apparently^img there's a website known less for its content than for its hate, vandalism, trolling, bigotry, and other trash. What website were you referring to, Karajou dearest? And when were you planning to take out the trash exactly? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a wild stab in the dark, but did he sort of miss a point there?. -- 21:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No the answer basically is that Sid got banhammered because he wouldn't shut up. Which is — in a weird turn of events — not only true but also honest. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's definitely honest in describing how mortals are supposed to behave on CP: "If you see something that is wrong, supply all the evidence and then shut up and forget about it while we ignore you." And he also tells the truth about me causing fights: After all, by refusing to shut up when they want to ignore the uncomfortable truths I point out, I did cause fights. Though pretty much all of those fights started and ended with "But-" - "I BAN YOUUUUUUU!" ;) --Sid (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the irony...

But it's true.^img Where conservatives only have Fox News and churches, liberals have the real world on their side. --★uːʤɱ socialist 01:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Best new conservative word?

Shouldn't a conservative think that the word "Tebowing" is ridiculous? We already have a word for that: genuflecting. Where's respect for convention? (Okay, so Tebowing is "genuflecting in an ostentatious manner", I suppose, but the point remains. It is insulting to pretend that Tebow invented this stance.) Phiwum (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Genuflecting is such a catholic thing to do. Good protestants tebow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean genuflect, genuflect, genuflect. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tebowing has as much to do with praying as Planking does. Thats why this is such a strange story. I don't see how anyone can consider it "Conservative".--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn dyslexia, I read that as Teabagging initially. Students suspended for Teabagging in evil liberal public schools would of course be a CP concern! Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nebuchadnezzar: Thanks for the link! Now I know which DVD I'd like Mrs Spartacus to put in my Winter Solstice stocking. I'm Spartacus! 23:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought tebowing meant praying whilst everyone else was doing something else. - π 01:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens Dies. CP Dances on Grave

The great Christopher Hitchens has died. CP naturally is busy dancing on his grave, but still can't be bothered to to correctly spell what contributed to his death: "Christopher Hitchens was being treated for esophageal cancer caused by drinking and smoking up until his death." http://conservapedia.com/Christopher_Hitchens ^{— Unsigned, by: Darkmind1970 / talk / contribs 2011-12-16T02:51:59}

That was fast. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Hitchens make jokes about that himself? Or, at leat, said so himself? If they are just repeating what he said about smoking and drinking getting him cancer, I don't see were that is dancing on his grave. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris did it to make light of an otherwise sad situation. Andy is doing it maliciously because he's a fucking prick unworthy of being a human being. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, sorry to play devils advocate here but, at the time of posting this there is no "Dancing on graves" as the headline implies. Nor provided by the link. Cp = 0, RW = -1 on this count. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

CP writes pretty objectively the cause of death of man who foresaw his own departure. Move on people, nothing to see here... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

JPatt fails reading comprehension

JPatt claims that students were suspended for praying in schools when they were "tebowing".

No, they weren't. The article specifically says they were suspended because they were blocking traffic in the halls and they were doing it as a homage to Tebow, not as prayer. MDB (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to learn to ignore Ken

What the fuck is going on with Ken? What in the name of Fuck is this about? This brings up a vexing question: do retards know they're retarded? Does Ken know he is? He must realize that he is, well, "different", and not in a way that is generally positive. Or is his stupidity such that he really can't recognize its existence in his brain? I can no longer tell if I pity the guy or want to kick him square in the nuts. DickTurpis (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Bad Faith (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's Ken is trying to be a wise ass of a cunt.

User on user page: I don't care if god exists. The question has no personal relevance to me.

User on Talk Main Page: CP shouldn't bash atheism as much as it does. The way it is now no atheist will ever convert.

Ken (in desperation of anything coming from him being not accepted as the best stuff ever done) : I don't care about your opinion, as I can't say if your suggestion would pay off or not, the suggestion itself becomes irrelevant (apatheism). But if you convert to become a Christian (a.k.a. "agree with me") I would listen to you [because then you wouldn't criticize me but tell me how awesome I am]. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy made a funny

Fox Newt Channel.

I can't make any sense out of the rest of it, though. MDB (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy must really be feeling the dissonance because of these primaries. He keeps jumping from favorite candidate to favorite candidate. --User:Brxbrx/sig 17:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes. The gays have got to Bill O with their pink power rays. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Bachmann is so overtly crazy that even the conservapundits are ashamed she's in their party, could it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the pink power rays. We unleashed the full rainbow on him. MDB (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just more of Andy not considering the big picture. Glenn Beck was cut loose because the only people who would advertise on his show were overcharging con artists in the backwaters of the financial services industry. Who si Beck pulling for? Bachmann, Perry, Santorum? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann. MDB (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens wigo...

...is shite. Editor at CP signs up today to make that edit. And a BoN with no prior edits adds the entry here. What's the phrase? Obvious parodist is obvious? I'd delete that wigo if it wasn't against our no-deleting wigos rule. SJ ^Debaser 19:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vote the fucker down, SJ my man. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You can comment out WIGOs, and I just did. -- Nx / talk 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How come I was never told this?!?!?!?!/1/1/1/1/oneslash Fallacy (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC) !?!1

*plays a few notes on an electric keyboard* YOU'VE GOT THE TOUCH... YOU'VE GOT THE POWEEEEEER... --Sid (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy announces final exam for world history!

From CP today - "Our fall course in World History has completed ahead of schedule, and our final exam will be posted here Friday. Facebook and video game users can then demonstrate how little they know compared with Conservapedians!" I'm sorry, I can't read that without my face violently twitching. Based on his comments on responses to earlier exams why do I pity his pupils so much? Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does the phrase "video game users" make me laugh so hard? He's like a stereotypical out of touch official talking about all those "groovy" things those "funky hepcats" are into nowadays. X Stickman (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me, I found a copy of The Watchtower on a bus recently and decided to look through it. At one point they had testimonials from various converts with checkered pasts, drug addicts and so forth. One was termed "a formal former heavy metal enthusiast". Because, you know, that's the term kids use, "heavy metal enthusiast". DickTurpis (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've encountered "formal heavy metal". Only the informal kind. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah! typo! That should be "former". DickTurpis (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Copacetic! How does a taught course "end early" anyway? Did everyone drop out? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All MC? All extremely easy? As always? Pure Schlafly genius.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can't prove it, I'd bet solid funds that at least 75% of Andy's students have Facebook accounts. DickTurpis (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a man with a degree in history and a brain for utterly useless facts I can confidently predict that my responses to Andy's exam would be a) far too detailed and b) far too cluttered with facts, uh, sorry, librul decit! Darkmind1970 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's one way of circling A,B,C, or D that's more detailed and cluttered with facts than another, I think you needn't worry. DickTurpis (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In an odd twist, (IIRC) Andy, his daughter, and most of his sysops have Facebook accounts. And Jpatt's advertisement articles also contain Facebook links. But Andy has the power of making their power go away, so they're all too cowardly to speak up. --Sid (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Angry Birds count? Am I a moron? Am I going to hell? Whoover (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The utter failure of CP

So I was thinking a bit on what a total failure Conservapedia is in every respect, but realizing it could only be fully appreciated when taking into account what it was supposed to be. Now, RationalWiki is hardly a world-renowned source, or even terribly well-known in the grand scheme of things, but we never expected to be; we're a small, respectable forum and community with a little bit of good press and a very little bad (all from the wingnuts anyway). CP, on the other hand, was meant to replace Wikipedia as the go-to source for general information online. Wikipedia is currently the 5th or 6th visited site on the net, while CP is around 48,000. (We're not too far behind at around 51,000, and that's without the benefits of the Schlafly name or mentions on places like The Daily Show.) Anyway, for years Andy has been talking about the imminent death of Wikipedia and its undoubted eclipse by Conservapedia, which somehow hasn't surfaced. I think over 2 years ago he predicted Wikipedia had about a year left in it. I haven't been able to find any mention of this in cp:Conservapedia proven right, so I was wondering if anyone can find some good diffs of Andy's most ridiculous Wikipedia predictions so we can all have a good laugh at them. I believe he made quite a few in the earlier days, though I think he's quieted down a bit on the subject now that it's pretty clear his blog is no threat to it whatsoever. If they haven't been memory-holed they must be there somewhere, but I'm not great at searching for such things. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the points of interest (Talk:Main, MPR, MPL, Talk:Andy) are being burnt every few months, I doubt you will find diffs. The archives of Talk:Main might be the best bet. (Sorry, too tired for more in-depth gloating analysis of how badly CP failed, so this'll have to do for now.) --Sid (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Respectable said Dick, giggle.(talk)

It seems now all they're doing is trying to keep interest from a dwindling audience of liberals and moderate conservatives. All non sysops are parodists (except me!), some of the sysops are parodists, and few sincere editors add more content besides flying kitty essays and jabs at whatever politicians/ideologies they don't like (except me). It's sad, really. Also, it's really funny.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

...I suddenly feel reminded of this poem, though I'm fairly certain that I'm not the first one to do so. Especially the "Proven right" entry looks that way when compared to the dwindling interest in the site by people that aren't, well, us. --Sid (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You are not the first. Not one but two versions of Ozymandias were submitted to last year's CP poetry contest (the one from 2009 is pretty good too). Should we have another this year? DickTurpis (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The first time I heard about CP was in the Metro paper one morning as I took the train to work about 3 years ago. There was a story about the various rivals to Wikipedia and I remember looking with some bemusement at a comment by Andy (whose mother I was only familiar with via Bloom County) saying that CP would soon overpower Wikipedia. I'll have a look in the press and see if I can nail down one of his sillier interviews. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the Colbert one?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I did come across Andy saying WP is going the way of East Germany almost exactly 2 years ago. At the time it was around the 8th most popular site on the net. Today fluctuates between 5th and 6th. DickTurpis (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The scary thing is that when he says things like that I am pretty sure he whole heartily believes what he is saying. The statement sounds absurd to any informed rational person but to Andy it's gods truth. I think Andy is coming perilously close to the definition of insanity. After all we cannot in truth call him an imbecile, so what else besides a loose grasp on reality could cause such delusions? Infoseek (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Skeptoid's take on Conservapedia

[1] "If you want to know about dinosaurs, geology, radiometric dating, the solar system, plate tectonics, or pretty much any other natural science, Conservapedia is your Number One resource to get the wrong answer." Hmmm... is Skeptoid notable? --PsyGremlinHable! 09:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken's completely crazy hypocrisy

"...many of these same individuals champion censoring inconvenient facts/data and legitimate arguments concerning the errant worldviews of atheism/agnosticismskepticism because deep down they know their worldview can't legitimately compete in the competitive marketplace of worldviews."^img Says the guy who said "Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining!"^img. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 01:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick, call Merriam-Webster and tell them you have an even better definition of hypocrisy. -Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OH MY GAWD, A Conservapedia sysop is a hypocrite? Next you'll tell me the sun sets in the west...--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's fun to point out over-the-top hypocrisy. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you Tabrcg23 and Thunderstruck. Its funny, damnit. FUNNY. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 05:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gawd, word salad... But hey, we'll debate Kenny anytime of any of these topics, just Ken won't as he lacks MA-CHEESE-MO; coward.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the tone of my comment didn't come off how I intended - I do think it's hilarious! Hypocrisy of that magnitude should definitely be pointed out. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal Ace, I just like being an asshole.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll show you all..... Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy back on the Romney train now?

We had his brief "Conservapedia Proven Right!" madness where Newt was the guy, now it seems he's back to thinking Romney is winning. Strangely, none of the news items showing Romney ahead in the polls are prefixed "Conservapedia proven wrong again!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But what about the Cain Train?! :D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cain Train is stuck in a siding outside Pont-y-Pant due to leaves on the line. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

With the first Republican caucus (Iowa) on the 3rd January, why has Andy still got Jeb Bush up as number 3, ahead of Paul, Perry and Bachman? He's wet dreaming again... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy's ranking of Jeb is not based on how well he'll do in the primaries but on the speculation that the GOP will go to the convention without a decided candidate, instigating a floor fight in which someone comes out of the woodwork and wins. This just goes to show that even a die hard Republican like Andy recognizes how downright awful all these guys are. To be fair, actual pundits have speculated on a Jeb, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, etc. coming away with the prize, but no one really gives them much of a chance. Since everyone is taking their turns being the frontrunner, it could all come down to nearly random luck, and whoever's turn it happens to be in the front of the pack when Iowa and New Hampshire come around could be the candidate, basically by default. Which is a great way to choose a nominee. DickTurpis (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless Andy has this view that this idea that once the Republicans win 2012 (under Gingrich I suppose) then the next chance won't be for 2020 when President Gingrich would have to stand down and Jeb would be "too old". Once January rolls around I suspect that the whole circus will settle down a bit. IMO it's either between Romney and Gingrich, both of which Andy would claim as "Conservapedia proben right", despite them getting excited about every candidate (especially Trump). Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia never got super excited about Santorum or Huntsman, but yes, of the 9 candidates who ran conservapedia got really excited about 12 of them... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Today in "Karajou is an Idiot" news

Hey, Popeye! How much rent do the tenants of science^img pay? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny how the results have since been replicated by a group in Berkeley. Suck it Karajou. - π 08:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the Fox article actually links to the leaks themselves. That's a big mistake, giving people a primary source. If you read them, you find out that what Phil Jones et al. are talking about is Stephen McIntyre trolling them with loads of time wasting FOI requests. It reminds me a lot of the Lenski Affair really, if only Andy was a dedicated troll with an attention span longer than 5 minutes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only a mistake if anyone who supports Fox actually bothers to read them, they never do. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Creepy Coke-Eyes

So I mentioned Ken's editing marathons on TerryH's blog and he runs a comparative IP check - Well, I’m not sure how you would know that, given that your IP address hasn’t shown up lately in any edits on Conservapedia. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't even need an account to see Ken's editing sprees, and even if you did, it's obvious TerryH was checking your IP to find accounts to block. Why else would he check? You can thank him for concurrent evidence of his intellectually dishonesty. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody pointed out to him that Ken's editing binges are obvious for all to see. Predictably, Terry immediately ignores that entire subject and suddenly focuses on the Creationism issue alone. Lalala, can't hear youuuu... --Sid (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

CP on nerds

I've noticed of late that Kendoll loves calling people (mostly atheists) nerds. I guess when you have the mind of a 12 year old it's a satisfying insult, so I can hardly be surprised. Then I decided to take a look at how this obsession of Ken's was portrayed in the mainspace, and discovered cp:nerd, which paints a remarkably positive image of nerds. It does refer to social awkwardness, but let's face it, Ken's social awkwardness at such a level that it is blatant even online, which normally masks such traits. He's edited the article, so I have to wonder why he hasn't turned it into an anti-atheist hit piece like everything else. The article even implies he's anti-intellectual for using the word (then again, if you look up anti-intellectual in the dictionary it does say "see: Ken DeMyer"). I guess it's time to start the countdown to a rewrite by Ken. Timestamp (subtract 5 hours for CP's use of EST): 18:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC) DickTurpis (talk)

Kendoll isn't a nerd. A nerd is socially awkward but has mad skills. The technical term for Kendoll is "dork." In fact, there's a section of dialogue from Beneath a Steel Sky (which is freeware these days, if you've never played it it's well worth an afternoon) that reminds me of him:

Foster: I think you need a new name, Joey.

Joey: I concur with your observation, Mr. Foster. What do you consider an appropriate soubriquet?

Foster: I'm going to call you Ken.

Joey: That's wonderful news, sir. Tell me, are there any memorable Kens in history? A Ken whom I might seek to emulate?

Foster: All the Kens I can think of were dorks.

Joey: Splendid! It will be my mission in life to make the name Ken synonymous with dorks.

I think Kendoll has acheived that ambition. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I never meant to imply that Ken was a nerd. Far from it, Ken completely lacks the mental capacity for any such sobriquet. But about the only thing that he or CP seems to think is bad about nerdiness is social ineptitude, which Ken has in spades without any of the intelligence to accompany it. Worst of both worlds, really. DickTurpis (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "nerd" on CP has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term. That they (I've seen Andy use it too) use it in prejorative fashion is a relict of past decades and old, by now, overcome social stigmata and rolemodels. In the past decades (-2000/-digital age) the nerd was unwanted partly because of the fact that he was most interested in things nobody else gave a fuck about and made references nobody else got and on the other part because he was bad at things that were popular. The nerd was the antithesis to the dumb but sporty quarterback, pitcher and general big guy that was popular due to the things he was good in. Nowadays our societies have switched to an age of information and knownledge. We have become societies in which memes are wildly flung around, technology is essential to understand and work with and science has become quite a dominant and respected field of interest. We have, to say it quite simply, switched from a stud society to a nerdy society. The problem is that neither Andy nor Ken got that. For them the social-awkwardness, that ugely stems from the stigmata attached to the above mentioned traits, is still the main part of it, and therefor the term is used in an old-fashioned way that comes off unnatural to everybody else. That all CP admins are socially inept gives the whole situation it's spicy irony, but as we have seen hundreds of times before, CP admins aren't quite able to reflect on themselves. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be the perennial pedant but I think you mean 'stigma' rather than stigmata. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I did, nobody got bloody hands. ;) --★uːʤɱ digital native 15:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

OK, this is beginning to bug me now. As a rule, I try to avoid going directly to Conservapedia because I don't like the idea that I'm giving them hits. Which means generally, on the WIGOs, I use the links to the captures on RW. And, at leat on the talk pages, the links aren't working. Anyone know why that is? -- 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Those captures you prefer looking at exist solely because CP is a Bermuda triangle of disappearing edits. Ken is perhaps the worst offender because, rather than simply oversight individual edits, he deletes and recreates whole pages, which has the effect of breaking every single difflink to the old version. So you're either trying to follow an oversighted or deleted diff. If Capturebot2 didn't get the screenshot it's because the diff was vaped within a minute or so of being queued. 19:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but just to be sure, once captured, it's on here forever (or until the banks get wiped to keep the servers from bogging down), right? -- 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but that assumes it's getting capped when it's there. It's possible the server Capturebot2 lives on is down right now and that's why you're not finding your caps. 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If the 'img' link is red then Capturebot hasn't run. If the link is blue and there is a duff images the the link was zapped before it could work. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Question evolution fails again...

So I thought I didn't know this Ian Juby guy that Kendoll is spunking over^img. Oh how wrong I was. You may remember him from this video that did the rounds a while back:

Yep, that's a guy I'd want an endorsement from. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, that's not a joke? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

try youtube for user redsky and see geocentrism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quUpQLtKEB8 Hamster (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Washington Times"

Do you think that JPatt has somehow confused the titles of the Washington Post and the New York Times (ie. legitimate newspapers) or does he think we should care what a paper owned by a cult has to say? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 15:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone at CP ever cared what their source for something was as long as it agreed with their view? DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times is a long-time favorite of the right; they just ignore the Moonie ties, and sometimes accuse people who point the ties out of religious bigotry. MDB (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this article, how practical would it be to be to built a 8 yard high, 2 yard thick wall around the United States and let never anybody get out of there again? --★uːʤɱ atheist 17:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a creative way to solve the immigration problem. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Way to generalize about many of the contributors to this site. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you define a legitimate newspaper? "does he think we should care" get over yourselves already.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi patt. just register already.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, JPratt. If you're not talking to us, who are you talking to? We're the only ones who read that shit. Even someone of your modest intelligence must realise that CP hasn't exactly set the world on fire. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He's showing off for ken-doll. Those two are a two person circle jerk.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard to make a circle with two people. It's more like a... a parallel jerk. A 11 jerk. X Stickman (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really two people if you include all of Ken's multiple personalities pseudonyms? Vulpius (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, the parallel jerk of a racist and a manchild.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a REALLY bad SNL skit...--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Too boring to WIGO, but...

Andy: None beats Obama in Gallup's Most-Admired Survey.^img

Cited Article: None beats Obama in Gallup's Most-Admired Survey, but that's not really unusual. MDB (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What Andy doesn't seem to realise is that "None" also beats every other person the planet in the very same poll, since it's an open-ended question. That includes all of Andy's favourite conservatives. So the only way to get anything meaningful from the poll is to remove the "None" result and see what's left. Oh? What's that? Obama is on top? Don't expect Andy to acknowledge that. I hope someone presses him on the issue. He won't budge of course, but I like to see him wriggle. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the real story here is "huge percentage of Americans incredibly boring." I mean, really? More than half of Americans can't find anyone to admire more than the guy they elected president. And that's more or less always the same no matter who the sitting president is? I can't imagine anyone in the UK admiring David Cameron for anything but his colossal smugness. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is people are generally going to name someone famous for a question like that. There's plenty of people I admire, but most of them you've never heard of, because they're "normal" people I know from my day to day life, that just happen to have qualities I respect.

Also, at least in America, whoever is President generally wins this award in part because of respect for the office of President. MDB (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Long live the King President! --★uːʤɱ atheist 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Question aside

Asked the same question, what would you say? Me: None. --★uːʤɱ heretic 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't admire a single living human being? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Jimmy Carter. May not have been a great President, but is a great ex-President. And he's one of the best examples of a Christian living out the precepts of his faith alive today. MDB (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone I admire all that much, outside of my family (and even then...). I guess I am a boring American. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's limited to the living, I don't know that I could muster up an answer. Sure, there's people I admire, but I can't put them down for most admired unless I feel strongly for them.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I admire Neil Patrick Harris. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some answers I would have given, were I asked.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Nelson Mandela

Desmond Tutu

Leymah Gbowee

Tawakel Karman

Margaret Atwood

Paul Motian

PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't stand Richard Dawkins. He may tell the truth but he's such a smug knowall about it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I know any famous people well enough to admire them. At a distance you're mostly seeing a projection, not a person, and it's hard to admire something so flimsy. I admire aspects of people, but the whole person is inevitably less admirable, if you know them. I admire Richard Stallman's dedication to his idea, but I can hardly say anything good about his standards of personal hygiene. I admire Dave Sim's wit and artistic ability, but I don't like his opinions about women, and so on. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia in 2012

What exciting times! With an Obama re-election looming, we can expect CP to turn the frothing up to eleven in 2012. The Republicans still haven't picked a candidate which will surely mean many weeks of lulz as CP continues its existential struggle to find out who to relentlessly fawn over. When they finally do pick a candidate we can look forward to instant white-washing of their CP article just as we saw with John McCain in 2008/9. Does anyone have any predictions for CP's upcoming year of shite and bollocks? I would like to make one modest prediction: Karajou quietly leaves the site forever after realising it'll never amount to anything and is a complete waste of his time. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ramping up the cryptically racist conspiracy theories when Obama wins. Having done obesity and bestiality, Conservative will obsess over some new topic we haven't even thought of. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So far, I can only predict more bullshit, more bollocks and a further decrease in the IQ of the sysops. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them end up in negative figures. -- 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait for it to heat up with cryptoracism. CP is so fucking boring lately.. WHERE ARE THE INSIGHTS, ANDY??? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have "predictions" so much as I have "dreams". -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if Obama loses re-election. I am also rather shocked that people express surprise that the nominee hasn't been decided yet even though it is still 2011 and the primaries haven't even started.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do everything in our power to get Rick Perry nominated. That would be awesome. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Its going to be Mitt in the end. Really I can't see anyone else really winning at this point.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope for an Obama victory, because that will ramp up the butthurt and the crazy a thousand-fold. If a Rep wins, CP will become insufferably smug, as the new St Republican President can do no wrong in their eyes, and they criticize everybody for saying exactly the same things they said about Obama. All the northern blue states secede and join Canada. Romney, being a good Mormon, reintroduces Prohibition (seriously, what are the chances of the US right voting for a Mormon?)... --PsyGremlinParla! 11:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Right's concerns about a Mormon are a definite issue for him in the primaries. However, if he gets the nomination, they'll support him over Obama. At this point, they'd support a Satanist over Obama.

However, he may face the same problem McCain did -- they may vote for him, but the support won't be enthusiastic. The American Right always had their doubts about McCain, and I'd say that will hold doublyoctuply for Romney. He'll probably end up nomination a right wing loon for VP to give them some measure of satisfaction. MDB (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the scenario I hope for: The primaries are so tight that Romney wins with only one vote, the teabaggers finally have enough and nominate their own canidate (Rick Perry, supported by CP) and secede from the Republicans to preach real conservatism to the people. They battle each other so hard that they both look like complete idiots come the election, Obama wins in sea of blue. Of course that's not going to happen, Romney wins the nomination, nominates a teabagger as vice and experiences the McCain/Palin effect: The teabaggers don't wanna vote for him because he's not teabagger enough and everybody else doesn't want to vote for him becasuse he's with stupid. Obama wins but the race is tight and he'll have to make even more concessions then before. The government is too ineffective over the next four years and a Republican gets into power in 2016. Fuck, am I cynical. --★uːʤɱ pervert 13:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a split in the Republican Party will actually happen, but this is the closest they've come in recent memory. Basically, the mainstream Republicans have nurtured the far right to the point they dominate the party. MDB (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? With Gary Johnson running as third party, and a Ron Paul third party run increasingly likely? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Trump promise to run as an independent if he's displeased with the nomination? Vulpius (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He isn't any sort of serious candidate; he is just making noise for publicity for his reality TV series.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Karajou quietly leaves the site forever after realising it'll never amount to anything and is a complete waste of his time." - it's been said before that he feels this about CP but can't face the actuality of it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As big of an arsehole as he is, I still feel he's the only person left at CP with enough sense to reach that conclusion. Everyone else is blindly loyal - I don't get that vibe from Karajou. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's the only one left who is even vaguely treating CP like an encyclopaedia. He does his copypasta birdy and shark articles while everyone else just blogs whatever their wingnut news sources are telling them to be angry about on the front page. I really think if it weren't for that guy that trolls him over there he'd have left already. For some reason Karajou seems to like being trolled by the guy who wants to challenge him to a "duel", it makes him feel hard or something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Ken is "blindly loyal", it is that he has no where else to go really. He manage to make his way up to being the #2 guy on Conservapedia, this is his one and only taste of actual power, small and fleeting as it is. He stays because it gives him purpose and supposed authority, but I doubt if he is that loyal to Andy (not like Terry, who is a True Believer). It could be even argued that Ken spends so much effort on the abortive Q.E. Campaign just in case CP falls apart or he has to at least jump ship; that way he still have his little niche on the Web that he can lord over.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Karajou is blindly loyal; that's why he sticks around. He has a military mindset and doesn't openly kick against the authorities even when he inwardly disagrees with what is happening and will not permit anyone else to do so either. We saw in Conservaleaks how he disagreed with the CBP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's "Focus" in 2012

Remember when Kendoll wrote that Conservapedia would be focusing on its pro-life project in 2012, then quietly removed it^img after no one, including him, created a single new article? Good times, good times. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite being a fundie-religio-wingnut who is probably anti-abortion in principle, ultimately the topic doesn't interest him in the same way that say, homosexuality does. You can draw your own conclusions about that. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The usual editing etiquette hypocrisy

Really nothing new, but this theme of CP is something of a sore spot for me, so...

• QPR, Dec 17: "Hey, I'd like to propose these changes to the Relativity Counterexamples list. I'm polite, so I'm posting here first, giving people enough time to reply."^img
• QPR, Dec 30: "Okay, nobody has objected, so I'm implementing the changes. If you want to challenge this, please discuss first instead of edit warring."^img
• Andy, hours later: *reverts changes*^img "We should discuss first, so I reverted you! Also, I'm right and you're wrong, so there."^img

It's really like Karajou said^img (when teabagging my wiki-corpse): "If we're wrong in matters concerning content, what he or anyone else should have done is to provide evidence which proves we're wrong, and do it in a respectful manner, then drop the subject." It's no accident that this list doesn't contain any sort of permission for people to actually correct wrong things in articles. Just make your objection known on the talk page and then forget all about it. --Sid (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed another event in the sad little saga. Two minutes after Andy reverted and posted "let's discuss it!", JonM archived^img the whole thing. Okay, perhaps not quite as interesting, since JonM seems a likely parodist, but still just another day in the life. Phiwum (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I left out the obvious parody since my real "ARRRGH" factor is Andy just being a douche who either ignores discussion attempts in order to stall consensus or only argues by repeating his assertions. --Sid (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And the best conservatives are…

…Dimitry Medvedev^img, Tim Tebow^img or Ron Paul?^img Great you've got a puppetry dictator, a footballer that really isn't all that great and a guy that won't get elected for President for pretty damn sure. --★uːʤɱ socialist 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's odd he picked a Russian President as greatest conservative. Can't wait to see the dissonance when he has to turn on his anti-Russian. Or maybe he'll decide to to become pro-Russia? He'll praise Russia as a law and order state with many good Christians. And Ken

will jump on the bandwagon too, since there are plenty of shirtless pics of Vladimir Putin to make him happy--User:Brxbrx/sig  13:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Andy is still of the idea that having one position which does not represent a stereotypical liberal view (Medvedev's abortion bill) is enough to qualify one as a conservative. Not only as a conservative, but possibly the greatest conservative of the year! Some things never change. Garçon^coffee! 14:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, a single view makes you the greatest conservative of the year. Other times, a single view makes you a RINO. Phiwum (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Has Tim Tebow ever done or said anything that could be categorized by a sane person as "conservative"? Real question.. I can't trust Andy's conservative-shaded glasses. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's done a pro-life ad and he's always talking about how Christian he is. And I think he prays after touchdowns. He's certainly religious, but maybe he thinks all businesses ought to be nationalized and that wealth should be fairly distributed. Who knows.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible list considering the number of conservatives who have actually done well and shown their side in a good light this year. But of course, this is Andy. Posturing on a single issue makes you conservative of the year, months of work furthering conservatism doesn't. Guess Scott Walker and the GOP governors who trashed workers' rights just aren't conservative enough. Rennie McGreet (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think they're actually going to select a conservative of the year, or is this like the ConservaMath Medal where Andy got bored with it about 7 picoseconds after hitting submit? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"the number of conservatives who have actually done well and shown their side in a good light this year."

Such as? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

<furious backpedal you could light up half the country with>erm, I meant from another conservative's point of view. My view is they're all a bunch of cunts who should go up against the wall.</backpedal> Rennie McGreet (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Close. The correct answer was "John Huntsman." PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tentative ranking

Andy makes a first attempt at ranking.^img But because Andy is lazy, Nephilimfree is ranked higher than Ron Paul, among others. XD --Sid (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see they added ShockOfGoat on there too, although he ranks at the bottom. Any chance Ken will elevate him?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Things CP has ruined for me, # 254 in a series.

Looking at some documents relevant to my research. One of the guys involved is named "Kendall." Cannot get Ken out of my mind. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 18:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Methinks someone has a case of COCD!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm 6'1"

I am an atheist, and I do not suffer from "short man's disease."^img. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Before 2013 has arrived, he'll have come to penis length: "Do atheists have sufficiantly smaller penises than God-fearing Crhistians? Atheists is your manlyhood too short and you hate God for it?" --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 21:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have researched similar data before. The results are unambiguous... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And Andy will be forced to defend it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While Scott begs the question^img, the articles for sin^img, parody^img and nonsense^img are still redirected to User:Conservative. But our Crhistian warrior princess is busy destroying atheism on the internet!^img Wow, Ken really just doesn't give a shit about CP. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the stupid thing is that the tall guy in the picture is also an atheist. The Flickr photo stream is from the USCB Skeptics/atheists society. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy has finally released he's handed over the keys to a man with the mind of a 10 year old. He's obviously not going to do anything about it, but it has to dawning on him by now. (Oh and I'm a 6'2" atheist, and very from from obese as well, but I might not be a "militant" atheist, so I guess it doesn't count). DickTurpis (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a 5'6" (male) atheist, which is conclusive proof and evidence that Ken's theory is true and accurate. On the other hand 2011 was the UK's second-warmest year on record, so global warming is a FACT!111!!!! Cantabrigian (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

JonM cleans up the mess the two vandals made^img, and as a thank you not gets a two year block from the man-child.^img Huh? --★uːʤɱ atheist 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked an hour later - Ken apparently mis-clicked. --Sid (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

6'2", highly atheist. -- 00:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am so not feeling the love here, with my painfully-below-average 5'7"-ness. What's wrong with being short?! :'( Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you not fat, short and homosexual? You are not a true atheist then--Buscombe (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your archaic system of measurement confuses and infuriates me. I am 5.97112861 of your feet. -- Nx / talk 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just round up and say you're an even six feet, depending on what time it is :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am 6'4. You bunch of fucking stumpies AMassiveGay (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As DickTurpis pointed out, the fella to PZ's right is also most likely an atheist and is much taller; Ken really does not think these things through at all. Oh well, one more reason for people to dismiss CP. I'm 6'2" BTW.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am 6'3", slim and have no trouble attracting the attentions of both Hispanic and Asian ladies. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also blonde girls with green eyes... Refugee^{talk page} 06:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you tempt me. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying my best to resist you, now that you are officially not-single. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 06:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Resistance is futile. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was six feet even when I was an atheist and I am six feet even now. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

5'9", blonde hair, blue eyes... but I'm taller than everyone else in my family. I find Ace sexually arousing. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the world's most militant atheist must be wider than he is tall. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He would make a good battering ram for smashing down nativity scenes. - π 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming such a person could move fast enough to build up inertia. (Ooh, fat joke!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Roller-skates. - π 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now officially Kenpedia

Andy has officially allowed the inmates to run the asylum. Ken's "article" on "Atheism and Obesity" is the article of the year^img. Remember when they actually voted by committee for articles of the month and year based on supposed quality? Those where the days...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Followed by Andy ignoring the votes and picking his favourites? Vulpius (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Andy must have officially given up. Happy new year! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw. It's gone^img, removed by Kendoll himself. Come on Ken, we all know that this 'article' was the very best CP had to offer in 2011 - get it back on the front page, in the biggest font that fits on your monitor! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I get back to find Kenny pulled his own Article of the Year in time for 2012; glad to see Kenny is still reading our posts (Happy New Year there Ken!) An admission he has no real confidence in the general acceptance of his "work", gee I wonder why? </sarcasm> --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, the article of the year had always been Ken's baby. The "Featured Article" (which had changed every few weeks or so, I think) had been handled by a committee in order to bring something other than complete junk to the main page, but then Ken decided to piss on the entire process by introducing his "Article of the Month" and "Article of the Year". See this talk page archive^img for a small glimpse at the hilarity of Ken's hostile takeover. --Sid (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to think way back to my early days on this site, I believe Ken started out with an article of the day or week, which was Evolution. That was back when he used to post here, and he hyped his new designation at RW, assuming seeing an article that thoroughly debunked our favorite hoax elevated to article of the week would drive us into a panic. When it didn't, he announced he was considering making it article of the month! I guess maybe it evolved into article of the year when he realized there were only about 2 or 3 articles on CP he deemed worth any such honor, so he obviously couldn't change them every month. As usual, no one else at CP cared what Ken did, so he got away with anything. DickTurpis (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll tries to make a pun, world facepalms.

This is so awful^img I think it deserves its very own poll.

What's the worst part about Kendoll's attempted punning?

The sheer feebleness of the "shortchanged" pun.	" 1
The way he emphasised and capitalised "short" to assure readers he really was making a pun.	" 41
The flimsy excuse he used to make the pun on another user's talk page.	" 7
The way he no doubt chuckled to himself about how witty he was while he wrote it.	" 25
Conservative is cool, stop picking on him.	" 14

Kendoll, stick to your "satires." You can't write satire either, but at least anything you come up with doesn't seem so bad compared to the flying kitty. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He's so "SHORT" of an audience that he's asking the question to himself. Now that I see the word "SHORT" so many times, it sounds weird and foreign. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I voted for the joke option, since when somebody includes it in a poll I always have to pick it.

Of course, the whole subject matter is a joke. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to lay odds on kenny boy being a short, bald and overweight quasi human cave dweller? Also, how come we havn't seen "Atheism and Male Pattern Baldness"? Or did I just ruin the surprise.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The worst part? [[Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome|Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]] – you don't need to be a big MediaWiki markup expert to rage at that! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken's sense of humor has fallen a bit SHORT here. Maybe it would have been better if he didn't have such SHORT sighted mind. Or maybe, just maybe he just has very little patience, it's fallen SHORT so to speak. Yes, I will stop now, sorry for all those who liked it, the others want it SHORT. --★uːʤɱ heretic 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Earthquakes.

Not only do atheists deny earthquakes are increasing in frequency, now its the democrats also^img. Damn I wish Andy would make a presidential run. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does he get this crap from? Is he just playing his own brand of wingnut madlibs? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fucked if I know where this gibberish came from. I would love it if he asked this question of the republican nominees...Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he's saying that Jeebus is coming, as the 'quakes are continuing and increasing in frequency [it's obvious by the way that Andy knows nothing at all about geology] and... stuff is happening and now it's 2012 and the Mayans might have had a point even if they were pagans, but it's time for MOAR JEEBUS! Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea of "earthquakes are continuously increasing in frequency" has been thoroughly debunked, even by users on CP, but once Andy's mind is made up about something he perceived as truth, no amount of evidence, no matter how thorough and complete will alter his position, his pride will not allow it. There is a reason not even YEC websites use Conservapedia as reference.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The earthquake thing became officially hilarious when the renewed discussion descended to "Here, data to disprove your claim!" - "But... entropy!" --Sid (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would earthquakes be increasing in frequency? And what the hell does entropy have anything to do with it? -- 23:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite him allegedly being an educated man, his idea of entropy is just a vague notion of "disorder." He thinks disorder means things that cause our earthbound stuff to become untidy, like earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. All these things are supposed to be getting worse because Jebus can't be arsed to maintain the world before he comes back, so Satan gets to run riot. He also thinks that all this means Jebus'll be coming back real soon now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"And what the hell does entropy have anything to do with it?" - Nothing, absolutely nothing. It is all about plate tectonics of course. Andy, like a lot of YECs throw "entropy" around without truly understanding what the term actually means; to them entropy is the universe falling apart because it was "created perfect" but because of sin and The Fall, the universe has been decaying away since that moment and everything is just getting progressively worse: People, life, planets, stars, you name it. Yet again if you understood entropy and physics (and geology), you wouldn't be a YEC.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Something to give Andy a boner

Teenagers who changed the world! I really hope he adds the inventors of hip hop to his list. DickTurpis (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't count, one of them was French--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Braille is the only one from this article already on his list. DickTurpis (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Kendoll pretending to be more than one person even to his "friends"?

I'm starting to wonder if Kendoll is actually pretending to be more than one person to his fellow question evolutioners. There was the whole 13 year-old creationist making videos thing which looks very suspiciously like the work of the manchild himself. Now he's posted this this sob story^img about how his flu prevented him appearing as a donkey's ass in the church nativity play. I'm coming to suspect that "Anupam" is a Kendoll sock and he's talking to himself here. But what made me really wonder is this QE blog post. He says three of the members have come down with flu and require your prayers. He's clearly referring to himself in third person as at least one of those people. I wonder if he's actually referring to himself as all three.

Is it too much conspiracy-minded thinking to wonder if Kendoll's "grassroots" campaign mostly consists of him astroturfing? It's obvious that he has more than one username on the QE blogs, but that's so obvious that his fellow members can't have failed to be aware that they're all one person. I'm coming to suspect that he's also pretending to be more than person in a more covert manner, maybe pretending his new personalities are "recruits" he has made. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think that Anupam and his buddy are real, I think the QE blog is mostly just Ken talking to himself. Ken already uses a different name on pretty much any board or wiki he signs up on, and uses fake names in his mails (even to his fellow sysops), so I totally wouldn't be surprised if he populated a blog all by himself, especially when all involved members merely pledge to do things that can't be verified or do things he usually does anyway (pestering people and spamming links). It's possible that there are real members, but I guess none of them are as involved as Ken (and will possibly be weirded out by Ken's 24/7 obsession). --Sid (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Thanks to that leaks link, I found this delightful kengem: Lastly, I do like Conservapedia much better than Wikipedia because we have the decency to not censor talk page dissenting material.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anupam" coming on board right around the time that Ken started obsessing over not-obese Christian Indian dancers? No way he's not User: Conservative. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 13:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Conservative ask Anupam to do a bunch of shit, including translating entire articles into some Indian language?--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It only took a bit of stalking research to find that Anupam is a genuine individual who also happens to live in the same town as Ken. I assume that they have met IRL but whether Ken has collaborated or used Anupam's account is a different matter. Certainly Anupam is a guy with a real life and much smarter and younger than our basement-dwelling, OCD, man-child. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[M]aterial on the plight of Turkish Christians — argh! Yes it is the most brutal oppression if you can pray and believe freely, are just treated the same way as every other religion in the country and are not automatically assumed to be a terrorist as soon as you say that you are a Muslim Christian. They should really learn from the United States, these semi-European bastards! *shake fist* --★uːʤɱ sinner 16:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, reminds me of "The Great Derangement": "Here in South Texas everyone for five hundred miles in every direction is a Christian, but they're constantly finding ways to think of themselves as a besieged minority. You hear a lot about our oppressed brothers and sisters in Africa, India, the Middle East. They're ideal objects of sympathy because they're helpless, they're poor, and it would take them at least twenty years to reach San Antonio even if they started swimming today."

I guess it's a pretty common thing in that kind of church. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the weird thing: I have never heard Turkish Christians complain about this, and they very much have free speach in Turkey about getting more freedom (you just aren't allowed to say that there was genocide or call Turkey stupid), it's always Catholics or religious fundies from the West that say the Turkish Christians are suppressed, never the Turkish Christians themselves. Off course there are some racist attitudes but nothing worse than what you meet in the West against Arabs, Persians and Turks a.k.a. The Muslims, and many of just those that bitch and whine about Christians not being free do just that to Muslims. --★uːʤɱ pirate 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I always thought Ken is Anupam. Ken is of Indian origin too isn't he? South India I guess. --Buscombe (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that really what you think?

It must be a strange place inside Andy's head^img. Does he really think that Romney is the easiest potential candidate to beat? Easier than Michelle "pray the gay away" Bachmann, Rick "pray the drought away" Perry, Rick "pray they don't google my name" Santorum or even Newt "pray that's not my ex-wife" Gingrich? He's the only one in the field who's even remotely electable. Listen Andy, everyone thinks you're an extremist nutter. People who you like can't get elected. Just vote for the person you least hate and try to keep your opinions to yourself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

lol, now do one for Romney. He's Mormon, that should give you something :P--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He is the wrong candidate as far as the Tea Party and "movement conservatives" are concerned, but he has the ability to attract moderates and independents, groups you need if you want to win the General Election.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mhh... Andy seems to think that as more "conservative" (a.k.a. batshit insane) a canidate is as harder is he/she to beat? Now I do wonder how Andy justifies himself not getting elected. --★uːʤɱ sinner 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Voter fraud Jared (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Through mind control perhaps? --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know basketball, so explain this.

How does honoring the player who defeated Lebron James^img make one conservative? And weren't there two whole teams playing, or is the NBA final a game of one-on-one between James and some other, heroic player? Is there any reason that Andy doesn't even name the honored player?

What in the world is going on in Andy's addled noggin?

Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, looking for sense from Andy is your first mistake. The answer is this obviously has nothing to do with conservatism. I guess Andy thinks Lebron James is a liberal posterboy or something (he isn't), so anything that is at all opposed to him is thereby conservative. Remember, this is a guy who thinks everything is liberal or conservative. If he likes hot dogs, they're conservative food. If he dislikes tuna fish, it's liberal. The thing is, the James comment isn't even the most stupid thing in that edit. At the bottom he acknowledges that Kasich increased spending, but says its OK because Ohio was hit hard by the recession. Of course, the entire goddamn country was hit hard, but when Obama increased spending that made it worse. He was supposed to cut spending as a way of fixing the economy. Only when conservatives spend is it an economic boon; liberals doing it is harmful. He actually believes this shit. DickTurpis (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

EC. Lebron James became the poster child for the greedy, self-centered athlete when he left the Cavs, and a whipping boy for people who hate folks like him who piss all over flyover country. Also, if you follow the Tebow saga on CP, Andy really doesn't know much about sports except for the names of individual athletes whom he can use to bolster his agenda du jour, so that's why he sees team sports as individual contests. The Broncos don't win games: The Tebows do. I would love to watch Andy take in a game with guys like JPatt and Karajou, who don't have degrees from Princeton or Harvard but can probably name every starting player on every team in any major league sport, understand the subtleties of the game and who are diehard fans of their teams. Epic awkwardness. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lebron James is bad because he chose to do what was in his economic self-interest? Conservatism (in Andy's "sense" of the word) confuses me. Phiwum (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

....and this is actually where it gets interesting. There can be a strong anti-money discourse in modern American conservatism. See the hate for people like Soros and sometimes Buffet. Millionaire athletes who try to exercise their power are another target of those sorts of attacks. It's actually a pretty necessary rhetorical strategy, because there needs to be a way to get enough people to vote for conservatives when conservatives are not necessarily in the business of creating wealth for most people. So they point to the convenient wealthy people and say "it's their fault!" PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sports are for poor black people and those with little eduction. Educated people can't be bothered with all that illiterate sports stuff. Besides, Obama is a huge sports fan - proof that sports are stupid. GodotEn live 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Starting 2012 the crazy way

Andy doesn't disappoint:^img

“”That's a myth often promoted in public schools. The entire world's population would comfortably fit within the State of California, and food production is far greater than human needs. Obesity is a much bigger problem than hunger.

I'm sure all those hideously overweight Somalis agree with you, you dumb cunt. (by the way, did the math - yes, all 7 billion could fit into CA - at a density of 16,510 people per km²... making it the most densely populated place on earth, after Macau and Monaco.) --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He's right--not about obesity being a "worse problem" than hunger, but about mass hunger not being a problem of production, but of entitlement, what people in the biz call "right to food." The fact that mass hunger/famine is political is nothing new; Amartya Sen figured that out in the 70s (80s? -- too lazy to get the book off my shelf). The new problem with population isn't a question of producing enough food to feed everybody; some scholars say that with modern farming techniques, the planet could support 18 billion people. The problem is that environmental degradation means we can't support as many people as we have eating the way they do/living the way they do. But global warming is a myth, so you can discount that last bit. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would at up to the last corn, but essentially Andy is right. But that makes me wonder why he agrees on something that is a very very basic theory of modern forms of socialism (that united under one world government a socialist system will work, because the supply is great enough)? What is he saying here? That if the West wouldn't eat so much and spend all it's money on consuming food and other goods that do you nothing good, that we could comfortable feed everybody? Does he see the overeating and obesity problem in the West as an embodiment of sin/consumerism? I fail to see how somebody with so pro-private-market pro-work-your-as-off-and-you'll-get-it attidute can say that a huge population of this Earth is not able to do it under the current system (private free market, FFS!), and won't be able to do it until people actually give stuff away for almost free or free. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I like how the fact that there is a limit somewhere to the number of people the Earth can support is a liberal myth. Every conservative knows that the Earth can support an infinite number of people. Whenever the nutjobs get talking about population they always talk of it as if it's a square foot problem. Yes, we are not in danger of running out of room to swing your arms without hitting another person, but that doesn't mean population is not a problem. The only reason we can support the current world population is because most of the world is damn poor. If the other 6.7 billion people consumed resources they way Americans do we'd be in serious shit right now. DickTurpis (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that we pump hydrocarbon sourced nitrates in the ground by the metric fuckton. The day we have to go back to relying on bacteria to do that job, which means back to crop rotation, is the day we're royally fucked. Better hope by the time the oil runs out were the fucking masters of biotechnology. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But we don't ever have to "go back to" that. Any more than "the oils runs out" equates to nobody being able to drive anywhere, or nobody being able to fly anywhere. Nothing about oil was magic, it was merely cheap and it's gradually ceasing to be that. We can synthesise all the products currently produced using oil, but so long as oil is cheap and available we won't. Although inequality is a problem, it isn't the only reason people go hungry. Africa, and to a lesser extent areas of South America and the Middle East are producing far less food that they ought to be because it suits local power brokers to keep people hungry, to use the land for other purposes, or just to create such terror that no-one in their right mind will stay to tend crops. The reason the 10 billionth person on Earth can't have steak for breakfast every day is that the planet can't support that. But the reason they'll go to bed hungry and thirsty is pure politics. Zimbabwe, poor damaged, Zimbabwe, ought to be producing enough grain to make even a European CAP bureaucrat's eyes bulge. But until it returns to peace and stability that can't happen. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Hydrocarbons are free energy. Yes, we can source hydrogen for the Haber process from something else other than hydrocarbons, something like the electrolysis of water. But it isn't free. You have to put energy in to distil the water, and more energy to crack it. Ultimately that energy has to come from somewhere. In ra world without hydrocarbons, we're already royally fucked on the producing energy front. Adding yet more demand to prop up agriculture just puts us further in the hole. I can't rule out some novel science or technology that gives us energy cheaper than we can imagine today, but if that isn't the case then the bountiful harvests we have now are a thing of the past. It's back to the weedy harvests of the 19th century. So maybe we'll be mining Jupiter for deuterium and tritium in a century, but in the world we live in today it's looking very like a grim meathook future rather than a shiny science fiction one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)