Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive276

This is an archive page, last updated 3 February 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>, <275>, <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)

March for Life

Andy is crowing about CP's March for Life attendence record, though doesn't give any numbers except for buses: three, apparently. Wasn't it already three buses from last year? RELEASE THE DATA, ANDY! He also notes that they "overcame freezing rain" - has Andy discovered the umbrella? Anyway, this latest ego-stroke reminded me of a certain exercise in Schlafly Statistics that Andy has now seen fit to emphasise in this edit. Still funny. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought God was smiling on the march by giving them unseasonably warm weather? Now he's decided to shower them with his freezing piss? Pick a side, God! Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It rained because liberals. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

God was testing they're dedication to the cause by making it a chore to be there!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Testing their faith! Classic! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow Andy. 40 million in a decade. You do know that's just 10%-ish of the US population right? Hardly a tidal wave. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's assuming that each attendee tells 20 other people that they've never told before, and who've never been told by any other attendee. Schlafly Statistics: where numbers go to die. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but of the 40 million, how many have been more then once? He's counting 40 million total, but many of those have to be doubles.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

40 million in a decade => 4 million a year on average...Even if the number of unique visitors in one year was double that, that's still less than 2.5% of the population at one time (and how many of those attendants were little kids who don't know any better?) Compare that to, say, the number of registered Democrats, or percentage of atheists in the United States. Has Andy been listening to Green Day? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did this 40 million figure cone from? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I can take a guess. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant what are we referring to, as I didn't see anything about it on the main page, but now I see it's in the MfL article. Yep, more Schlafly Statistics. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Side note: what's with those ref tags? He's been running this wiki for how long?

• "The next March for Life will be on Monday, January 23, 2012"
  • Reference: "The March is on May 12th in Canada each year."
• "The influence of the March for Life is approximately 20 times its attendance, as the average person who attends communicates his participation to 20 others."
  • Reference: "Some, such as clergyman, obviously influence far more."
• "The March for Life began in 1974, on the first anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973)"
  • Reference: "If the anniversary falls on a weekend, then the next day that Congress is in session is used instead."

If it weren't for the fact that they drive off every legitimate user, just about anyone wiki-savvy enough would be able to do some massive easy cleanups of pages, but then would be painted as a dirty liberal for screwing with pet projects. It's no wonder they never attract any new legitimate users.

(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are footnotes, not references (except the first one, which is just a goblet of shit), but presumably Andy doesn't know how to do footnotes so everything gets wrapped up into the references section. It's bad, but it's not Ed-levels of bad. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Old stuff

So I was looking at some way old stuff on CP, and I found this early version of an article, created by guess who: [1]. Usually when Uncle Ed does his single quote articles. the quotes are by people who are at least somewhat relevant. I don't think I can recall him ever using a source quite as bad as a nameless 15 year old. Also, this company sounds awesome, if only because it's literally run by Blood and Gore. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That really is rather good. DogP (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahahahahaha The article was started with JUST the little girl's quote, and his edit comment was: "unverified claim - this web site is NOT making this charge; the little girl is." Sooooo much wrong with that edit comment, Uncle Ed! Jared (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You Think You Deserve More Rights, Rob?

You've made very few edits of substance^img since your return, mostly just talk, talk, talk^img. (And inserting poorly sourced attempts at smears, and removing legitimate biographical info about Newt, and reverting and attacking anyone who dared call you out.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Rob know that he needs to fill the main page with flying kitties to catch Andy's attention these days? Vulpius (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope he feels the full force of Andy's extraordinary powers of ignoring people, just like ol' Iduan did. Rob really needs to learn what CP is really like when you're a peon. I'd have thought he'd figured it out after he was expelled the last time, but his return indicates he hasn't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Although skipcaptcha isn't really that much of a user right; it gives him no additional power.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember he was in communications to spread the word about anti obama on the MPR; when andy gives him that power is beyond me though--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't think he sysops people anymore, anyway.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the goals I eventually had for SeanS was to get to sysopship; i decided not to once the bestiality thing happened and then i spent a while trying to get andy to remove my existing rights. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it took two editors to do so? However, the path to sysopship really seems nonexistent. Take Jimmy and Scott for example. They mimic the boss, but won't get promoted. I think Jimmy's been there since 2010, though Scott is relatively new.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, when was the last time Andy made a new sysop? Seems it's been a long time. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I ought to look that up. However, back to the topic of the post, it looks like Rob got his skipcaptcha!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It took two editors after i specifically said "im from rationallwiki and im done here" AND me asking him outright "remove my rights". As for What turp said; why gets new sysops when you can just use the ones you got now. they are loyal! but skipcapcha is like candy on CP--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos, that is pathetic on their part. However, this is rather bizarre:

22:34, 22 December 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:Taj's user rights from Block, edit, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha and Upload to Block, edit, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload and Administrators. ‎ (promotion of account - well deserved!)--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Does rob still have team rights? And whats bizaare is andy apparently runs on a script. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he does. And that the AndyScript 2.0 is running. However, it seems anymore that rollback, skipcaptcha, etc. are handed out like candy.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Taj is a sock of Ken, AFAIK. What time does Obama's State of the Disunion hate speech begin? nobs^Moderated 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nine-o-clock sharp (eastern time).--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

13 minutes. also, rob, looking through the archives for the topic on andy being a bot; i found a few about you leaving CP. what happended to that dream?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

dunno. I'll be doing a play-by-play on Barack Hussein's hate speech, this will be the the first time ever I've sat through one of his speeches, so it'll be unbiased. It's about time I look into why so many think this guy has anything to say. nobs^Moderated 01:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

n what world can you call yourself unbiased about obama?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been said he's a good public speaker, but I've never heard a speech in its entirety. nobs^Moderated 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You HATE obama, everything about him, the word unbiased doesnt mean what you think because you already expect shit from, him--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob: "I will be watching Obama's hate speech without bias." Man, if you were serious that would be hilarious. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Watching the debate right now. I'm waiting for Bohners head to explod in a mass of blood and spray on tan...--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's going to run out of people to support soon

Christie gets thrown under the bus.^img I guess that's the problem when everybody to the left of Mummy is a liberal or RINO - sooner or later you're going to run out of people to support. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, didn't Andy do some legal work to recall Christie last year? Or am I thinking of something else, and he used to be a Christie guy? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 14:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, now I need to erase an image of Christie in a short skirt, tight top and pom-pons out of my head. --★uːʤɱ socialist 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Christie's NJ governor; Andy was targeting a Senator for recall. MDB (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try and dissect this, apparently Chris Christy is a filthy pro lifer (insert obligatory santorum comparison here) because he nominated two justices whose opinion on abortion is not known, and a lieutenant governor he hand picked did not go to a pro life rally which Christy himself attended and gave vocal support, as shown in the very fucking link Andy provided. And this attack is ALL because Christy supports Romney. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. how can one man contain so much intense stupid? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How can a man who subscribes to a religion that has love for your fellow man and love for your enemy as its central tenets be filled with such seething hatred? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Human nature--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it you're asking that seriously and I'll give you my best stab at a serious answer. Growing up Catholic you would think he subscribes to the Catholic view that salvation comes through faith and good works. During the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti he slagged every charity proposed, but I believe listed his as a Puritan church near his home. That being his regular church would explain a lot about his disgusting behavior. It's at least true of most if not all Puritan churches that they subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity and believe that the elect remain sanctified through divine intervention, not right acts alone. In other words, they don't really give much of a shit at all about what you believe or why and since the taint of their own bad behavior is something they can purge because of their favored status as having been hand chosen by god they don't really care to be all that decent to you either. 15:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nutty. I WAS asking seriously. I really wish I had the time to learn more about the different branches of Christianity. Like too many of us here, I tend ti see it as an undifferentiated blob. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Kettleticket stated that Andy still attends a Catholic church, or at least thought he did. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing worse for people like Andy then Democrats are supposed RINOs. Democrats are of course traitors by default, but people like Christie? They are supposed to be on the side of pure righteousness! They betrayed the trust! When I say "betrayed the trust", I mean straying any small amount from the path of "pure" conservatism as defined by Andy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor Andy... Rubio Defends Romney From Gingrich Attack... Luckily, Andy is completely insane and can resolve all this in his head. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I need some physics help, because I think Andy may have been right, because of relativity :/

I can't be assed to look up the diffs, but a while ago on one of his physics benders Andy said that the exponent on the Gravity equation might not actually be 2 but might be slightly higher or lower. Of course this was taken as crazy and ignorant rambling (as it was intended no doubt) but I was just thinking about it and that exponent comes from a radius to surface area equation that is for a euclidean space. Since relativity has such factors as relative speed and gravity itself bending the fabric of space and time that euclidean formula no longer holds true. Someone who understands physics please rescue me. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In non-Euclidean space, the exponent doesn't have to be two, but outside of really strong relativistic effects, it will be close. It will also vary by scale and (if the curvature of space varies from place to place, as it does in the real universe) location. If you managed to empirically check the value of that exponent to extreme precision, it probably wouldn't be exactly 2, but it also wouldn't be a single discrete value. However, this is not literally what Andy was saying. He was proposing that it could be something other than 2 in Newtonian gravitation where it could not due to Newtonian gravitation specifically using the exponent 2 (due to its Euclidean model of space). 184.61.193.172 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the domain of newtonian gravitation is an euclidean space. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't assume the existence of relativistic effects on space time and still use the newtonian gravity equation. GMm/r^2 is an excellent approximation for relatively flat space time, that's why we can't use it for black holes and for the orbit of mercury.Tesformes (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm opening a can of worms but I thought that Mercury was affected primarily by time dilation rather than the force of gravity being affected by their distance from the sun being relativistically altered significantly. I think that in their own frame of reference that mercury has a much more newtonian orbit. So take away message, Andy's speculation is correct, but only because of something else that Andy is completely wrong about. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, Ye Gods no!!!! This crap about the exponent being slightly different from 2 is something Andy has latched on to. It was proposed by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall in the 19th century as a way of explaining the Mercury precession, and was discarded almost immediately because it predicts the same precession (per orbit of the planet involved) for every planet or other orbiting body. It predicted a clearly wrong precession for the Moon, and was quickly discarded because of that. But Andy is still clinging to it, because he thinks he can use it to explain the precession better than general relativity. He even lists that as an item in his quantifying open-mindedness page. It's just totally wrong. Listing it is itself an example of closed-mindedness. See my excellent takedown of the topic here, near the bottom. See also my excellent analysis, complete with a table of precessions, here. (Note that Andy has written "Fallacious claims of" in front of my section title.)

The exponent fudging is just bullshit. And it doesn't relate to time dilation either. Perhaps you've been reading Jim Jast's bullshit. Or some of the YEC fundamentalist web pages.

SamHB (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Following your links got me to CP's relativity article and the most recent talk page archive. I couldn't read all of it as I was losing brain cells at a "geometric rate" but Andy's bone-headed mule-like stubbornness is a sight to behold. I mean you have to really put in the effort to be that childishly obstinate. Especially if you're being pointed and laughed at by your own crazy brother. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sam, I said very clearly that I don't understand it, you don't need to be an asshole about it. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I intended to criticize Andy, not you. My point was that the exponent fudging is absolute bullshit, and you shouldn't believe it. To the extent that you are tempted to believe anything Andy says, you are mistaken. SamHB (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Has CP quit pushing birtherism?

Did they give up when Obama released the long form birth certificate?

Because otherwise, I would think they'd be all over this: An administrative law judge has ordered Obama to appear in court over eligibility to appear on the ballot.

Oh, and Orly Taitz is involved. Color me surprised... MDB (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

they said the long form was fake. i am surprised they havent mentioned it yet. as obama i'd just tell that court to fuck off; screw retards who cant accept a black man became president. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A fine system of checks and balances that would be, if the president could tell the courts to "f*** off." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Jackson. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless Chuckarse will be crowing about it on his website. Expect the MPR spam shortly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, TerryH is all over this. Or did you already forget this recent blog post about this very issue? --Sid (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I only go to that website if i cant make out what he's going on about from the MPR post, so no; i havent. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I love how the blog you link fails to explain that the Judge is an Admin Law Judge. GodotGrow a vagina 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Mikalos, claims that this is all about race are disgusting. They wouldn't like Obama for very obvious reasons regardless of race. I see no reason to claim (without clear justification, of which I may be ignorant) that, say, Orly Taitz is a racist when her activities can be attributed to pigheaded stupidity.

The campaign against Clinton was pretty vicious, too. The fight against Bush the Younger was somewhat nasty as well, what with rumors of cocain use and failure to fulfill his duties in the Nat'l Guard. People are nasty, and the fact that they're currently being nasty to a black man does not mean they are (necessarily) racist.

Charges of racism are serious. Let's have good and explicit evidence before we make them. Phiwum (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come off it. If he was white, his religion and his parentage wouldn't be issues. You don't need to look any further than John McCain if you ever needed proof of that. Where were the McCain birthers? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was listening to the Conspiracy Skeptic last night, and from what I hear they did exist. They had to work out whether the hospital he was born in was a military one and everything. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 21:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about the Tebow birthers? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To Jeeves: I know nothing of the sort. There are more differences between McCain and Obama than skin color. Like, say, I don't know, political stripes? The folks who are claiming that Obama isn't a legitimate president quite explicitly disagree with his politics. I've no idea whether they think that he is inferior due to skin color and I won't pretend otherwise. (Don't attribute to racism what can be explained by political hypocrisy.) Phiwum (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The popularity of Herman Cain would suggest that at least some of that demographic does not have any problem with a candidate's skin color. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And Michael Steele. I'm sure some people of a more conspiratorial slant will claim that the popularity of black republicans is just a "some of my best friends are black" ploy, but frankly I don't buy that. What I would be willing to concede though, is that the overlap between birthers and racists is considerable, in that the vast majority of racists would latch onto birtherism, but that doesn't make all birthers racists. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Steele, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have a commonality besides the letter "R": the word "Former" being used to describe them. I wonder why. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy shows a tiny bit of sense

1 Andy finally removes Kens little pictures from MPR. *hopes that Kens little "articles" get "trimmed" next*--Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The path to Greatness is easy!

We got ourselves a new Conservative Hero folks!^img and all it took was to say "I dont wanna visit the white house".--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At least until he remembers that Hockey isn't dominated by glorious conservative Americans, but dirty liberal Canadian, Russians, and Swedes. --Revolverman (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will never forget his courage; saving millions of people with total disregard of his own safety. A true hero in every meaning of the word! --GTac (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Jpratt managed to overlook the following snippet: "This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country." For him it's all about Obama. Because liberals. --PsyGremlinSprich! 07:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet Andy is reading that as "Both parties have become liberal. Only the conservative movement can stop this." --★uːʤɱ heretic 08:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. As an American, I think this is disrespectfull to the office. If David Ortiz did that to bushie in '08, people would be FREAKING OUT. He'd have been labled "Unamerican", "Unpatriotic", "A Traitor", or all of the above.

That said, as a Boston sports fan, he could scream "WHITE POWER" for all I care, So long as he gets the job done on the ice.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm gonna guess right now that Andy has officially forsaken his beloved Tim Tebow now. He had a good run yes, but as history tells us with The Foamy One, Andy's treacherousness and lust to be in the "winning" team are far more important to him than any of his deluded, self contradicting beliefs. I just hope this lolcow yields plenty of mileage with regards to Andy Insanity Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bush in 08? At that point everybody had already threw him under the bus. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Superbowl is between two "leftist" regions; suddenly football doesn't matter to Andy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, sports like football have more than their share of conservative Christians, so it really doesn't matter who wins, it'll be a dominantly Christian team. His bets are basically pre-hedged. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say, I lost some respect for Thomas. While I live in Boston, I'm not a Bruins fan. Nonetheless, I've seen a game or two and I've noticed that Thomas is one of the only players in the NHL that pays proper respect to the flag during the anthem and he seems like a good guy. But his refusal to visit the White House is unfortunate and his explanation, with its weird, Sovereign citizen-like capitalization makes me think the guy is a bit nutty. Good goalie, nonetheless. No Fleury, mind you, but maybe my loyalty's showing. Phiwum (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You lost respect for him because he doesnt wanna visit the white house? That sounds shallow; just saying. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for me "proper" respect for the flag is little to none, but that's neither here nor there. But regardless of who's president, an official trip to the White House sounds kind of cool. I assume there's an open bar? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, people can differ on the sense of "proper" respect for a piece of cloth. I lost respect for him slightly because I don't like politicizing a simple and traditional ceremony to reward a sports championship team. I lost rather more because his written explanation just makes him sound a bit distastefully eccentric at best, and closet conspiracy theorist at worst. Phiwum (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh, if the Bruins win the Stanley Cup again, we're gonna get another "Conservapedia is proven right again!" thing. And I love it how Schlafly couldn't shut up about Tim Tebow, but when the final four are all liberal cities, he shuts up.... Andy Frankinson (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Write A Flawless Essay"

Andy's latest Writing Assignment: "Write a flawless essay of 300-500 words (you will be greated both in technical correctness and style) on one of the following topics:" Jared (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Already WIGO'd. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'm not one for pointing out Andy's spelling/grammar errors (because I would invariably fall victim to Muphry's law), but that one tickled me. I'd never dream of teaching a dance class because I am terrible at dancing. So what makes Andy even dream that he's qualified to each anybody anything about writing? --Inquisitor (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, P-Foster, sorry for not checking there first! And Inquisitor--it's not JUST a spelling error, like he had spelled graded grated. He wrote an entirely different word "greated" in the same sentence as asking for a FLAWLESS ESSAY. And it works on another level, which is every student he "grades" ends up getting a "great"! No matter what awful responses students come up with, and how wrong they may be, they inevitably end up getting full, or almost full, credit! Therefore graded and greated are probably the same in Andy's world, since both are (in his mind) a reflection on his transcendent teaching skills. Jared (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I call bullshit! We know grade inflation only occurs in liberal public schools -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, WIGO'ing typos is fuckin' petty, but, like the immortal "I do teaching writing," this one needed to be preserved for the ages. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging solely from the content that single page (even after editing the obvious mistakes), it's clear that Andy is in no position to grade any child's work for technical correctness or style. "Write a very short story of fiction?" Seriously? And expecting any child to write a "flawless" essay is just ludicrous. Tacitus (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you did that on purpose Inquisitor ('Muphry's' law) but you made me laugh. Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Muphry's law is a thing. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy in the near future: "Good catch on that spelling error, students! I put it there to test your perceptiveness, really!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kinda like when Rob posted barely-legal porn to see if we were paying attention. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm dreading how awful this class is going to be. Mrs P2B is an English teacher an I've already threatened to impose some of these essays upon her to see her reaction. She has offered sexual favours in return for me not showing them to her. --PsyGremlinTala! 04:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic tidbits

Andy's corrected it, but there's still another couple of errors for the more pedantic among us:

you will be graded both in technical correctness and style

Tip for Andy: that should either read

you will be graded on both technical correctness and style

or

you will be graded both on technical correctness and on style

First, grading is done on a metric, not in a metric (but of course it's still right to say something like "graded in December" or "graded in part on speed"). Second, "graded style" doesn't make sense. If you remove the word "both", "and", and everything in between, and the setence doesn't make sense, you've done it wrong.
TL;DR version: Andy is flabbergastingly incompetent. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"graded in style" He's wearing some swag while doin' the gradin'. At the same time he is sitting correctly as his grading is also done in "tecnical correctness". --★uːʤɱ socialist 11:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescue of hostages in Somalia

Any predictions on how the good folks over at Conservapedia are going to spin this story to make Obama look as bad as possible? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What? Obama ordered the hit on another nine militants to time with his State of the Disunion speech? How many months has it been delayed for the free publicity? nobs^Moderated 03:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, this wouldn't have happened if the aid workers had carried guns. Clearly, Obama's anti-gun policy is part of his cooperation with the kidnappers. And they are probably all just puppets of the United Nations and their Agenda 21 (which will abolish private property worldwide, starting with guns so we can't fight back once their private army marches us into FEMA Death Camps). --Sid (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your defence of Christian Obama is amusing. The Nobel Peace prize winner is good at giving orders to kill. (talk)

Hell yeah he is, he's not going to let some Swedes tell him who to kill and who not to kill. First Bin Laden, then most of Al Qaeda, then the Somali bastards, maybe he'll bomb the Kardashians next! Then he can get another Nobel Peace Prize!

Seriously though, no shit he gives orders to kill, he's the goddamn commander in chief of the armed forces.RachelW (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I could get behind the idea of carpetbombing the Kardashians. They have outlived anykind of usefullness to anyone.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thunderstruck, your last statement suggests that they ever had any userfulness to begin with. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed Kim's playboy spread. But other then that, they are at a leval of uselessness that rivals the jersey shore...--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 17:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Charity escalation

The entire "Obama, Romney Gingrich, and charity." section on Talk:Main is seriously lulzy. Remember in the past how CP whined about how Obama doesn't give enough to charity? Well, the moment St. Newt is shown to give less to charity than Obama, the spin engines kick into overdrive: "HOW DARE YOU LOOK ONLY AT THE MONEY?^img WE DIDN'T DO THAT WITH OBAMA BACK WH-...erm...^img WELL ANYWAY, JUST BECAUSE OBAMA GIVES MORE TO CHARITY DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL STOP^img CRITICIZING^img HIM!"

Of course, we all saw it coming. Obama could singlehandedly save a thousand kids and puppies from a burning orphanage, and CP wouldn't spare a single nice word for him. St. Newt could set an orphanage on fire, and CP would declare that he is a hero because building a new one will create jobs ("How many orphanages did Obama burn down, huh?"). --Sid (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Obzma had to invade private property to save those kids. Also; raging wildfires are good, they save people from a terrible terrible Radon death; per Ken--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So the widow's mite has no currency amongst the CP faithful? Tacitus (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is absolutely amazing. Aside from the obvious stuff like equating Social Darwinism with Evolution (which they call "Darwinism"), they completely ignore the fact that in those years where Obama was being charitable, he was a state senator (who don't get paid as much) and, up until 2002, he worked with charitable foundations (public and private) in leadership roles. Call me crazy, but I think if you work the charity, it releases you from having to make as many donations, because you're still part of the solution. Oh, but we're just a trusworthy encyclopedia, let's not bother with facts! -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

La la la la can't hear you.

As the peons clamour for Dear Leader's blessing and bicker amongst themselves,^img he remains silent on the matter. Maybe he hopes it'll all go away. Or maybe the red message bar sends him into some sort of epileptic fit. --PsyGremlinPraat! 06:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why, does it flash at the critical frequency? --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly synched to Andy's mental activity. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And Rob has clearly taken lessons from Ken on how to be a douche. I'm surprised he hasn't found facts that show Newt's wives divorced him after they were screwing around. Also - the "handed divorce papers while on her deathbed" is your made-up fantasy. She was handed them while recovering from cancer. Which doesn't make it any better. I can't wait to see you re-whitewash Newt's article when he loses the nomination. --PsyGremlinHable! 06:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you're turning making-a-fool-of-yourself into a fine art. I have to say I admire your dedication. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that Rob has decided to "take revenge" on Andy by becoming a troll-parodist and filling CP up with crap, but he's been at it since Day 1. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Incoming lulz

Andy: "But thanks for giving me an idea for my upcoming writing course: examples of redundancy."
Oh boy oh boy, I simply cannot wait for such insightful examples of redundancy as deceitful liberal and atheist dog-fucker and Andy Schlafly, expert ^{ONE / TALK} 09:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

One of those is an oxy-moron. Emphasis on the second two syllables. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gossip

Oh conservapedia, how far you have fallen. We don't allow gossip they say, when their mainpage trumps a story from a page entitled, broadly and boldly, gossip. Ace^Moderator 10:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only gossip if liberals talk about it. What Andy is doing is highlighting the stories the lamestream media won't publish. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the non "lamestream media" link is entitled gossip adds to how juicily repulsive this double standard is. Even if they weren't on high horses about gossip (because liberals) it still looks petty and foolish linking to a page which boldly proclaims "gossip" as the first thing on it. Not very Christian, eh? Garçon^coffee! 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The dishonesty of their whole practice is simply amazing. If somebody speaks bad about Herman Cain basically living a basically polygamic life and treating women badly or Newt Gingrich's slightly overlaping three marriages its a "smear campaign". Sure you'd think if they would at least value those politicians that are faithful to the people they marry — but these things simply don't exist for them. Obama doesn't get mentioned being faithful to his wife and Romney just get's shit — instead for having a certain position on abortion (or in Romney's case several) they are labeld "anti-family" (what does that even mean?). But oh wait, some celebrities marriage just ended and it's drug related? Because liberals! I can't picture any human being so stupid to not see that and go: "Wait, we're inconsistent here." It's like they don't have the checking mechanism/bullshit-meter we all have. And I don't know if their system requirements are to low for that mechanism to run (who knows, they might tilt and get a blue screen) or if they took a hammer and beat the the shit out of that thing a long time ago. --★uːʤɱ sinner 10:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That "wait, we're inconsistent here" feeling that normal people get is cognitive dissonance - CPers and other rightards (see what i did there) simply lack that function entirely. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the "why should we be held to higher standards than liberals" issue when it is those same conservatives who are insisting that everyone should meet their selective arbitrary standard in the first place. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy takes stupid to a whole new level. Again

User: Is Gingrich an orphan? His father abandoned the family but didn't die. His mother remarried when Newt was three. All three of the adults involved (father, mother, stepfather) lived well into Newt's adulthood. He never refers to himself as an orphan.^img

Andy: Maybe he downplays his "orphan" status?^img

Brilliant! Ignore all the dull facts about how his parents did not die when he was young, and how he was almost exclusively raised in a two-parent home with his mother. Instead, come up with a guess that Newt is intensely private about the fact that he is a fictional orphan.

Of course, we have Rob to thank for pretending that being abandoned by one's father makes one an orphan (while, as WIGO says, ignoring Barack Obama^img and Bill Clinton^img). Rob's silliness is also on display when he claims that it is better to pretend that Gingrich is an orphan^img than to use PBS as a reference. That would be a serious problem, whereas making shit up about Gingrich as Oliver Twist is okay. Good stuff, Rob, good stuff! (If he weren't so stupid, I'd think he was a hypocrite.) Phiwum (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what does "candid"^img mean? Out-of-focus? Phiwum (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's stupidity or hypocrisy - I think it's plain old deliberate propaganda. See his crap about "New Ordeal" and "Obamaville". What baffles me is that he tries to defend in the face of irrefutable facts. That's not how propaganda works, Rob! You're supposed to suppress/hide/ignore/shout-louder-than the truth! ^{ONE / TALK} 13:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad Rob's returned to CP. He can get away with levels of trolling none of us ever could. If we inserted blatant lies into an high profile article we'd get reverted and blocked in a heartbeat. When Rob does it it forces Andy to take a "well, maybe it's kind of true?" position. Hilarious. See what else you can do with the Gingrich article, Rob. Maybe you can mention he's likely the second coming of Christ. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupidity and hypocrisy are large factors, but mostly in making Rob think his deceptions are clever or will go unnoticed. I'm starting to get really excited as the election gets close. From Gingrich inevitably losing the nomination, to Andy having to support Romney, to the lies about Obama all over again... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too. The election cycles are what CP was made for. The comedy is unparalleled. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck the source! I know better!

Source: “For me, it is a choice,” Nixon told the Times. “I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

John Aravosis (quoted in the source!): “Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.”

CP:^img Homosexuality is a choice!

We need to give this guy a reward for calling-it. And Andy and Ken one for taking-the-bait-at-the-speed-of-light. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And what's the chance that they'll leave out, ignore, skim over, or simply deny the existence of the "for many people it's not" part? ^{ONE / TALK} 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

One person = all 'liberals'.

You know, that could make a good song: "I am the Liberals". F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Goo goo g'joob. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 16:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you Fallacy, P-Foster, for getting a song stuck in my head. Interestingly, it's the bootleg Frank Zappa version that I'm listening to in my mind, not The Beatles version.-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Andru should read "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, with "homosex" mandated by the government of Earth. I can see his head shattering into itsy-bitsy pieces of freeze dried hate. Jimaginator (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this Nixon woman. I also like the fact that as soon as there's a bit of news in the homosphere (I think I just made that up and I am PROUD OF IT), Conservative is right there. He clearly keeps his fingers on the pulse of the gay community. The hot, throbbing, pulse. X Stickman (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly the "homosphere" is a layer of the atmosphere. There's a heterosphere, too. They're separated by the "turbopause", which I believe is also the name of a vibrator. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Man. Meteorologists are filthy. X Stickman (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Porn films that will probably not succeed: The Filthy Meteorologist. "Oh, baby, let me feel that throbbing mass of air coming out of the Canadian Rockies." MDB (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a very specific market. --★uːʤɱ federalist 19:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that niche. Any skin flick about meteorologists mut surely involve golden showers. That has quite a followingAMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me touch your warm front with my columbo nimbus. ^{ONE / TALK} 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is using this as the soundtrack too obvious? MDB (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just one more thing... Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

Quote mining reliable enough to set an atomic clock to! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Flip flop

Now that the rabid right (Coulter, Drudge, American Spectator, et al) have turned on Newt, how long before he becomes the anti-Christ on CP? Or will they become RINOs? --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to the day Coulter is considered liberal by CP. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait till they find out Newt committed the unforgivable sin: blasphemy of the Holy Reagan. MDB (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kens head goes "POP"

"An atheist temple is being in the UK"^img (I'm assuming the word "Built" should be in there). His reaction isn't so much a sentance, but him throwing everything atheist related (minus the beastiality thing) at that post. It makes me smile.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do have to wonder if Alain de Botton is some sort of double agent for creationism. The only possible way to make creotards jump up and down and screech "SEE! WE TOLD YOU THEY WORSHIPPED MILLIONS OF YEARS!" more is if they put a giant gold statue of Darwin in the fucking thing and started bowing down to it. I just don't understand the point of this otherwise. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a line I like in the comments - Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. -Lardashe

(ec) I do love Ken - his little rants are full of such impotent rage. Like his latest rant on the QE blog, which runs along the lines of, 'Oh yeah? Dawkins cheered over funding being removed from creationist schools? Well, any day now... any day now, the QE UK blog will open and then he's finished! Oh yes, and some guy who works for Creation.com totally pwned your book, and somebody else who writes for creation.com totally thinks his books is better than your book. They're like little, bratty kids. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This must be whats going through kenny boy's head at the moment.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. Remember the video the "13 year old" did, showing Teddy Bear Archangel Gabriel sticking it to Dawkins. Apparently, according to Ken's Dawkins article proof that Dawkins is unable to answer toe 15 questions.^img The man is seriously unhinged. --PsyGremlinTal! 19:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, the situation actually is that one guy, presumably an atheist, has proposed some kind of 'atheist temples' and has given some money to an architect to start designing one. Meanwhile, many other atheists are doing epic facepalms and shitting all over the idea, including some very well known atheists indeed. 86.186.137.152 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PZ: "Oh please." Yeah, I think that's the only proper response to this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Has CP quit pushing birtherism part deux

In response to this section the answer is no.^img Ace^Moderator 22:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Too bad we can't harness the energy from their burning stupidity...if we could, we'd never need fossil fuels again. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We could always hook Andy up to a hydroelectric plant. That way, in the (incredibly likely) event that it turns out Obama is eligible to be President, the tears of rage/apopleptic sadness will work wonders. With just one, we could power the world! -- 23:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not Assfly, its Throwbooty. But your premise stands.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I knew Chuckarse would get to it eventually, but he sure took his time. He doesn't exactly seem to have his finger on the erratic pulse of wingnuttery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, Newt Gingrich's early origins seem as mysterious as Barack Huessien's.... nobs^Moderated 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. They are both mysteriously natural born Americans and most mysteriously not orphans. The REAL mystery is why people are putting so much energy and emphasis trying to disprove facts. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

John McCain, the RINO suited for SoD

John mccain is a RINo, and endorsed Romney... however..^imgif he did become SoD he wouldn't be in the senate, so a conservative could be put in power! Nevermind the SoD is a liberal!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, cabinet members don't have the independence of Senators, and basically have to do what the President tells them to. They also don't have to worry about re-election, so compromising isn't so much a problem. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused that speculation about a possible future (however improbable) is worthy of an encyclopedia article, but speculation about the inevitable future (colonization of space, SETI) is not. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm simultaneously confused by how SETI is "colonization of space" and also how colonization (difficult beyond ordinary comprehension) is certain when the alternative (extinction) is so easy it could happen at any moment by complete accident. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a comma separating "colonization of space" and "SETI", meaning they are are two different ideas whose times will inevitably come (barring, of course, extinction). My point was that CP has a rather dismissive article about SETI and nothing about colonization of space (whereas Wikipedia has plenty about futuristic technologies), but somehow a Gingrich administration is more likely AND worthy of an article. Just more evidence of them being trusworthy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed something on that page: "Christ Christie" - typo or Freudian slip? Surely not by Andy though... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 22:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's pretty easy to say SETI is inevitable when it has already begun happening and has happening every day since it started and continues to happen today. I assume you mean the discovery of ETI not the search of it. In which case I'd hardly say that was inevitable. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia looks... nice

I look at CP and what do I see? An enormous image of the march for life. So large I thought it was Ken's work, but no, it's Andy. It's just a terrible fucking picture. The size, shape and composition is a disaster. The poor girl is derping. Half an American flag. Someone's arm in the way. You've got to think he took a shit ton of pictures (he has at least 20 people to tell about this, so there may be a powerpoint or something). Why in god's name would you pick that picture? Also, I enjoyed how he removed the masterpiece and, in s strange way, substituted his own. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The "50,000,000+ babies missing!" sign is almost perfectly centred. I guess it's because of that. X Stickman (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing really that the least attractive page on the entire wiki is the first one any visitor sees. As I understand it, it's been in that horribly formatted, seldom archived state since its inception. Garçon^coffee! 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see...the ratio of miscarriages/failed fertilizations to supposed abortions is approximately 3 to 1...that means there are over 200,000,000 "babies missing" (technically the sign is correct, but only technically). Who would feed all those people and provide them with jobs? Sure as fuck not conservatives...

Still, I think that sign demands someone else in the crowd holding this sign. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the quadrillions of unfertilised ova that end up down the toilet? Or the gazillions of wasted sperm that end up, well, pretty much anywhere you can imagine. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

^ *fap* ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ wasn't me! 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

CP -- Pushing the boundaries in error messages.

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '=' in /home/cptransi/public_html/index.php on line 125. What the hell is that all about? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Andy spilled his coffee on the server. Ironclad (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... a random event causesa mutation in the code. This causes the whole, previously perfect system to break. Exactly as creationism predicts. Conservapedia proved right again! Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I also heard that computers never used to lock up before The Fall. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Then god installed a bunch of new windows updates, Adam discovered /b, Eve bought a new apple, and everything went to hell. --Umichcynic (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Should have used Linux... F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The pathname in the error message is not one of those Windows pathnames... ListenerX^TalkerX 05:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing the post immediately above me, which is why I used one-extra indent than it. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I now got "Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ')' in /home/cptransi/public_html/index.php on line 127" (though it worked minutes before). Why would they even fudge around in the server files? --Sid (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rudie Andy can't fail. --★uːʤɱ sinner 13:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't know enuogh about the s/w so its unlikely to be him. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rudie Andy Some other crazy person can't fail. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A royal invitation

This is an offer that is almost too good to pass up.^{img — Unsigned, by: Umichcynic / talk / contribs}

That project is doomed to fail, simply because Andy would have to make a decision, and that never happens. However, it would be beautiful to watch Ken's head explode if Andy were to prefer the new improved version. The only problem is, is that he's then lock that version and spend a gazzillion edits turning it back into the old version. --PsyGremlinParla! 05:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he could get the Conservapedia Panel to declare it pretty much fine the way it is. That'd stop Kendoll fucking it up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a chance to depose Kendoll as the enforcer of ideological purity (or at least a chance to challenge him to move slightly closer to reality). It would be a shame to pass on this; after all, it's a coffin of Ken's own making. But it's gonna take some help from other double agents on CP to do it. --Umichcynic (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Would Andy be more likely to look it over if you emailed a draft directly to him, rather than going through his talk page or something? -- 08:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm not sure why anyone would want to offer to help improve CP. I like the article as it is: off-puttingly long, despicably hateful, and damningly clumsy. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused by the people who think that this could actually lead to anything. Sorry, but no. Ken's version is there to stay, and Ken knows it. Even ignoring Andy's complete lack of decision-making capabilities (which enabled Ken to rise to this position and stay there despite openly trolling everybody), Andy and the other sysops believe that Ken's articles are of high quality and that they attract people who wish to learn more about the evils of atheism/homosexuality/evolution. No alternate version will ever be accepted unless (1) it's at least as long and insane as Ken's version and (2) Ken immediately gains complete editorial control over it. What you saw there was Ken trolling. It's exactly the same as him going "Well, feel free to complain to Mr. Schlafly, but I doubt he'll listen to your whining. :)" --Sid (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

From what ive seen Andy rarely takes notice of what other people post unless it impinges on his pet subjects and always will appear to back up his admins in the event of a fight. SO trying to slip an alternative version of a page thru the backdoor is unliekly to succede. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, I've been blocked again (fourth account in a row). I'll take this as a sign that I should find a new hobby; instead of trolling conservapedia. --Umichcynic (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow

What the^img <capture>fuck am I reading?^img Rapier (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you new around here? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More or less. He's so out there though. Rapier (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's fun to read when you're high. Otherwise, I recommend skimming. That level of crazy might be contagious! --Umichcynic (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is called a "Conservapedia," or more specifically, a "Ken

." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More Tim Tebow stuff....

According to CP, "Tim Tebow's throwing for 316 yards helped cause internet salvations." I lol'd when I saw that.... Andy Frankinson (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Link^img to the craziness. Ken sure loves his Internet Evangelism. --Sid (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize I'm a gigantic cunt here, but somebody so stupid to change his set of believes because of a mere coincidence, really has deserved to be exploit by shamans priests. Let's just hope these people don't have guns. --★uːʤɱ socialist 13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The only people who'd believe that are people who already believed that. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone somewhere jumped up out of their chair in excitement at the 316 yard pass, fell and cracked their head open on the coffee table, spilling blood all over page 316 of the TV guide, got 316 stitches, then had to get the blood out of the carpet with a $3.16 bottle of detergent they picked up on the way home from the hospital with a receipt timed at 3:16pm, they might turn to God. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't even read it. CP gives me 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ')' in /home/cptransi/public_html/index.php on line 127" error. I think it's divine intervention - God is sparing me from that bullshit. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It would need to be line 316 for it to be divine intervention. Looks like someone has been meddling where they shouldn't have. Ken must be having kittens if he can't log on, perhaps he could catch up on his sleep? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Flying kittens, I presume? --Fergus Mason (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think it's Ken's excessive use of oversight has finally terminally borked the server. Either that, or Icewedge finally got that bot to work... --PsyGremlin講話 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But, its a sign that Gingrich is an orphan. Or maybe something about keeping yourself from being polluted by looking at CP. --Shagie (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh Scott, you're my favorite Poe

Because liberals. ^{— Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs}

He's not poe. He is sarcasm.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer is not to be outdone. Much more Poe than Scott. He's almost like TK-lite with his promotion of the degradation of CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy calls Virginia for Paul

And a full month before the primary vote in virginia, andy (qouting some blog that begins with "I believe" is saying Ron Paul will win Virginia^img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the idea isn't all that far fetched. Since Newt and Santorum failed to qualify for the primary ballot, it'll be a two man race. A lot of pundits feel this will be a real test of the party base's "anybody but Romney" sentiment. Without a slate of unRomneys to split the vote, they may well all line up behind Paul. We'll see. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory. Of course, what Andy doesn't seem to get is that the longer the GOP primary continues, the more Obama smiles. MDB (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think that's what the blog's author is pulling for. But Andy just saw a headline he liked and ran with it. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was somewhat amused that right below it is something about the Florida primary and being thye most important one--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Paul the only candidate who hasn't been the Not-Romney of the week yet? It would certainly help to complete the set. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul fails the Israel test. Romney wins for being pro-Israel (At least for this week.)--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 04:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like they all fail a lot of conservatests anyway...but I get the impression that Paul won't get a turn because he's considered a third party candidate. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did everyone but me miss where Paul was leading in Iowa? There was a surge from Paul to Santorum and paul came oin a close third but he was like 12 points ahead by PPP before santorum surged from behind amidst massive character assasination against paul. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to people who talk about the primary, not the actual voters. I recall him doing relatively well with the latter, though I'm not sure why. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul could win Virginia but my guess is it will go Romney. The Republican base there is too dominated by Beltway insiders in northern Virginia, "moderate" East Coast type Republicans also in northern Virginia, military/defense hardliners in the Tidewater, and of course the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson constituency. The first three of those groups will break heavily for Romney and as for the fourth, who knows? Winchester, Harrisonburg, and Charlottesville might be Paul country, but that will hardly carry the state. I give Paul a much better chance of winning the Nevada and Maine caucuses. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken's day job?

I'm beginning to suspect that he is a columnist for The Economist. Case in point: this story about the arrest of Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, almost certainly an obese atheist. They open with a captioned picture likening him to a sumo wrestler, and then suggest that although he's generally known as Dr. Evil, he bears more resemblance to Fat Bastard. The guy isn't even all that big by my USAan standards. --Benod (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken having a Day Job seems unlikely given his edit patterns. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumour has it that Ken is high-functioning Asperger's, morbidly obese and lives in his mum's basement, drawing social security cheques. --PsyGremlinTal! 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Ken is five obese atheist midgets in a trenchcoat.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 16:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You left out "of indeterminate gender" --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken's writing style is so distinctive and obvious, you know when its actually him, no matter how many aliases he hides under. This, of course, isn't him; the writing is too eloquent for Ken for one. Two, what legit site is going to host columns from the nutter who is obsessed with bestiality on CP?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless Ken is the ultimate poe, I think he's pretty much another Christian Weston Chandler. The similarities in behaviour (outside of their respective obsessions, though they overlap in regards to homosexuality) are astounding, right down to how both constantly repeat the same thoughts and terms so often that, as you said, they're easily spotted by writing style alone. I expect he eeks out a meager existence of microwaved meals, intermittent sleeping and religious obsession, living off the government dole (and probably never considering the hypocrisy of it.) Ego (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the reasons most dismiss the poe theory; he has been at this far too long and devotes far too much of his (considerable free) time and mental effort to be anything other that a "true believer". CP has offered him the one place for years where he could have his own little fiefdom, fleeting as it is. the QE Campaign offers the same opportunity with his blog (even if it has a smaller audience), limited as he is in his new passion (I doubt CMI really acknowledges him other than to make sure he links back to them so they can sell more t-shirts, books, and mugs). I will agree on the "monthly tugboat" idea of government checks; I cannot see how he can possibly be gainfully employed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken is a great poet. --93.69.65.227 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is Ken's mother. Stop making fun of my precious boy. He's been meaning to apply for Social Security for his carpal tunnel, but until he does he gets his allowance from me when he does his chores. And he most certainly does NOT live in the basement, his room is upstairs like it's always been.

Ken actually can write fairly well and even make convincing points on some topics. I absolutely suck at finding links on CP or links to CP from here, but there are a few points where he's done things like argue against the war in iraq (or afghanistan) and he's actually been surprisingly eloquent and even intelligent sounding. Something about homosexuality and atheism really throws his brain into a different gear, though. I'm pretty sure his writing style is deliberate though, rather than him just being an inherently terrible writer, it's just that he doesn't see how stupid it makes him look. He thinks he's being witty and amusing whilst at the same time crushing the opposition. X Stickman (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the main reasons why I think he is a group of parodists. If you look at his writing style, it's the only style (at least which I can think of) that makes you look stupid but intelligent enough to edit a wiki at the same time. His other behaviours, like his editing pattern, his cuntishness and dickischness, his non-sequitur driven ridiculous arguments are all ther to make him look stupid. But as soon as he has to answer on a topic beside atheism and homosexuality he seems eloquent and able to make a well formed argument. Another thing is that to get so much wrong, he/they have to rather be educated. Even a stopped clock is more often right than Ken, this just goes against all odds. It's just plain weird, somebody so stupid not to see that the sample size in bestiality and atheist non-believers is just way too small, should not be able to see that rewriting the bible to free it from liberal bias is stupid. But — Ken does. That seems just wrong. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As original and illuminating as this Ken-fest has been, really I'm more worried about the fact that a respectable magazine has sunk to his level... --Benod (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Ken once claim that someone was paying real money for his scribblings? I couldn't have guessed it was The Economist. Vulpius (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ken, Read this

bam --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's still a virus. When will it become a crocoduck?!? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Michigan researchers studied a virus known as lambda Oh shit! Don't let Gordon Freeman in there! (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Release the data!!! P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, expect them to latch on to this quote if they get wind of the article:

“”In the case of lambda viruses, Mr. Meyer estimates the chance of all four mutations arising at once is roughly one in a thousand trillion trillion

Blah blah blah too improbable blah blah goddidit. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Likelihood of mutation: Low

Likelihood of scientific fraud/error: High (because liberals)

Therefore, it didn't even happen. Godspeed. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Merely the manifestation of adaptability mechanisms previously put in place by an Intelligent Designer; just like nylonase, multicellular yeast, and antibody genes.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that quote overlooks the fact that, under selective pressure, if those mutations hadn't become prevalent, other equally improbable mutations would have still resulted in adaptation. And, yes, I am prepared to point that out to Kendoll when the time comes. --Umichcynic (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you should also be prepared to be mocked with a non sequitur/blocked/dismissed/ignored/talked past/linked to one of his blogs and/or creation.com (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 14:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions

• RobS: "You've taken the case to the site owner, for an argument you've essentially won."
• RachelW: "Huh? Won? Finally?" Does her best Ken Impression^img

Tesformes (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Shame. Poor Rob. In the old days, before Ken screwed him over, he'd have been able to block that uppity non-cookie-baking bitch, long before it got to this stage. Now he has to admit to being wrong - something CP sysops, even former ones, aren't used to. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And if we can get balanced collaboration this way, so much the better. nobs^Moderated 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Conveniently, "balanced collaboration" will result in your "Gingrich the orphan" version staying up and protected^img until you and some sysop deem the replacement article to be ready (unless Andy overrules your suggestion). --Sid (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty much just quote mining his last paragraph, actually. He was trying to change the subject and extend the fucking argument even longer, and I couldn't stand it. I figured if I engaged in a little last wordism, he'd get confused and give up. RachelW (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's just start collaborating here: cp:User:RobSmith/Newt Gingrich. When the finished product s ready, we can ask Andy to review and unlock. nobs^Moderated 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Any change of "balanced collaboration" died when Kenny defeated you, and made your Community Portal idea into his own person plaything before destroying it completely, further entrenching CP in the fringe world of authoritarian paranoia that other social conservatives won't even touch or acknowledge. Of course he then celebrated by releasing his grandiose new masterpiece, the Tour De Bestial.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bottomline: the New Gingrich entry will ultimately be shaped on the user subpage link provided above. nobs^Moderated 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bottomline: Rob is so fucking stupid, he thinks you're that stupid too. Rob, this is as transparent a stall/diversion/deception as they all are. No one is falling for it. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we assume that anyone else gives enough of a shit to do what Rob says? Rachel already edited the article and told Rob to fuck off on Andy's talk page. Rob's such a prissy little bitch. Tesformes (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In a hilarious twist, the article was unprotected^img by Mr. Protect Everything Forever... Ken. --Sid (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. It isn't one of his gems, and he despises Rob. What better way to demonstrate Rob's peonhood than to let other peons trample his "insights"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really funny considering the latest WIGO. User wants to edit homosexuality, Ken tells him to fuck off and rewrite the article in user space. Rob wants to edit Newt's article in user space, Ken tells him to fuck off and let other editors have a go. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Amen. nobs^Moderated 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You realize it. So I must ask the question, why do you bother with them Rob? Serious question.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gotta ask too. Back when you got thrown out, I made some point about the CP name being ruined forever. Basically, it's impossible to turn it into a good site at this point because no matter what happens, it'll still be "that site that rewrote the bible" or whatever, and you agreed with me. So why go back at all? You gain nothing from it, and they can't gain anything from it. X Stickman (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Good question. Ken killed any hope for collaborative editing on Newt Gingrich and opened the page to trolls. I don't have the time to vet and monitor content in a revert war, so the trolls win. Thanks, Ken. And the Ratvandals wrote the definition of cp:Right wing, in Conservapedia. As I interpret it, this means Andy has rescinded his directive (available somewhere in Conservaleaks) there is to be no equating "conservative" or "right wing" with fascism of national socialism. There's no one to enforce it anymore. nobs^Moderated 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! Since Ken opened the article for editing, it has become a dung heap of trollery. Why, just look at the vandalism! I can see why you're upset. Phiwum (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's missing a bunch of information. Not a word on Gingrich's charitable giving, the Gingrich Foundation, for example. None of the existing sources have been vetted. And I don't have the time to revert war over any of it. So it appears non-conservative editors and Ratvandals have written CP's entry on Gingrich. Good work, from Andy, Ken, and everybody involved. nobs^Moderated 22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Because the page has been unlocked, it is impossible to add missing information. If only it were still locked, then missing information could easily be added. Life is hard. Phiwum (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anybody else slightly disturbed by the way Rob is channeling TK's "Liberal vandals will overrun the wiki and take control of its content unless you let me do as I please!" fear mongering? --Sid (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not it all, Sid, and you should be able to see this. I'm consistently advocating collaboration and accountability, whereas Ken has allowed deep cover parodists and ratvandals to overrun a key article -- something Ken & Karajou accused me of which led to my desysoping. nobs^Moderated 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A terrible problem, to be sure! But can you point out precisely which edits are due to deep cover parodists and vandals? What horrible parody have these scoundrels inserted? Be explicit. Phiwum (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob, why are you bitching about imaginary vandals when the only thing you wanted to is to "win" our argument by taking control of the article? If you want to rewrite the entire damn thing in user space to make Gingrich look like Baby Jesus, go for it. Oh, by the way, one question, already asked elsewhere: If Michelle Obama went on the news and told people that her husband had asked for an open marriage, would you consider that irrelevant info to the Obama article?RachelW (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anybody seen this?

zelmerszoetrop spilling the beans. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Err... Yes. You did. Seven months ago. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. It's dreadful, they say with age, your memory is the second thing to go. --PsyGremlinTal! 19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And memory often goes too. Also, your memory can start to go, and your memory can begin to fail. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't bash Americans when bashing Rob

If you are offended by NZ being called a third world country, then think how some of us Americans who love football feel. Also he is clearly bored and trolling.--Sorge (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

He isn't to far from what he was before he came back; just more blatant.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. No need to descend to his level. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the 2012 Presidential elections page

Jeb bush is STILL fucking third place for nominee.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

...and Newt is still an orphan. What of it? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

just commenting on it. Although I did notice that Sarah's "Heavy use of Facebook" is in the pro column now. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More Schlafly Stats

Totally unfounded of course, but how long until we get a new law to go with the doubling of conservative words?

“”Conservapedia has already broken our record number of unique visitors for January. Not only is our unique visitor traffic increasing, but our rate of increase is also increasing!

Show us the numbers Andy! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So the vandalism rate is going up? Tacitus (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it - hasn't CP been inundated with spambots lately? --PsyGremlinSermā! 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Andy mentioning the site stats is his little foray into the sport of trolling. Anytime you bring up the size of your audience, the casually curious are going to want to know some absolute and relative numbers. It's only natural. If somebody announced "Hey this diet is really working great! I lost 14% of my total weight!!!" Now, the first question to spring to any normal person's mind would be: "Nice. So... what are you down to now?". And Andy surely knows this. He also knows that he has zero intention of telling anybody. So why does he keep bringing it up? Because liberals. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How dare they fire a reporter who gets his information from Twitter?

Sometimes, Andy is truly perplexing^img. Evidently, the liberal media should be forgiving when a reporter prematurely reports on someone's death because he got the scoop from a tweet. Bizarre! Phiwum (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Typical case of "fucked if you do, fucked if you don't". If Andy's reactions were captured in a flowchart, every path would end in the "BLAME LIBERALS" field. Lamestream Media fires the guy? Blame liberals. Lamestream Media doesn't fire the guy? Blame liberals. Rapture doesn't happen? Blame liberals. Obama passes a law to enact World Peace, creating a true Utopia where suffering and war are non-existent? Blame liberals. Jesus returns to Earth and is gunned down in a red state with no gun-control laws? Blame liberals. North Korea is the first to build a base on Mars and claims the planet as its own? Blame liberals. Sun goes nova? Blame liberals. Sid comes up with more and more absurd examples? Blame liberals. --Sid (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) (Signature is stupid and generic? Blame liberals.)

You have let me down, Sid. It should be "because liberals" not "blame liberals".

But seriously now, they fired a guy that didn't do is job and his journalistic duty to research properly. That's the core of meritocracy. What is Andy raving about? --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'liberal media' is meany-weany because it fires incompetent reporters. Andy believes in second chances, ya'know. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, Obama could mention that he likes warm spring days and fuzzy puppy dogs, and Andy would be outraged on behalf of allergy sufferers. MDB (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can Andy even read?

Andy is crowing^img on the main page about how he got Herman "I expect you to die" Cain's endorsement right, and the "lamestream media" got it wrong. But the only article he can find^img to back up that statement is actually quoting Cain himself saying he won't endorse anyone. So Cain changed his mind, and endorsed someone a month after Conservapedia predicted it would happen, and that's their definition of being proven right? They've got low, low standards over there at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Standards? What makes you think they have standards? F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)What other encyclopedia is in the business of making predictions about future events? Anyway, I wonder when Andy is going to quit calling himself "Conservapedia"? He's not fooling anybody. ---Inquisitor (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

.Conservapedia c’ est moi!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Come now. Kendoll is also Conservapedia. And he may also be 12 midgets in a trenchcoat. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You assume to know that ken is not really several midgets of indeterminate gender in a trenchcoat?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't say for sure it's a trenchcoat. Could be a Nehru jacket, hawaii shirt or a bridal dress for all we know. Vulpius (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My theory is this; Andy is slightly more intelligent in this regard than most people give him credit for. See, using a PIDOOMA stat, most people who read an article don't actually check the references or the links. But those same people would be suspicious if there were no references. Andy knows this, so he includes references. He's just secure in the knowledge that the majority of people who read it (or at least, the majority of the people he imagines read the site, that is, loyal conservatives already) won't actually follow the link, so it doesn't have to agree with him or even relate to the story. He could write a news bulletpoint saying "President Obama destroys the world!", have a link directing to an article covering the local dogshow, and his followers (well, the followers he imagines he has) would start howling to the skies about the end of days. X Stickman (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it we're not going to be hearing about all the ones he/they (are we referring to just Andy or CP in general here?) got wrong then? -- 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They're the same tactics Rob uses. Rob and Andy both highly value propaganda and rhetoric. In Rob's case, it's much more transparent that he knows the truth and is intentionally trying to distort it. I like to imagine this all has something to do with living through the cold war. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken spikes the irony meter

I know it's Ken, but I think this one is pretty awesome... Ken is riled up about the "unethical labeling of conservative groups". Who's doing this unethical labeling, you ask? Why, "limp wristed homosexual activists and their effeminate liberal defenders", that's who! Occasionaluse (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He must have done that on purpose. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I preferred Ken when he was just dumb. Now he's dumb with a childish malevolent streak. --PsyGremlin講話 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not the first one to say that and I agree with you. There is something more frightening about malevolence when it springs from those too young, or too simple to know better such as Mary Bell or Thomson and Venables.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I read what he says and feel disgust, but then I realize he would never have the MA-CHEESE-MO to actually say anything remotely close to any gay person's face, and knowing he is such a coward makes me smile just a little bit.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Other people's shortcomings make me happy too. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In today's news, being unable to physically accost gay people is a shortcoming. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Great quote...

According to CP,^img Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth, said the following regarding the need for the organization Americans for Truth: “ Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. ”

This article is being linked to on MPR. I wonder how long that's been there... --Sasayaki (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC) TC)

15 days.^img Adambro fucked up the cquote with not coding a ref-tag corretly. --★uːʤɱ kant 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the "insert" quote to any diarhhea that might be put there eventually. Insert User Name here Jimaginator (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FFS can one of the OCD CP editors correct this mistake now? This bothers me even looking at it. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's fixed it yet. I guess nobody really gives a shit after all. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My eyes!

WTF? Andy's been running CP for what - 5 years now, and he's still too dumb to know how to use the gallery function? Instead, he creates a page^img that looks like a complete abortion.

Morons, the lot of them. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what did you lot do to celebrate their anniversary last November? ħuman 05:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)