Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive275

This is an archive page, last updated 27 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>, <273>, <274>, <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)

Fucking spellcheckers. How do they work?

Knowing how Andy (and Ken) like to disparage other editors over spelling mistakes and tell them to use Firefox, I like how it took one of CP's least literate sysops to correct Andy's misspelling of heroes^img. Also, after Ken berated someone on the QE talk page about their spelling he still managed to come up with diagnosises^img on his very next edit. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Integrity has never really been their strong point... ^{ONE / TALK} 12:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy knows that Firefox mocks the Bible (specifically The Book of The Revelations of St. John the Divine). CS Miller (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC pointing out Andy's bad grammar/spelling used to be a blockable offense, although that was probably just TK trolling his nipples off. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Real Problem With Media Today? The Audience

Interesting article at Huffington Post. Conseravapedia gets an honorific mention:

“”Even Fox News isn't a safe enough haven for some lunatics on the right side of the aisle. One "Christian" felt so threatened by Wikipedia's arrangement of fact that he had to develop his own Conservapedia. When he eventually realized that the Bible didn't agree with him any more than science, history or the arts, he decided to re-write that, too. I imagine this man does a lot of angry crying. I also imagine that somewhere a teacher is reading a paper that cites a Conservapedia article, sighing and thinking it's just not worth the fight with the parents.

Sad, but true. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that outside of Andy's poor, abused home-scholars, who probably don't know better, nobody is citing CP as a source. Unless it's for articles such as this one. Methinks that quote can be put to good use. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Time until Andy goes apoplectic: 2 hours. Time until he starts denying the existence of that site: 2.02 hours. Time until he starts crying: 2.03 hours. Time until he stops crying: Uncertain. -- 17:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Starts crying? that would imply he has stopped crying since his political career crashed and burned in 92 along with $84 thousand of his inheritance and forever lost the love of his dear sweet mother. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of bolding the best line in that quote. The final line of the article is pretty poignant: "After all, if you're convinced the facts are working for the 'other team,' the other team is reality." -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy is busy enough with his SOPA crusade that he can safely ignore an article from a source in his liberal claptrap pile. It's hilarious, he's trying to pin the entire damn mess on Harry Reid and Hollywood, even though the House bill was introduced by a Republican. He didn't even want to mention the guys damn name, Lamar Smith R-TX, unless he could insert another line about "liberal deceit" in how Harry Reid named the bill.Tesformes (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2012b (UTC)

Its a primal reaction of one such as Andy who believes that the bill is indeed a threat, yet can do nothing but impotently scream that it was the fault of those he resents, and final validation of the fact that he REALLY believes his own propaganda. If the bill can theoretically be used unduly to remove dissenting content from the internet by government, in andy's mind it is a conspiracy directed at both conservapedia, and him personally as he somehow constitutes one of the left wing's most feared and influential enemies, in a true synthesis of persecution complex, superiority complex, and all of his bitter, bitter resentment. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed at WP

"People: Stop making shitty stubs Ed's response? "The lifeblood of wikipedia is stubs!" --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They really ought to ban him. He's incorrigible. This is exactly why he won the Conservapedia's Biggest Idiot Emeritus award, he really doesn't understand how much work he makes for everyone else. At least in the CP ghetto nobody cares when he fucks the place up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed's usual mechanism to cope with such hard times is to share his misery with the editors at Conservapedia: we can expect quite a few amusing blocks and requests for writing-plans in near future, while Ed tries to bully up his mood...larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I empathize with Ed -- he's just trying to help out, but he's too stupid to see that he's just being a dumbass, which is how I act a lot of the time. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that Fallacy. Ed proudly proclaims his wiki-fu like a damned maestro. His dumbasstry is legend, you my friend could never scale his heights of stupidity. Ace^Moderator 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't stalk the sysops at Conservapedia, so I wouldn't know. He does seem to me to be the most sincere out of them. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

hes as bad and hypocritical as the rest. Now im trying to remember the link i posted a while ago about how Ed deleted the delete page on wikipedia or something along that line of page. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_stocks#Ed_Poor_for_the_boldness_award ? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 07:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

yah. knew ut was some title like that. danke--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember when that happened, though it was long before I knew who Ed was. As I recall about half a dozen people on some talk page were bitching about the deletion process at WP, so Ed decided to Be Bold and delete it, after which he took his usual idiot grin strategy, basically saying that he found a page that had widespread disapproval and decided there was a consensus to get rid of it, so he did. How could anyone blame him for that? Every few years he gets re-nominated for adminship over there, which is always amusing to watch. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Among the many(!) "Dear Ed, your shit is gonna get nuked" notifications, I found this^img article, which really showcases the conflict between Ed "make article by throwing in random quotes about random subject and wait for others to do all the heavy lifting" Poor and the rest of Wikipedia. *le sigh* --Sid (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would love to know what proportion of Ed's stubs have been deleted over at wikipedia, and how that proportion has changed over time. *looks pointedly at larron, with puppy eyes* ^{ONE / TALK} 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry, I can't help: once a page is deleted at WP, I have no possibility to see the history - and especially not who made the first edit, i.e., who created the article. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a damn shame. What about scouring Ed's talk page (and its archives) for article deletion notices? Or is that too complicated for a script to do? ^{ONE / TALK} 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming he has a WP account, we could try to get larron to be a WP sysop. That would do it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the list of Ed's deleted articles on Wikipedia, sorted by creation date and including edit summaries. It includes about a hundred redirects left over from pagemoves, so you'll want to exclude those if you're doing any statistical analysis. --173.254.192.35 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How'd you get that? Are you our inside man? ;) ^{ONE / TALK} 11:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

BoN is a Tor IP so draw your own conclusions. Thanks anyway. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that being the most sincere sysop at conservapedia is like being the blackest member at the country club? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't this[[1]] stupid crap get deleted from Wikipedia? Now its in a new home, safe in the bowels of Andy's bowels. I guess that's one more difference between CP and WP: CP is perfectly ok with being a dumping ground for Ed's shit.Tesformes (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed's WTFery

From BoN's list of EdStubs I see the following at #389:

2007-08-09T03:33:38Z Kyoto Treat -- ←Created page with 'The Kyoto Treat is a small Philippino sugary pasta first invented in Kyoto, Philippines way back in AD 734. The treat was first introduced to Europe by Muslim trade...'

Is this an example of Ed making joke articles (Kyoto Treat rather than Kyoto Treaty) at WP? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But goddess help you if you do that on CP. A writing plan will be demanded. Just before you're taken round back and shot. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick pic

deleted/created articles by year

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a first?

CP and RW are in general agreement on a major political issue.^img (Ken isn't wild about SOPA, either.) MDB (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even Jpratt seems to be against it,^img although that's probably because of his "Ug! Obama Bad! Me have banana now!" mentality (with apologies to monkeys everywhere) --PsyGremlinParla! 15:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised the rabid right are railing against it. I'd have thought they'd lap it up with fevered excitement. Even if they haven't read the bill and know nothing about what it does, they'd at least have heard that it is being opposed by such bastions of Liberalism as Liberal google, Liberal wikipedia and Liberal facebook. If it's pissing off liberals, that makes it Wholly Good & Conservative in their minds. So what's up? (Although it#s worth noting that Andy doesn't seem to have expressed opinion yet.... CP waits with bated breath for Dear Leader to speak) ^{ONE / TALK} 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I can't wait for SOPA and PIPA to be tarred as liberal legislature by CP. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is the second time in a month that CP and RW have agreed. Karajou recently posted on MPR about the indefinite detention clause in the DOD bill. Of course, he put the blame squarely in liberals. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I really thought they'd love the idea of it. They'd be able to shut down RW without much effort. -Lardashe

You're not giving them enough credit for being insane. The government will attack CP because of the liberal deceit they expose. Obama is champing at the bit, just waiting to pull the plug on sites who spurn the lamescreed media and choose cover the real issues. Andy, JPatt and Terry should all bask in this healthy paranoia. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mixing conservatives with Conservapedia. CP is not an accurate representation of conservative thought, it's instead just some bizarre stick shooting off of the religious extremist branch.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you people kidding me? Of course they are against it — who's the goddamn President? Obama can't do anything right! The dude could give every CP admin a medal of honor for their "brave" fighting against liberals and they'd whine about the medal being to expensive. Fuck, Obama could commit suicide with a gun from the Secret Service and they'd be pissed that the bullet would be government funded! Jesus, for crying out loud… These people do not have ideals, they have loyalties. That's what CP is all about. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, now that Obama's come out against it, it'll be interesting to see if they flip flop. It would also be interesting to know if Kenny only opposes it because it might impede his access to unamusing pictures of dogs and matadors for his essays. -- 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of copyright infringement at CP you can bet darn well that they're against it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It all leads to bestiality in the military.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout and NPOV

And they were doing so well. Anything to take a shot at Wikipedia, I guess.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

users: He is CO0MPLETLY wrong about the blackout^img. Andy: "Hm... i actually am not that sure about the situation." --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I do find "the content will be more neutral than it has ever been when it is all blank" amusing. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news, Mr. Launchbooty say's his site "will join the blackout". So 7 or 8 people will need to go elsewhere for their daily dose of birtherism. Also, SOPA is all Obama's fault. Not the fault of the Republican controlled house it came from.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it obama's fault when 1) he is against it, and 2) the bill was proposed (in both houses) by republicans and the repblicans are a majority vote??????GodotDear god, fucking grow up 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The president is the poster boy of the US government, therefor, all happenings are his fault, no matter what. This is standard US thought--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The bill has bipartisan support. And you know what that means: RINOs. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!}

I will give Terry credit, he actually followed through on his pronouncement and joined the protest, good for him (+1 for Terry). However in true Conservapedia fashion, he turned the whole SOPA issue into a "blame Obama" game; he just can't seem to take the blinders off, even for this one time we would likely back his stand 100%, so -1 for Terry and he is back to being a zero. Also I see you are going with Launchbooty; that name makes me snicker every time I read it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bill is a thinly-disguised attempt to SHUT DOWN CONSERVAPEDIA^img P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 01:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give Launchbooty credit, 2 posts, No mention of "Obama NOT being president."--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of me now kinda hopes that SOPA does pass and Obama makes a point to specifically and publicly use the powers SOPA grants to shut down Conservapedia, just so I can see if I have the force-like ability to sense the amazing mix of rage, vindication and egotism that'd come from the CP sysops from afar. X Stickman (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, I hope it reaches his desk, and Obama publicly VETOS it. Then Conservapedia would be forced to swollow their pride and acknowledge Obama did good. That would cause them to be physically ill.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama vetoing SOPA only proves he is ANTI-business and wants to drive capitalism INTO THE GROUND--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos is right; they won't acknowledge Obama did the right thing, they'll just flip-flop their stance.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's hard to acknowledge that Obama did something right, when your definition of wrong is "what Obama and other liberals do". --Maquissar (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Internet Activism or Bad precedent?"

Andy: "You decide on our talk page!^img Terry than adds My conservative website is joining!^img but terry, God Andy himself is asking people if it's a bad thing to do the protest! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor Terry, just after he announced that his site was joining the protests, Andy criticizes Wikipedia for punishing its users by darkening its pages.--Tlaloc (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What a bizzare MPR entry. I've been sitting here trying to comment. I... I just don't know where to begin. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What planet is Andy on?

“”When Wikipedia's liberal heroes Hollywood, Harry Reid and Barack Obama support controlling the internet with SOPA, does Wikipedia criticize them? No, instead Wikipedia punishes internet users by darkening its pages.

I know Andypants just has to twist everything to suit his bizarre worldview, but seeing WP's blanking of its pages as support for Obama and SOPA takes his crazy to whole new levels. --PsyGremlinFale! 10:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't claimed that Wikipedia's blackout has resulted in users flocking to CP in droves, all craving that sweet sweet encyclopedic information that CP does so well to provide. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't SOPA pass the House with all Republicans voting for it? Are all those Republicans RINOs now? --★uːʤɱ federalist 12:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA is still in committee. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You people understood that jumbled up word salad? All I got was "SOPA bad, WIKIPEDIA bad, BARACK OBAMA bad."--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of fun. Andy starts out angry and then we get to watch him figure out why. Right now he doesn't understand the difference between SOPA and PIPA. It's going to be fun to watch him dance around the fact that the Obama administration isn't exactly supportive of this legislation (another thing I don't think Andy has discovered yet). Occasionaluse (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This may be Irrelevant but did anyone else notice him personalize "Hollywood" as a singular "liberal hero"? does he really, honestly envisage any loose institution as being sentient and full of malice for conservatism as defined and personalized by him and conservapedia (which would also explain his crowing over apparently falling tv viewings which he desperately insists means people are flocking to his blog)? is this another sign of his growing bugfuckery insane mental state? Seriously he is becoming disturbingly like the time cube guy with every passing day Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy comes out in favour of piracy

Damn Hollywood and those record labels!^img Clearly Andy is a big fan of The Pirate Bay and Soulseek. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to him (argh), he has always claimed that hollywood and the media in general is liberal as hell. SOPA (and other such things) is being pushed hugely by media organisations like the RIAA and MPAA and such, so it's fairly consistent for him to claim both SOPA is liberal and bad and the organisations pushing it are. The idea itself is very conservative (they are in effect trying to do the... damn it I wanted to link to wikipedia but I forgot. Remember that thing where there was a court case about Betamax? With some media companies claiming it would destroy cinema and such? This new crusade against piracy is basically that, again, because they want their current business models to reign supreme and not have to bother doing new stuff) in a technical "keep shit how it is" sense, but whether it's conservative or liberal in a political sense I'm not sure. I'd argue since the primary goal behind it is to protect corporate interests it's fairly conservative but I'm terrible at categorising shit like this. X Stickman (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy is a Harvard educated lawyer... sorry, his mummy bought him a law degree from Havard. If he's too stupid (or lazy) to actually understand what the bill is about, but rather hang it on his usual "liberals bad" meme, Harvard should ask for their degree back. Now wonder a couple of state SCs have facepalmed at him. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

MPAA and RIAA are people too, and they're job creators at that. There's nothing liberal about what they're doing by protecting their intellectual property. What Andy disagrees with here, I can't imagine...but I'm guessing it's "Obama". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republican who introduced SOPA

Rich, liberal, RINO^img. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 15:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That article led me to this one. Fucking lol. The foaming hatred just oozes out of that first section like the pus from a putrid abscess. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not the "Republicanic Party," or the "Libertarianic Party". No, because "Republican" and "Libertarian" are already adjectives, you moronical morons. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Off sopa a bit but "Propper nouns are not turned into adjectives by adding an 'ic' - RepublicanIC" or Libertarianic (no comment that neither republican nor libertarian are techinically nouns...). Sp how do you turn a democrat into an adjective? "al" (like technological?) - democratical? or maybe "ive" like administrative - Democrative?... sighs. i hate these people. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)(ec)

Oceanic, Magellanic, tannic, Hispanic, atmospheric, terrific? Yup, Andy, not one is an adjective. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, they just came right out and punched good grammar in the mouth with that one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

He did say "proper nouns", so Magellanic and perhaps Hispanic count, but not the others. In any case, Andy seems to think that the term "Democrat" came first and "Democrat(ic) party" is derived from it. I would've thought that "Democratic party" came first, with "Democrat" the derivative term. To be sure, I'm guessing here. Phiwum (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, I'll substitute Arabic, Germanic, Titanic and Olympic if I may. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess "Aaronic" and "Mosaic" are banned from the Conservative Bible too. Commies use the Cyril script for their devil worship. I like where he's going with this. --Whoover (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I suck at word puzzles. I thought about counterexamples involving proper nouns for some time and came up empty. You two make it look so damned easy. Phiwum (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That rich, liberal, RINO votes with his party 94.64% of the time. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This filthy, rich, liberal, RINO also is a staunch opponent of abortion (given 100 points by the National Right to Life Committee), Homosexuality, drug legalization, and raising taxes, and possesses a noted 90-100% rating on christian and conservative rankings. To any living, breathing, thinking, sane, and vaguely conscious life-form this would be an indicator of a conservative, but as in the case of known abortion supporter Sloshy Santorum, when you either disagree with andy or are responsible for something bad, you are and forever will be an evil, evil LIEberal.... until our lord, savior, redeemer and educator Andy says otherwise. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Woah! Not so fast there, cowboy. I have uncovered proof positive that Lamar Smith in a dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, commie, pinko. Behold his statement on the environment! "Climate change", "renewable energy", "hybrid vehicle research". This guy's a hairsbreadth away from being indicted on treason charges for unamerican activity. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The guy's district includes Austin. By Texas standards Austin might as well be Havana or Pyongyang. My hippie niece lives there. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And he's in violation of his own bill. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberal/conservative support/opposition

To further analyze the level of support and opposition along the political spectrum I've started throwing together this thing. So far it seems pretty bipartisan, in opposition as well as support. Feel free to edit it, anyone. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy is opposed to SOPA. Nancy Palosi is opposed to SOPA. Listen closely and you can actually hear Andys skin crawl...--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonus lulz: until just a few hours ago, Andy's mancrush Marco Rubio supported SOPA. lol... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Flipflopper! -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we can throw one more in the anti camp. My liberal pinko representative just released a statement against it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

My House Member (Minority Whip Steny Hoyer) and one of my Senators (Barbara Mikulski) have not taken a stand on it. My other Senator, Ben Cardin, is a co-sponsor, but his web site indicates he's only remaining a sponsor so he can continue to influence the bill, and will not support it "as currently written." I've asked for clarification from all three. MDB (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Whyt (sic) isn't Wikipedia protesting Hollywood's insistence on SOPA/PIPA?"

Yeah, you read that right.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia went black to censor (itself?), and isn't protesting SOPA/PIPA... and thus Andy is asking why it isn't protesting SOPA/PIPA? FUCK Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood is liberal and now Silicon Valley is conservative?

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that the opposition to SOPA/PIPA are the same websites that Andy decries as liberal: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. Check out their CP articles. Silicon Valley is incredibly liberal, and gives as much money as Hollywood, and likely more, in campaign contributions to Democrats. In order for Andy Logic to work, he has to ignore that this was a bipartisan effort and that both primary sides for/against are huge liberal bases. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy has wanted to co-opt silicon valley for a long time. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What will Conservapedia say about the evolution of multi-cellular yeast?

• Ignore it completely
• "But it is still yeast!"
• "Release the data!"
• "We finally concede evolution is true, we apologize for our stupidity"

^{— Unsigned, by: 201.141.69.43 / talk / contribs}

My guess? "Release the Data" combined with some shoehorned argument about how such a life form still required a creator or something about guided evolution. Still curious about the effectiveness in brewing (will Thomas chime in with an opinion?), but probably unanswerable by the original scientists due to small sample sizes. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Take Andy's attention span and subtract SOPA/PIPA, then divide by zero. This will be off his radar. Expect a kenning of "still yeast". Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in how Kendoll will react. Oh shit, we have a definitive answer to one of his 15 questions (it's question 7) and have demonstrated it lab work. Yes, Kendoll, I think that's called a "satisfactory answer." You're down at least one question right now. What excuse will you come up with to pretend that's a question we can't answer? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The last choice. Definitely the last choice. How could they possibly react otherwise? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Andy will go down the "Data!" route again after his raping by Lenski. Ace^Moderator 22:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember, in his head he won that. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

They ain't seen it, so it didn't happen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

After a brief perusal of the various dens of internet creationist crankdom, it appears they are running with the whole "it's just micro-evolution..." argument. Anyway, they've set up a definition of evolution that no experiment could ever satisfy. You're never going to a see cat give birth to a litter of puppies. And even if that event ever occurred, they'd shout "It's a miracle! Praise Jesus!" --Inquisitor (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha yeah. A monkey could evolve right in front of their faces and they'd deny it. Not that that would ever happen. Rapier (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good job you put that little disclaimer at the end there, I was about to launch into an essay-long tirade about how that event couldn't occur. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fucking Ken locked the debate and talk pages for the 15 questions, otherwise I would have posted this story on there and saw if Ken had anything to say. He's probably waiting for people to stop paying attention so he can delete and recreate the page. Tesformes (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see him protecting the old ones (with the "." at the end) from being recreated for whatever reason, but nothing on the new ones. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I liked Ken's nonanswer^img when this was brought up: don't bother to read the reference, hide revisions, generally fail.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the tired old "grade inflation" argument that Andy regularly spews AND ironically practices. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, GUYS, don't worry about it, Rachel's pastor^img has totally got this one on lockdown. Ken's first apology in T-minus 3....2.....Tesformes (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RachelW will get pummelled for not capitalizing the H in "his". -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ken, nice to know you are still obsessed with us here --BoredCPer (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG, did I call this, or did he read what I had to say? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Be afraid... be very afraid

Flingbooty in all his hellish glory. And his own channel. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 05:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He needs to buy a good microphone to use with his camcorder. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While he's at it, he needs to buy some viewers. Only 32 views? Tch, tch. You can get more than that in the first day just by spamming the crap out of your video to your friends. Assuming he has friends, of course. (And I think "Flingbooty" is my favorite nickname of a Conservapedian so far.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

30... well, 31 now, views in a year? Day-um! I uploaded a music video yesterday, and it's already got 56 views... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 05:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my. You're practically the Justin Beiber of RationalWiki :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

...I can barely hear the guy. O______o--Dumpling (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Count your blessings, Dumpy. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

47 views now, and it seems that's mostly because we've linked to it. Other videos on his channel have views in the single digits. One, as of now, has 1 view, which means he probably hasn't even watched it himself. And based on that video of himself he's a creepy-ass motherfucker. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He immediately reminded me of the creepy child rapist/killer guy from The Lovely Bones: http://cutprintreview.com/wp-content/uploads/the_lovely_bones161.jpg

I guess I really didn't need to sleep after all... --Sasayaki (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

THAT'S OKAY. I DIDN'T WANT TO SLEEP WITH MY EYES CLOSED ANYWAY.

The like/dislike bar is completely red, and the only current comment completely blasts Terry. Reality is a cruel, funny mistress. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And the only "As seen on" links to our RC. He looks incredibly shifty as if he's expecting security guards to escort him away at any minute; it doesn't even look like he's using his own camera, more like someone who picks up a camera on the beach when its owner is swimming and takes a picture of his own genitals. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I only caught bits of what he was saying, something about healthcare being unprostitutional. The bits of his voice I could make out reminded me of this. Garçon^coffee! 12:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've avoided saying anything about him, but that video does come across having a really eerie quality. It looks like it could easily come from a found footage horror movie. -Lardashe

The fact that it looks like the camera is stationary (rather than him holding it) because he keeps stepping away from it and moving around without the camera moving makes it weirder, somehow, because the camera's so poorly placed. X Stickman (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's all the liplicking, eyes darting back and forth, and constant shifting/rocking side to side. The Hitler Haircut, pederast glasses, low camera POV, and oddly immobile upper lip certainly don't mitigate the creepy factor. As the father of small children, my first reaction was to wonder 'do you have to pee?', having seen that wiggle dance many, many times before. Turn the sound off and imagine what questions have just been asked in the police interrogation room to elicit such twitchy writhing from the perp.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, nice bit of ad hom. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on, guys. Calling the guy creepy should be beneath you. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

By my understanding an ad-hom is an attempt to discredit someone's claim with an irrelevant fact (or non-fact, as the case may be) about the person. Nobody here is saying "He's creepy, therefore he's wrong about things" - they're just saying "He's creepy, therefore aaaaaaa!!". It's not an ad-hom, it's just a classic, bog-standard insult. Please understand the difference. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you if one of the aims of this site wasn't to discredit everything that he shows on his videos or writes on his blog. Yes, it's an insult. But in the context of this site, it is also ad hom. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with it. Ridiculous people making ridiculous arguments deserve much of what they get. Still... Ajkgordon (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion talk pages on RW are exempt from the usual rules of rational argument, but I can understand why some people may see it differently. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You smell. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure about the ad hom thing. He looks creepy, and his camera work has made it look like you're watching through the eyes of a tied up victim to whom he is delivering a creepy monologue. That's not an ad hom; it's an insult. Or, cynically, an observation. Can't really just ignore that fact, regardless of the context of the site. X Stickman (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While ranting about conspiracy theories he looks exactly like Edward from the League of Gentlemen. This is a local tea party for local people, there's nothing for you here. He also has pretty much the same insane cadences as Glenn Moon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While his eyes creep the living shit out of me, his voice is actual radio material. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 14:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"A face made for radio" is a common observation of other radio personalities... -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

unlike andys. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside all the personal insults and the like, the reason his video is so poorly received is because it is absolute terrible quality. You can barely make out what he says as the background noise simply overwhelms. The lighting is terrible and because of that, the way his shadow is cast over his face by looking down at the camera gives him a gaunt and creepy look. On top of all of this, the video appears to be pointless, a video just saying where he visited for the day and that's it? Why would anyone care? That is why it failed so.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the little stats button next to the view count. Apparently the video is quite popular in Australia. I'm guessing the tiny sample size is responsible for that. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a look (sound off so as not to frighten Mrs. K.) at some of his other videos such as this one, which also has a low camera angle but apparently recorded in his home. Does he not have even some basic video editing software to trim out the bits where he walks to and from the camera? I can now understand why he thought Kippysomature's QE! video was so professional. Lord, I am afflicted by a bald patch. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I used to think he was an ass, but having seen these videos I feel bad for him like how I feel bad for ken :( Senator Harrison (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Eding the living shit out of it

As predicted, after his vicious beating at WP for being dangerously incompetent, he's now back at CP where being dangerously incompetent is a requirement for editing. We're treated to such useful articles as "Man out of the house^img" where he can't even be arsed to fix the wikipedia specific templates, and the classic "Just another species^img". And he's doing it all so people can help him improve them^img. Ed, when has that EVER happened? Has any of your sub stubs ever blossomed in to a full grown article? How can you possibly be so rampantly un-self-aware? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It would work out for him if he would make a little room for people to Edit and discuss, but with the hairtriggered infitiban's at CPthere is no such opportunity to be had. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Going by the first capture there, I think he may have vastly overestimated the number and subject range of the CP articles. -- 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, Answer this or lose all credibility

Yes.^img Really, the whole conversation^img is awesome.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold the phone! Andy still has credibility? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"While the name of the bill is PIPI, it is known as SOPA." Andy is a fucking lawyer. clearly a bad one. but for fuck's sake.... How do you not understand that these are two distinct bills????GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"clearly a bad one"...There's no place for ad hominem here! Can you back that statement up? I mean, look at his argumentative style...er... I mean, look at the way he presents evidence...er...On the other hand, check out the way he's able to convince large quantities of people....you know what? Forget I said anything.. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

By not giving a fuck. Other then delusion that's probably also the reason why he is trying to blame it on the libruls. --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting spammed by Uncle Ed?

He has four of my email addresses in his contacts (because I've emailed him from 4 addresses) and all four have gotten messages lately that sure seem like spam to me. I was really surprised to see something come in to my mailinator account from him, but didn't think that I wanted to see the uploaded file at yonphoto.com or whatever lay in store at the end of the link to dreamxplan.com. All of the spam seems to be routed through Word Press blogs. Thoughts? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How recent is this? It could be related to conservapedia being owned the other day. I have no idea what the malware that site was going to install does, but could well be that it stole all his email contacts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

11 hours ago, from his yahoo account. I permadeleted three of the four, and followed the 4th from my chromebook (which really I have no idea what would happen to it with a virus but it has nothing but a few unimportant internet passwords on it) but nothing ever loaded or downloaded (that I could tell). --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I got something too. Either his account has been hacked, or he's really gone insane. I'm just touched that he kept me as a contact after kicking me off CP all those years ago. Czolgolz (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been spammed several times by J. Martinez. The email headers contained about a third of his address book (showing all the email addresses of CP sysops). I presumed that his PC got hijacked and I let him know about it but he maintained that there was nothing wrong. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, got one from Ed (to me and five or six other addresses), too. No subject, just a link to a page on a "moshomedia" .com domain. Didn't click on it for obvious reasons. --Sid (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed says his yahoo account was hacked. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 09:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet when you read these guys on ZB they all profess to be IT security wizards. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And countdown to blaming liberals/Ames/Trent/Sid/RW as the hijacker in 3...2...1... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Agenda 21." Again.

I see Terry's been sniffin' the glue again. "One possible reason"? I sincerely doubt it. GayGator (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also impressed that he editorially adds "sic" when using a quote referring to "President Obama," as in "President (sic) Obama." Never noticed that before. Ass. GayGator (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, Terry's paranoia falls right in line with that of a more respected and well-known conservative: Phyllis herself. At least, I thought that she was a reasonably respected conservative. With this, she appears rather closer to Glenn Beck than to George Will. Guess the apple didn't fall as far from the tree as I had believed. Phiwum (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Goddamit, Ed Poor is an idiot.

On the 13th of January, the Costa Concordia ran aground. You may remember that, seeing as it's dominated the news ever since. Late in the evening of January 19th, ed decides this is news^img suitable for the "What the Mainstream Media Is Not Telling You" feature. Hey Ed, log on here and tell us when "old news" became just "news." P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 05:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor, yesterday's news tomorrow (with apologies to WKRP). I like the unanswered question in the edit summary. --PsyGremlinTala! 05:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...and apparently has no concept as what it means to be a ship's captain. Say what you want about the captain leaving before everyone else was off, Ed wants to know why "the ship was off course". Um...the ship's course is determined by the captain, or the first mate when the captain is unavailable, not by the cruise line's head office; it is then verified by the navigator, directed by the helmsman, and guided by millions of dollars worth of GPS equipment...maybe it's because they didn't account for relativity? Or maybe the captain was at dinner meeting with honored guests, as they often do during cruises, and someone at the helm messed up? The REAL question is "what happened that caused some people to not make it off the boat?" -- Seth Peck (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it about Ed that he needs to post the coastguard's words? OK, he censors the English translation but posts the actual Italian. It's just like when he posts all that sexual stuff so that he can take a high moral tone about how perverted it is. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You forget, you're looking for consistancy in a man who thinks the word "prostitutes" is too lurid, but happily wikilinks "rimming". --PsyGremlinTal! 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to ask why the ship was off course. While the captain does indeed determine the course, the course was already established both by precedent and within boundaries dictated by the safety of charted waters. As well as being responsible for the evacuation of passengers - a responsibility he appears to have deemed less important than his own safety - he was also responsible for the ship's course and its deviation from it. As this deviation led to the ship striking a rock and its eventual capsize, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why it happened. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing that? At the moment the evidence points to it being some careless act of bravado by the captain followed by panic. The point here is why is this 'breaking news' at CP and what is the point of asking that question in the edit summary. It's almost as if Ed is suggesting that it's part of a liberal, global warming conspiracy. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes. Seth Peck appeared to be, hence my post. Unless I misread what he wrote. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian but the Urban Dictionary tells me that "cazzo" means "dick". So why did Ed censor that as he has used that word himself on CP? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The captain is an Eyetalian, therefore a liberal. A true conservative would never have done that. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cazzo" means "dick" in the same way that "fuck" means "have sex with" - it's very versatile, and can be used for phrases like "fuck off" and "don't give a fuck", even though they don't make sense literally. So this particular use of Cazzo could easily be interpreted as "get the fuck back on the ship", which some media outlets have been using, but the grammar suggests to me something like "get back on the ship, dickhead" or "get back on the ship, for fucksake". ^{ONE / TALK} 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Swearing and profanity vary by culture and time. As a kid I never heard 'fuck', 'cunt' or 'shit' and using 'bloody', 'damn' or 'hell' could get you a clip round the ear. During the recent airings of the Danish series The Killing on the BBC, the subtitles indicated the characters using 'fuck' although the original Danish was much milder when translated. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Captain is Italian". That really does seem to be the elephant in the room, doesn't it? The unspoken-but-you-know-most-people-are-thinking-it "Well, he's Italian. What do you expect?" and "A British/American/whatever captain would never have done that." A bit like many Brits' view that collaboration would not have happened if Britain had been occupied like France in WW2. Their ignorance blinding them to what happened in the Channel Islands. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said the Captain is Italian? I mean, obviously he is, because he speaks Italian, but who said it? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Psy. Up there. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, my search didn't pick up Psy's bastardisation of the spelling :P Ok, fair point. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Seems to me that this suspicion of latent racism says more about you than it says about CP or any other reports of the accident that I've read or heard. An accident occurred. It is a newsworthy and interesting story. The captain happens to be Italian. I sure as heck don't see why this fact suggests hidden stereotypes are a motivation or significant factor in this story. (Maybe I'm naive, but the nationality of the captain really was an insignificant factor in the story. I just don't see it.) It seems to me that the most blatant stereotype going on here is that all conservatives (or CPers) are closet racists. Phiwum (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks it does. And I wasn't referring to CP (although I could have made that clearer). I'm talking more about your stereotypical Daily Mail/Telegraph reading Little Englander or the American equivalent and their stereotypes of Italians and other southern Europeans being cowards. Jeez, lighten up. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I simply don't see any indication of racism in the treatments of the story I've read or heard. I'm no mindreader, so I can't speculate on how readers react to it, unless the reaction is overt. I'm also very reluctant to claim someone is a closet racist unless the evidence is fairly clear. In fact, doing so in this case is a pretty clear form of distasteful stereotyping in my humble opinion. Phiwum (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I think you're being a little naive. A few quick links for you describing the very common prejudice. From the less than excitable Independent, the sober Guardian, and finally from the aforementioned Daily Mail. None claim they agree that the stereotypes are true; but they admit that they are common. And that was simply ten seconds on Google. Pointing out ill-concealed stereotyping is not stereotyping itself. That is where you seem confused. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any headlines like those in U.S. media, but perhaps that has to do with the media I choose. Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read a little more widely before making the accusations above. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're blowing this out of proportion. The original mention of the captain's nationality was as a reason why CP might be linking the story on MPR. From what I read of the news, they are attacking the captain for his actions, not his nationality. Although, there does seem to be a case for not having a captain from a Mediterranean country on board, if your ship is sinking. "When I give the order abandon ship, it doesn't matter what time I leave. Abandon is for everybody. If some people want to stay, they can stay." --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As someone who spends a good deal of time doing lifeboat drills, offshore survival courses and helicopter underwater escape training, the captain, if able, is the last one to depart in an abandonment. In this case there seems to have been a serious dereliction in not getting people to lifeboat stations much earlier. The priority is always to get the most vulnerable and least-trained off first, those with experience and know-how are the last to leave. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To the owner of JamesWilson

Honestly, I expect better. James has done some great, subtle parody in his time, and I know there is a time and place for over-the-top parody of Andy, but this is just ridiculous. Although, I suppose "James" could testing whether or not he's crossed the threshold of immunity. Anyway, tone it down, please. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems par for course with what i've seen from him on Ameriwiki--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pulled a page directly from Andy's strategy, call 'em out based on their name, make declarations of opinion and tout them as fact through and through. Bit over the top, but yes, right on par for the course. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

James is falling the Jpatt and Ken bracket of "far too busy to be a parodist." --PsyGremlinFale! 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You think he might be genuine? If so then he's pulling a very good Poe. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ameriwiki makes me think he's genuine. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At least Jimmy hasn't mentioned libertarians or Taylor Swift...yet.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy really conservative?

I wonder if Andy might be losing interest in hard-core, lunatic-fringe, freak-show conservative politics? He hasn't contributed a huge amount to CP lately. Just looking at the last 500 edits, very few are by him and almost all of those are about SOPA/PIPA, on which subject he agrees with his old mate Barry O'Barmy. Could Andy possibly be becoming a liberal or at least a moderate? Just a thought. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy being a liberal would mean the universe would die--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Just a thought." A remarkably stupid one. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's not a conservative; Andy's an anti-liberal. He looks at what liberals believe and selects the opposite position. If Obama endorsed puppy dogs today, Andy would immediately go out and buy a cat. MDB (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It works the other way, too. If Andy gets an opinion on something, he automatically assumes liberals are against it, like with the recent SOPA thing. He assumes Obama is secretly supportive of SOPA even though Obama directly came out and said he was against it, and assumes anyone who is actually against (like Lamar Smith) is secretly a liberal. He lives in a fantasy world where Liberals have a set of beliefs and Conservatives have another, directly opposed, set of beliefs and the two groups never overlap in their positions. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's more chance of us finding a video of Ken banging Andy on the steps of the Kennedy memorial, at noon, on payday, than of Andy being a liberal. Even a deep cover liberal. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that if and when Obama vetoes SOPA/PIPA, on CP we'll have republicans to thank...somehow. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No no, he will veto cause he needs to show how conservitive he can be to get re-elected, you see. It's just a ploy for election. (or something) --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, my first thought was "Oh please no. I don't want to be in the same camp as Andy". Then I remembered (a) that won't happen and (b) I'm not a liberal. I feel dirty right now… --★uːʤɱ kant 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't agree with Andy then you are a liberal. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I was refering to the real world. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

He's probably just losing interest in CP. Can't really blame him. Even he must be starting to realise what a failure it is. X Stickman (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

He's prepping for a Cabinet slot in the Gingrich administration. MDB (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait... if snow disproves global warming...

...what does 59F (15C) in January tell you?^img To go to March for Life, of course! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly God showing his support for the March for Life! Barikada (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I give up, what's "overflowing demand"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What happens when your toilet is backed up I guess. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, they've been at this march for life business for 40 years now, through Republican and Democrat controlled governments and they still haven't achieved a damn thing. Wouldn't you think at some point they'd try something else? By this point everyone must be thinking, "oh it's January again. I guess it's wingnut migration season." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

They are conservatives, you know, they like traditions. --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Holding series of large protests over a term of years in the hope of effecting legal change is not exactly unique to right-wingers. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt's crusade against anti-gun laws gets weirder

What exactly is his point here? He's seemingly painting the story as bad, but doesn't it imply that the evil things he mentions (high taxes, anti-gun laws) are working to fight crime? Or is he just complaining that this happens so infrequently? I wonder how common this is in other big cities, but every big city is liberal... it's like a catch-22 (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that arming everyone is a good way to ensure more such 24 hour periods where no one gets shot. Speaking as a Britisher, a 24 hour period where someone does get shot in a big city is still front page news. Something to think about, JPratt? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ANECDOTE ALERT. I worked in Dallas for 3 months back in the late 70's, during that time the local paper printed a list of all the homicides in the Dallas area, ~850 of them. That was way more than all the murders in the UK. Many of them occurred because of quite trivial things, like noisy stereo or cutting in front of someone on the freeway, So yes, let's just arm everyone so that they can eliminate all those who are annoying in some way. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that estimate? In 2009, Dallas had 166 homocides. Now, violent crime rates have fallen considerably over the decades, but I don't think that it's fallen by quite so much. Phiwum (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That would have probably been for the metro area rather than just the city. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. Phiwum (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But violent crime rates really have plummeted quite significantly. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not by a factor of four (850 to 166, or whatever the greater Dallas figure is). Evidently, statewide, the number of homocides have fallen to about half the 1979 figures. (Because population has increased, the rate has decreased somewhat more.) Phiwum (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) In 1979, the entire state of Texas had 2235 homocides. It's possible, I guess, that 850 of those were in the Dallas area. (Your post wasn't clear, but I assume the 850 figure was for the whole year and not the three months you were there.)Phiwum (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make that clear, the list that was published in the local newspaper was for the preceding year but I can't remember all the details other than the approximate magnitude which I found staggering. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A new fucking low for Ken

I don't even have the words. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tesformes / talk / contribs}

A new low for Andy, too^img . He approves. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That article he links to is disgusting. "gays are suicidal cause they are gay. they are picked on cause other kids know it's wrong". excellent...GodotGrow a vagina 22:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's a fucking Blogspot blog, how the fuck is this news?Tesformes (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is rare that I'm genuinely horrified and offended by something on Conservapedia. I usually go there to laugh at its idiotic asshattery. But this is pretty low, even for that imbecile. Ken is truly a worthless human being and a scumbag. Vox Day, slightly more diplomatic about his hateful prattling, is hardly better. GayGator (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow......that actually makes me a little sad.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How many "new lows" is one allotted in a year, and has that allotment been used up yet? It's only the 20th. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus that ruined my buzz. Reminds me that Conservapedia is a cesspit of hatred, and not just a comedy site I get my laughs from.Shakedangle (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tasteless to the end:

“”In the meantime, whoever is behind the "It Gets Better" program should do a much more careful job vetting its spokesmen, since at the moment, it looks an awful lot like an inadvertant homosexual suicide campaign straight out of the movie Heathers. All they need is a video featuring a cheesy 80s band singing "Gay teen suicide, don't do it!" Recruiting unstable young men to lie to teenage boys simply isn't a long-term prescription for success.

Two teenagers just killed themselves! Let's make an ad hominem argument out of it and have a laugh! --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So....they've never heard of Dan Savage, who is..um...unstable? Remember, epitome of cheesy turned the gig down. Oh, and apparently, young girls interested in homosexuality are okay. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's funny when CP editors' closed-minded reactionary bigotry stumbles into things like evolution, relativity, or the secularization of the English language... but their worldview becomes entirely unfunny when it comes to matters that effect living breathing people. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Every day I come more to the conclusion that Kendoll is barely sentient. I really don't think he realises how disgusting what he just said was, he's just parroting what churched-up hatemonger Vox Day has to say. I don't think he has ever had an original thought. He's just a robot who picked a really bad group of programmers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What is über-sad is that Ken is probably reading this section and smirking smugly because he has upset a bunch of liberal atheists. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken, I wonder what Jesus would think? Do you really think that he would advocate kids picking on another kid because s/he's gay? Senator Harrison (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is one of you controlling this Rachel girl? Cause she sounds like one of us and she's been dogging Ken for days. Tesformes (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Who knows? But I can tell you one thing... she's about to get introduced to "90/10". --Inquisitor (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe she's one of us...maybe she's just sane? Maybe even intelligent. Sanity alone is enough to differentiate her from the usual crowd at CP. Intelligence? Well, she'd be in an extremely rarefied group of current editors: Smart, and about to be banhammered. GayGator (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's shit like this that makes me not at all sad for Ken. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt:^img Only if you are a Christian you are allowed to tell us what is moral and what is not [and only if you think it is ok are you a Christian]! "Prove to me the Christian you." --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The hell? I guess liberals aren't worth the effort of coherence... 99.50.96.218 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

She has a point japatt. Why don't you and ken doll stop being cowards and just answer the fuckin questions you are asked rather then going on the attack. If you are as right as you think you are, what do you have to lose?--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken is a closeted self-hating homosexual. We should feel sorry for him, and pray that he enters into the joy of accepting his own feelings. Andy probably is too. The reality is, all homophobes are closeted self-hating homosexuals — I have never in my life met a homophobe who wasn't. Ken is just waiting for that special guy to come along and set him free. Andy too. Sarah Parker (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You can be straight and a hate gay people, hatred is easy to breed, it doesn't just come from discomfort with your self. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does hate come from? My own experience is, hating others starts with hating yourself. And when you stop hating yourself, you stop hating others also. Sarah Parker (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Hate is a normal animal emotion. Occasionally there is a Dog that hates cats, is that from deep internal discomfort too? there are women who hate men and men who hate women, are they all hating themselves? I hate Vox Day, is that me hating myself? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But "hate" is a word with many meanings. I hate liquorice. Homophobes hate GLBT people, like moi. Is this all the same "hate"? I don't think so. You strongly disagree with Vox Day, you strongly dislike him — but do you really hate hate him? Sarah Parker (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, I don't think your argument about the relationship between homophobia and sexual identity is going to go very far without harder evidence than your own experience and anecdote. moreover, you're begging the question that there are such things as solid, unquestionable "gay" and "straight" identities that everybody subscribes to, which doesn't really account for people who don't see themselves fitting into any one box. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think everyone who is homophobic is necessarily 100% gay, a Kinsey 6. But I doubt that devoted homophobes are Kinsey 0's either. Whether they are completely gay or just significantly bisexual, I'm sure they are higher up the Kinsey scale than the average non-homophobe is. If they have homophobic views but don't think much about it, maybe not, but when they devote so much of their time and energies to homophobia, I'm sure they have at least some same-sex attraction. Sarah Parker (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well shit a Kinsey zero is really really rare. To say that the mean Kinsey score of homophobes is higher than the mean Kinsey score of non-homophobes is one thing, but what you are arguing when you say that all homophobia comes from closeted gayness is that there aren't any Kinsey 1's, 2's and 3's who are homophobic. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Um....when you say "a Kinsey zero is really really rare"...do you mean a Kinsey zero homophobe? Because otherwise I might take issue with that assertion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just closeted gays who can be homophobic, closeted bisexuals too, who adopt homophobia in trying to deal with their bisexual feelings they don't want to acknowledge. I'm not saying there are no homophobes who are Kinsey 1s, I'm saying that they are homophobes because they can't be honest with themselves about the fact they have same-sex feelings, even if their own feelings are predominantly heterosexual. And if they learnt to accept their own same-sex feelings as valid, they'd stop being homophobic. Sarah Parker (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like wishful thinking, not a serious hypothesis. Look, it's not hard to imagine that, when a religious text tells you that God says homosexuality is bad, you come to believe that it is bad, worthy of hatred even. I don't see why we should pretend that all such hatred is caused by the anguish of hypocrisy. Phiwum (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The same religious text tells them that eating pork or shellfish or a rare steak or a cheeseburger, or wearing clothing made from mixed fabrics, or working on Saturday, is a grave sin, yet they don't get so flustered about any of those sins - hey, I betcha they practice them even. Their homophobia cannot be explained by a religious text. The reality is, it doesn't matter what some ancient text says, because everyone starts out by deciding what they believe, then they twist and selectively quote their chosen religious text until it says what they want it to say. The belief/feeling comes first, the text comes second - you have it all back to front. Sarah Parker (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for hard data and not PIDOOMA P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I cleaned up the homophobia page a while back in terms of actual research. The lesson? Don't trust penile plethysmographs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(ECx3)If you go by the Kinsey scale everyone is either bisexual or a liar. If that is the case then saying that homophobes are gay and bisexual is pretty meaningless. If you go by the common sense definition where 90% of the populace is straight, and more than 10% of the population is homophobic, then you start to run out of gay people to have hate themselves. The line that "they don't hate you they hate themselves" is really an outgrowth of the self esteem movement more than a probing neurological examination of hatred. Lots of things entered the common knowledge pool in the 70's through the modern day because they would be convenient rather than because they are always true. No doubt some people do express self hatred as hatred of others, but not everyone. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:51, 21 January 2012 (UT::C)

Sarah, I assure you, there is no evidence that homophobes are gay. some certainly are, but an equal number are just pure straights who hate gays the way whites hated blacks or currently hate "mexicans" and a-rabs. Hate is about what you learn. It's about feeling better than others. It's about being the big man. the bully. It's about being able to be more than you are, casue someone else is less than you are. it comes in all shapes and colors. GodotGrow a vagina 03:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Johnny X-ray has jumped on the stupid bus. "Prove to me the Christian you."^img In other words, shut the fuck up and be a cunt like the rest of us - THAT'S the kind of Christians we are. --PsyGremlin講話 05:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And her response^img basically translates to "Fuck you, Jpatt." 99.50.96.218 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a new low for Kenny-boy, I just threw up a little in my mouth. CP continues its death spiral towards utter irrelevance. I wonder what Assfly thinks of his own creation at the moment? Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Schafly has suggested reparative therapy to his brother? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He probably doesn't give a fuck about his brother, but I'm sure mom has made the suggestion. To these people, being gay is not only horrible, but something that can be fixed...if Phy is a loving mother, why wouldn't she suggest reparative therapy? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gossip"

Hey Terry, I dare you to raise your right hand and swear that you would call an interview with Michelle Obama in which she revealed that her husband had asked for an open marriage "gossip." I double-dog dare you. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But the sanctity of other people's marriages is a vital part of national security! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I dare him not to linkspam his blog every goddamn time he posts something. "I support Andy and his ideology, but I also like making money by linking to my website." Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rob for proving me right.

Not gossip^img. Encyclopedic. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob was outed as being conservative-in-name-only. It's no surprise that he uses liberal tactics like this. So try again, and remember that the only true conservatives are Andy and JPatt. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh, it got reverted! That Rachel girl is going to be hit for 90/10 soon.Tesformes (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Rob is totally insignificant on CP, and has been for months. Nobody gives a shit about his edits anymore. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, well, he's still got [friends] in high places. Tesformes (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Incoming block in 3...2...1... (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It gets better on the talkpage. You have to pay to view the source, but that's okay and it's still legit. Anyone find this so amusing to see this "open marriage" aimed at the Clinton's after Newt's ex reveals it? Pretty desperate deflection tactic! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's wp:W:COMMON, not unlike Santorum. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And now the Stupid Person is getting in on the act

...though I'm not sure how this logic works in South Carolina. I would make this a WIGO:world if I honestly believed anyone cared what she had to say anymore. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we've found Ken's epitaph

And it's from his new friend RachelW:

And as I also said before, it is not any of your business if these children are committing a sin by following their natural sexual orientation, that is a matter between them and God. I suspect that He will forgive them, as he forgives so much of us. You, on the other hand, will receive no special treatment from Jesus if the person you drive to suicide happens to be gay, it'll still be a black, festering wound on your soul, far uglier and more vile than anything being gay is responsible for. [source^img]

We might have to cut it down a bit, but I think the last line is hilarious. Tesformes (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather comically amused that many of those Christians who argue that one may not judge over other people are very quick to judge those who judge over other people. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, you're just judging people who judge over people who judge over people, and that makes you an ass. Tesformes (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But without judgement, what would we do? F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I said I'm amused, not that it is bad to judge those that judge. --★uːʤɱ digital native 22:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The type of judgement that Christians are not supposed to do is to judge others as morally bad and therefore worthy of condemnation as people. Judgement of the morality of actions is something that Christans are supposed to do (judgement is required to distinguish virtue from vice, for instance). To apply this distinction, a person's sexual inclination is not inherently anyone else's business, but sexual practices are fair game for criticism. Likewise, Conservative's treatment of others is fine to criticize, but making proclamations of the state of his soul is presumptuous. So while a reasonable observer can conclude that Conservative is an unrepentant asshole, good Christians are still supposed to be nice to him. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What about those of us who are not good Christians? Can we criticize Conservative for being cruel and hypocritical? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I cor 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? oh lookie BON, the bi(b)le disagrees with you. Fuck off. 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Oh? Let's Check Matthew 7, the source of the "judge not" bit. Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. So Christians should not be hypocritical in judgement. That's easy enough with specific actions supposed to be sinful, but most Christians believe that everyone is sinful and worthy of condemnation on their own merits (yay Jesus, etc.). So a Christian shouldn't be saying that someone else is a bad person and therefore should be condemned, since the accuser is imperfect as well. Now let's look at the next verse: Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. So while Christians aren't supposed to go around condemning people there are practical difficulties to be had when dealing with people who regularly do bad things. Kind of fits with what Paul was saying there about how keeping assholes around could mess up the fledgling Christian community in Corinth, doesn't it? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. Your use of an out-of-context Paul quote to justify your position strikes me as a rather fundamentalist action. Seems ironic from a glance at your history.

Epitaph!?!?!?! Two words for you. Unmarked and Shallow. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

You know, I have a feeling that Ken is acting like such a prize douche purely because he knows how we'll react, and in what passes for his mind, this counts as a win. The fact that he's doing to play the audience makes him an even more pathetic individual, than if he was writing his crap out of any form of belief - we already know he doesn't have the brainpower to form original thoughts and therefore beliefs.

Now, I know we've suggested this before, but can we for once and for all, just ignore this sad, sick, little excuse for a human. Maybe then he'll go away... or at least in search of another audience. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 07:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He still gets fed by the occasional passerby. Since I doubt RW is responsible for all CP's newbies yet, he'll probably stay as he is. (I do agree about us, though. I've ignored Ken wigos for a long, long time now...) 99.50.96.218 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Of more interest is Andy's toleration of Ken's in^(s)anity. Scream!! (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure making any sort of formalized attempt to ignore Ken would have that much of an effect. Let's pretend and say this site instantly started to ignore him. He'd just up his brand of crazy (I know, seems impossible) until he shook one of our ranks loose, and forced a response. And we all know somebody would eventually rise to his taunts. Which he would then interpret as a victory. No, I think we should let individual RW editors mock or ignore him as they see fit.

I would hope that many RW contributors will follow a similar path as my own. User:Conservative is like finding a moist lump of matter under poor lighting conditions. At first you're like "What is that?". Then you progress on to "I think I know what that is, but...". Then you eventually reach the conclusion of: "You know what? I don't care what it is, I'm not touching it." --Inquisitor (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I agree Psy, I am easily trolled. I'd be the first to crack. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll is a prize douche to everyone because he doesn't understand what they're saying. It's defensive douchebaggery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you like gold, guns and getaway plans?

Become a christian and god will provide!^img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have the 3G's. Good, Giving, and Game. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My phone has 4G. Do I win? Tesformes (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob.

It's "bollocks," not "bullocks^img," you moron. And it's hardly language fit for a "family-friendly" encyclopedia. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I've heard people say bollocks on kid's shows in the USA. It's just a funny thing British people say to them. But at least they don't generally confuse it with small cattle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, a bullock is a bull that's lost its bollocks. CS Miller (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yahbutt CP discourages British English, so bollocks has been Americanized to bullocks to get the sense of the idiom. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Jpatt's "stop blocking contributors" comment, even blocking Scott instead. That idiot doesn't know irony if it smeared santorum all over his mouth. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WooHoo, Dishonest Rob is back. Ace^Moderator 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ace, how do you convert sheepshit to 120 volt electric power in a Third World backwater like New Zealand for internet access? nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Voltage measures electrical potential, not power. How did you convert "bollocks" into "bullocks" without thinking "this makes me look fucking stupid?" SJ ^Debaser 22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Even Rob likes biofuels now. --★uːʤɱ sinner 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, NZ uses the more potent 230V, unlike the US which uses the puny 115V. CS Miller (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Machismo factor 11+ Ace^Moderator 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So NZ burns twice the coal, or produces twice the nuke waste polluting the damn planet to provide the same amount of electricity per person. And you guys call US wasteful? Balderdash. nobs^Moderated 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob are you naturally stupid or do you buy special chemicals? I means do you pay for your electricity by kWh or volts? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NZ produces no nuke waste you idiot. NZ is a nuclear free country and 55% of the total electricity used comes from hydro. Ace^Moderator 23:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah Rob, a Third World backwater with better life expectancy than your trailer park. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention better literacy and lower infant mortality. Ace^Moderator 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No doubt related to the higher tax burdens in the United States. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! New Zealand has slightly higher tax rates? Well, shit. I guess living in a peaceful, educated, healthy land of environmental beauty is second to paying an extra $10 on your income tax. Ace^Moderator 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and...pssst, Rob, according to your link the US has higher payoll taxes and potentially higher taxes across the board. Hey, but this is lying Rob I am talking to. Ace^Moderator 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well duh, Ace, the point is higher tax rates could potentially lead to lower life expectancy. Gittit? nobs^Moderated 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, all that free health care by well educated doctors is really a death sentence… --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? Just babbling any old nonsense now, Rob. Ace^Moderator 22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, your inane babbling has confused me. You seem to be suggesting the US, not NZ has slightly higher tax rates and therefor mortality rises. Is that it? Because many of those high tax euro-zome countries have higher life expectancy. Ace^Moderator 22:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm saying higher tax rates work people to death. Nothing new in this concept, its been used for many millenia. nobs^Moderated 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob has a good point there. The leading cause of death in industrialized nations is taxes. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For over 1000 years it would seem. Ace^Moderator 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But bob, we need the taxes. Without them, how else can we continue to police the world?--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobs, read this graph closely (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg). There is little correlation. Japan has a slightly higher corporate tax rate, yet a much higher life expectency. On the other hand, Canada has a higher personal tax rate, but a lower corporate tax rate, yet it too has higher life expectancy. Not even a correlation, let alone causation. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I considered using other data, such as List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP and the Heritage Foundations Index of Economic Freedom which gives a somewhat complicated, albeit perhaps more interesting support of the premise. nobs^Moderated 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated to the wild flailing here, but I took a look at Rob's burst of activity over on CP (articles on Newt and Hillary, and the talk paGes), and I hadn't even realized how much I missed Rob's crazy "discussion" antics. Keep it up, Rob! =D --Sid (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We're just preping for the headlines; notice how a lowly editor for the first time wins arguments on the merits, rather than threats by admins of throwing their weight around? nobs^Moderated 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to here, Rob, but lowly editors never win arguments with admins at CP. It simply isn't allowed. To even attempt to is a blockable offense. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You won because JPatt threw his weight around on your behalf. Be honest, Rob. I know how hard that is for you. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even have Skipcaptcha rights. It's a pain to include a link, let alone revert and edit war over that link; yet two blocking editors have conceded the points on Hillary & open marriage, as well as the negative material on Gingrich. I was amazed a blocking editor argued for consensus; that's the quick way to lose enhanced rights. nobs^Moderated 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't concede because you were right about Clinton or Gingrich, Rob. I gave up banging my head against a wall because you gave me a headache with your willful blindness. You certainly didn't win on points. --SharonW (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's not the issue, Sharon, babe. The issue is, when has it ever been known (other than dealing with me as an Admin) winning an argument with someone higher on the totem pole in CP? I've proven it can be done. Just follow Toynbee's faculty of mimesis now. nobs^Moderated 02:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Rob dearest, I have gotten concessions from Conservative and EdPoor. Conservative promised no more fat jokes on talk pages (not much, but at least it was something), and Ed has admitted I was right about several things. Small victories, but real ones, unlike yours tonight. --SharonW (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I simply decided that it was better to let you make CP look stupid. Winning by losing. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One other thing Nobs, babe, Newt Gingrich is not an orphan. Go ask his lesbian half-sister if you don't believe me. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, Gingrich meets UNICEF's definition of an orphan [2] nobs^Moderated 02:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't, you fucking dolt. UNICEF define an orphan as a CHILD who's lost their parents. How old is Gingrich again, about 69 or something? Twat. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Try again. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think UNICEF is on one of the floors of the UN building that John Bolton wanted to blow up. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Way to pick your allies Rob. In the last week Hurlbut's been on MPR ranting about how the UN is going to destroy morals/the family/the American dream/whatever is the vogue wingnut buzzword this week, and you want to use one of their organisations to try and cobble together some positive fluff on a page about your preferred candidate. It was funny enough watching you get spanked by Ken, watching Hurlbut and a bunch of parodists run a prison train on you is worthy of popcorn. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Rob. Let me get this straight

THIS is the guy that a God-fearing Christian thinks is the best positioned to provide moral leadership to the country, and not the guy who's been married to the same woman for 40 years. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking about, that mama's boy Obama? Michelle wears the pants in that family. Just what did he mean by, "I’m a little bit worried about giving my wife a bat. If I mess up…”, a day after the new book about the Dragon Lady came out? nobs^Moderated 01:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Obamas aren't 40 years in yet. Mitt Romney, you moron. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yahbutt because of the secrets of the Mormon Temple, all we can say with certainty is Mitt Romney has been married to at least one woman for 40 years... nobs^Moderated 02:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just hope that if Mrs. Smith ever gets seriously ill (God forbid), you at least wait until the anesthesia wears off before you ask her to sign the papers. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Romantic exclusivity and longevity aren't virtues, but non-hypocrisy is. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Now wait a minute; here's Gingrich, abandoned at birth, seduced by a pedophile teacher at age 16, unwittingly forced into marriage to cover up the crime. Without the support mechanism other families depend on. Then, as a mature adult wishes to exercise his independence. Now you want to blame the victim? We should have more understanding. nobs^Moderated 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More understanding? Those words ring hollow and foul from you Rob--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't think seducing a sixteen year old was pedophilia. It might be unsavoury and even illegal in some places, and definitely worse if a teacher was involved, but it isn't pedophilia.RagTop^{Gone sailing} 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Rob, you got completely steamrolled by RachelW on the Hillary Clinton talk page. She got banned for a day so you could have time to lick your wounds, not because she was trolling.Tesformes (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Conservapedia articles tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus. All my cites in mainspace and talk support this. And the deeper we dig, the uglier the Clinton's get. nobs^Moderated 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember when rob was in Arab spring mode and fought for the justice of editors? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is "Gingrich Affairs = Good" "Clinton Affairs = Bad". Does that sound about right?--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Newt Gingrich's mother died in 2003, and his adoptive father, who cared for him since he was 3, died in 1996. His biological father died in 1970. Since UNICEF defines an orphan as a child who has lost at least one parent, and Newt first lost a parent at the age of 27, he doesn't count. And again, it is completely irrelevant. And what the fuck are you talking about, seduced by a pedophile teacher, "forced" into marriage? Do you have a citation or did a book get published during Newt's childhood that you want to blame? Tesformes (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Go easy on Rob. Understanding things is not his strong suit. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm sorry you got banned for an hour for being a stubborn jackass, but hey, at least we hear at RationalWi...oh wait, we banned you too, asshole. Tesformes (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay, Rob's back. How long until Ken makes him his bitch? Or does the fact that he's come crawling back already make him Ken's bitch? --PsyGremlinPrata! 04:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's someone's bitch, certainly. I guess the whole building a new wiki with blackjack and hookers didn't work out too well. How is Ameriwiki these days? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Working without hiim. He stopped hanging out there to much after the law got layed down on him for being a prick--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just love how Rob squirms on the talkpages, trying to wrap his logic around publishing rumors and censoring facts simply because the difference is democrat and republican, and he gets completely schooled at every corner, only to have sysops back him up. YAY ROB! Your past plans of fixing CP's monarchy and abuses is working! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's spell out what has been accomplished using Toynbee's book:

Thus a risk of catastrophe (being desysoped) proves to be inherent in the use of the faculty of mimesis, which is the vehicle of mechanization on the medium of Human Nature; and it is evident that this inherent risk will be greater in degree when the faculty of mimesis is called into play in a society which is in dynamic movement (Rationalwiki) than when the same faculty is given rein in a society which is in a state of rest (Conservapedia). The weakness of mimesis lies in its being a mechanical response to a suggestion from some alien source (liberals), so that the action that is performed through mimesis is ex hypothesi, an action that would never have been performed by its performer upon his own initiative (close-minded liberals). Thus all action that proceeds from mimesis is essentially precarious because it is not self-determined (leading from behind); and the best practical safeguard against the danger of its breaking down is for the exercise of the faculty of mimesis to become crystallized in the form of habit or custom—as it actually is in primitive societies in the Yin-state (progressive thinking), which is the only stage of their history in which we know them. In 'the cake custom' the double-edged blade of mimesis is comfortably padded. But the breaking of 'the cake of custom' is of the essence of the change through which the state of the rest that is the last phase in the history of a primitive society gives place to the fresh dynamic movement (entrepreneurship) that we call a civilization. The mimesis which has been directed towards the older generation of the living members of the society, as incarnations of an accumulated social heritage (conservativism, as an ideology), is now reoriented towards creative personalities (RobS, et al) whose eyes have seen on the horizon a further goal of human endeavours (the Conservapedia reform movement), and whose wills have become bent upon leading their fellows with them (Conservapedia editors) towards this promised land. In this new movement (Sysop accountability) the edged tool of mimesis is not discarded, but is employed with enhanced effect now that the breaking of the cake of custom (Conservapedia's established ways) has laid its cutting edges bare. This baring of the blade means the removal of a safeguard (TK, et al); and the necessity of using the tool of mimesis without the protection of a customary régime—a necessity which is the price of growth—condemns a growing civilization to live dangerously. More than that, the danger is perpetually imminent, since the condition which is required for the maintenance of the Promethean élan of growth is a condition of unstable equilibrium (open editing in Conservapedia) in which 'the cake of custom' is never allowed to set hard before it is broken up again (blocking reform, etc). The tour de force of the exploit of Civilization lies in this necessity of resorting to mimesis without a possibility of taking precautions at any stage. In this hazardous pursuit of the goal of human endeavours there can never be such a thing as a provisional insurance against the perils which mimesis entails. There can only be an ultimate and radical solution of the problem through the complete elimination of mimesis in a society which has transformed itself into a communion of saints; and this consummation, which is nothing less than the attainment of the goal, has never been even distantly approached by any known civilization hitherto.

This describes my efforts to reform CP. nobs^Moderated 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tl;dr.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Trinkhaus on Toynbee? Seriously? People still read that shit? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob and Kiwiland

Rob's had this anti-NZ thing going for a bit. Is it just piss-taking or does he really believe that NZ is some sort of third-world backwater? He does realise that it's one of the most advanced nations on earth by almost any measure, right? Or is he the real American stereotype of really not knowing anything outside the good ol' US of A and if it ain't American it must be bad? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Most Americans think NZ is so far out of the way, it was founded as a leper colony for rejects and social outcasts from the British penal colony Australia. After generations of inbreeding by lepers and criminal outcasts, is it any wonder what's been produced (assuming evolution is true)? nobs^Moderated 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Founded as a leper colony? That is news to me (and to several 1000's New Zealand historians). Ace^Moderator 20:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So a piss-take then. Thanks. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most Americans think NZ was constructed by Peter Jackson as a set for Lord of the Rings. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Which makes it THE BEST COUNTRY EVER. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly? Most Americans don't give NZ any thought at all. I'm not saying that is something we should be proud of, mind you. MDB (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely New Zealand isn't an actual country, is it? I'm pretty sure it's just one of Australia's states. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would w think about NZ? It sits there all quiet like not doing much to catch our attention. Now get some oil reserves and we will want you to be the 52nd state--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually NZ is part of the global plot to force everyone to speak English. nobs^Moderated 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice decade old news article. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Na, it is just Rob's weird attempt to troll me. Ace^Moderator 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you do realise that the Kiwi's just won the Rugby World Cup don't you? Oh wait, it's an unamerican sport, so it doesn't count. Never mind! Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

...in which Robert says stupid things about sports

Rugby? the Neanderthal sport? We play a higher evolved form of the sport. wp:History of American football. nobs^Moderated 20:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no Rob, you're confusing it with that rubbish game played by brain-dead idiots who are afraid of breaking a nail, so they wear pads and helmets and stuff. I'm Welsh. We play using our brains and our feet. Honestly Rob I expected better from you. Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, if you think rugby is a Neanderthal sport (ignoring for a moment recent research which suggests Neanderthals weren't..... oh whatever), then you obviously know nothing and understand even less. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Rob is funny. Mind boggling stupid and dishonest, but funny. American football more evolved? Guess that's why it is popular all over the world...oh, wait... Ace^Moderator 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

American football is obviously a more highly evolved variation of rugby. It incorporates the forward pass as pioneered by wp:Curly Lambeau. The pads are because, umm, well the game is much more hard hitting than Rugby, and only to protect themselves. A rugby player couldn't endure 5 minutes without pads in American football. And it requires higher evolved mental capacities, as well. And Ace is the best testimony regarding this aspect. nobs^Moderated 21:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"A rugby player couldn't endure 5 minutes without pads in American football." No shit, Sherlock. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That'll do pig, that'll do --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Highly evolved" *snicker*. Yeah, as if anything just "evolves" naturally. Rob, you crack me up sometimes. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

American Football players are well know for their high intelligence. That's a fact. I guess that's why only Americans play it, the rest of the world is too weeny and stupid. Ace^Moderator 21:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dick, I never imagined you as an anti-American communist, you're not gonna bash American football are you? Who do you l,ike in the Superbowl? nobs^Moderated 21:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate football and love real footbal, am i an unamerican communist as well!?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[EC] While I'm not sure what it has to do with economic policy, I like football enough I guess. By no means a huge fan. I'm rooting for the Giants, not so much because I'm from New York, but because my one friend who is a big football fan likes them, so I sort of empathize with him. As long as they're not playing the Bears. Also, I don't like that Patriots, and I guess that is a little un-American. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you how intelligent they are, after Tom Brady wins his next Superbowl ring, he's gonna retire that Massachusetts moderate and closet communist, former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry from office. nobs^Moderated 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, what the fuck is wrong with you? Has your argument really devolved to the level of American Football is better than EVERYTHING!!? Different sports are.... you, know, different. Each one has different aspects to it and different appeals. You know, England ex-captain - the one who won the World Cup a few years ago - is a huge gridiron fan. Nearly played it. And there are American football players and pundits who are rugby fans. They're different. Get over it, you moron. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. There's no reason a hunter can't use archery as well as a gun to kill a deer, just cause one is more technically advanced and higher evolved than its prehistoric forerunners. The name of the game is the same. nobs^Moderated 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. But whatever, your piss-taking is a bit lame. For piss-taking to be quality, it needs to be funny. And not just to yourself. 2/10 - must try harder. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must've stepped on a raw nerve. If it's any consolation, I'm sure there are Rugby museums in the United States. nobs^Moderated 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

... what?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No consolation needed. It's you I feel sorry for. I've seen NFL matches at Wembley. Fucking awesome. I'm just glad that most of us can appreciate both. Your loss. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I've seen American football matches in Wembley as well. The thing is that I prefer rugby, not just because it's hardwired into all Welsh DNA, but also because when played at its best it has stuff called tactics and physicality and intelligence. That's why there's a rugby World Cup. What's the American Football equivalent?Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Superbowl, the Sunday after next, 6:20 MST (whatever that is UTC). nobs^Moderated 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the super bowl is the equivalent of the Rugby World Cup. Teams from around the world fight it out.....oh wait..Ace^Moderator 23:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be just like the World Series then, when teams from around the world USA play baseball rounders. Ignorant chauvinism at its worst. --Fergus Mason (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'd love to a game between the Dallas Cowboys and and Christ Church Sheepsheerers. I'd even go to Las Vegas for that. nobs^Moderated 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, Rob, can you go more than a day without saying something incredibly stupid or acting like a fucking infant? That comparison is as meaningful as a comparison between the Yankees and the Red Wings. Who do you think wouud win a basketball game between those two teams? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditka? nobs^Moderated 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, Superbowl: League Championship fought between teams that are based on commercial success. World Cup of [Sport X]: Championship fought between National associations on an international and global level. You fail.

You can say can say what you want about the Kiwis, but at least they can win a sport championship without making the sport up in the first place. Also, I've played American Football without pads, team handball is harder. Believe me, I've played that for over three years in a league. --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wp:touch football can be played with girls. nobs^Moderated 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Playing with girls is a bad thing in Rob's book. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 00:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember tackling and girls, including tackling girls and girls being tackled. --★uːʤɱ socialist 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We played touch, two hands on the front. nobs^Moderated 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed Rob

Who remembers this gem from 2009?

“”I beleive we had some information about how Clinton paid North Korea to build a nuke. What happened to it?

Gee I dunno, Rob. Maybe reality came along and spirited it away. However, I look forward to you adding more fantasy to CP. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also very glad that Rob is back. The intellectual dishonesty with Gingrich/Clinton is breathtaking. It's amazing how quickly he has regressed. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't regressed at all; once a mendacious, delusional, mean-spirited idiot, always a mendacious, delusional, mean-spirited idiot. He changed up his style of trolling for a while last summer, but that didn't make him smart or a good person. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy that Rob's back. Just checking the Recent Changes and seeing how half of it is dominated by him and somebody else duking it out on a talk page fills me with glee. --Sid (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, poor old Rob doesn't have his rights back yet, so he actually has to defend his bullshit, until one of the parodists comes along to save him. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost giddy with excitement to admire the stupid which will surely follow this lashing. It's like watching Andy! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of funny watching Ron play Hardy Boys with national news corporations. Yep, he personally uncovered proof positive of CNN's theft of sealed records, something none of the other news outlets nor government agencies on any level have managed to do. Even the mental midgets at Fox & Friends haven't made such an accusation, and the whole "I don't know anything about this myself, but I imagine if CNN got hold of Gingrich's divorce records it's because they hired thugs to break into the courthouse and steal them!" is their bread and butter. So, Rob, when are you going to personally place Ted Turner under citizen's arrest for larceny? I personally can't wait. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Poe Alert!

I hate to out a fellow CP troll, but ScottDG is making it just a little too obvious. Every time a supporter of the Question Evolution campaign turns out to be a parodist, it makes me giggle a bit inside.

Or hey, maybe he really thinks that "liberals" is really justification for writing anything. I just doubt that any real CP-bot would ever come out and say it.Tesformes (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From now on "because liberals" is going to be my go-to non-response to any questions asked. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It gets better. ScottDG uses the same answer for this section, and Andy follows it up with a reply of his own that begins with "Also"... he is completely oblivious to the fact that ScottDG is taking the piss. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, if Conservapedia has told us anything it's that it most certainly doesn't "get better", unless you embrace Christianity. Please get your facts straight. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have always been at war with Eurasia...

Rob calls the waaambulance^img. Andy is happy to comply.

According to the trusworthy encyclopaedia, Newt is now sparkly clean... until he loses the election of course. --PsyGremlinTala! 06:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it was this^img request that Andy was responding to there. The second was Rob's request to change it to a 'compromise' version, i.e. his favoured one, which Andy then complied with^img also. I can see that there's at least the one typo in the protected version as well... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Was it Al Green or Marvin Gaye who was shot by his father in a fight over a woman? Which did 'Let's Stay Together? I always get them mixed up. nobs^Moderated 06:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Check the Trusworthy encyclopedia, isn't that what general purpose reference media is for? I'll do it for you: it was cp:Marvin Gaye. Al Green is still alive and performing Let's Stay Together. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooww thanks. Think it's just a coincidink Obama signs Let's Stay Together the same day CNN does a hit job on Newt's marriage? Is there a ready market for misinformation out there? nobs^Moderated 06:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he sang the song as a tribute to Al Green (who really doesn't have all that many other big hits), but I know a conspiracy theory as much more to your liking. FYI: Sam Cooke was shot to death by a hotel manager. A fact conspicuously absent from his Conservapedia's article. Perhaps that would be gossip on Andy's mind? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My God. Mama Cass choked to death on a ham sandwich and Jim Morrison died in a shamanistic trance after his habit of not using a chaser with hard liquor. The things you learn hagning out in these places.... nobs^Moderated 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mama Cass died NEXT to a ham sandwich that didn't have any bites taken out of it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Rob making even less sense than before? Vulpius (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but perhaps you just forgot how Rob always was - it has been quite a while after all. Damo^Hi 08:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, something has changed with Rob. On a related note I have never seen so many statements shown to be wrong in so few exchanges. Never let the fear of being wrong blunt your irrepressible wrong-headedness Rob; else how would someone be goaded to try and change CP for the better? Tielec01 (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you've changed, Rob. You used to be cool. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What? When? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For the 3 seconds when he grew a backbone and thought CP was worth saving. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've just forgotten what an asshole Rob is, but his hypocrisy is on wide display lately. He can't really believe that his edits are fair and truthful, can he? Is he that self-deluded, or is he happy to be a scumbag? Phiwum (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's the old Rob again - making up conspiracy theories and ignoring reality:

Rob: CNN got their hands on sealed records!^img

Sane user: They weren't sealed. Here's the facts^img

Rob:No, CNN obtained sealed files. They were tampered with and stolen!{{citation needed}}^img

Sane user:No Rob, here's more facts.^img

I see Rob has also forgotten how to use preview and minor edit. Clearly he's decided to be more like Ken, especially in the stupidity stakes. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He also says on Andy's talk page^img that publicizing the contents of documents that were never sealed nonetheless "sounds illegal to me". Right. Phiwum (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he wants his old spot back; and considering how succesful ken is at being the real leader of CP; acting like him is robs best bet. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ScotDG

I know that he and James are playing by the Bugler handbook, but at least Bugler had flair. These two are just boring "mimick Andy-block users" cut-outs. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for the good old days of creative parody. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As it slowly evolves into Kenservapedia, who needs parodists? It's like Tom Lehrer saying that "satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize." MDB (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes the current crop of parodists is rather lame. But James' repeated invocations of "Because liberals" I found sort of humorous. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Look^img, he's even helping Ken communicate with us gentlemen. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, stellar use of apostrophes there, Ken Doll. It's definitely RW that is made of underachievers, right? GayGator (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken makes a hat trick!

1. Completely missing the point. 2. Only partial use of information. 3. Stereotyping the livng crap out of another country. It's all there!^img

You know what Germany also has?

1. A constitutional social democracy
2. High rates of atheists and non-Christians (with the same work ethic as everybody else!)
3. Very high rates of Muslim immigrants
4. A populace of which more than half believe that socialism is pretty fucking good idea
5. An education system in which homeschooling is illegal and private schools are uncommon
6. Civil Unions
7. "Liberal Chruches"
8. Prostitution is legal

So, yeah, fuck you Kenny Boy. God, I feel violated every time this guy talks about Germany… --★uːʤɱ pervert 13:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to see the Trusworthy Encyclopaedia using Blogspot as reliable sources. Viva the best of the public! Hey... wpouldn't the Occupy Movement be the best of the public too? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's surprisingly generous to Germany given the number of his own asses he's had handed to him by AugustO lately.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

THAT didn't last very long, eh Psy? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 13:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, either you used the wrong link, or you're going to have to explain that to me. Pictures may be involved. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be a link to 5.1 above. Where you said "Now, I know we've suggested this before, but can we for once and for all, just ignore this sad, sick, little excuse for a human. Maybe then he'll go away... or at least in search of another audience," not 12 hours ago. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 14:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I panicked in the face of peer pressure. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hat trick? Nothin'. If Ken manages to make a statement without 7 or 8 things wrong with it it's a sure sign of improvement. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

yawn. 1. Germany is traditionally half Catholic, half Protestant. 2. Ken is saying nothing about Christianity overall, only about Protestantism which is most widely spread in nations with welfare states (within Europe). 3. The effects of such a welfare state should be visible in unemployment rates if high taxes (which acompany welfare states) actually cause high unemployment. In Germany they doesn't, neither do they in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland nor Iceland (not sure about the UK, though). All "Protestant countries" and today highly secular nations. 4. What Ken actually means is the Prussian heritage played up as the "Deutschtum", that is of course influenced by Protestantism (you know they one of the "liberal Church" kind, as evangelism is and always has been quite minor here). It's a mixture of punctuality, hard work and not speaking up when people tell you to do something (ended well). 5. Underachiever: I come from a working family with low education, no money and not living in a rich area (tourist boom was over shortly after I was born) — today I'm a college student after working my way up thourgh the German education system mainly by my own. I'm the first one in my fathers family to ever do that, and the third one in my mothers family to go to a university, my "Christian" — you know, the liberal kind — uncle holds a math and sports degree and is principal of a school, my aunt holds a doctor degree in biochemistry and teaches at a specialized school. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the UK.... The UK is predominately Anglican (at least culturally) rather than protestant. But it's also largely secular. We also have a highly developed welfare state much like the countries you listed above. The unemployment rate is high-ish at the moment but not traditionally so. It is also somewhat difficult to compare to many other EU countries' rates as the employment market is generally more fluid. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't really that I didn't know, I just wasn't sure if Protestant or "welfare state" fit for the UK. --★uːʤɱ soviet 13:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It depends whether you classify Anglicanism as protestant or via media. But why wouldn't the UK be an example of a country with a highly developed welfare state? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

via media is a cool phrase. Have to write that one down. Note that Anglicanism dominates in several places outside the UK by the way. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the CofE was much more evangelical and missionary in the 16C to 18C than it is today. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

cap. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vox also loves that atheist Malcolm Gladwell --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that a white flag I see there, Ken?^img --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 13:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how he explains Japan's economic record. No protestants, no Jesus. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess he'd plead some of his "global Christianity is growing" bullshit, even that would be wrong as Japan already was a big power at the beginning of the 20th century, a time when Shintoism was the state "religion". --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 13:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He'll no doubt claim the several Christian Prime Ministers were single-handedly responsible for Japan's post-war economic miracle. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I love the fact that he is basically saying that the Catholics of Southern Europe are all useless. On a website owned by Schlafly!

A challenge for Kendoll

Since you think all we atheists are unlettered, and you're such a widely read guy, you won't mind answering a question about Outliers, will you? After all, you wouldn't want us to think this is just a random factoid you'd read on one of your motivational sites.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling us who the researcher who is mentioned in the "footnoted material" is, who he worked with, when and at what institution. If you've got the book, that's all right there for you. I await your answer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

An excellent challenge. How much are you charging Kendoll for participation? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)