Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive273

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 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>, <272>, <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)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...[edit]

...and in her weaponry are tools like utterly pointless questionsimg: Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry?

larronsicut fur in nocte 23:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pass my purity test, peon! PASS IT! CP's grievance procedure is so broken it might as well not exist. Kendoll just runs riot safe in the knowledge than Andy will desperately try to hide from any issue that might arise. He's already tried to "trim" August's complaints once. Someone should just create a Kendoll's creed template over there with all his "questions" and checkmarks next to them, and just shove the template in to the page whenever he shows up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken, to "CamilleT": "We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we?"img — I'm sure Ken's said that before, but how often? Peter Urist for Mod!(MW) 07:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I liked Ken's misspelling of Santa Claus. Eejit. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The Santa Clause: Everybody bringing presents is allowed to enter a house without permission of the owner. Consent of the owner of the house (or its temporary inhabitants) are cookies and milk standing around somewhere. --ʤɱ federalist 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Shit, just occurred to me that "CamilleT" has certain connotations, one a recent cameo role by Amy Sedaris in a spoof movie...-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan Population[edit]

Guess what? Japans population is droping because only six ONE PRECENT of Japan is Christian. Ladies and gentelmen, EVEL KNIEVEL could not make a leap like that, I LOVE these guys.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How does that explain the growing population of China, despite "one child" politics and a small contingent of Christianity? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Qick somebody ask them abouth Iran! --ʤɱ socialist 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Haha, which inevitably means that some of the fastest growing nations MUST be Christians! Let's see... United Arab Emirates, Burundi, Qatar, Kuwait, Gaza Strip, yep! All Christian! (Ref: [2])Doraemon話そう!話そう! 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
What's really cute is how Ken pipes in with how fast the Japanese population is turning Christian — while Andy is claiming that the fact that there are so few Christians explains why their population has just dropped far more rapidly than previously. Now, if there really were a correlation between Christianity and procreation, then surely... Ah, never mind. It's prob'ly all the entropy in the drinking water or something. Phiwum (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Christian places have higher birth rates because uneducated teenagers are boffing each other. Red states have the highest states of teen pregnancy, you know (not intended as a serious argument)--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that's actually true. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Ah here we are!
" New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate (93 per 1,000), followed by Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Mississippi. The lowest rates were in New Hampshire (33), Vermont, Maine, Minnesota and North Dakota.
In 2005, teenage birthrates were highest in Texas (62 per 1,000), New Mexico, Mississippi, Arkansas and Arizona. The states with the lowest teenage birthrates were New Hampshire (18 per 1,000), Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey."
(Source: Guttmacher Institute January (2010), U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions: National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity)
I take it I don't have to point out the obvious political leanings, but it would support Ken's view that Christian states do at least have higher families (through teenage pregnancies at least!). Of course there could be an abortion issue in this - I'm sure there's an explanation in the source, but I can't be bothered to read it at the moment. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The obligatory world map on my part.
Something I never quite understood about these conservatives is why it is bad to teach about sex at all. Sure you can say that abstinence is the best birth control, but we are speaking about teens that generally have problems keeping abstinent about anything (no matter if it's your phone, alcohol, drugs or sex), so at least be prepared about it. It can't be all that bad if your kids at least know how it works getting somebody pregnant and how you can prevent that if you can't keep it together. And I should say, that with some teens pregnancy isn't all that bad, sure for most it is, but not for everyone. A friend of mine didn't really know what to do with her life, she partied hard and all that stuff. Then here boyfriend got here pregnant when she was sixteen. They both stopped with the drugs, alcohol and smoking she finished what she had left of school and become a full-time mother, he continued school and got 1s (A would that be in your system) while working a full-time job. Today the dude makes a few thousand bucks a month, they are married, have four kids (the oldest is going to school by now) and last I spoke with them they are the happiest and most stable couple I know. Sure that's a one-in-a-million chance, but teen pregnany isn't all that bad. By the way, AFAIK they are both unreligious. --ʤɱ digital native 05:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Its interesting, all this talk of Japan, and not one mention of tentacles. You people are more mature then I give you credit for.--Thunderstruck (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of tentacles, this REALLY freaks me out. Bloody amazing advert.Doraemon話そう!話そう! 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, there are a lot of filthy whores in Greenland. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No Shit, Sherlock![edit]

Really?img We'd have never thought of that on our own! --ʤɱ heretic 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

gotta wonder bout that one precent...--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You keep making that typo, am I missing a joke? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Typo?--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Precent Percent. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My first thought on reading that was to wonder what percentage of Tea Partiers actually end up voting. While their hate-on for Obama knows no bounds, it's really hard to get people out to vote AGAINST somebody. If the Republicans pick the Mormon or Gingrich, I'm not sure how many Teabaggers will get off the couch come November. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, no shit. I wonder if they asked them who they voted for in the last election? I bet it wasn't Obama. Tea Partiers are just Republicans in tricorn hats. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well the fact that Terry has been brown-nosing RoseAnn Salanitri, the candidate for the ultra-right wing Constitution Party suggests that he might be in the 1% that votes for it. IIRC he even did a piece a while ago that said how everyone should vote for them this election, inevitably forming a split in the Republicans that lets in Obama for a second term to fuck up the absolutely everything (in their view), leading to a landslide victory for the Constitution Party in 2016. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware that RoseAnn Salanitri was Terry's co-founder of CNAV. But maybe that was the point you were trying to make. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
For just a moment there I read Communist Party for Constitution Party. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
What kind of deplorable people want to deep six the nation just so they can acquire political power in the end? Those types should never be allowed anywhere near a position of authority.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
These morons are so full of anger because the world isn't exactly how they want it that they would rather destroy it all - just as angry men often commit suicide after /by killing all their wife and kids as well. Don't forget that most of the wingnuts are actually looking forward to the rapture. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh I'm full aware of Salanitri being technically the co-founder of CNAV but she rarely seems to write anything. It's almost as if Terry writes more articles in support of her than she writes herself. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 13:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Golly! Sign me up![edit]

Andy's teaching "Persuasive Writing". I'm hoping that Ken writes a guest lecture, but either one is a master of the craft. I can't wait to learn how to use jargon like "lamestream media" and "give it up, liberals" in order to persuade others of the correctness of my imaginations. Phiwum (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"It was a liberal who robbed the convenience store"img. Awesome. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This is going to be great.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? 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you think his bored because he doesn't go back to work until next week and is just trolling to fill in his time? - π Moderator 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Those examples are actually kinda scary when you keep in mind that he is, ostensibly, teaching children. That shit crosses the line into pure indoctrination (as if that wasn't clear already). X Stickman (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I never figured Andy as a troll, just someone that enjoys a soapbox. He doesn't really care if people are listening. Unlike the other sysops, he doesn't follow us here, baiting for reactions. After reading this, maybe I'm wrong, eh?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside that what he's saying sounds like creepy indoctrination, that second example, "Do not forgo an opportunity to correct a Democrat's twisted self-centred view of the world" (slight bit of projection there, methinks) is actually wrong. He specifically makes the point that it's 'forgo' and not 'forego', but the two are actually both correct in that sentence. The only slightly confusing bit is that the 'forego' variant can also mean 'to precede', depending on context. (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy vaped the bit about liberals robbing banks. Now they only "lie to the American public.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? 04:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If Germany has a population of two million Jews but 63% of them emigrate to Jew-loving countries, how many more Jews must leave before Germany is free of the Jew plague? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Technically speaking none have to actually leave, but that's not a part of their history Germans like to talk about for some reason. Anyway the actual Jewish population is only about 200,000 and when people do talk about them they don't say "Jews." They say "Russians," because that's what they mostly are. --Fergus Mason (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I was making a reference to actual questions from Nazi Germany textbooks, such as "The Jews are aliens in Germany. In 1933, there were 66, 000, 000 people living in Germany. Of this total, 499, 862 were Jews. What is the percentage of aliens in Germany?". EddyP Great King! Disaster! 06:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Strangely, I can imagine Andy setting similar maths questions dealing with America and gays/atheists/liberals/despised minority of your choice. --Fergus Mason (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In 'it was a liberal who robbed the convenience store' I'd say he already has. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 07:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And now, Ken joins inimg the fun, dropping by to give Andy advice on, what else, the use of pictures in persuasive writing! Beautiful! Phiwum (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ken should start his own course: Lessons in Kenglish. Starring such nuggets of wisdom as:
  • Never use proper nouns; instead, cryptically refer to them by class of object and initial letter.
  • Prepositions, in regards to the usage of prepositions, can mostly be substituted in regards to "in regards to".
  • Never use pronouns as they pronouns will affect your ranking in regards to certain search engine beginning with G.
ONE / TALK 12:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
What's really fun about this, is that Ken's become so bold now, he's forgotten the unwritten rule: "Focus only your area of expertise and ignore everything else that happens on CP, especially if Andy's involved." I can't wait for Ken to start editing Andy's lectures and marking homework. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ken is getting desperate. He's noticed that we're paying more attention to the other sysops and doesn't like it, so he's poking his nose in everyone else's stuff, hoping to get a whiff of that coveted RationalWiki limelight. I suspect that's why he's started the Athiests = Short stuff, but he'll have to do better than that. As someone else mentioned, the only way he can top his past accomplishments is to correlate atheism with penis length (inversely, of course) or necrophilia. ONE / TALK 12:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think he should do cp:Atheism and Axe Murder next. Remember, Ken, by your own standards, all you have to do is find one atheist who chopped someone up with a hatchet, and you have enough correlation for an entire series of articles. I'll even save you some initial research: PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are not, to my knowledge, axe murderers, and Lizzie Borden was a Sunday School teacher. MDB (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
He's already used an axe-wielding psychopath as a metaphor for Christianity (guess what the tree represents), so he'll have to backpedal on that first. ONE / TALK 13:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he should just go meta: cp:Atheism and everything Ken doesn't like. "The guy next door to me hasn't mowed his lawn in a month and it looks awful. Probably an atheist. When was the last PZ Myers mowed his lawn? Why won't Penn Gillette debate me on the issue of atheists having ugly lawns?" MDB (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Psy, that's a funny use of the word "expertise". Phiwum (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah Psy, don't you mean "area of unhealthy obsession"? ONE / TALK 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

motherfucker is bold[edit]

[1]img--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Has allready been adressed by Peter. --ʤɱ pervert 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And even if it wasn't a repeat, it would be nice it it was accompanied by a quote or an explanation of where the link goes. Or even who it refers to. GOD. ONE / TALK 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this deserves it's own section, because it was pretty awesome and no one is in a better position than Ken to make a mockery of Andy's "leadership". Ken, you've got balls. Kudos to you. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think Ken was just trying to tell her that she's wasting her time, because she can't prove her claim, but inadvertently gave a clear example of Andy's approach to problem solving. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm, Psy… Brxbrx is CamilleT. And no, brxbrx is not a woman. Camille is a unisex name in French. --ʤɱ federalist 16:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Damnit, stop ruining my imagination that CamilleT is a hot, redheaded single woman. Bastard. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Stone the crows![edit]

Can it be RW and CP (and not just CP but Karajou) agree on something, and not just any old thing but something of importanceimg? Of course, the difference here is that we're willing to call Obama on this, while if this had happened under GWB CP would be all for it. Also, Karajou, please note that this received more opposition from Democrats (counting Sanders) than Republicans (though it was a pretty poor showing by both parties). DickTurpis (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it did happen under Bush. Karajou just didn't care then. The idea that people can be held indefinitely without trial is reprehensible, and it's been going on for almost a decade. The only reason Karajou is bitching about it now is because he can blame it on Obama. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When I saw this on the Daily Show, I was waiting for a punch line of obvious parody. That's some scary shit and it shows just how inept politicians are in believing their own fear mongering. Also, Kowardjou, shouldn't you be making calls to get some of the oldguard RW imprisoned after hearing this news? (honestly though, I'd be happy if it happened to me... I'd sue the shit out of everyone and bask in wealth 'cause it's the MURICAN way) AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Feh. You can't sue when you're locked in a 6 by 6 open cage, clad only in an orange jumpsuit and allowed access only to government-approved lawyers. Then they'll stand you before a military "court" and execute you based on "evidence" that conveniently can't be revealed to the public. That'll sure shut you up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well then, I guess my only recourse is to smear feces on the walls and scream and cry until my time comes. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that Big Phy is vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act. Perhaps that's why Andy doesn't speak out for it more often? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey dummies, it's not about "The idea that people can be held indefinitely without trial is reprehensible, and it's been going on for almost a decade."' It's about holding AMERICANS indefinitely. Nobody gives a rat's ass about enemy combatants being held except for the ACLU-aligned douche bags.-- (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Nobody" == "Nobody I like" -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jpatt, they have been allowed to detain AMERICANS indefinitely since the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists act, if you know this if you a) listened to the ACLU-aligned douche bags, b) didn't have you head stuck so far up your ass because of your hyper-partisan baseball-like approach to politics, you didn't give a shit because it was the red team and so long as they win you are happy. 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
'It's about holding AMERICANS indefinitely' - Yeh, Johnny foreigner aren't real people like you americans, so you can do anything to em and still sleep at night. Vile human being. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Remember, according to conservatives non-American = subhuman. DickTurpis (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's right JPratt. Innocent until proven guilty is just for American citizens, everyone else can be held without trial forever without hearing the evidence against them or being entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers. Fuck you too, JPratt. I think I've just figured out why you lot are so terrified that totalitarianism is coming. Because you can't fucking stop yourself voting for it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Quit your bellyaching, the US is only a puppet state of the North American super-state and has already been placed under martial law by the higher-ups at New World Order headquarters. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your brain on CNAV, kids. Don't do drugs. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you, Popeye[edit]

Liberals voted for it?img Here in the real world, liberals were the ones who voted for the guy who vowed explicitly to END indefinite detention. You know, that Obama guy. You voted for the guy who wanted it to continue. Oh yeah, and the guy who co-sponsored the bill you pretend to be so pissed about. It's not the fucking liberal's fault Obama sold them out. You got what you voted for. So fuck you Popeye. Fuck you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most of the "left-leaning" American voters that I know didn't vote for Obama. They voted Green, or Socialist, or stayed home, or spoiled their ballots. P-Foster 20:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess left is relative. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If conservatives need it, its the only way — if a liberal puts it in place, its fascism! Meanwhile, good people have ideals, not loyalties. --ʤɱ kant 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone ought to let the ASSfly know that he voted for it to. 40 Senate Republicans and 190 House Republicans voted for it to. Thanks andy...--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And around the world irony meters shattered…[edit]

...causing a gigantic earthquake that threw the seven seas around as they were mere ping pong balls before the vibrations shattered even the core of our beautiful planet and forever made it uninhabitable.img --ʤɱ federalist 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a "Hurlbut" a kind of throwing hammer? I think one just borked my e-Meter de-Meter irony meter. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm always astonished that, 30 years removed from cold war paranoia, people can still speculate about a New World Order takeover with a straight face. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a group of professional wrestlers? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia in 2011[edit]


Conservapedia in 2011 was downright boring. Granted, we had all the internal quibble with cp:User:Conservative and cp:User:RobSmith, but it lacked the great drama - as can be seen at google trends:

What was missing was the attention of the mainstream media: in 2007, lots of newspapers reported on the upcoming rival to wikipedia, 2008 saw the Lenski affair, in 2009, Andy and his Bible Project were invited to Colbert and in 2010, at least the New Scientist remarked on the Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity. But in 2011? Nothing, no one noticed Andy's interviews with Radio Russia.


So, why was there more activity on Conservapedia in 2011 than in 2010? Well, Terry Koeckritz had his vision of Conservapedia as a graveyard - and nearly succeeded in the late months of 2010, while now Ken's vision of a asylum prevails: Ken's share on edits increased (and the diagrams show only edits still in the database in Jan 2012 resp. Jan 2011!), and vandalism is thriving.

larronsicut fur in nocte 08:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

active editors

The numbers of active editors seem to be impressive - but they are inflated by the vandals: This diagram is indeed the sum of the following two:

unblocked editors
blocked editors

Until August 2011, the number of blocked and unblocked editors who contributed during the last 90 days were roughly the same, but after that time, the contributions of vandals were on the rise while normal (in a very strange sense of the word) editors lost interest.

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I hadn't given it too much thought in breaking things down by year, since it always feels like the noteworthy events were closer than they actually are. What's interesting is that, if some of them give this some attention, they might decide that they need to be more outrageous, or more relentlessly self-promoting. While Ken seems to think this is the obvious route, he doesn't seem to understand that major outlets aren't going to cover someone trolling on the internet. With Ken's dominance of CP's public face, and Andy's approval of it, there's no chance of CP getting coverage from any other source. -Lardashe

Some numbers[edit]

In 2011, 114,000 edits were made at Conservapedia - and 97,600 can still be found in the database. So only 14.1% of the edits were deleted. That's not too bad for Conservapedia, in fact it is the smallest quota, as in average 24.1% edits are deleted. Especially over the last three month, Conservapedia achieved a record of more than 90% undeleted edits per month!

Conservapedia should thank RobSmith for this surge in accountability: Ken stopped to delete whole talk-pages and articles in the second half of 2011 - now, he deletes single revisions (mostly his own, to hide his incompetence in using the preview-button).

articles in 2011

But how to judge whether 2011 was a successful year? For an encyclopedia, the most important part should be the articles. In 2011, work was done on 10,400 - up from 8,700 articles in 2010, but only two thirds of the number in 2009: 15,200

Only 2,600 articles were substantially edited (2010: 2,400, 2009: 4,200), and only 3,200 articles were created (2010: 2,500, 2009: 4,200).

larronsicut fur in nocte 23:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Effects of my observations[edit]

week 51
week 52

As I don't have access to Conservapedia's server :-), I had to get my information from the outside. To check whether night-mode is activated (and account-creation is allowed or prohibited), I pinged cp:Talk:Main Page every five minutes, adding 200-300 views to it every day of my observation. This I did only I couple of weeks in 2011 during Nov/Dec, Sep/Oct, May and Feb/Mar. On average cp:Talk:Main Page gets 2000-2500 views a day, the whole of Conservapedia perhaps 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 hits a month, so my contribution to the number of views seems to be negligible.

Since Aug 2011 until Dec 2011 I tried to monitor all revisions to save deletions for posterity (or at least for User:Diebot). This results in another 100,000 hits, again a comparatively small number. And as I accessed Conservapedia for this purpose not via but, this didn't influence any page counts. But to be able to access Conservapedia at least every ten minutes, I had to use proxies, as Conservapedia tended to shut me out. Without much deliberation I decided to use tor, and this worked well. Now, tor changes its path every ten minutes, so roughly each time I addressed Conservapedia, I was using another IP. As there are only so many exit points in the tor-network, I doubt that I contributed the 4,000 possible unique visitors a month, more likely the number will be around 1,000 -1,500.

Andy never stated his record breaking numbers of unique visitors per month, but I think I tipped the scales at least a little bit :-)

larronsicut fur in nocte 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been a bad, bad boy...[edit]


Dear Governor Kasich

I'm sure you'll be thrilled to hear that you've won the "Conservative of the Year" award for 2011, as awarded by the conservative encyclopedia and thinking man's alternative to Wikipedia, Conservapedia.

After much thought the site's founder, owner, administrator and dear leader, Andrew Schlafly (yes, the son of Phylis) decreed that you showed more conservative values than Tim Tebow, Donald Trump, somebody called Nephilimfree and Dmitry Medvedev... although your increased state spending did count against you.

Sadly, the award does not come with any monetary prize, nor any plaque or certificate; just the warm knowledge that the ultra right-wing in America are looking up to you.

Keep up the good work Sir!

Yours etc...

--PsyGremlinPraat! 16:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are awesome. --ʤɱ federalist 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This should be enough to make any sane man turn suicidal. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Aren't there two l's in Phyllis?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Below: a boring conversation about the correct use of apostrophes, replete with tedious grammar Nazis puffing their chests and linking to online dictionaries, each determined to ascend to the title of Biggest Nerd[edit]

There are also 2 l's in "troll." P-Foster 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, that email you put above, that's called trolling. Just letting you know. Second of all I was just pointing out a typo, like many do. I'm sorry you took that the wrong way.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What email that I put above? P-Foster 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
My bad, confused you with PsyGremlin. Still, pointing a typo ≠ trolling, so back off.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh, that's funny - so back off. Wooo! AceAce For Mod! 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"Aren't there two l's in Phyllis?" Isn't it incorrect to pluralise with apostrophes? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Not from what I remember from English class, but okay.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters -- Nx / talk 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The full quote from that page is "It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters,[citation needed]. Nice use of unsupported facts to prove a point there. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, look who crawled out from under his bridge. Anyway, here you go: -- Nx / talk 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
However, people caught pluralising acronyms with apostrophes will be shot. Doubly so if it's "Nazi's." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Use of apostrophes in plurals is acceptable in the cases of single letters, acronyms, and numerals (though the matter is falling out of standard usage). Certainly Brx was right in this case. "With two ls" looks terrible. Likewise we don't talk about the Oakland As. DickTurpis (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Using apostrophes to pluralise anything has no relation to their conventional usage in English (i.e. contraction or possession only). If it's become "acceptable", it's only because it's now so prevalent that it's a lost cause; & if they're really now teaching this stuff in English classes, then it's no wonder that punctuation on the internet is so awful. While there's really no way of transcribing the plural of a letter (e.g. l) that isn't in some way awkward looking, 'l's (‘l’s) or "l"s (“l”s) would seem more reasonable than l's, which implies that there are omitted letters between the l & s when there are not. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Like using "&" when what you want to say is "and". I btw. use letters as uncountables: one L, two L, three L — of course you can count them, but have you ever heard "els"? --ʤɱ structuralist 00:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So we should write "how many is are in Mississippi"? You have to be kidding me. Or should we spell it out, like "el"? "Now many eyes are in Mississippi"? "I like the Oakland A's well" should be "I like the Oakland As well"? I'm pretty sure this has been standard usage for eons. My 1966 copy of Modern American Usage specifically uses the following examples of using the apostrophe for the plural: "cross you t's and dot your i's" and "the 1920's". DickTurpis (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I wrote <"els"> so it would be clear even to the last dumbass that I'm speaking about pronounciation of the letter "L". Seemingly I failed to reach at least one last dumbass. --ʤɱ atheist 10:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I was using that example is a response to Weas. At lest that one makes sense, and I think I've actually seen it used. Regardless, my point is apostrophes have always been acceptable for plurals in a very few situations. DickTurpis (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems I'm the dumbass. Sorry for calling you one. --ʤɱ soviet 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Your apology comes too late I fear. The anthrax is already in the mail. DickTurpis (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is fucking stupid. Use whatever makes the most sense and is the easiest to read. Is that so goddamn hard to understand? Jesus, fucking grammar Nazis... Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you naturally stupid or do you use chemicals? The whole point of punctuation is to remove ambiguity and make it possible to understand the original intent. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
...Which is what I'm saying you should do, instead of following grammar 'rules' even when they don't make sense. Just do what makes the most sense. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
German Proverb: "Rules are for the Lazy, the genius is master of the Chaos." irony meters exploding--ʤɱ libertarian 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This...this is a joke right?[edit]

User:Conservative is the definition of Poe's Law. He can't be for real right? Anyone know if he is serious? (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome noob! There are different theories, some think he is for real and just really crazy, other think he is an obsessed parodist and than some people think he is a group of parodists. We have nothing for sure. (Also some say he is for real and an attention whore, but that's neither here nor there) --ʤɱ federalist 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll put it this way: Conservative has been keeping it up since before Conservapedia's foundation. Like, he has been trolling forums (and had a CreationWiki account, I think) before moving to CP. If he's a parodist, he'd be one of the most dedicated ones anybody has ever seen. --Sid (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just read the following exchange on there:
Just looking at the history of this page, and it seems a bit harsh on Becky to block her on the 90/10 rule when she has made only one contribution to the whole of Conservapedia, and in addition to delete that very contribution so nobody can read it. Clearly anyone has to start with a single contribution, and it's as likely as not, that as a newcomer, they will go for a talk page rather than an article. Does every newcomer get treated this way? Technically they all breach 90/10. --QPR 09:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)
I see you are falling for the username Becky. Atheism clearly has a shortage of womenfolk and I suspect "Becky" was nothing more than a male atheist wiki dweller trying to gain mercy from the 90/10 rule (see: Atheism and women). It is kind of like male Muslims sneaking out of an area and avoiding capture wearing a burka! Conservative 13:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)
He can't be serious...Anyone with that much functioning brain power wouldn't be able to handle something as complex as a keyboard... (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I thought the same when I first came here. Nope, he's the real deal, unfortunately--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What would be really galling for Kenny is if he dies in a stupid accident of his own fault, then wins a Darwin Award for his efforts. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Every now and then I get these pangs of guilt when making fun of Kenny. I sort of start to wonder if we're not too much different than the ones who make fun of this guy. The differences between them are really only a matter of degree. DickTurpis (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT WEBSITE ABOUT? (Hitting "random article" took me to the "Julie's eyes only" page.) Seriously, Internet, what are you doing there? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is about Chris Chan, an autistic man-child that was harassed by 4Chan. - π Moderator 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Julaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ken is like a spoilt child who does stupid things to garner attention, but no matter how amusing his antics might have been at first they are now just tiresome, repetitive and exceedingly boring. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 10:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
As with most bullies, Ken lacks the intellectual acumen to be able to be able to adapt his strategy, and so is reduced to the same old routine of throwing out cheap insults in lieu of rational debate, or indeed defense of his actions. This, coupled with his awful language skills and complete lack of knowledge of the world outside of his mom's basement, make him the last person in the world who should be commenting. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for CP, Andy seems to think Ken has the ideal qualities to be CP's Number 2 and de facto spokesman. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I just realized Ken is the Chris Chan of the Wikisphere... O_o--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This similarities are striking, but I think CWC is a little more, well, "special", than Ken. RobertTurkel (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading that "Chris Chan" website... I just feel really disgusted. Some people are absolute bastards. The guy has some problems, okay, but everyone has some problems... but that kind of website is just evil and cruel... it's like megascale stalking. (((Zack Martin))) 09:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Daft Ed poor[edit]

WTF's all this about then that it needs a template? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Ed Poor's stumbled upon between bouts of googling for ephebophile sites (no, I do not seriously; believe Ed Poor is a child molester, just a joke)--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
On another note, here's his newest masterpiece! Aurélie salut! 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I see ironic people! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Even Dafter Ed Poor[edit]

Ed is now boastingimg about his mad church's close links with the North Korean regime. Words fail me. --Fergus Mason (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy, just when I thought that he couldn't get any creepier, he pulls this one out. Yuck. I'm off to scrub my brain. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, does Ed think being feted by the North Koreans is a good thing? Then again, we are talking about the guy who doesn't getimg the whole "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" thing. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What the MSM isn't fully covering![edit]

And the source for CP's Iowa declaration? An entire MSM website...img -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Conservapedia declares conservative Rick Santorum the likely winner of the Iowa caucuses", with the bold declaration of "As predicted by Conservapedia, Santorum has regained the leadimg". Meanwhile news sites declare Romney the winner, so expect a 1984-esque revision that states something along the lines of "Conservapedia predicted Romney the winner of Iowa by the slimmest of margins, and he did!" Or claiming somehow a conspiracy of liberals and the "lamestream media" pushing the have Romney the declared winner.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy's "predictions" are getting more and more ridiculous. He just reads the news and "predicts" whatever they are reporting. I'm sure he'll blame the lamestream media for Conservapedia being Proved Wrong AgainTM. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum nearly won? I did not see that coming. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how long Andy's Gingrich administrationimg will remain on CP. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh frabjous day! Romney leads Senator Froth by 4 votes??? And Huckaperry is going home to sulk and think about what he did wrong (ie: everything). Time for my Mr Burns impression.... excellent.... Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a good thing I start my new job on Monday. I just realised that sitting at a computer and chortling gleefully about political events on a different continent is not exactly healthy behaviour. Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope Santorum wins the primaries. Then we won't have to worry about another Republican in the White House for another four years--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is what happens next. Senator Frothy bet the farm on taking Iowa - he concentrated on it so much that he damn near talked to everyone in the state. Consequently he hasn't spent that much time in New Hampshire and his ground game is equally thin there. Romney on the other hand has spent a lot of time and money there. Santorum can only win New Hampshire if Perry pulls out (almost a certainty now) and a tonne of momentum swings his way. Same with South Carolina. However, I am astonished at how reluctant the Republicans are to embrace Mittens. The Romney Unit has been the nominal front-runner for ages. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Romney definitely has the momentum on his side now. Even though he just squeaked a victory in Iowa, he has a double digit lead in New Hampshire and will mostly likely win those votes as well, giving him a 2-0 lead on everyone else going into South Carolina. If he loses South Carolina (which is quite possible), his campaign will still be seen as the one with the most electoral votes heading into the next round; its his election to lose.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy's revised headline: It's a draw, but Santorum won the most number of delegates... so I guess he's the winner, right?img --Sid (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
We also have to remember that Huckabee (I have to stop calling him Huckafuck in my head) won Iowa in 2008 - and we all know what happened to his campaign! Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a little known fact, but Andrew Q. Schlafly's real name is Winston Smith. Jimaginator (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely bumfuzzled by Andy's attempt to claim that Santorum won more delegates than anyone else. He claimsimg that Santorum won eight delegates. His own referenceimg shows that Santorum has seven pledged and one unpledged RNC delegate, totaling eight. But the same reference shows that Romney has seven pledged and eleven unpledged delegates, which is rather more than eight. It seems as if Santorum's single unpledged delegate counts as a delegate, but Romney's eleven unpledged delegates mean nothing. (There is a possibility, I suppose, that CNN has updated the page since Andy linked to it. Is that what happened?) Phiwum (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That page shows two different numbers for Santorum. The table says eight for Santorum and seven for Romney. However the details state each have seven pledged delegates, while Santorum has an additional one unpledged (for a total of eight) and Ronmey has an additional 11 unpledged (for a total of seventeen). So I guess depending on how truthful you wish to be versus how much you want to play up your candidate, you can say Santorum has eight and Romney has seven; it be dishonest but not surprising that Andy would go that route to save face.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll be darned. You're right. The page does show two inconsistent figures, and Andy went with the figure he prefers. (Never mind that the table with the preferred figure also has a checkmark indicating that Romney won, I guess.) Phiwum (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Another great prediction: McCain to endorse between Iowa and NH primaries. Unfortunately, he didn't quite go with the candidate they predicted he'd endorse: Newt Gingrich. (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Rick Santorum better hurry up and endorse Mitt Romney. CP correctly predicts he'll endorse Romney between now and the NH primaries. (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Move along, Nothing to see here[edit]

What, declare Santorum winner? We never did that.img We're just claiming Santorum won by Eight votes (even though those Eight votes went to Romney.) Don't think we'll be seeing this on Conservapedia proven right.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted revisions Aug 2011 - Dec 2011[edit]

As I mentioned above, I monitored Conservapedia to save the deleted revisions. For this period I was able to preserve perhaps 90% of the deleted revisions. Here is a list of the top pages with histories completely or partially erased.

page missing revs
User talk:Ed Poor 684
User talk:RobSmith 380
Talk:Atheism and obesity 248
User talk:Sid 3050 199
Template:Mainpageright 199
User talk:Karajou 151
User:Conservative/userpage2 137
Template:Mainpageleft 137
Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights? 127
User:Conservative/FYI 117
Atheism and bestiality 113
Talk:Main Page 107

The erasing of the history of cp:User talk:Ed Poor destroyed so many nice memories. I ponder to upload this history at User:Diebot. The talk-pages of banned editors are deleted out of spite, in way of damnatio memoriae. Other deletions are done to cover up Ken's stream of unconsciousness kind of writing.

larronsicut fur in nocte 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I love how those are all Ken hotspots. I also think it's great that a friggin' debate has been oversighted more than 100 times. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"Stream of unconsciousness" — I love you man. --ʤɱ atheist 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 - π Moderator 23:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Digital Divide[edit]

I'm on an old computer today and the WIGO hyperlink isn't working on it. What did Uncle Ed say about black kids? I'm intrigued. Ironclad (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Ed quotingimg American Stinker:
When someone says that poor black kids don't have "access" to technological resources, he's probably making things up. Different racial groups evidently have different preferences and priorities when it comes to purchasing gadgets. If some groups have less internet access, that is not the fault of society; it is largely the product of the predominant culture within that subgroup of society.

--PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article from the Thinker was riffing off of this thing from Forbes, which itself created a bit of a shitstorm among parts of the left/some African-American circles. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh that's fun. Maybe if we all chip in, we can buy him a bus ticket to downtown Compton, whence he can preach this in the streets... Ironclad (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a lot of chipping in, considering he lives in New York. Rennie McGreet (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
But it'd be totally worth it. Vulpius (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
...Harlem, then? Or Orange, NJ? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"Different racial groups evidently have different preferences and priorities when it comes to purchasing gadgets." Wait, let me guess, they are simply not part of the cognitive elite? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Camden, NJ. It's more dangerous than Compton, but it doesn't get officially included because the population is too small. Oh, they also recently laid off half their police force. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The slippery definition of vandalism/parody[edit]

Evidently, pointing out that CP's predictionsimg are not looking so prescient is either vandalism or parody. Karajou'simg not sure which one it is, but respectable editors do not point out inaccurate predictions, dammit. That's for sure. (BrianY also got an infinite ban for trolling.) Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What's 11 orders of magnitude between friends?[edit]

I just about cried when I read the universe galaxy discussion.--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. Though I'm appalled by the discussion, I'm glad someone invoked Funes. If the study of astronomy weren't important to the Catholic Church, the Gandolfo observatory wouldn't exist, and my dadshameless bragging wouldn't've worked on the Pope Scope. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That won't matter to Ken, who sees the Catholic Church as "selling out" to evolution and a bunch of heretics anyway. Isn't great people like him just want to do away with NASA?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only one who, upon seeing the name 'Pope Scope', first imagined it referred to His Holiness's colonoscope? Vulpius (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

'Bout the WIGO: There is nothing complex about the difference between a galaxy and a universe. The difference between a Smart and a monstrer truck is finer that the difference between a galaxy and a universe. --ʤɱ pervert 08:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it's sarcasm. Peter Urist for Mod!(MW) 08:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This just sums up the pride Ken shows in his ignorance. And I'm guessing this is typical of many fundamentalists. The human race is successful due to many things but one is that our species is inquisitive. Obviously he and his type come from the shallow end of the gene pool. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that if anyone ever asked them about the difference between a pulsar and a quasar their heads would explode. Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll wins a debate![edit]

With himselfimg. While pretending to be a teenage boy. Gosh, wow. You bested straw anthropomorphic robot pig Richard Dawkins in an intellectual contest. Good job. Maybe you're ready to engage in a conversation with a real human being now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I gotta kick out of that too. Whether you like or dislike Dawkins, it is remarkably silly to pretend that a(n imaginary) thirteen-year-old kid can out-debate a respectable analytic philosopher. Phiwum (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Philosopher? I think he prefers the term "biologist" (not that he isn't both). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
And as a philsopher I wanna say no, he isn't one of us. Sure he uses some philosophy but that really doesn't make you academically a philosopher. --ʤɱ anti-communist 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least for now, commenting on these pieces of video genius are still enabled. Unfortunately, like all cowardly creationists, ratings were disabled from the get-go. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't the patience or interest to actually see the videos, to be honest. This goes for just about every Youtube video mentioned here or on CP. Not my cup of tea, I guess. Phiwum (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to save you all a waste of time: Using Xtranormal (which is the software for people who have no graphic arts background or ability to make videos), Ken has "Micheal" come up to "Dawkins" and do a thirty second commercial on CMI's "15 Questions" and tells him he will return, end of part one (really, that was it, it was a commercial pitch for the CMI site). Part Two has "Micheal" return to demand "Dawkins" answer, which of course this caricature cannot (doesn't try to actually); "Micheal" then declares evolution false and pitches how "Dawkins" should come to Christ, end of part two. That is it, its a commercial using cheap graphics and anthropomorphic characters (they are both Hello Kitty looking dogs), so yeah I guess if you think putting to shame an anthro caricature that says what you wrote him to say is putting the actual person to shame, then I guess you can declare victory, everyone else will just facepalm and laugh.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of facepalms. This comment on the QE! blog. You people realise that cartoon isn't the real Richard Dawkins.... right? Jebus but these people are stupid. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That is so facepalm worthy, I need that facepalm GIF we have.. in triplicate!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
KippysSoMature appears to be the owner/editor of Ken's blog, and judging by his other blog,img he's a special kind of crazy. So at least Ken is in good company. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If I were in doggy Richard Dawkins' position and had just said "prove it" to an archangel, I would expect to be shown some visions. First would be God creating the world in seven days 6,000 years ago, that would probably be followed by dinosaurs drowning in the Great Flood and turning into fossils in a matter of months and no doubt it would end with a Jack T. Chick style Crucifixion scene. A bit of angelic hocus pocus would get me to change my mind. I would not expect to just be given the address of some website. I'd lose all respect for any messenger of the Almighty the moment that he said, "Go to w w w dot..." --Spud (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent post! Ajkgordon (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And if proven to be true, I'd ask the fastest way to hell, because I still would think that that "god" is wrong in doing the things he does. Like one guy said it once on CP (paraphrased) "If you are correct and you'll go to heaven, I'd wanna go to hell, just be as far away from you as I can." --ʤɱ pervert 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

People of Iowa more powerful than Jesus.[edit]

For someone who said god called her to run for president, she sure gave up easilyimg. Oh, sure, the almighty king of kings called me to stand up, but the people of Iowa told me to sit the fuck down. You have to have your priorities straight. I wonder if anyone other than stand up comedians are going to find this remarkable... --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"God told me to do this! But when it got hard I got lazy." I hope that's literally what she said. --ʤɱ soviet 18:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I like how it said she was ranked #7. Or, in other words, last among the remaining at the time. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
God called her to run, not to win! She's a stalking horse for Santorum!! --Gomedog (talk)
Can't use "Horse" and "Santorum" in the same sentance without eliciting a few dry heaves.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I watched the speech live, and have just one question. Is subtlety a lost art in America? Because I didn't get the subliminal message that she was running for Kyl's seat at all. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 07:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Ken lols[edit]

Minor Ken lols.img Ken doesn't pretend to know which churches are bible-believeing and which are liberal, but he does know that bible-believing churches are growing and liberal churches are declining. I wonder how?

Sidebar: I know Ken is retarded, but what a ludicrous argument he's making. Even as an avowed atheist, I know what's what in terms of liberal Christianity. Go to a megachurch (they're popping up everywhere around here). They're all non-denominational and liberal as fuck. Saying that they're thriving is an understatement. It's more like an epidemic in the Christian community. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's be fair here...and politically correct...when referring to the mentally disabled, say "mentally disabled". When referring to Ken....well, yeah, "retarded" is the right word. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
My pastor doesn't exactly expect our church to be around a little while down the line, just to give you a view from the conservative side of camp christian. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait...mega-churches are liberal? I thought they tended to be fundy evangelical 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? 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that they are liberal in their interpretations of the Bible and their fundraising techniques, and conservative in their level of tolerance and the amounts they dole out to charitable causes. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
depends, but they tend to be pretty liberal, especially the more well known ones. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Being inclusive (like the Unity churches) tends to bring more followers than the exclusive that kinda makes sense. A lot of evangelist churches tend to be on the liberal side, but I still think that's a pretty skewed continuum; like the smallest number in an ordered set, at one church has to be more liberal than the most conservative one, but can still be pretty conservative. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. Ken thinks AugustO is worried about the effect the QE! campaign is going to have in Germany. Well, I live in Germany and I can tell him that right now: absolutely none. --Fergus Mason (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an update from the UK - QE!'s impact is... flatlining. Joy. Darkmind1970 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Did it ever even get off the ground in the UK? I had an argument with Ken a few weeks ago which resulted in me phoning CMI's UK office and asking what events they were planning to promote the campaign. The answer was "None. We're just selling pamphlets for people to hand out." Damp squib doesn't even begin to describe this utter non-campaign. --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ken knows the QE campaign is a complete joke. He's just trolling. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. While he might know that it isn't successful yet, I get the impression that he genuinely believes that his witnessing (which is what essentially all his stuff is) will win in the end. Reality must be forced into agreement with scripture as shown by his delight that NASA might get big funding cuts - you know, because scientific discoveries are just a little inconvenient. Or they're liberal conspiracies to keep professors in work or something - I forget.
Anyway, what's important is that Ken has right on his side therefore he will win, however difficult it may appear at the moment. It's this sort of huge over-confidence that fundamentalists are prone to. While to us it looks idiotic because it so obviously flies in the face of the evidence, to a fundamentalist it doesn't because the only evidence that counts is scripture. CMI even has it as number 1 in its basic statements of faith: "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
The fundamentalist simply has no wriggle-room whatsover and so is completely blinded to reality. Everything has to be checked against Scripture's authority even when it flatly contradicts the blindingly obvious. Which is why, even though we can see that a chimpanzee is astonishly similar to a human, both by just looking at one and by studying its DNA, the fundamentalists knows that a human isn't an animal and can't possibly have had a common ancestor with other primates because the Bible tells him otherwise. It's not being "retarded"; it's not even stupidity. It's simply an insecurity that manifests itself in an overwhelming desire to be subservient to an ultimate authority. Unrestrained inquisitiveness is a mortal sin, one which the Roman Catholic Church with its Pope Scope is guilty of. That in turn leads to the entirely consistent conclusion - and I wouldn't be surprised if Ken holds this view - that the RC Church is not Christian. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Also he's an imbecile. Jaxe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ on a stick: "I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land!" I think that allready happend. About 1500 years ago. But seriously now, the guy has no fucking clue how faith and religiousity works in Germany or Europe. He seems to presuppose the same splitting of denominations that appeared in the US (and Canada? I don't even know…), which is wildly wrong since for a very long time there was no religious freedom in Europe and churches were a matter of the state.

But anyway since I see him raving wildly about how Germany will be plastered with creationism and other mental, erm, "problems", I want to say what is my experience. In the German media it is pretty damn normal to make fun of religion and even the religious enjoy this. In the church controlled school subject of religion, creationism isn't mentioned, it is not even thought of and both in protestant as much catholic lead (and newly muslim lead) lessons the bible is regarded as a collection of metaphors. People that believe in God are seen as ok, people that believe in the biblical god are looked at skeptically, people that believe in the same vile god Ken believes in are seen as socially retarded at best. This takes the result that those few who do question the "modern doctrines" don't go out to people and "teach" but isolate themselves between praying, hating everything modern and hating the media (all of them, of course). Indeed creationism isn't taken seriously by many people. People that preach that homosexuality is a sin get reactions ranging from accusations of bigotry and hatred to laughing fits from who they are talking to and questions if they also believe in Santa Claus. I don't even see or hear people in public (that means not in churches) speaking about premerital sex or mastrubation being a sin, if somebody where to does that, people may just walk away. The only thing where Germany has anything Ken might like is the abortion issue, but nobody really wants to ban it, if they say anything against they say you shouldn't do it. Creationism is seen as crazy, delusional and backwards. Most people probaby don't even personally know somebody who ever believed in biblical creation, so rare is it. Yes, in a rather weird way, creationism is rarer than black people or Jews in Germany. And it is not that most of these people have "studied the evidence" and "reached a conclusion of their own", most of them hear "this scientific theory has been proven right, no contradictions whatsoever" and accept it as right. Probably the dumbest farmer would ask you why you aren't teaching biology if you've proven evolution wrong. Oh the conspiracy theory stuff? Yeah, that's a comedy number if not a reason to get into a mental assylum for a while. A "bias"? We hardly have a good word for that. (I shit you not ,I didn't know there was such a thing until I discovered your crazy people)

Flyers won't do much. Why? Because most people don't even read religious flyers. The people that give them away are either ignoring and treated like you can see through them, laughed at or directly insulted. Indeed, giving away such flyers is seen as nuisance or annoyance. A few weeks ago, there were 30 page flyers in all the dorm mail boxes (one per resident, about 150), that evening the trash can right beside the mail boxes was full of them, from what I saw none of them were read. They saw "god", "christian" or "absolution" aned threw it right away. (I of course read it and laughed my ass off) Religion has become a private matter and one studies it only if one ones to change it, trying to teach somebody who doesn't want to hear has simply become unfriendly and against all good manners. The same if you care to know also goes for atheists deconverting Christians. Only if that person asks shall you tell them what you believe, if not, keep it in. Now, I don't know if that is the same in all European countries, but I'm pretty damn sure in France and Netherlands it's even more so this trend than being outspoken about it and I'd bet something that it's starting to be this way in Spain and Italy too. Only Poland and Turkey not so much. --ʤɱ atheist 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good post! It's very similar to the situation in the UK. Religion is seen as a private thing. Blair was the closest thing we've had recently to a genuine god-botherer as PM, and even then 10 Downing Street told him to keep a lid on it. Hell, I occasionally channel-hop over to the christian cable shows so that I can have a good giggle and point out the factual errors to whoever's listening in the room. Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think we do have a bit more of a problem with Creationism in the UK than in Germany and other European states. OK, it's still very minor compared to in the US, but there are occassional signs that it does infect the public consciousness from time to time. Primarily I suppose because the material from organisations such as CMI and Tuth in Science is in English and therefore easier to disseminate around schools and so on. Indeed I think there was a concerted campaign by science leaders last year warning of the dangers of Creationism encroaching into schools - and not just the free schools. And in Northern Ireland it's even more of an issue. The main political party, the DUP, is essentially the political wing of a fundamentalist presbetyrean church and, as such, has Creationist tendencies including trying to push its medieval dogma in the public sphere. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative of the Year 2011[edit]

And the winner is Ohio Governor John Kasichimg, for enacting some petty abortion legislation and not liking the colour of pink driving licences. What's more entertaining is how Andy presents it on the John Kasich pageimg, failing to mention that "Conservative of the Year 2011" is a petty arbitrary ranking by Schnafly himself. Added bonus, Kendoll's fuckbuddy, Shockofgod comes bottom of the list. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 11:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Prediction: whoever faces off Obama in the 2012 election becomes CP's 2012 Conservative of the Year, regardless of who he is, what he says, what he does, whether he wins, or whether he is even a physical entity. ONE / TALK 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet Ken will still throw up a hissy fit when it's not Shockofgod... Doraemon話そう!話そう! 12:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That has to be the shittiest list ever. A lot of people are on it because they're covert racists (Arpaio), nutjobs (Ron Paul), besotted with bad science (Inhofe) or just willing to stonewall anything that Obama proposes, purely because he's Obama (quite a few people on the list). Have any of these people ever had an oroginal thought? Or would that be asking too much? Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just Andy's and Kenny's list; there is no community there anymore. In the end it is the opinion of one or two people.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Pink: the color of abortion, liberalism, and, perhaps the most evil and stupid of all... women. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh noes! Not.... women! Hmmm, I sense that I need to investigate this further. Perhaps when my wife is home. (Whistles happy tune and smiles) Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The anti-pink campaign is pro-business. Pink (salmon, actually) is used by many states because it's the hardest to counterfeit accurately. More fake IDs means more beer sales. It's a simple capitalism vs. nanny-state socialism decision. --Whoover (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama's opponent "COTY even if he loses"[edit]

no no no, we already saw what happened to McCain when he LOST the election, he was abandoned by CP (and the republicans) almost overnight and resumed being some vague RINOish military conservative. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And lets face it, it's going to be Romney. They don't even like Romney now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Romney Unit has never been very popular. It keeps shuddering and going back on itself whilst the occasional 404 error flashes on its screen. Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
They didn't like McCain before, either. Ann Coulter said she'd vote for Hillary if he won the primaries. They all had to backtrack when he won, of course. Then McCain had to pretend he was never a maverick in the hopes of retaining his senate seat (unnecessary, of course- he was kept in power by a bunch of retirees who figured not voting for him would mean they'd have wrong. Can't have that. And, some unregistered Republicans, such as my father, voted for McCain anyways because they didn't want Hayworth anywhere near the reins of power).--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Still pining for Tebow[edit]

Andy is upset that the sports media is not giving Tebow the proper respectimg. Andy's argues that Tebow (not the rest of the team) brought the Broncos into first place and the playoffs, what is not telling you (and likely ignoring):

  • Tebow and the Broncos lost their last three games in a row. In one of those games, against mediocre Buffalo, Tebow threw two "pick sixes", which are interceptions ran back for touchdowns. He directly gave Buffalo as many points as he entire team scored in that game.
  • Despite the above they are the division champs, but because their division is the worst in the league, and any of the four teams in it could have as easily be the winner (they all have either 8-8 or 7-9 records). In any other division, they would have not only failed to be crowned division champion, they wouldn't even be a Wild Card team. In short Denver backed into the playoffs, they are in only because their division rivals screwed up just a little bit more.

The first team they face, the Steelers, will likely defeat them by a wide margin. It will be interesting if Andy sticks wit him. What those sportswriters are saying is the truth, Tebow does have the worst stats of any quarterback in the playoffs, you can't deny the numbers. He also lacks the tools to be a starter in the league. Tebow may be a good guy, a good overall player, but he isn't a good quarterback; teams have figured him out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As a skeptical Elway-ist, I never had any delusions about how well (or poorly) Tebow plays. A team can't win in the fourth quarter or overtime, not every game, and certainly not throughout the season. First and second quarter touchdowns are vital; field goals are not enough; your running game has to be as good as, but preferably better than, your passing game. This happens every year in Denver. I think it's possible that fans (or maybe just the media) have too-high of expectations for whomever will replace the last shitty quarterback. They're never looking for the next great quarterback; they're always looking for the next Elway and that's a recipe for failure season after season (Elway wasn't even that good in the beginning, if you look at the records—it was his loyalty to the team was a strength year after year that the 1990s Broncos were eventually able to rally around). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Paraphrasing Limbaugh, fundamentalists have been very desirous that a Christian quarterback do well. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is one of the funniest comments I have seen with regard to Tebow. Well-done! --reichhol (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Pah, Jpatt already showed what will happen: If "Tebow wins", then that's great. If "Tebow loses", then he still wins (moral victory, inspiring thousands, blah blah). So no matter what happens, Tebow wins, period. --Sid (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Crucifixion: It's not just for Jesus anymore!" -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, Jpatt just supports him because he is white.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty low charge. Anyway, aren't most QBs white? Phiwum (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Compare this with this and see which one has bias, particularly concerning this particular QB's charitable activities and involvement with the aftermath of the 2007 VT shooting. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
As a proud Pittsburgher, I can say with conviction that the Steelers will kill the Broncos, Christ or not. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 23:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The majority are, yes. I am sure Andy supports him entirely for religious reasons; JPatt, who refers to people like the president as "half breeds", on the otherhand...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks are awesome![edit]

Andy:img Ron Paul will, with the money he raised, do more personal attacks against Mitt Romney.

Uhh boy, there's a lot in there:

  1. I didin't watch all the campaign adds, so correct me if I'm wrong but, Ron Paul doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to do personal attacks specificly against one person.
  2. Does Andy just simply not understand that personal attacks are toxic for a political climate? If you make personal attacks the actual issues fall into the background and… oh, now I get it.
  3. If this was anybody else it wouldn't be "attack adds" but a "smear campaign". Fucking hypocrites...

--ʤɱ socialist 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering what Ronnie said yesterday about Newtie being a chickenhawk, you might want to think again about the personal attacks thing. Not that I think Newt isn't a chickenhawk, but Paul certainly proved he'll go there. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Crap, I presupposed morals in a Republican candidate. I had it coming. --ʤɱ heretic 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Negative attacks seem to have worked well for Romney against Newt...then again, maybe I'm not giving Iowan conservatives enough credit in their ability to see that Newt is an overt scumbag. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
As the available resources on the island wear thin, the survivors engage in more vicious forms of cannibalism. In the end, before death, only one survivor will remain, being able to feast only on the corpses of the others. Will it be the strongest one, or simply the most vicious? -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are the American primaries so cannabilistic? The last Labour leadership election here in the U of K was infuriatingly nice and well-behaved, the last Tory election almost as polite. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (Apologies to cannibals everywhere for likening Romney's behaviour to theirs.)

Remember when CP had daily Bible verses?[edit]

These days CP still has their Bible verses, but they seem to be forgotten, the same verse has been on MPL for the better part of a year (though two others have been added in that period). Interesting thing, that verse is: "'when the wicked perish, there is song,' but later warns, 'If your enemy falls, do not rejoice.' - The Book of Proverbs." I wonder if Ken, who's been rejoicing over the non-existent demise of atheism for months, has read this. DickTurpis (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that was very much Jaoquin's domain, along with the quote, featured article, world masterpiece and artwork. However, now that Ken's turned the main page into some form of electronic toilet paper, I don't think JM really cares anymore. I'm surprised they aren't quoting from the Conservative Bible. Hey, I wonder how Andy's plan to unite all the GOP candidates under the CB is going? --PsyGremlinParla! 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
" Andy's plan to unite all the GOP candidates under the CB is going?" What now? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
More on that here: Conservapedia:Andrew_Schlafly's_delusions_of_grandeur#Rewriting_the_Bible_to_reflect_his_own_world_view ONE / TALK 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a mental picture of a fumbling and inept eye of Sauron trying to unite all the rings, making a hash out of it and then throwing his orcs out of the pram? Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do now, DM. One does not simply walk into Conservapedia. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
They may have eventually ran out of verses they liked and were left only with liberal verses, which they couldn't vicissitude into something more palatable--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I know it's not a verb, but I do know what it means. And I used it as a verb. Are we going to have another silly and protracted language debate on TWIGO:CP?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Not liking to get into Brxbrx bashing but "I do not think it means what you think it means." Don't be effin' stupid Brix. There's words enough without inventing meanings for existing ones. Scream!! (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Change." You meant "change," kid. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 22:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I liked vicissitude better, P. And don't call me "kid." It is incredibly infuriating. If you want to change my opinion on something or make me see the light or whatever, you should start by treating me with a little bit of respect. Maybe that's why we never got along. I've always been "kid" to you. I am no more a "kid" than my elderly neighbor is "gramps."--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"Why we never got along?" PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Kara and Terry, still pushing the birtherism[edit]

Took a look at the main page just now and found a somewhat puzzling news itemimg added by Karajou about something about Obama and "meeting the requirements to get on the ballot". So I clicked the link (despite it being WND and thus killing my brain cells), and surprise, surprise, BIRTHERISM! YAY!

And a day later, Terry linkspams his blog adds further insight.img

Good to see that Conservapedia is still proudly doubting whether Obama is American enough to be President. Because only pushing YEC and Relativity denial is lame. --Sid (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you ever come across a birther in the wild, ask them why they believe the requirement for both parents to be citizens is still relevant to America's wellbeing. Bring some popcorn. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Where's Ann Rommney's birth certificate? Would she be privy to all sorts of state-secrets? CS Miller (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ann Romney isn't a candidate, and non-natural born citizens can hold fairly high appointments (look at Madeline Albright). The real irony of the birthers is that they forgot about John McCain being born "outside" the U.S....-- Seth Peck (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Obama isn't an american. Hes a democrat and a liberal. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I forgot about Ms Albright, and was be deliberately facetious about Ms Romney. CS Miller (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You're forgetting another German American war criminal Nobel Peace Prize winner. --ʤɱ atheist 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't even... What is that post saying? It says there's bad news, but no elaboration. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Global Warming is a lie![edit]

Yep andy, thats why it's 64 where I live. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's their same reasoning, though: "it's hot therefore it's true" is the same as "it's cold therefore it's false."--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I see mocking they're logic went right over thine head--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm jealous, Mikalos. It's only been 7 or 8 degrees above average here in NJ, and it might hit 55 tomorrow. And yes, saying "it's hot therefore it's true" is as dumb as Andy because weather anomalies happen all the time. The part that convinces me that climate change is true, besides all the climatologists and meteorologists who actually know what they're talking about, is that these anomalies are happening so often that they're becoming normal. The craziest thing was that October snowstorm we had here in NJ. That has never happened before, ever, because it shouldn't. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
im just confused by this weather, the average for january is 20, and we've, besides some snow in december, had a very mild winter; after major snowstorms last year--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Christmas 2010 - we stayed with my parents by the sea just south of Colchester. It's brass fucking monkeys and I notice that the line of high tide is marked by ice crystals. Christmas 2011 - we stayed with my parents again and this time it's so warm that I don't need a hat or gloves when I walk their hyperactive looney dog. And I have Reynaud's Syndrome, which means that when I'm cold my fingers are painful as hell. And now here we are, back in NE London and it's still warm. Not that Andy would regard any such second hand account as evidence in any way, shape or form. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
January 1997, I was wearing shorts and rollerblading in northern Colorado. December 2006, I was socked in for four days with three feet of snow in Denver. The lesson? Weather fluctuates over time. It's the long-period moving averages on a global scale that we care about to show climate change is real. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I dispute your temperature measurements, sirrah. Please find enclosed a FOIA request for all methodology, funding, and personal e-mails pertaining to your alleged "research." All of this material must be properly "audited" at McIntyre Labs, Inc. before it will be accepted by the prestigious team of researchers at the Center for Science and Denialist Research. Good day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Right now we're in a La Nina pattern which is causing some warming and less snow. My point is that the snowstorm we had in October should never happen no matter what the current pattern is. Climatologists pointed out that a single event isn't proof of anything, but increased moisture, thanks to steadily warmer oceans, is what leads to messes like these. We have been getting a ton of rain. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
i wouldnt mind a little rain. but i love that it's fall weather in the dead of winter =D. pls i dont have to scrape my cars windows in the morning so i can get to campus and thats always a plus. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct, good Senator! You are no watermelon! La Nina is responsible for these weather patterns. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, along with the sun, explains these "abnormal" periods of warm weather. No "global warming" here. (And anyway, there's no such thing as global temperature, everyone knows that.) Terribly sorry to have bothered you with the FOIA request, I can see now your research is sound and invaluable. Please accept my apologies on behalf of the Center for Science and Denialist Research. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy fights against whatever it is Andy fights against[edit]

Does anyone remember the story where a store clerk shot a robber a few too many times? Andy was all about that shit. Well, now that a kid with a pellet gun was shot three times, Andy seems to have a problem with that.img I'm not sure exactly what his problem is..I'm guessing it's the simple fact that it happened at school. Just outside the parking lot, I'm sure Andy would have told us all about how the kid deserved to eat lead. For the record, I would have shot the kid more than once, too. Anyway, does anyone remember the robbery I'm talking about? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Because PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE EVIL! and i remember it a little--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the one where the pharmacist was convicted of murder after he incapacitated a robber, went behind his counter, pulled out a shotgun, and shot the robber (who was laying on the floor completely incapacitated) like six times. Anyway, grieving parents are always an issue after their kid gets shot for pointing a gun at police and the cop probably feels awful (unless he's Darth Vader). But he was right, and three shots is actually a little low. If it was an adult they both probably would have emptied their clips. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, three shots is the average. My Uncle is in the Boston Police Department, and he told me cops are required, when forced to pull their guns, to put one in the chest, then one in the head.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
WHATEVER GOD. I just hear about people getting shot like 7 or 8 times. Must be a Newark, NJ thing. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And it's slightly awkward that, with this piece warranting main-page attention, CP's front page features a handgun and KenDoll making jokes about firearms... Ironclad (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not any more! Kendoll pulled it. No doubt after seeing your tip-off. Looks like atheists win again! ONE / TALK 09:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll makes me laugh for once![edit]

In his latest excretaimg he uses Edward Current's little catchphrase "Checkmate, atheists!" which made me giggle. By the way, Kenny Baby, our superior atheist intellects allow us to realise "payed" isn't a real word. Just a heads up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop oppressing in free speech and the development of english you freedom hating atheists! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Three questions and three remarks after that title: (1) How old is atheism? (2) How old is Christianity? (3) How old is evangelicalism? (4) The European debt crisis (that came about from the fact that our states had to buy out our banks out that invested in your shitty market) has nothing to do with evolution. (5) Stalin's femines was caused by a giant war - also known as WW2. Mao's by utter mismanagement brought by people that had no fucking clue what so ever about economics, but only knew war. If there are teachings in the bible about about supply and demand dynamics and monetary politics you have a different bible than I once had. (6) Communists were skeptical of evolution, because they believed that it caused social darwinism. Ken, you are only as stupid as an orthodox communist. --ʤɱ constructivist 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"Last time I checked Darwinism is over 150 years old and Henry Morris's creation science movement is around 50 years old." followed by "By the way atheists, newer is not necessarily truer". I love this guy sometimes.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalin was able to produce famines without the help of Hitler: wp:Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union. larronsicut fur in nocte 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Read that as Edward Cullen. Swear to God. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Olé! Olé! Olé! ? Ken has turned into a parody of himself. --Spud (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that possible? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet more evidence that KenDoll is a masturbating child. He can't even spell properly by the way ('dire straights'? Oh please Ken buy a fucking dictionary!), and his idea of what constitutes Bronze Age is equally naff. Ken, the Bronze age ended in the Near East around 1200BC, about 200 years before David (if he even existed, which is iffy based on the archaeology). Standard stuff about Stalin (who trained to be a priest) and Mao (who was an idiot), yadda yadda yadda. I shall now pause to vomit. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, kings teaching the value of 'hard work and thrift', WTF do they know? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 10:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
IIRC didn't Solomon have 700 wives, 300 concubines and descend into worshipping other gods? Hey Ken great example! Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, after becoming the wisest man ever thanks to a wish god gave him.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's this sort of crap (plus the stuff they dredge up about abortion) that makes me wonder why CP isn't subjected to more "anonymous" DDoS attacks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand DDoS attacks, but why should any of this provoke such a response? (That's "should" in either the normative or probabilistic senses.) Phiwum (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He uses the Stalin was a darwinist line. it should be fun that someone with a CP account makes an article on Lyssenkoism. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Additional laffs[edit]

Ken (trolling Andy's "writing tips" talk page): Look at me! Look at me! Meeeee!! Use pictures in your copy! Pictures speak a 1,000 words!img
Andy: note that images are typically not as educational or informative as mere words.img --PsyGremlinFale! 10:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

lol, his example is the Bible. SMACKDOWN. Expect Ken to burn the page and all its history post-haste. ONE / TALK 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What's he talking about? The brick testament has awesome pictures. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed once again forgets where he is[edit]

Ed: "Not enough votes for deletion."img

News flash, Ed: Conservapedia has no AfD process! Nobody will vote on a deletion because your buddies made it very clear early on that Wikipedia's AfD process is MOB RULE and that it's much better if the admins alone decide what goes and what stays.

Oh, and as a bonus, the guy who made the nomination is (surprise, surprise) banned by now, so Ed's "how about making a general article to refer to this one" will end just like any other article Ed touches. --Sid (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was created by Ed Poor. No doubt, if it did get a plurality of votes for deletion, Ed would simply wave his magic wand (no not that one) and everything would be all better again. And every dissenter banned. ONE / TALK 12:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That was an Ed Poor contribution? Wow. There's so much text there! Did he plagiarize it? Or was he once capable of actually writing several paragraphs for a single article? Phiwum (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
He likely plagiarized it. This is when he last worked on it. All those red links and the fact that Ed can't write anything longer than (what we would be generous to call) a paragraph suggest he pulled it out of Wikipedia or Citizendium. --User:Brxbrx/sig 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, the article is an almost exact copy of Wikipedia's article of the time. The only differences are:
  • The deletion of from "Pro Audio Review" from a section heading
  • The replacement of * from Zoom with Zoom's *
  • A spelling correction
  • A spelling incorrection (kHz to KHz)
Well done Ed, well done. ONE / TALK 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed was the only contributor to the article on the wp:Zoom H4 Handy Recorder at wikipedia until Mar 4, 2007. He seem to have copied his last version. And he has every right to be proud of this achievement, as the H4 Handy Recorder was the foundation to his enormous wealth:

It's definitely handy to have one of these. I made enough money doing voice overs with it to pay for it several times over. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

larronsicut fur in nocte 14:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Oh come on now, be fair. Ed wrote the WP article up until 27 February 2007 and contributed the same photo to CP as WP. Now he may have gathered some of the info from advertising or an instruction manual but this is not an instance of plagiarism from WP. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You're both right, I didn't bother checking to see if he contributed anything to the WP article. Well done Ed, well done (sarcasm revoked this time). ONE / TALK 14:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well good for Ed. He did something productive--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I love the line The H4 is smaller than a pencil.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This section makes me think it would be useful to have a little app that would run a comparison between CP and WP. Whenever you open an article in one or the other, it will open the corresponding article on the other site as well. They could display side-by-side. Of course, the dearth of CP articles might not make it too useful. -Lardashe
And it would be completely useless once CP inevitably becomes Kenapedia. I don't think WP has an article on, say, 'Atheism and genital warts'. Vulpius (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hush, give him time! He's probably going to get around to it after writing about Atheism and projectile vomiting. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a nice pic...[edit]

monthly edits at CP

... if I may say so! It shows that - in number of edits - the year 2011 was better than 2010, but that the absolute count is inflated by reversion and deletions. larronsicut fur in nocte 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that mainspace only? How does the graph change when you remove all trace of Ken's existence? ONE / TALK 14:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
LArron, I have no idea how you do these graphs but they're amazing. Scream!! (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoopee do, my turn to pet RonLar. Now if only AugustO can get Aschlafly to reveal his unique visitor numbers. -- (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Tell ya what patt, your head is farther up andy's ass, why don't YOU get him to reveal the numbers.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


articles at CP

This picture gives some information on the action which happened in mainspace in 2011.

@Scream!!: Thanks - I'm always glad if my little pics are enjoyed!

@ As I wrote above, August won't have any luck with his inquiries; Andy won't divulge the numbers, as they are embarrassingly small.

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting piechart, I would be interested in seeing a similar one for us, if it is not too much trouble, :-) please. Pimobile (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely amazing charts as always Larron. Great info - really good job. :-) Refugeetalk page 19:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are they proud of this?[edit]

Attention whore crashes your event and you put her front and centreimg? Aren't you ashamed of your party yet? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

She wasn't invited?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Both invited and paid handsomely. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Dosn't mean shes not an attention whore.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Feels almost like he's describing a rock concert there. Although I do love me some CPAC, but it's more like a carnival than a rock concert. Step right up, step right up! Meet a real live neo-Confederate! Step right up! Egg a climate scientist, literally! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, given that Palin has proven herself to be a quitter at everything she does, not to mention being dumber than Bachmann, I'm surprised the GOP hang onto her. I wonder whose campaign she'll give the kiss of death to by supporting? Then hopefully she'll crawl back under her rock with Bachmann. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You should apologize to Minnesota for calling them a rock. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Palin is one of the most irritating politicians one could think of. Normally political careers end with giant scandals, her's was started by one. And still, after having shown that she would abuse office for her own goals, there's a large enough group that would vote her into the highest office in the country and one of the most powerful positions in the world. Only in America and fucked up third world countries… --ʤɱ pervert 12:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A few European countries come to mind as well, actually. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And within the EU at thatAMassiveGay (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm, which? And I mean clearly illegal, not just so shady you hardly see it. --ʤɱ secularist 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? How about politicians who actually made it to the top, like Berlosconi, Haughey or Chirac? And those are only better-known examples. There's also a list as long as my arm of less senior politicians and fuctionaries from parliaments and EU institutions who have been tried and convicted of all sorts crimes. Seriously, there's plenty over here to be getting along with. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm, I wasn't saying Europe's politicians have white vests, I meant they don't get reelected after it goes public [that often]. Berlusconi I completely blacked out, but you are right. --ʤɱ federalist 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, they don't that often in the US either. It's probably safe to say that US politicians are under closer scrutiny than most European politicians especially those further south and east. What is likely to be more variable are the reactions of local law enforcement, courts and the electorate itself, even within coutries. And of course, as in the case of Berlusconi, the politicians' personalities can make a huge difference. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Both invited and paid handsomely." Apparently, CPAC doesn't pay speakers. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 17:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because fact-picking is much easier than fact-facing[edit]

Yes, grammar nazis, I made those two words up. Sue me.

Ken arguesimg, once again, with a single factoid, then claiming to be wise-ass:

German factory orders drop in the most in nearly 3 years. "The European recession will be extremely harsh and Germany will not escape."[3] The liberals at UK's Guardian are whining because Germany does not want to bailout the profligate European nations more.[4] See also: Secular Europe should have listened to King Solomon

That quote he delievered has to be were he stoped reading:

Bloomberg: Unemployment at a two-decade low is helping to bolster consumer sentiment, service industries expanded in December and business confidence unexpectedly rose for a second month.
Mish: German unemployment at a two-decade low has temporarily helped boost consumer sentiment. In addition, service industries expanded in December and business confidence unexpectedly rose for a second month. However, do not expect those conditions to last to last. Any notion that Germany will escape a a brutal European recession is complete silliness. Indeed, Germany and the entire Eurozone is already in a recession. Conditions will worsen as tax hikes and austerity measures take an enormous toll. Fundamentally, hiking taxes in the midst of a recession is the worst possible thing to do, yet various officials, including Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France are clamoring for still more tax hikes.

So, he isn't just simply getting it wrong, he is actually not telling the reader the whole truth, the truth that the hard-working lazy German socialists actually have better economy than the good ol' United States of god-fearing Capitalists. Way to go!

But not only Ken is ignoring important facts here. While Mish is right that normally tax hiking is the worst you can do during a recession, there's one important exception: If the people, the subjects that drive ecomomies, have the feeling that the rich don't do enough, they will believe that their society/economy has just gotten abit fairer. And if you believe that the economy you are in is fair, you will work more. Which seems to be the case in Germany, as in the latest polls a projected 58% would vote for socialist parties (SPD, Greens, Linke, Pirates) while the only "free-market" party the FDP would not, with 2%, get a single seat and the conservatives would only get 35%. Using the American right-wing definition of socialists (people that think the state can do good things) the numbers become much simplier: Socialists: 100%, Conservatives: 0%.

But wait, the steak with Ken-confussion-sauce isn't eaten yet, there still that Guardian article. That article is about the background which drives German's conservatives not to give problem countries more money, that background is called ordoliberalism:

Although ordoliberalism is little known elsewhere, it is hugely influential in Germany, particularly on the centre-right. It is seen as the basis for the post-war "social market economy" and the "economic miracle" it created in the Federal Republic in the 1950s. Merkel's economic advisers are deeply influenced by ordoliberal ideas – particularly on the role of the European Central Bank. To them, the role of a central bank is above all to maintain price stability – and thus promote growth only indirectly – rather than intervening to expand the money supply as the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have done in the past few years.
—boldly bolded by myself

Wikipedia nails it down even more beautifully:

Ordoliberal ideals (with modifications) drove the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder. In the beginning, many Ordoliberals called themselves Neoliberals (“new Liberals”) to separate themselves from old school classical liberalism. However, ordoliberals promoted the concept of the social market economy, and this concept promotes a strong role for the state with respect to the market, which is in many ways different from the ideas who are nowadays connected with the term neoliberalism.
—again: boldly bolded

So what is Ken saying by saying the UK is whinning about it? Ken is, in this instance actually promoting one form of liberalism he himself would call socialism if he'd encounter it in the wild. Yes: Ken, the socialism promoter.

Everybody full? For those who aren't, desert's on the kitchen table. --ʤɱ heretic 15:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I could have saved you a lot of typing: Everything Ken writes is wrong, either because he quote mines (and poorly at that), doesn't understand what he's reading, or just lies outright. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of it was copying. --ʤɱ atheist 16:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh, he's just parroting the media narrative of the profligate socialist PIIGS gnawing at the ankles of wise, frugal capitalist Germany. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
THIS IS SPARTAAAA GEMMAAAANYYYYYY! --ʤɱ sinner 16:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I like how somebody put it very succintly the other day, even if simplistically. He said something like: "The roots of the Euro crisis lie in Germany lending the southern states their trade surplus which in turn fuelled further spending in the south." Ajkgordon (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Or in other words, without economic growth this economic recession would have never happend! And while that is right, it's the wrong kind of right. --ʤɱ soviet 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I need to find more situations to use the phrase "the wrong kind of right". Scarlet A.pngpostate 16:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
UHM, :) Yeah, kinda. Although it does have some merit. Nobody means to say that Germany did this intentionally - it's just natural market forces excacerbated by the major mistakes made at the creation of the euro. The deutchmark was hugely undervalued compared to southern currencies when the euro was launched in '99. Which helped Germany's exports to those countries. Germany ended up with a huge trading surplus which it lent back to those countries so they could buy more of Germany's products. Because there was no exchange market (all one currency) there was no natural way for German exports to rise in price and deter southerners from borrowing and spending. When the shit hit the fan, the only country that could continue to borrow at reasonable rates was Germany - not something it particularly needed to do - while the southern states couldn't borrow to pay off their existing debts, hence the crisis.
Again, over-simplistic but nevertheless a fairly accurate description of one of the root causes of the euro crisis. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
With the other root causes being a debt that was high anyway (through attempts of realizing Keynesian economics and social security meassures), many economies having problem through China's and India's growth and the indispensable bailouts of banks that had invested in the housing bubble that pretty much sums it up. Just the rating agencies put in their to make some panic and drive credit rates up and we've recunstructed ourselves a nice little crisis. The problem is still that the Germans (and other countries) spending in the southern countries really isn't something you can (or should) just outlaw, therefore, while it is true that that was one of the causes, it helps us as much as saying the sky is blue if an meteor is going to hit the earth — just, not at all… --ʤɱ structuralist 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, quite. But the euro critic will always cite this as a structural weakness - that there is no mechanism to replace exchange adjustments between largely independent economies. In a single state that has a single currency the government manages geographic wealth distribution if it feels it's necessary. It can use spending, taxation and interest rates to manage the economy. The eurozone is not a single state so has minimal control over taxation and limited control over spending, while the individual eurozone countries have largely independent economies but no way to manage either the exchange rate with the other eurozone states (because there isn't one) nor interest rates (a useful exchange rate control mechanism).
What this means in the context of the above is that the controls normally available to governments, free-trade zones and central banks are no longer available and so the runaway situation is essentially unmanageable. Even crisis management in the form of bail-outs has been largely ineffective because of our beloved technocrats' eternal delusion that they can control markets. Plus Merkel's and Sarkozy's ill-advised attempt to somehow include a punishment for the City of London, (primarily because they dream of Frankfurt and Paris taking a larger share of the world's financial markets and hate it that London still accounts for some 80% of Europe's financial transactions even though it's not even in the euro), with a critical and urgent restructuring of the eurozone itself. Talk about inopportune... Ajkgordon (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

One of my favourite Andy-isms[edit]

Nothing in the Bible violates logicimg. I remember a few years back when he claimed there is nothing illogical about people rising from the dead. Classic Andy. AceAce For Mod! 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

He's right I suppose in a technical sense. There's nothing illogical about rising from the dead. There's a hell of a lot that's impossible about it though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheists and women[edit]

Well known atheist scientist Hawking says he is confused by woman. Ken is vindicated! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of that trope meme. Flubbertalk to me :D|see my shit 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Excuse the pedantry, but it's a meme if anything. Tropes are for narratives. --ʤɱ structuralist 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
TvTropes ruined my life. Flubbertalk to me :D|see my shit 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The irony being that even in his condition, Hawking's been married twice as often as Ken. PsyGremlinTal! 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
But he's also been divorced twice as often as ken, so it cancels out!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Technically speaking, hasn't he been married infinitely more often than Kendoll? Ole! Ole! Ole! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank goat, pedantry lives! Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I definitely think a big part of Ken's 'atheists are obese/short/hated by women' is psychological projection on his part. Ego (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Really? No ma-cheeze-mo jokes yet? I'm disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it up, Terry[edit]

You can't even hold JPatt's ireimg and he has exactly the right combination of crazy/stupid/suggestible to be perfect Republican scandal machine fodder. This attempt to gin up a scandal is dead. Nobody cared then, nobody cares now. Move on the next faux outrage. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Although Hurlbut posted the MPR link, the article was written by RoseAnn Salanitri, one of Terry's fellow idiots on CNV. Her previous best article was this, which essentially states that the voters of New Jersey are stupid because they had the temerity not to vote for her.
Chuckarse is an idiot but at least he's a coherent idiot. Salanitri's arguments can almost always be boiled down to "People disagree with me, and this must be stopped!". TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but Terry is a right up her sunless orifice and agrees with her. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 08:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody has done something bad.[edit]

CP is gone, and my bookmark takes me to this url: <link removed>. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a malware site. Please don't go there. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Linux rocks my world. One reason why. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like CP has been 301 redirected to a malware page. I wouldn't go there if I were you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this one's just plain weird:

Tried to access CP's Recent Changes, and Firefox just gave me the "I dunno what to do with this file" error. Yeah, blah, whatever, their server hiccuped, so let's just retry until it fixes itself.

After a few repeated attempts, I finally noticed the URL the error message was displaying. Uhhhhhh, what?

I didn't open the link to check what it is because WTF, I kinda doubt that Andy outsourced his AMERICAN (FUCK YEAH) encyclopedia project... to Russia, so I'm kinda on yellow alert there until somebody else maybe has more news. --Sid (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't even go to the main page. Google Chrome gives me a 'No Data Received' error and the address bar is: <link removed>. Weird.-- (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop fucking linking that site. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The culprit came by to tell us about it, maybe. How nice of them, if so. Asshole. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh. I don't believe it. While some troll may take credit, it looks like an automated wordpress exploit for simple criminal gain to me. Not a break in at CP at all, but another site on the same shared host. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it's all fine for me right now. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It completely flipped out my virus scanner and closed my browser. A virus scan didn't pick anything up though....Should I be worried? AceModerator 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrm. That entirely depends. If you don't keep your Java up to date, or disabled, then you might. Acrobat too. Both are pretty common virus vectors. If your antivirus caught it, it's probably OK though. As a future precaution, you might want to disable the Java plugin. Nobody uses that shit for anything other than malware these days. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

wget tells me everything is more or less back to normal at CP, I think. Panic may well be over. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's back again. PeterQuasniki 2012!Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg 01:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not malware. It's just their buggy wiki. The php file they try giving you is a function of MediaWiki. Ask Nx to come in and tell you what's what.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got no idea what you're talking about. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
try MalwareBytes or Superantispyware (or both) just as another check. You need to disable your current virus scanner while you run the other. Hamster (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's what: Bricks, you're an idiot. Shut up. -- Nx / talk 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fucked up[edit]

Is the Arsefly really going to pretend this didn't happen? You'd think the least they'd do is put a notice on the front page that their host got 0wn3d to warn people their computer might have got infected. I mean, Andy's cowardice is usually pretty disgraceful but this seriously is a whole new level of low. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is Andy, he has no idea how to run his own wiki let alone know what the hell just happened. He probably thinks its an RW trick. AceModerator 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if Swabbie got infected again... Vulpius (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is he going to tell jeeves? Nobody that we know of visits there legitimately that isnt in the upper leadership.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there is that I suppose. But still, they at least tell themselves they have genuine non-sysop users who aren't RW members. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
He also might have been having dinner during the 40 minutes that this was an issue and have no idea what happened. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess he didn't have anything to do with either causing the problem or fixing it. If it was something the CP site was running, the host would probably have blanked their site until they upgraded their software. My guess is that the whole shared box got hit at the same time (impressively bad security!) which is why it got fixed so quickly. I suppose it's possible all the sysops missed it. One of the sysops who reads this like JPatt or Kendoll ought to tell Andy though. I'd hope the host sent him an email too. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Attacked again[edit]

Stay away for a while, Dear Reader. It has been compromised anew. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sent Andy an email about this. (He and I actually have a cordial relationship in email.) No reply yet. SamHB (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems up for me. Define 'cordial'. PeterQuasniki 2012!Flag of the United States (Pantone).svg 04:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-alcoholic. -- (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The score of the Lions game was 45-28[edit]

The article Andy linked is wrong (it says 45-26) and somehow Andy got it even more wrong (52-26). Am I missing something? (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is a semi-professional sports reporting site which uses a similar method to the Examiner, unvetted people are asked to write articles and they receive a cut of the advertising revenue. To say that the commentary on the website is utter-bullshit leaves you without words to describe the professional sports commentary on the networks that broadcast it. - π 07:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this before the game ended, and assumed they scored instead of taking the Knee.. Let me change that
—Kristian Winfield
The best of the public at work. - π 07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You are missing nothing other than Andy knows jack about football, and doesn't care about the sport unless it serves as some weird, nonsensical political-religious barb for him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait... so Andy is crowing that the team that mocked St Teapot lost... to another, totally unrelated team? What, did God come down and do some righteous smitin' on behalf of the Saints. Who are from horribly liberal New Orleans?? --PsyGremlinTal! 12:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was watching the game and a bunch of Saints fans were dressed as black and gold bishops, why didn't he cause the Saints to lose for mocking Catholics? - π 12:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see the black and gold saints, but I did see a black and gold Master Chief. Maybe its clear that the team supported by a first person shooter (I.E. Young mass murderers) won. Lets see Andy make THAT insight.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Return of Roger the Dodger[edit]

Doing his annual drop by and tear Andy a new one when it comes to relativityimg post. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive217#Andy Schlafly, two time loser with recall[edit]

(moved from Saloon Bar)

What is RationalWiki's current opinion of such behaviour? Aconite (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not quite sure what exactly you're asking for a comment on here and 2: whatever the issues, I'm sure you'll find that the people on Rationalwiki will have a variety of opinions. Outsside of "critical thought is a good thing," we don't really have AN opinion about anything. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia stuff is best discussed at Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?. NB. It's what is going on at CP, not usually resuming discussions from a year ago. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel
Not so, the issue is only incidentally related to CP. Aconite's beef is purely about the behaviour of editors here and should have been left where it was. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 16:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
If it's not clear: Is the sort of misogyny by RationalWiki members seen in that thread still permissible? Aconite (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is obvious. That said, that discussion is about as much tongue in cheek as your head is up your arse. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. "This conversation should not have been allowed to get beyond the first post regarding Schalfly's sister. Even for Andy - his personal life is out of bounds here. Now I tried to remove this conversation once, but was over-ruled. Hopefully, somebody with sense will agree with me. --Ψ Gremlin講話 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)" Aconite (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Not sure what answer you're looking for, Aconite, but I suggest exploring the site & judging for yourself. We don't have rules about what users can & can't say on talk pages. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Basically, said user took issue with some apparently ugly comments made there that have since been archived. From what I can tell of ensuing discussions, including a complaint on P-Foster's talk page, there was an edit war where Aconite tried to remove the comments and censor the discussion completely without discussion - naturally, this is reverted. Rather than pay attention to the users who were condemning the comments and Foster's recognition that some of them were indeed ugly Aconite then took it as "RATIONAL WIKI IS ENTIRELY SEXIST AND MISOGYNIST" and quit in frustration, hence the userpage. This then cropped up on a blog recently where posting under a different name they tried to claim that RW was infested with sexism. Now, is there any fact I missed out there? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A link to the blog? Or somewhere it was discussed at RW, if it already came up recently? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Found it here, via our "mentions" page. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Though I apologise for the entry there being hasty and too snarky, I do tend to take it personally when someone says "one comment/user = all of RW" Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Aconite clearly has a very good point here about RW being a haven of sexism. After all, he/she only had to go back one year to find a marginally sexist comment by a single user. Can we agree that this infestation has consumed the site to an unprecedented degree, and the only solution is to shut it down for good? DickTurpis (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest a new category of user, the inquisitor. Empowered to pounce on a user at random and question them for hours about their possible racist, misogynist and homophobic views until they crack and confess. Then we can publicly tar and feather them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I defended what that user said. So I guess I'm a sexist mysogonist pig, because I don't think that men should hold back if they think a woman is hot enough to make a compliment. Ok, then. I'll lock myself in the dungeon, somebody get me out of there in a few years. Maybe I'll learn than that women are unsexual beings. --ʤɱ kant 16:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That is misogyny by some definitions. And take a look at some of the earlier version of the Ann Coulter and Jenny McCarthy articles, that was just embarrassing. Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"if they think a woman is hot enough to make a compliment. " Dude, "I'd shag her" is hardly a complement. If you really think it is, perhaps we should go out for a beer one day and work on your pick-up lines. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys? Somebody comes back after a year & wants to pick up a fairly inconsequential discussion exactly where he/she left off, & you're all up for joining in? Let it go already. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"I'd shag her" isn't a pick-up line. But "I'd shag her" is neither negative and if you think it is, you will probably believe that the makers of Sex and the City hate all men (because equally "sexist" things are said nearly episode about men). And I don't have pick-up lines, I have brain. I don't need to prepare something. Also, I don't really go to bars, the smell of alcohol makes me sick. --ʤɱ anti-communist 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You sound like a fun guy to be around. I would definitely shag you. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm straight. --ʤɱ secularist 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You are assuming Weaseloid's gender. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that after clicking "Save page". Well, this is RW, chances Weaseloid is a male are about 9:1. And even if, the "but" would still stand. --ʤɱ heretic 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You're assuming a lot of things. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so "I'd shag her" is certainly a bit crude, and can be interpreted as sexist, but if the real meaning is "She is attractive. Based solely on looks, if she wanted to have sex with me I'f be okay with that," then I hardly think we're anywhere near the "rape culture" demographic, and I'd like to think we can all agree that Aconite is a bit of an alarmist. DickTurpis (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't the comment imply that they'd have to be drunk first? If someone told me that, I doubt I'd feel flattered. Grumblejaws (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. I initially read those as separate things, complimenting Schlafly Beer and (attempting to?) compliment Liza's appearance, not necessarily saying the latter was dependent on the former. I wouldn't call it a compliment either way. The question is whether it's a sexist insult, or a generally harmless comment.
Tell you what. When you can find as many "I would like to know more about her opinion on fiscal policy"/"I'd be interested in her take on Gramsci"/"I'd love to hear what she has to say about Joyce" comments as "I'd shag her" cracks about any attractive woman, then it won't be a sexist insult. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 03:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hardly a fair comparison, especially when the subject of the thread had already turned to physical appearance. It was her uncle who was initially described as "the best looking Schlafly" (no word on his shagibility though). Is that sexist too? DickTurpis (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's about time RW had its own elevatorgate --Brendiggg (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Can I interest you in some sexual intercourse coffee or gum? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@UHM "I'd shag her" is a negative, not to the woman you are speaking about she is not actually involved in this, but it is a negative on you. When I, and most other well adjusted people I am sure, see that they roll their eye and think "wanker (literally)". You come off as a creepy, leery guy and it makes me not want to shake hands with you. It also makes you look like you have the maturity of a teenager. If you want grown ups to take you seriously using such phrases as "I'd shag her" doesn't help. If the woman is question is overly attractive it can be taken as a given that most men and some women would indeed be given pleasure in engaging in sexual intercourse with them and so can go unsaid. - π 07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We might disagree on what is appropriate or not. And, I can tell you that the women I hang out with do not take this as an insult or anything else negative. Now if "I'd shag her" makes me look bad or or not, if it says nothing about the woman (neither positive nor negative) it can neither be sexist nor mysognist. I do have one question though, would you feel the same way about a woman that says "I'd shag him/ride him hard/etc"? --ʤɱ pervert 12:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard a woman say either of those in that sort of context. I have heard women say "stay away from her she's mine" (mostly about unobtainable women e.g. Michelle Yeoh in her time), as well as numerous references to people being "on the list" and I've seen exaggerated thigh rubbing. Trying to think back to what exactly was said about Christian Bale last night... I don't think any women were so crass as to outright say "I would have sex with him" but it was very strongly implied. Is that somehow better? Why? Presumably Christian Bale would also like to be respected as an actor, rather than seen as an fantasy sexual conquest? In any case, I wouldn't regard any of the women I'm thinking of as having stepped over some imaginary misandrist line. They can speak to me as another human being, without constantly bringing up sex, and I'm sure that explicitly referencing their personal sexual preferences and fantasies from time to time serves some sort of social purpose, like reinforcing the value of their preferences as individuals or establishing that pair-bonding is a mutual decision or something. (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't know the women I know, it seems. The "worst" thing I heard yet was "I'd ride him into sundown and back again" about Jensen Ackles. And while that is a bit more poetic, it's still pretty damn vulgar. --ʤɱ structuralist 15:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Pi, I'd agree with you that "I'd shag her" sounds immature and somewhat teenagerish. That's not the question though. I think you sort of hit the nail on the head when you say "if the woman is question is overly attractive it can be taken as a given". Here we're not talking about an overtly attractive woman, and that's the point (I don't find her attractive anyway, but that's just my opinion. I'd say I'm sure she has other great qualities, but she's a Schlafly, so I really can't make that assumption). I see the basic summary of that section of the conversation as being one user comparing her to a rotting corpse (or whatever) and another responding by saying she has at least a minimal amount of attractiveness, in a rather crude and immature way. Sure, it can be construed as a bit sexist, but to say it promotes "rape culture" or it's worth quitting this site over is silly. And I have a little trouble believing that people haven't heard similar sentiments said about men by women. I certainly have. At least I've heard the term "I wouldn't kick him out of bed," which might be slightly more subtle, but has exactly the same overall meaning. Perhaps some of the chicks on this site can give a little insight into what women say about men when they're not around. DickTurpis (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think intent is everything and sometimes non-PC phrases can be laughed off between those that know each other well. When a stranger turns up and comes across an exchange without knowing anything about the contributors then I can see why they might get the wrong impression. That said, "I'd shag her" is certainly a bit uncouth and can actually be what is known as a back-handed compliment. As for women lusting after men then I've heard "I want to have his babies" and what is to be made of all those women who throw their knickers (panties) at the likes of Tom Jones? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well said. Though I'd like to add that having been to a Tom Jones concert I can assure you the panties throwing thing is one of the least sexual things you're likely to see. It's very regimented and completely non-spontaneous. I wished I had a 3-pack of boxers with me I could have tossed up there, as it would have been about the same thing. DickTurpis (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)