Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive281

This is an archive page, last updated 15 March 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>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <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)

Breitbart's Passing Death

Andrew Breitbart dies at 43 of natural causes. The Daily Caller (ridiculous conservative blog) reports that Breitbart's site stated, "He died at 43 unexpectedly of natural causes." Ummmmm If you're 80, you can die unexpectedly of natural causes. If you're 43, and it's unexpected, natural causes is a little harder to accept as an answer. Of course, if it was in Hollywood, I can only imagine the causes CP would come up with for the death. Jared (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But they haven't, so shut up. Stop piling on Andy for things he hasn't done yet. --signed: appalled that some RW editors grave dance as much as they wish Andy would.

I'm with the BON. Dancing on a grave, in the hope that Andy will join in, is fucking lame. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't how what Jared said is 'dancing on a grave'. An American Nihilist (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We should use RationalWiki as a base to coordinate an attack on Conservapedia to bring this hypocrisy to the forefront. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did I celebrate his death? Do you know of many 43-year olds that die unexpectedly of natural causes? I didn't jump ahead of CP's announcement of his passing, merely noted the differences in their announcement of his death versus the myriad of other deaths they've announced on MPR. (Oh, and "But they haven't, so shut up." They haven't what? The only thing I've said they do---come up with random causes for Hollywood deaths---they have done, and I can easily bring up citations for that remark.) Jared (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also slightly confused how Jared's post is or supposedly tries to attract gravedancing. I think it's simple observation that CP simply parrots the official line ("We won't say what or how, but it was from natural causes!") when it's about someone they really like and engage in gossip (Drugs! Video games! Facebook!) and spin when it's someone they don't like or if they want to score a cheap political point.

Remember that football player with the heart condition who died semi-recently? Unless I missed recent developments in the case, his death counts as death by natural causes. What was Andy's reaction? VIDEO GAMES CAUSED A HEALTHY PERSON TO DIE!!! Yeah, sorry, but it's not grave dancing to point out that Andy would be doing exactly that if this was, say, Obama and not Breitbart.

On the subject of "natural causes at age 43" - well, it's certainly possible, though it does invite questions. Sudden illness or a previously undiagnosed heart condition can fuck you up even at 20, after all. On the other hand, it's hardly surprising to see speculation about non-natural causes since "natural death at 43" isn't exactly common.

Now please, let's keep a cool head about this. --Sid (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see it Sid: A person dies. RW editor's first move upon hearing that--before the guy is even put in the ground--is to come here and write a post linking that death to his/this site's hate-on for Andy. By using a person's death in order to score a cheap political point (as opposed to using it for something more, shall we say, reflective, perhaps making the point that , hey, dying out of the blue at a really young age is a distinct possibility, so maybe you should live your life with that in mind, or something), it's a form of grave-dancing. If the best lesson this editor could take out of the event is "Andy Schlafly is a dick," and needed to broadcast that over the web, that's kinda pathetic. -- 65.183.6.226 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the bullet and dance on the guy's grave if no one else will. I hope his cause of death was choking on a big bag of dicks. He was a total asshole who used any means necessary to dismantle anything that could possibly hurt the Republican cause. He was exactly what's wrong with politics today, so fuck that guy. He was a piece of shit and I'm glad he's gone. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OMG u r a bad person!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I try! Cow...Hammer^time! 16:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How dare you speak bad of the dead! They're not alive anymore, so it really matters that we honor memories we have of them, or something. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I understand the point being made about grave-dancing/cheap political point. But I think the recent concerns about looking into the abyss, etc. are causing us to be overly sensitive to these matters. Correct, I didn't wait until Breitbart was in the ground before noting the difference in announcements. But how far down on MPR would that story be by that time? Also, I would disagree that I'm making a cheap political point with his death. Instead, I'm noting the differences in the way that CP responds to deaths of an unexpected nature on MPR. I didn't jump ahead of their announcement and say, "Watch how CP handles Breitbart's death. They probably gloss right over it." Instead, I cited their/Jpatt's take on the death, and used it as a comparison to the way other deaths are handled on CP. His death, per se, wasn't the focal point---it was their handling of his death that I was contrasting. And, tangent, he wasn't even a random person or just a celebrity. He was a self-proclaimed major player in the political landscape, using tactics that CP would approve of and cited his stories.

Again, I think we're becoming so concerned about mirroring CP that notation of a death in any way except expression of sorrow and dismay gets called out as grave-dancing. Jared (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And on a SEPARATE NOTE, I do think Breitbart is an absolute asshole and while I don't celebrate his death, I am glad that he will no longer be promoting the garbage and ginned-up "scandals" as he had in the past. Jared (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all about the big picture. Here are three deaths by natural causes as per CP's main page:

1. Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart passed away unexpectedly from natural causes at age 43. [4] This is an enormous loss and we ask for your prayers for him and his family.
2. North Korean Communist dictator Kim Jong Il dies at age 69 of a heart atttack [5] Kim Jong Il is featured in Conservapedia's atheism and obesity article.
3. Did a video game cause the tragic death of a college football player on a top-ranked team? He was last seen, in apparent good health, playing a video game at 10:15am Sunday. About an hour later, he was found dead from cardiac arrest, without any suspicious circumstances. [6]
   Confirmed: the tragic death after playing video games was from cardiac arrest, for a college football player with a heart condition who had competed successfully in 9 games this season for a top-ranked team. [7] Are video games more stressful than playing high-pressure college football?

Oh, yes, it's terrible gravedancing that we point out this hypocrisy after it has happened. Definitely. --Sid (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

People are stupid. Especially people besides me. I had a point there, but I lost it with the second and third sentences. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is grave dancing to point out Andy's hypocricy when somebody dies. You know, the same way painting your face brown and saying "I'm no Obama" is racist or saying that women are better at jobs in which one needs social skills is sexist. It's a snarl world. --★uːʤɱ soviet 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it. I'll dance on his grave, I'm not skeered. Urination to follow. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticizing CP for its double standard on dealing with deaths is hardly grave dancing. We've been doing it for years. While I'll refrain from grave dancing myself, I'm not going to pretend to be upset about this. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you, grave dancer. Andrew Breitbart's grave deserves not to be danced on, since dancing is immoral. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

At least he can prove he's not Muslim. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's Grave Dancing and then there is Grave Dancing. Mocking somebody stupid for their beliefs (be they alive or dead) is one thing; mocking somebody because they died is something else. Guess what CP does. Dendlai (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Breitbart was a sweaty blowhard (descriptive of both his appearance and his statements) and a partisan, hypocritical, unapologetic asshole in life. May he rest in peace in death, and sympathies to his surviving family.Shakedangle (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of when Ted Kennedy died. Andrew called him a pile of excrimite. Now a bigger man would turn the other cheek. I, however, am not a fan of being the bigger man. I hope the death was slow, excruciating, and when he voided his bowels, he was on his bed, and on the good sheets. Also, I hope the man who does the autopsy is a liberal.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Using a recent death to make a point may be considered poor taste in some circles, but that doesn't invalidate the point. Whatever counts as dancing on a grave, choosing to follow the facts or not matters. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what one wants to say about it. I don't dance on graves, but I sure as hell am relieved that another bully who made his fame through destroying the lives and careers of little people, who got off on coarsening the political discourse to satisfy his own messiah complex, is not around anymore to do it further. He was a media black hole, and now he's gone. No dancing here, but so it goes. Junggai (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Apropos to nothing...

I have to give minor props to Andy for allowing the Conservapedia proven wrong page to remain. I was sure it'd be memoryholed within seconds. Yeah, he's tried to make it so it it actually makes CP seem right, even when they're wrong, but he's really not succeeding. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Let a thousand insights bloom. (Joking. Andy really isn't that diabolic. TK, however, I could see doing that (if he weren't dead and all).) --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat related, Andy's defense of a false prophecy prediction reads like a bad Chuck Norris joke. Andy: Chuck Norris was such a Huckabee supporter that his endorsement counts as Huckabee's even after four years.^img (Yeah, I've read worse ones too.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn, that Hundred Flowers thing couldn't be a better parallel. Though on the internet I think the tactic has been given the name "honeypotting" ^{ONE / TALK} 09:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy loves us

Why else would he give us such highly concentrated idiocy like this?^img

Sure, no groundbreaking new Andy Insights here, but a nice link to throw at new people who are not aware just HOW badly warped Andy's view of his pet project is. --Sid (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That ranks right up with his "CP is the reason for the swing to the right" and "if only the candidates use the Conservative Bible, we can overcome their religious differences." I'm sure Andy's latest insight self-agrandisation (?) needs to be recorded somewhere for posterior. It's all his crazy in one - best of the public, bestsellers only move 30,000 copies, liberal bias, TV is dumb. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(self-aggrandisement) Ajkgordon (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly's delusions of grandeur. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is also much quicker than newspapers, and free of the their liberal bias." - English, mo-fo, do you speak it? Otherwise STFU when anyone else makes a typo.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Incorporates the best of the public", and yet there is a strange lack of actual experts around (since if "best of the public in a given field" isn't the definition of expert, it damn well should be) -- 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Andy looked at the Loyola Phoenix but their article "Save the post office! Why the mail still matters" is hardly likely to find his approval.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what colour the sun is in Andy's alternate dimension? If he really believes that guff then he's delusional. He reminds me of the captain of a sinking ship who's convinced that the loud gurgling noises beneath his feet and the fact that half the crew has abandoned ship whilst the other half is killing each other off is somehow all normal. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy is the Nibbler of stupidity. Instead of eating up material he eats up the stupidity of others and what comes out of him is some of the densest material known to mankind. Now somebody just has to come up with a method of using that as fuel (a few dozen kilofacepalms per lightyear would suffice) and we could colonize the galaxy. --★uːʤɱ socialist 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dino Genitalia and Main Page Left

The latest "Dinosaurs, Fresh off the Ark" crap on MPL -- standard lame .gif and links to creation.com^img hide some great fun. Could Behemoth have been a Dinosaur spends pages and pages on the "tail" part of the Job citation, which has been been pretty much understood to mean "penis" since ancient times. Even the Vulgate uses the Latin "testiculorum" for the great tail's "sinews" (the KJV mistranslation of "stones.")

CMI is trying to prove it's a brontosaurus tail, so they don't mention how 2,000 years of Biblical scholars explain the passage as about virility. Considering the number of times the article uses words like "hang," "pleasure," "stiffen," "harden," "stretch out" and "erects" -- all to conclude that the behemoth wasn't a hippopotamus -- a parodist could not do better. Whoover (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The creationists try to turn one mention in the Bible of a large beast into proof that men co-existed with dinosaurs. Yet if we look at the fossil record we find the bones of hundreds of different creatures, none of which are still living nor are mentioned in the Bible, even though they must have all been preserved in the Ark because the Bible tells us so, and it is never, ever wrong. Personally, I think that a large beast with a big dick was probably a heffalump.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Or a woozle? Sophie^{because liberals} 11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The lorax is unbiblical!

Ed: It violated Gen 1:28 and is doom and gloom environmentalism!^img, specifically "any use of a forest will end up scorched-Earthing it!"... I saw it today... no it isn't. Also a liberal assault on Gen 1:28 because it's against irresponsible mass deforestation for profit --il'Dictator Mikal 04:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Creepy Uncle Ed is just toeing the party line. I doubt he'll accuse Arietty of promoting the Occupy movement, however, because he does have a hard-on for Ghibli movies. I remember he blocked fellow wing-nut Alexander Cornswalled for calling Totoro demonic. (In other news, I see Corswalled's blog has gone, replaced by site selling binaural music.) --PsyGremlinHable! 10:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ain't no doubt in my mind that all of the posthumous Suess movies are a crime against both nature and God. Hollywood sucks and Suess's estate sucks. The man had more class than this. Phiwum (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, virtually all of Christianity considers Ed's Moonie religion to be an unbibical cult.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thorough in-house research suggests that Breitbart may in fact not have been assassinated

For the love of god. I know it is not a diff but the diff with which you otherwise beautiful people keep replacing the original link does not have the homosexual atheist theory to which the headline is referring. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is nobody angry about these things we made up?!?!?!

Good question, Chuckarse^img. Where is the outrage about people attempting to manufacture controversy for political gain? I'd very much like to know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The birth cirtificate was brought up by joe aparo (not sure, or care if spelled right) because the dude is under investigation for ignoring sex crimes. Its a distraction, nothing more. I seriously doubt Joe believes a wod of this.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I seriously doubt that anyone who takes CP seriously realised that the birthers lost what little credibility they had years ago. -- 18:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some are not even doing it for political gain, I strongly suspect WND does it purely for the money that they know they can sucker from "true believers" such as Terry.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be pedantic to point out that the CNAV article is written by Roseann Salanitri? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 19:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, but the CP headline came from CokeEyes, and the other article on Arpaio, also linkspammed on MPR, was Terry again. I do love the fact he lives in wilful ignorance by claiming no evidence has been brought that Arpaio has done anything wrong... yeah Tezza, except for all those court cases that ended up with rulings against him. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberals. liberals do nothing correctly or right so those court cases don't matter--il'Dictator Mikal 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to WIGO but couldn't find words...

...because whenever I look at Ed's post, I want to PUNCH MY FUCKING MONITOR SO HARD MY FIST TRAVELS THROUGH THE INTERNET AND INTO ED'S FACE JFKLDS AKLFHHFDS JHKASH SADK- *wheeze* Okay! I'm okay! *cradles his cup of peppermint tea* The pain will pass... the pain will pass...

Oh, you want to know what triggered this?

Here. Enjoy.^img

And feel free to WIGO because I'm done even thinking about this post. --Sid (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh Ed's back is he. He'd been away a couple weeks and I was starting to wonder if his obesity had finally done in his heart. I guess not. yipeeeee. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I get man-on-dog. I mean, I've seen the tapes. But woman-on-parakeet is not intuitive. Other than "tastes like chicken" I'm at a loss here. Whoover (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The guy worships some old Korean fart as a divine entity, how serious can he be taken?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not new info for anyone here, but Ed has weird ideas of what an encyclopaedia is suppose to be.^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - I had completely missed this^img "article". --Sid (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"In James Clavell's Shogun the pilot Blackthorne is urinated on by a samurai to "teach him manners"." Conservapedia: The Bestiality and Water Sport Family-Friendly Encyclopedia! --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia: because any legitimate encyclopedia uses the word "peeing." Next up: how Obama's poopy proves he's a Muslim who was born in Kenya. MDB (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. Either stop being a kid and use "pissing" or stay consistent and professional and use "urinating/urinate/urinated". "Peeing" is just adorably awkward. I imagine if the writer was giving that "article" as a speech, every time they came to "peeing" they'd make an embarrassed face and stutter a little as they said it. X Stickman (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Ed's comments on that whole affair is ridiculous. It got even better on Andy's talk page^img right before he banned me. He asked me a question and invited me to contribute me more right before banning me. Ayzmo (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 and 2020

ken: Were gonna be the doom of evolution and abortion!^img. wasn't 2011 the death year of all that though? and why 2020? If your going to halve atheism and its in decline, why would it take til 2020?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems out of character...I don't believe they've ever used completely arbitrary dates or assertions to back up their line of reasoning...-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the QE crapfest it's because some professor predicts that fecund fundies are outbreeding the condom-wearing atheists and will tip the demographic in 2020. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So Conservative et al. are basically ecstatic at the notion that...more children will be born into fundamentalist families and indoctrinated as evangelical christians? It seems odd that his image of the creationist battle plan involves coercing through parental influence the one group of people completely incapable of making a decision for themselves: small children. I guess he somehow thinks that his arguments will encourage atheists and evolutionists to do the "honorable thing" and refuse to reproduce upon being defeated? I honestly cannot think of any thread of logic that would justify this guy's worldview. Oh yeah. Check the article, too. More insane rhetoric about creationist wildfires burning down the pristine forest that is evolutionism.143.215.96.191 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs work, methinks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If that would be true, the good thing would be that by 2040 the country will be third world and completely depending on foreign aid. But then one can built it up anew — and this time the right way. Believe me. I'm German. It works. --★uːʤɱ socialist 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not too desperate

Behold^img "[m]ore of Obama's hidden past...." ... of liberals? (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck that just demolishes the credibility of obama doesnt it--il'Dictator Mikal 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This changes everything!! Jaxe (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My world no longer makes sense. Oh, wait, thats not right. What am I thinking?

Oh yeah, ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZ--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama's childhood, his birth... these people aren't thinking big enough. I'm spreading the rumour that, in order to create a super Muslim-Atheist-Socialist-Fascist, Obama's parents conceived him on top of a pentagram, singing The Internationale in a threeway with Adolf Hitler while two gay guys watched on and jerked off using a Bible. Conservapedia, be the first to break this story! --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this trangsender nanny used her special transgender people satan radiation beams to zap Obama and turn him into the antichrist because his black/muslim/liberal/star-wars-loving person would be a suitable host! Now he sits in the oval office with glowing red eyes full of the Gay Agenda (Because gay people are the same as Transgender people, and if they say no THEY'RE LYING LIKE ALWAYS) and aims to destroy America and turn it into a land where atheist androgo-terrorists sit on feather cushions all day while social services feeds them grapes and makes honest hard working religious white people massage their feet! fitting gnarly man-toes into a dainty heels is killer on the instep! KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The nannie's real name is Turdi? How come they haven't they latched onto that fact yet? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Because they're way, way, way better than to stoop so low as to be making fun of people for things they can't control. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

and Craig snaps

craig: WHY THERE NO ENDORSEMENT YET!?!? IS ANDY ACTUALLY A ROMNEY SUPPORTER!?^img then he goes on to call into question QE. I think our parodist is getting bored, or more daring. either one really. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt's reply: "We will endorse the winner."^img Kinda makes me wonder what they'll do if/when pro-abortion RINO RomneyCare global-warming Romney wins. Hm... TO THE WHITEWASH MOBILE! --Sid (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy pragmatism, Batman! Third party is the same as voting for Obama. — I take from that:

• "Yeah, we just really hate Obama."
• "Never mind your personal opinion, just vote the guy you don't like out of office."

--★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how Jpatt has no problems with the idea of an (alleged) encyclopedia endorsing a candidate. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Protecting Dawkins

Extremely funny:

• full protection of wikipedia's article was in place for four minutes
• now it is again at the same level of protection as Conservapedia's article, i.e., only auto-confirmed editors may change it
• but obviously, that is something different. Why? Because liberals^img.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while normally I argue against giving Ken attention, in this case it is justified. One of the best cases of crass hypocrisy in quite some time. Richard Dawkins in CP, locked down. Evolution on CP, locked down. Atheism on CP, locked down. With of course we all know who did the locking.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As a nitpick, Dawkins has been unlocked for a few months now. But yeah, the hypocrisy is beyond good and evil. (And let's not even talk about permanent and immediate protection of images and templates... and how Night Mode effectively full-protects the entire site several hours each day.) --Sid (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicking the nitpicker: Dawkins enjoys the same level of protection at Conservapedia as at Wikipedia:

• 03:48, 30 August 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Richard Dawkins" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (hist)
• 02:20, 6 March 2012 Tom Morris (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Richard Dawkins‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)) (switched it back to Skier Dude's protection duration) (hist)

The article had a higher level of protection ([edit=sysop:move=sysop]) only for a very short time (couple of hours) at wikipedia, but for more than a year at Conservapedia...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Kennie Boy's, erm, "explanation" something is wrong there. So he is saying that CP has to shut down this way because Liberals/atheist are using deceitful tactics to change the conservative content of the CP, doesn't that mean that if Wikipedia is liberal, the attackers have to be conservative? So that means there are conservative people out there using deceitful tactics to manipulate the public's opinion on a specific topic. Yeah, Ken, that's called shooting yourself in the foot.

And now for my very own stupidity: does anybody have a clue where this "Dawkins is an agnostic"-shit is coming from? Or did they finally read The God Delusion? --★uːʤɱ kant 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is nearly perfect:

• a wikipedia is liberal b therefore attackers have to be conservative c but conservative don't use deceitful tactics d therefor no one harms wikipedia's article e thus wikipedia is deceitful in protecting the article.
• a Cosnervapedia is conservative b therefore attackers have to be liberals c liberals love to use deceitful tactics d therefor Conservapedia is under attack e thus Conservapedia is rightful in protecting the article.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins described himself as an agnostic on Radio 4 recently. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly he describes himself as a category 6 agnostic on his 7 point scale between believer and outright atheist. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

He describes it as "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist." As he writes further, he thinks that category 7 ("I know there is no god") is extremely rare. I personally attribute that to a minimum of intelligence and therefore a knowledge that you can't know anything with 100% certainty. This is something he also described in the first chapter of The Greatest Show On Earth. --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not exactly on topic here but, LArron, where's our active users update? Release the data! Turpis 3:16 13:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agnostic only in the sense that no one can truly prove with 100% certainty that any god does not exist. He simply stated it is always possible, no matter how remote, which is true for everything from Higgs Bosons to fairies under dirt mounds. Thus agnostic only in that he cannot say he "knows for 100% certain" no gods exist, but atheist as far as seeing any evidence there are any gods.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think little Kenny is using it because it came up in that double interview between Dawkins and the St Paul's vicar on Radio 4 recently. The one where Dawkins claimed that most self-identified Christians weren't really Christians and didn't even know the first few verses of the Bible. Which is a genuine point. However, the vicar was pretty smart and challenged him to recite the opening paragraph (or even the full title, I can't quite remember) of Origin of the Species and he couldn't. Dirty trick, of course, but he did score points. It was during this interview that Dawkins admitted he couldn't be sure there was no God - or fairies or a celestial teapot - and so he was technically an agnostic.

I'm guessing Kenny's feeble excuse for an imagination makes him think that this is an admission that Dawkins doesn't know everything, which is yet more evidence and proof that Christianity is right. Give it up, atheists agnostics! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It was the full title of OoS including the alternative sub-title "or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" where Dawkins was tripped up. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole reasoning behind this latest turd is weird and faulty. "Look atheist and evolutionists! Your Dawkins is only an agnostic! Now convert to Christianity already!" What does the guy think we are? A bunch of Lemmings? "Oh god look, Saint Dawkins doesn't really not believe either — now I have to believe too!" Asshole… --★uːʤɱ pervert 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The man has the reasoning skills of a traffic cone. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Traffic cones at least help you know where to drive. Does User:Conservative help me to know where to drive? Useless sack of shit. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have the theory that you are pretty save if you do the exact opposite of what Ken says. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Dawkins seems to prefer to weigh the evidence, and then come to his own conclusion about a topic. I believe the technical term is thinker. The technical term for a conservapuddlian is athinkerJimaginator (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded again of this excellent video on the The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship and how one can be both and most, if not all, atheists are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins said he was a 6.9 of 7 on the "Dawkins scale", meaning he was still open to the remote and improbable possibility that a God exists (he even said this in The God Delusion, published six years ago, so this isn't exactly news, but some people don't feel like they need to read the books that they criticize).

It is also clear that Ken et al do not understand what NPOV means, and seem to think that NPOV means fair and balanced. The Dawkins article doesn't criticize or judge Dawkins, because Dawkins himself is just a person, and people are not inherently controversial—though some of the things they say or do or publish might be. The WP article on The God Delusion, however, acknowledges the criticism and controversy of the book...and if anything, the real controversies are in the response to Dawkins' ideas, such as cries of "blasphemy!" and "heresy!" from guys like Ted Haggard and Ray Comfort who continue to prove they know jack shit about reality.

On another note...if Ken is so familiar with the WP article and such a fervent proponent of NPOV, how come he hasn't acknowledged that Dawkins is a pretty fit and trim guy for an atheist? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You know the answer to that question; Ken will never say anything positive about an atheist; and he doesn't give a damn about NPOV, its all demonizing "the other side" to him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sun Tzu say

I I predict a return of ancient chinese secrets as well^img--il'Dictator Mikal 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good God, is Ken pulling his mystery shit again? At this point, the only mystery is why Andy and the others are still putting up with that shit. Oh, wait, pageviews are more important than a sane and existing userbase. My bad. --Sid (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind them allowing the crazy, after all who uses Conservapedia as an honest-to-goodness resource?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As usual, Karajou steps in to shield poor Ken. After all, Ken resorting to his picture+caption replies is a clear signal that he's cornered and ready to throw in the towel. And also as usual, Sailor Moon Man mows down the opposition: Revert^img and 1-hour block^img for... incivility? Sheesh, good thing that civility is a rule and not just a guide-oh, wait.^img --Sid (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More predictions

I see that on MPR Andy is getting more in the prediction market, picking the winners of numerous Super Tuesday states. I suppose now that "Conservapedia proven wrong" is highlighting all his missteps he's looking to balance them out with some safe picks that have already been made by the media. I can't wait to see on "CP proven right" about how they called Gingrich would win Georgia days ahead of time, but the lamestream media waited until people had actually voted to declare him a winner, hoping to boost their chosen boy, Mittens. They also have Romney winning Massachusetts. I wonder if he's considered predicting the Harlem Globetrotters will win their next game too. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't wait (it is inevitable, being CP) to see the Conservapedia Proven Wrong being larger than the Proven Right article, then further hilarity ensues. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That won't happen; Andy will see to it. He's allowed the article to stand, and it to be edited without automatic blocking of those who do, but he's not about to let it eclipse the other, especially since apparently any old thing can be a prediction now. Ken's been adding stuff about the QE campaign, which isn't a prediction at all, as well as the creation of more homosex articles. A bunch are more observations than predictions: the Nobel prize has gotten political, Obama is a "snob". And then there's "Palin won't be the nominee". Wow. Of the hundreds of Republican politicians on the national stage, they managed to pick one who wouldn't be the eventual nominee. I could pick a hundred. And he needed the Oscars to tell him an electable ditz wouldn't be a presidential candidate. I'm sure there are a bunch more predictions he's been wrong on which could be added. Did he ever make a firm prediction on the NJ recall situation? What about Sharon Angle? It'd be fun to put some birth certificate mentions there as well. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Andy's predictions seem to be exactly in line with fivethirtyeight's. Funny that. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also exactly in line with Election Projection. Can't wait to see him crow about how CP predicted the winner in Virginia (where neith Gingrich nor Santorum are on the ballot). Phiwum (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And also exactly the same as a New Jersey site. I guess he didn't go out on any limb at all this time around. Maybe he actually cares about being right now. Phiwum (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how he conveniently doesn't make a call in about the only really close one, Ohio, where the polls have Mittens and Frothy within 2% of each other. Romney has a slight lead there, but certainly Andy can't call any state for that RINO unless it's a sure thing, but he also can't afford to be wrong about anything else after his endorsements predictions almost all went bust. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed he put up anything for that one, shouldn't the idea of not knowing everything be insulting to him? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 18:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Others are collecting polling data, analysing it, printing the final result and all Andy has to do is repeat it and "Conservapedia is proven right again!". --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone should make a "Lamestream media proven right" article. Every time one of the safe "predictions" get added to "Conservapedia proven right" they could also be added to the Lamestream article. Also, it seems like the Super Tuesday "predictions" were added by JPatt^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet another evolutionist runs away from a debate with Ken...

Oh yes, another Dawkinsite agnostic [1]^imgchickens out from a debate with the Almighty One. --Fergus Mason (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"90/10 and poor editing"img. Oh the macheesmo, it burns! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you can put that screenshot in a dictionary and everbody will get what the word cowardice means. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 14:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I read that edit until I saw the irony in the word comment "poor editing". -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

MPL

Good to see that MPL has become Kendollovia, so visitors to CP gain the impression that CP is edited by a mono-maniacal 5-year-old. Also, I wonder if Ken has gone to creation.com, with stories of how he can improve their Google ranking and how 100,000 people are going to be exposed to their article on evolution 'any day now'? Why else would he be link-spamming MPL with their crap? --PsyGremlinHable! 15:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I love it, all his obsessions over Dawkins, QE Campiagn, and Shock videos is seen as higher priority than Super Tuesday on the main page.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, presidents come and presidents go but shockofgod goes on forever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken does a naughty with the time to rewrite history {http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=966546^img] ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.23.210.230 / talk / contribs}

Uh, it's just reverting vandalism.^img --Sid (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kurt Godel conservative humiliates liberal Russell??

It's true that Kurt Godel, a theist, disproved mathematical theories developed in part by Bertrand Russell, a non-believer. But, Godel was a political progressive and a very close friend of Shlafly's bete noire Albert Einstein. The math theories Godel disproved were CO-developed by Bertrand Russell AND Alfred North Whitehead, the latter also a theist and less politically radical than Russell.

Not to mention, it should really go without saying the math is an entirely apolitical enterprise, and there is really no such thing as liberal math or conservative math [ unless you are talking about conservative vector fields or conservative extensions of theories :)- somehow I don't think this is what Mr. Shlafly has in mind ]--WickerGuy (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Schlafly firmly convinced that Imaginary numbers are liberal? I seem to remember that from a while back, although frankly, I can't be arsed to go back and check.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha, isn't there a theorem that ZFC is some kind of conservative extension of ZF? Maybe if someone explained this to Schlafly he wouldn't have such a big problem with the axiom of choice. And no one can deny that the Yoneda embedding has good family values, being a fully faithful functor. "Free" functors may pretend to be conservative, but really they are leftist adjoints and rarely faithful.

Schlafly does have some strange ideas about complex numbers. I think SamHB removed most of the nonsense from mainspace, but there's probably still gold to be found on the talk pages.--MarkGall (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ZFC is certainly not a conservative extension of ZF. Perhaps you're thinking of the theorem that ZFC and ZF are equiconsistent. Phiwum (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They Really Don't Think We'll Read the Citations, Do They?

Axelrods's deep ties to the American Communist Party^img : two known communists one guy whose father was a suspected pinko, and a guy who went to college in the sixties wrote Axelrod a letter of recommendation that might have helped him land a job at the Chicago Tribune. Whoover (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Facts are for lib'ruls and queers! -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You really think JPatt can read, don't you? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They probably just read the headlines. A lot of newspapers and news sources depend on that. X Stickman (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be the tactic du jour to paint staid consensus politicians as dangerous radicals because their auntie's teacher's gibbon's friend was once a member of the communist party. You've really got to wonder just how long after the collapse of the soviet union they're going to be keeping up this crying commie business, I'm pretty sure it ceased being politically effective about two decades ago. Old habits die hard I guess. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If they did read the citations, some of my best work on CP would get deleted. Junggai (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know who else read? Stalin. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberals love books. Some liberals, like Hitler, even wrote some of them. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with the screwed up up edit buttons? Sections 14-16 are all in 14. Whoover (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Some stupid fucker didn't close a capture tag, and didn't fix it after their edit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Racism Rulz

Hooray for Gingrich^img and the Southern strategy! What took Andy so long? Whoover (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Its these moments that put a smile on my face. Just the moments where you just WAIT for the lightbulb to go off. Always funny.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Deserves a WIGO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Whoover (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, he really said southern strategy. That's a cringeworthy level of stupid, though probably fitting for Gingrich. Does this mean Newt is re-ordained Not-Romney? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It gets better. When pointed out that CP's own article calls 'southern strategy' a "courting votes from "negrophobes""^img Andy changes the article to: "a path to the White House by winning support in the South rather than the media centers of Boston and New York City" and something about liberals playing the racist card^img.

It managed to go a long time being anti-repuclican; if only andy had been the original creator of it as well--il'Dictator Mikal 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Andy proves he's a man out of his own time and born about 7 lines of latitude too far north. You can just imagine this in his best Scarlet O'Hara impersonation: "Lih-buh-rhul Yankees just khant accept that the South rejects their vahlues." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn shame no-one who can call out Andy has a spine. This is about as close as we are going to see Andy being overtly racist unless he loses it and starts talking about "Those uppity Negroids" --Revolverman (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy fuck. Really? What's he gonna rewrite next, cp:Jim Crow ?? -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Really should read dem there world history lectures sometime. like how the eastern front didnt matter and america litteraly did save the day, nobody else helped. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is georgia really that important

or is it just another floridas the biggest day ever thing?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No one should be surprised by Gingrich's victory in his home state of Georgia. It is a big deal in the sense that Newt hasn't won much, but not in a larger sense. Tennessee is the place to watch for Newt - it's part of his "southern strategy" and there was some suggestion Gingrich was moving in the late polls.--^talk 01:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Playing out to be a bad night for Romney, although probably not a disaster. Ohio is the state to watch: Romney looks to be just squeaking by to victory there. But no matter what, today is not the decisive blow Romney's been hoping for.--^talk 02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. I know it's early, but from what I've heard, Romney will most likely win more delegates tonight than the other candidates combined. I don't see how this is a bad night (or how, per CP, Santorum and Gingrich are racking up big victories). Phiwum (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ut he isnt getting as many as he would be!--il'Dictator Mikal 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The states in contest today are these (I think it's all of them, anyway). But almost none of them are seen as important, for various reasons. Remember: it's only partly about the delegates, it's also about the appearance of being a candidate capable of winning elections.

Virginia - Only Paul and Romney are on the ballot, thanks to regulations now considered to be a bit too stringent. So naturally, this doesn't actually much measure Romney against Santorum or Gingrich.

Georgia - A "favorite son" state that Gingrich was certain to win, it does not indicate his actual level of support among a broader group.

Vermont - A reliably blue state, it doesn't much matter if a GOP candidate can win it because no GOP candidate would win it in the general.

Maine - Another reliably blue state.

Massachusetts - Romney, former governor, is a "favorite son." Further, it's reliably blue.

North Dakota - No population; not reflective of a larger demographic.

Wyoming - No population, again (5% of the vote is in, and that's less than 200 people).

Alaska - Highly irregular and very poorly-attended primary.

Idaho - 25% Mormon.

Oklahoma - A red state that is seen as reflective of the base's enthusiasm in some respects, but whose demographics heavily favor Santorum.

Tennessee - Rather more important in some people's eyes, though a red state, because there appeared to be an actual contest here.

Ohio - Unlike all the others, an actual swing state that could go either red or blue. A win in Ohio implies an ability, rightly or wrongly, to win Ohio in the general. A good mix of demographics, with urban and rural areas. Romney, however, needs a big win here: he outspent Santorum by a factor of four to one. If he can't buy Ohio with that kind of money, then something is very wrong. It's a question of expectations.--^talk 02:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Virginia vote was quite telling. Given a choice between Mitt Romney and a fringe kook like Ron Paul who only represents a very small demographic within the overall GOP tent, fully 40% of the people will vote Not-Romney. I think the only lesson we can take away from this is that if only the GOP could have anointed just one Not-Romney from the start, he probably would be winning right about now. Instead, both Newt and Santorum seem to be splitting the Fuck Joseph Smith vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me...

Is there any current big wheel at Conservapedia who is under 50? I always have to remind myself that JPratt, despite his atrocious spelling, grammar, general reading comprehension, and his incessant hashtag-laden jabbering on twitter is notionally a grown man and not a 13 year old girl, but how old is he? Isn't it weird that a project started to build a resource for homskolled kiddies turned in to a blog for embittered old white men? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How old was tk again? And big wheel... maybe ken? --il'Dictator Mikal 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

TK was pushing 60 before he was pushing up daisies, and Kendoll is likewise nearing getting his free bus pass. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

hes that old?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if I recall he was 58 or something. Though that might have been a few years ago, and also rather relies on my dodgy memory. But he's old. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[8] Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention their article on the amazing feats of teenagers that makes absolutely no sense. -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to forget we're dealing with grown men here. After all, how many grown men do you meet who believe that dinosaurs are still alive? --Inquisitor (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight off the top of my head and without checking my massive database of CP sysop personal details; Ken is late 40s, about 49 I think, TK didn't quite get to his 60th birthday before he died, Jpatt is somewhere in his early 40s. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jinx was fairly young, although still old enough to know better. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There used to be some fairly young sysops - Addison, Geo.Blerg, Tim/CPAdmin, Jallen, etc, but these days CP is very much the Angry Old White Man's Impotent Rage club. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be 43 in April. You can thank my public school education for my legacy. --99.37.210.171 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on being CP's youngest sysop. Carry on son, and one day you too can end up just like Terry Hurlbutt. *shudder* --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen this for a while...

Ken blanking out RC, as he works himself into a santorum crushing atheism on the internet. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest burning question

that Ken links from CMI is:

Does God have body parts?

I have to say, I'm disappointed the answer was, "yes, but not icky ones. Just the good Christian ones."

More seriously, though, it's a pretty funny article to read. Well, funny in the "watch someone unintentionally make a fool of themselves." The answer is, in short, "no, God is a spirit." (And actually, as one of the few theists on this site, that's my perspective, too. Gah! I agree with CMI!)

So, here's a site that rejects evolution because it contradicts the Bible, but the entire point of the article is "here's why we're ignoring the parts of the Bible that refer to God having a physical form."

As I have said many times, "no Christians take the Bible as 100% literal. Some of us are just honest about it." MDB (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That does, of course, create problems around the "God created man in his image" thing, if he's a spirit. Well, if God is an amorphous blob... I guess amoebas are also amorphous blobs... hey! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The liberal Christian explanation is that is referring to God's spiritual image. MDB (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I thought that the CMI author was more or less reasonable in drawing a line between figurative speech (such as, in modern times, "the sun rises" or — perhaps — "God said, 'let there be light'") and claiming that the entire origins story is not meant literally. Certainly, no one should be bound to take idiomatic writing literally. Now, God's speech is not really idiomatic, so it is (as you say) a matter of degree in terms of fidelity to the literal word, but the degree of difference here is pretty darned big. Phiwum (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to CMI addressing the burning question of whether god is a lager or a bitter kind of guy. Really, MPL is desperately overdue for a "trim", at least Chuckarse has financial gain in mind with his spamming, Kendoll just seems to spam whatever CMI has to say on any given day whether it's relevant to an "encyclopedia" or not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. Like the question of whether God has a body isn't totally topical in this election season. Geez. Phiwum (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"We were created in his image...but if we're dumb, then God is dumb, and maybe a little ugly on the side." --Frank Zappa. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's in remarkable form!

I can't determine which is a better example of Andy's logical skills. Is it where he claims^img the RNC (you know, the folks who write the Republican Party Platform) are RINOs? Or is it where he supposes that^img Oklahoma's vote in a Democratic incumbent primary determines the nationwide popular vote for the presidency eight months later? Either of these seem WIGO-worthy, but I'm not a clever WIGO writer. Phiwum (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WIGOed the first one. The Czech is in the male. --PsyGremlin講話 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The only state in the union to give John McCain a win in every county, just sayin'.--99.37.210.171 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why im glad i live where i live, atleast for that election, blue in a sea of red :D--il'Dictator Mikal 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't live there any more, but I am an Okie. And (half) a Czech, too. Phiwum (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could see the look on politicians faces if they ever got to chat with Andy. Some completely insane nepotist telling an actual conservative that he's a RINO. 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cou8ld watch him argue some bullshit infront of a judge, thats pretty good--il'Dictator Mikal 15:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RINOs are becoming the new 'liberal'. Of course that'll change once Romney secures the nomination. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why Dems support Santorum...

Andy claims to know the inner workings of the liberal mindset^img better than JamesArtois who actually has a fucking clue. Amazing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of never "calling" Ohio, I wonder if they ever will. Andy had a lot riding on Santorum winning Ohio, and for good reason. Perhaps it will forever be "the state that Santorum once led". Occasionaluse (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to, say, Pennsylvania? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A related meme of Andy's: any outlet that contradicts his narrative is part of the lame-stream media^img. The Boston Herald? Joe Battenfeld? It's the other side of the coin that has him quoting the New York Times for items that "the MSM isn't fully covering." I really think that the part of his brain than orders thoughts into logical streams has been damaged. Whoover (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that. Boston's conservative tabloid is part of the Lamestream Media "admitting" Romney is falling short of expectations. Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's Boston. I guess there are no conservatives in New England. Oh, wait... is Andy giving us hints? --★uːʤɱ heretic 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Andy is no longer a hate-filled bigot

After all, why else would he link^img to a site that has, directly at the top of the page, "CELEBRATING 25+ YEARS OF Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender NEWS"? Cow...Hammer^time! 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a Chicagoan, I see people (especially tourists) make this mistake constantly, since Windy City Times is a fairly innocuous name for a newspaper. ORavenhurst (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and whoever just socked up to put this^img, thanks. I lol'ed. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was reverted^img (it wasn't me). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And blocked by Jpatt.^img Apparently mocking the double standard of the founder of a website which treats homosexuals with roughly the same amount of tolerance as Nazis (Godwin, I don't care, getthefuckoverit) linking to a news article at a gay website which happens to say something the founder likes constitutes as "trolling." SJ ^Debaser 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, let's be honest here though. In the scheme of things that users on Conservapedia get called out for, this is pretty clear trolling. I'm all for calling them out when they blatantly make up reasons to ban someone, but this is a tad different.--TheGoodDoctor (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No joke intended: Is it possible that Andru became familiar with WCN at his brothers house? Or is it just search the web for anything that agrees with him and who cares what the source is? It seems like a rooky mistake even for him. Jimaginator (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure, based on his past mistakes like this, that it's the latter. I doubt he even read past the headline. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly, it's still there...I think Andy might have poo'd peed Poe'd his own pants. It's like he found the headline on another site, right clicked the link, hit "Copy URL", then pasted it into T:MPR without even paying attention (I mean, fuck, the letters "lgbt" are right in the URL). Maybe he's trying to make a statement about Openmindedness which he links to in the same post (which isn't a word, there's a dash needed...but Andy is also an expert at grammar and I'm a filthy liberal). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Only took 'em an hour and a half^img to figure this out. Could they be any less (or is it more?) dense than the black holes they don't feel are worth studying? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

LMAO! I hope he doubles down and denies it's a gay newspaper, like when he added YMCA to best conservative songs and then claimed the song was a only a "tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association" and nothing more. Worst gayday evar. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No such luck.^img -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Suicide is Painless Hilarious

I know they're all just jacking themselves off to their conservafantasies over there, but wouldn't it be the most awesome thing in the history of awesome if the GOP decided that the field of candidates to choose from was so awful they were going to pick someone even worse? Please nominate Sarah Palin, it'd be like every Christmas coming at once. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

if you dont vote for palin you only prove the liberals are sexist!--il'Dictator Mikal 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When I didn't vote for Palin the first time around, it was proof that I was intelligent. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping they'll eventually nominate Mr Frothy-Botty. That should calm the nerves in the Obama camp. Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney has this in the bag. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's been fairly clear for months to anyone not in touch with Rob's "common people." I'm sure reality will intrude in to their fantasy worlds eventually. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I really want Santorum to win the nomination. Because then we would have a San Francisco-style Democratic landslide all over the country. And even if he might win (in which case the US population would have proven that it is a nation founded by people to stupid to make it in Europe (sorry folks, I needed some kind of "Americans are stupid" in there)) we will have four years of ass-juice jokes coming right at us. That is if humanity survives that long with a fucktard being able to push the red button. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope we're keeping track

of Andy's Romney bashing,^img so we can have a good laugh when he suddenly becomes the One True Candidate for the GOP. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Was Andy as opposed to McCain during the 2008 primaries as he is to Romney now? MDB (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we know. Conservapedia wasn't as much Andy's blog back then as it is now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not as much i think. hasnt kept mccain from being a dirty pro-war rino now though; --il'Dictator Mikal 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do remember some Orwellian rewriting of biographies back then, first after the Republican primaries, then after the Presidential Elections outcome. Not that I have links, and my memory might be faulty Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the most negative version I can find of the article, and this is the fawning version a few months later (diff). Note the whitewashing of his same-sex marriage position by digging up an anti-same-sex marriage bill in 1996 he supported and removing his more recent statements. I'd like to see the mainpageright news articles around that time (since that's where Andy & co. does most of the Romney bashing these days), but Ken burned it back in late 2010. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

96? recent enough! afterall, at CP a man who's been dead for a few years and a few years before he died said "well x would be a good leader" is enough to count as an endorsement for X in the 2012 election. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

Andy points out to a student that calling Africa "the dark continent" is offensive and stupid^img. Good job. sir. Good job. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Africa was not called the Dark Continent because the people there are black, but because so little was known about it in the 19th centurary. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the trope of Africa as the world's mysterious, unknown "heart of darkness" is tied up in lots of imperialist/racist discourses. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to see Mr. I Do Teaching Writing also teaching correct opinions at the same time. "Since its foundation the United Nations has [SUPPOSEDLY] striven to promote world peace." Good job correcting for liberal opinions there, Arsefly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess once you get involved in a war you can't possibly be a peaceful organization/nation. I mean, after all, if so, you would just order people to stop shooting each other, right? Or maybe Andy believes the UN is leading a war on Christmas/war on family values/war on Christianity/war on conservatism/war on America/war on Andy Schlafly/war on Andy Schalfly's happiness... *EVERYBODY IS AGAINST ME* whhhaaaaaaaaaa *NOW MOMMY WILL NEVER LOVE ME!* --★uːʤɱ soviet 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And depsite all that, the student still gets a 97.5%. Where does grade inflation occur again? Oh, right, in liberal public schools. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Gah. Nope, I can't do it.

JPratt's idiocy^img has finally defeated me. You're going to have to do this one on your own. Read the headline, then read the linked article and then explain to JPratt why he's a fucking moron for me please. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"claims that films with a conservative or pro-American edge, such as “Captain America,” “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” “Soul Surfer,” “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” and “Battle: Los Angeles”" although that trend of certain types of movies doing good isnt that new, taste in movies varies by6 decade and atm we are in the new 10's where people want a distraction and happiness.--il'Dictator Mikal 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd be more scathing towards JPratt and include the words "summer blockbuster" and "giant robots", but 7/10 for effort. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's 10 in the morning, what do you want from me--il'Dictator Mikal 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean Hollywood values are dead? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Every time I read something like this an urge overcomes me to go out, buy a dozen of 3-Iron DVDs and throw them at people screaming "Why you so proud of being ignorant?!" --★uːʤɱ constructivist 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this "study" a while back and concluded it was bullshit. an older article covers it a bit more in depth, but no one actually shows the report itself. That they looked at at least 196 movies means they had to compare those that played in a couple hundred theaters (I count about 50 that played in less than 500 theaters, compared to more than 4000 for Harry Potter) with major blockbusters. They also claim as "conservative" movies like Pirates of the Caribbean (in which the hero is a criminal, the bad guys are law enforcement, and their quest is for a pagan fountain), The Muppets (the bad guy is a conservative, capitalist "job creator"), Thor (about an extra-terrestrial pagan god), and I think even Harry Potter (the conservative whipping boy of the past decade). They also count completely non-political movies like Cars 2 and Sherlock Holmes. Their average of about $15 million for "liberal" films means they had to take just about every film that played on few screens and call it liberal, particularly to offset the huge grosses of the liberal blockbusters of The Hangover 2, Twilight, Bridesmaids (I assume), Super8, and whatever other of the top films are liberal. I'm anxious to see exactly where they get their numbers, but it's pretty clear much of their designations of political/religious rankings is arbitrary. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me how Twilight can be considered liberal...-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberals love vampires, werewolves, sparkles, bad acting, and horribly unhealthy relationships. It's a fact. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, did anyone here see The Artist? Was there anything especially conservative about it? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Transformers was conservative? Fox does know the human villan was a corprate CEO who sold out the people of earth to the evil robots who wanted to pillage all the planets natural resources? Also that post coitus scene featuring the victorias secret model and that d-bag from even stevens.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You actually watched that movie? Dear god. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Eat me, that movie was awesome.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it falls under the conservative category of good patriotic Americans shooting people and/or aliens/robots/mutant insects. And there's no sex and bad language in it. Basically, their definition of "conservative" fits every single staid, safe PG summer blockbuster ever committed to celluloid. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The rules for which they established themselves by "parent organizations" whining into the studio's ears about "ruining the youth" and making movies "for the whole family". Or in other words: "There are no gay people in Iran [because as soon as we find one we kill him]." --★uːʤɱ secularist 19:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at some of the movies and then at the fact that this study was conducted by a "Christian-focused entertainment advocacy group", I can't help but think that this is just typical Andy-reasoning: Movie did well, let's claim it as our own. And some statements by the founder remind me of CP, too: "All we’re doing is putting out our point-of-view. The difference between us and other organizations is that we’re honest about it. This is our point-of-view." So... yeah. Big surprise, their list is probably a project like Andy's Top Conservative Movies with a wider scope and some carefully tweaked numbers. I'd actually like to see the study, though - what did they think about The Social Network? ;) --Sid (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better analysis of the "study". I guess if you want to look at it yourself you need to cough up $1000. Jesus H. Christ, is this group for real? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We layed off 10% of our workers, we are a success!

i find it amusing that ken is happy that more people just entered unemployment^img--il'Dictator Mikal 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lord giveth and Franklin Graham taketh away. Any time a company says it's abandoning its bricks and mortar operation and "refocusing" on its online business, that's code for "we'll be bankrupt inside of two years." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I resent that you cast this as celebrating more people entering unemployment. While I think that 100% of them becoming burger flippers would help the world, I'd like to point out that the changing landscape necessitated that the business (and it is a business) shift its focus in order to maintain the jobs for the 90% --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tsk, it's simple: since international atheists are losing so badly, fundagelicals can slack off. Remember the good old days when there were no atheists? They simply called them heretics, burnt them up good and crisp and called it a day. 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Breitbart Was Assassinated for This?

The tapes are here.^img Unfortunately, "The Breitbart empire stepped up to the plate, called their shot, swung, missed, hit themselves in the face with the bat, then took a triumphant trot around the bases as spectators looked on with piteous and mocking wonder." Nice article scooping Breitbart in The New York Times. In January, 2007. Whoover (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. After Brietbart was assassinated, they swithced the tapes of Obama's college "Kill Whitey" Campaign with this rather innocuous substitute. The only person who could identify that this wasn't the correct scandal tape was conveniently eliminated by the New Black Panthers. See? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are talking about. This video was a smoking gun and it was totally worth dying for. Did you see the embrace? Did you hear Obama tell students to "open their hearts and minds" to his radical ideology? Did you know that Obama forced students to read Bell's racist epithets? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure even now the Breitbart cult is poring over Bell's books looking for a controversial opinion they can pull and splash over Fox News' breaking news banners. This really is all so tediously predictable. I doubt as ginned up scandals go this one is going to fly very far from the wingnut roost it hatched from. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

'Close to a radical leftist professor?' I've been fairly close/academic relationship with various professors, of pretty much every political persuasion (including goofy libertarian and very conservative ones) and none of them are somehow indicative of my own evil plots opinions at all. On another note, Derrick Bell was the first tenured president of law at Harvard University. His 'radical leftism' had more to do with civil rights in the context of the law than general liberal ideology, and in fact his biggest works were critical of liberal and conservative attitudes. This CP entry just leaves an enormous taste of racism in my mouth... but I don't think I am surprised that CP hates civil rights discussion. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, I thought this might be a sex tape or something, but this is just laughable. Ironically, doesn't this all pretty much run in the way of proving Bell's Critical Rrace Theory? Anybody that studied law tell me? Actually the only thing that this video is telling me is that Breitbart had some underlying issues with race.

There should be a word for someone who fails to recognize their own accidental logic. Maybe the Germans have one. Incidentally, we have: Vollpfosten. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So Breitbart's 'big scoop' is guilt by association? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that Breitbart was going to creatively edit the tapes as he has been known to do.Stick Boy (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How popular is Conservapedia?

We are about 80.000 in the Internet popularity stakes, see our notability. I agree we should put truthfulness above popularity. Who wants to be popular and a laughingstock like CP? Yes, I know Schlafly does but which sensible person wants that type of popularity? Anyway I’m curious, how does our popularity compare with that of CP? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We're 58,559 in the world; they're 50,607. We're 25,883 in the US; they're 17,491. So not terribly far behind, really. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added both to our notability, still I'd like to know more. Is our popularity rising? I suppose it is since when the RationalWiki article was last updated we ranked 80,000. Is the popularity of Conservapedia rising or falling? Is CP getting laughed at more or being considered more irrelevant? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I had another look, in October 2011 we rarely made it into the top 100,000, see the article then. Either some editor made a big mistake or big things are happening, that's quite a dramatic change over 6 months. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I get better information than this from Alexa? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps searching for "rationalwiki.org" might guide you in the right direction 143.215.104.191 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This should work. Type Conservapedia.com into one of the compare boxes below and see there are times we were beating them.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Gah. How many times do I have to beat this in to you people? THOSE NUMBERS ARE MADE UP. ALL OF THEM. THEY HAVE NO BEARING ON THE REAL WORLD. None of these site analytics places know jack shit about your site unless you explicitly let them know. They're pulling all these detailed graphs and shit out of completely irrelevant data pulled from spidering the web. Alexa isn't the worst offender as regards offering information they pulled out of their arse, but you should be aware that everything they offer is pretty much useless. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

They're OK-ish in a very broad way -- you can be fairly confident that a site ranked 100 really is more prominent than a site ranked 5,000. For encyclopedia-type sites I prefer to look at how many of a site's articles come up near the top of a Google search. RW doesn't do too bad on several topics. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I demand more government spending!

You know how we have poets laureate whose job it is to produce official verse for the duration of their tenure? I think likewise we need historians laureate whose job it is to deliver the royal fucking smackdown on people who say things like this^img. Clearly a dude who went to the David Barton school of history. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

River's season (27 TDs, 20 ints) helps us understand the parsing of "Greatest Conservative Athlete." I suspected all along Conservative trumped Athlete. Whoover (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can get on the list by being a professional sports player and by saying you hate abortion, any actual accomplishment is purely incidental. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I just looked down the list and noticed the glaringly out of place person, but checking the history it's clear parody so I'm saying nothing. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the opening to Greatest Conservative Sports Stars: "Most sports stars are probably conservative." Added by Andy himself^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he feels like including anyone from this list, or Michael Phelps, or Pete Rose, or Mark McGuire (or anyone else accused of doping) in that list...or any player who participate in the the 1996 MLB strike, the 1992 NHL strike, the 2004 NHL strike, the 2012 NFL lockout, or any of the basketball players who, when faced with the prospects of no 2012 season, actually considered going to China to play. Because those players are all in unions...yeah, they're REALLY conservative. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy finally gets what I spotted after a one edit account makes it blatantly obvious and then plays the games of Muslims don't count due to it being "merely a specific religious objection". He does leave up Ewan Murray with the reasoning of "Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays." meaning Captain Double Standard is clearly at the helm. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to add.

'Embryonic stem cells are harmful to the recipient because they tend to grow tumors, and safer alternatives that do not use embryos are available, but many abortion supporters still insist on using embryonic stem cells in order to justify the concept of abortion.' Andy Schlafly^img

Sometimes, with CP, I oscillate wildly between "Oh god, oh god, it's all real... they're insane!" and "These guys are master parodists! Nobody could really think that!". Not sure where I stand right now. Somewhere in the middle... with you? Sasayaki (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That quote makes me wonder what it is I should do. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It took about a month of being on there before I realized that most of them weren't parodists(still not sure about Conservative.) It is hard to believe they can be so ignorant of reality sometimes. Ayzmo (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if it's really total ignorance, or if they have heard the very simplest arguments of the other side and their egos and identity are merely 'louder' than what they've heard: neatly allowing them to avoid that nasty self-doubt thing that would cause their lives to be unpleasant. It may be simply easier for them to not to heed reason: it would require a lifestyle/culture change on their part. I highly suspect that at least some of these people have actually gone insane due to a deep underlying dread of being wrong: an inability to cope with being incorrect.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Conservative Sports Star!

Apparently, all it takes to be a great conservative sports star is to make the right endorsement. MDB (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll add Rivers to our growing list of Greatest Conservative Athletes. What an honour!!! SJ ^Debaser 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen had Rivers endorsed Santorum when CP considered Santorum to be a pro-abortion stalking horse for Romney.

For the sports fans out there, is Rivers especially notable? MDB (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rivers was a high draft pick out of college, probably most famous for being drafted by the New York Giants and traded that day to the Chargers for Eli Manning. His stats at times have been tremendous, but he hasn't taken his teem on a deep run into the playoffs. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If you know that much about sports, why are you editing RationalWiki? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Busted! GTac (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I need the balance. Sports are a great distraction from hating on fundies and pseudoscientists. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, goats in the sports world are a bad thing. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially in Chicago. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But now we have Saint Theo.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Confused in Iran.

Okay, so. Barrack Obama is either... bribing Israel with weapons to delay a war that only the Right wing evangelicals want (it's a rapture fantasy), OR he's actually planning to go to war himself just so he can take all the credit? Am I reading that right?

I would link but I'm a fucking noob so I can't. Sasayaki (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant link^img Cow...Hammer^time! 17:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Either way, it's bad because HUSSEIN Obama. -- 17:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

They are torn on this one. On one hand, they don't want American military involvement with Iran over preventing the terrorist supporting state from acquiring nuclear missiles; not because of concerns over blood and treasure but any sort of victory would bolster Obama. On the other hand they do want war if its just Iran-Israel because maybe then it be a gateway towards Armageddon, which means Jesus will come take them away like in those old Calgon Take Me Away commercials while the rest of humanity (including friends and family) suffer.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't related to Bloated in Biloxi, Sleepless in Seattle, or Constipated in Camden, is it? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's more from the category Incompetent on Iran. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's just more linkspam to Terry Fuckwit's increasingly insane blog. Terry is actually becoming more entertaining than CP these days; "The global decline of obese atheist bestiality Part 8,543" is sort of lacking in novelty value.--Fergus Mason (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can Someone Translate this From Andy into Rational?

Quacks are ripping off morons in Texas with "stem cell cures." The world's foremost scientific journal opposes this^img because they "care more about the abortion agenda." Whoover (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A closer reading of the Nature article reveals that the quacks are bribing Republican politicians. So at least there's a motive. Whoover (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The creeping cancer of Kendoll

There are now 9 sections of Kendoll bilge floating above the navigation on the main page, which take up about a page and a half on my monitor. He's gone full "essay" mode on MPL and even Andy has lost the will to trim. I think we can say that Kendoll is the master now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy has always been just a figgure head. He's the guy they put infront of the camera, or on radio, because kenny boy is terrified to leave his basement.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's called Conversapedia and not Schlaflapedia. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention than that true skeptics could then claim to know his true name! Ayzmo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dont forget gender, location and the possibility he may or may not be a team of people. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mental patients aren't allowed to be parts of a "team". -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken has done more damage to Conservapedia than all the vandals and parodists and TK put together. Great job, Ken! Keep it up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

True enough. Not to mention that Ken's content attracts the above mentioned vandals and parodists. If CP was just a straightforward, sober-minded, encyclopedia with a conservative tilt... nobody would care. But a wacky funhouse full of nutjobs who claim to be the ultimate arbiters of TRUTH? Come on, who can resist? --Inquisitor (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair though, Kendollpedia will be too dull to cover. He's never managed the inspired flights of crazy that have sustained WIGO:CP over the years. I'm thinking Lenski, Conservabible, Recall. All the best crazy has come from Andy. It's not that Kendoll hasn't hit the same altitudes, he has with things like the flying kitty, but he really can't sustain the altitude or bring it to the attention of the internet at large. In the end, he's just not the right kind of crazy to be funny. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points. But I think I don't think Andy's crazy has more juice than Ken's crazy, it's just that Andy has a much higher public profile. Ken's never going to leave his bunker to appear anywhere, nor give his real name for an interview. So if you're a mainstream outlet, you only have Andy to work with. Another major up that Andy has over Ken, is that Andy will actually try to debate people... that's where the real lulz are at for me. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Andy and Ken is that Ken thinks he's being humorous while Andy is being deadly serious. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha

YES! DANCE FOR ME, LITTLE MAN!^img. Dance for your puppet master. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a republican wins...

does that mean andy will change his tune from Silly obama/democrats, you cant win with 8.3% unemployment!^imgto the unemployment is ONLY 22.6%? nevermind economic indicators, unless it involves europe, are looking up atm--il'Dictator Mikal 23:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a prediction? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy will do what all conservatives do when they have to play defense... he'll just start picking the nuggets of corn and peanuts out of the turd pile. He'll ignore all bad economic indicators and focus on the positive ones, claiming that these are the real ways to measure economic strength. Also, blame Obama. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it would be much more aggressive, something like "Unions are keeping unemployment at 25%", "Liberals keep unemployment at a record high as they push women away from their families in an effort to destroy the traditional family values", "As the damage European socialism has done to the international economy becomes more and more apparent, American unemployment is at an all time high", … --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) His statement isn't backed up by anything but supposition. Unemployment hasn't been as high during an incumbancy election year as it is this year--since the BLS started tracking this sort of thing. And he's forgetting who's to blame for the unemployment. Besides, the unemployment rate was 7.5% in November of 1980--compare this to 7.3% in November of 1984, what's .2% when your opponent is Mondale/Ferraro? And all of the candidates in those races were comparatively sane. Furthermore, unemployment is only one indicator of economic strength. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

He'll ignore it. It'll be like approval raitings. He's the first to mention when they drop .5%, but when they rise?

How do I tumbleweed?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 04:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

{{crickets}} Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 04:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on! It is about as silly (or maybe sillier) to blame Bush for the unemployment rate as it is to blame Obama. The economy and employment rates are fuckin' complicated and it's utterly unclear how the president influences them or how long his influence lasts. A reasonably skeptical person has to admit as much. Phiwum (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy fails at reading

"The last Disney movie to qualify for Greatest Conservative Movies was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."^img

Now, we can argue over whether distribution makes it Disney or not (The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe), but I'm more than fucking sure that The Lion King (1994)^img was more recent.

Let's be thankful that he "does teaching writing" and not reading. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

*Yawn* Andy fails at everything. Next slide please. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Man, shouldn't he wait till, say, MONDAY before posting this crap? Also, Beauty and the Beast = Beastiality. That is all.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 05:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy: "Disney, which has churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strikes out again with its lame "John Carter," which has already done poorly on its opening night." Andy's bitterness and the complete randomness of his targets always makes me laugh. I guess Mars=Red=Commie=Liberal=Bad? (Also, "liberal claptrap", "lame"... very encyclopaedic.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels a strong urge to beat Andy with a crowbar every time he regurgitates the line "liberal claptrap"? I don't know why but there's something about the thought of his freakish voice reciting a 19th century snarl word that makes me see red Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy, of course, also fails to note that John Carter was beaten by The Lorax, which is a pro-environmental fable. MDB (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What was it they said about The Lorax? Oh yeah, "a liberal attack on Genesis 1:28"^img; I guess "liberal claptrap" wins after all.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That Lion King entry always makes me smile. "the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes liberal values and destroys their territory." No wonder Scar is my favourite Disney villain of all time. I wonder if the liberal values part is referring to the fact that he ended hyena segregation. Vulpius (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Still not recognized as the last great Disney movie, takes place in Africa after all and what does Africa contain? Kenya! Thus Obama!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Simba never showed his birth certificate and was driven out of the Ameripridelands by Scarly Taitz before returning with a renegade army and seizing Scarly's property by force before stuffing him into a Simbacare death camp. It all makes sense now. --Sid (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what it means that a Greatest Conservative movie was used by Simbama. Doesn't anything he touch instantly have cuddies? --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

O.K., Andy called this one.

Facebook ruins marriages. --★uːʤɱ socialist 05:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

its her fault for being liberal; if she was a good conservative wife he wouldnt have cheated on her--il'Dictator Mikal 06:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook ruins marriages, but people kill people? Conservative double standard. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you were going to run away and assume a new identity, wouldn't it be a good idea to defriend your former wife? Godspeed (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

'...merely a religious objection, which is not necessarily the same as "conservative"'

Andy trims a Muslim cricketeer from Greatest Conservative Sports Stars on the grounds that his objection to alcohol advertising was religious rather than "conservative." However, to reach the cricketeer's name he had to skip numerous other athletes whose only claim to conservativism is that they "don't play on Sunday," or some such thing. He won't admit he just doesn't like Muslims. What a hypocritical twat. Godspeed (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's conservative to0 hate alcohol? --il'Dictator Mikal 19:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse is a liberal trait. Godspeed (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

TriWikiContest Feb 2012

• RationalWiki:Active users and Conservapedia:Active users are updated. Enjoy!

Here some of the traditional pics:

Absolute number of Editors in February 2012
RW	CP	Error creating thumbnail: File missing CZ

RW and CP had roughly the same number of editors, but nearly half of those were blocked at CP. Citizendium set a new record: only 40 contributors. As they have to pay 320$ per month for hosting, it's just 8$ per editor...

Edits per groups in February 2012
Error creating thumbnail: File missing RW	CP	CZ

Again, a substantial number of edits at CP was caused by vandalism. And CZ has roughly 10% of RW (but it seems to be bigger than ASoK - so congrats!)

Edits vs. account creation in February 2012
RW	Error creating thumbnail: File missing CP	CZ

A pet project of mine: there seems to be a tendency for the very old and the very young editors to create most of the content: a new editor at an established wiki may be very keen at first, but for most, the interest dwindles over time (perhaps at a geometric rate :-)). OTOH there is the old guard: those will keep up a steady stream of edits over years.

To illustrate this, I looked at the edits in February 2012. For each day t from 2007-2012, I summed the number of edits in February 2012 for the editor who created their accounts between t and t-365. The results:

Edits vs. account creation in February 2012
Error creating thumbnail: File missing RW	Error creating thumbnail: File missing CP	Error creating thumbnail: File missing CZ	Addendum: Comparison

The pic for CP illustrates the point very well: common (unblocked) editors loose interest with a half-time of roughly four months, the old guard are the busiest (and those with all the important rights). Editors at RW seem to keep up for a longer time-period, and the old-guard doesn't consist of those who joined the wiki in the first four months (as at CP), but during the first year.

The main problem of CZ: no great influx of new editors.

Thoughts? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice at CP there's a big falling-off around Jan 2010. Wasn't that when TK came back? He quickly saw off a lot of the mid-ranking editors.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, pretty colours? Seriously though, good work. Have a cookie virtual goat and a half day off for Christmas. Now all I have to do is teach myself how to read the graphs…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As ever, this is great work and very informative. I think, though, that you're downplaying the situation by the way you scale each graph. My first thought was that although CP had a really unhealthy curve, its numbers would be higher so it didn't matter as much. In fact, it turns out that the relatively low midpoint of RW's figures would exceed the "old guard" CP figure: CZ's figures amount to statistical noise these days. So, great work - but DO MORE, dammit! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure, I added a diagram above. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a real knack for presenting data in an insightful way. (Interested in grad school?) A question, what do the different colors mean in the three graphs for RW, CP and CZ under "Edits vs. account creation in February 2012"? Doctor Dark (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User rights groups if I'm not mistaken. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For clarification I added the legend - it's the same as in the row above. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Poor CZ. It really does look like no one is left but the old stalwarts. Too bad because it would be a good thing if there was an alternative to Wikipedia. Not that I have anything against Wikipedia as such, just that having some competition helps to keep an enterprise sharp. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

CZ had 1500 edits in February 2012. It takes wikipedia 10 minutes to get this many comments. It would have been nice to have an alternative to wikipedia (even CP was greeted favorably in general at first), but CZ isn't it. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

♫ Sunday, Sunday…♫

Andy has his insights, I have my whimsies. This week's, month's, year's, one off whimsy...

{To the tune of Stealers Wheels - Stuck in the Middle with you}

♫ Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I run out of booze,
And I'm wondering how I'll make up the news,
RINO's to the left of me,
No one to the right, here I am,
Stuck all alone with the booze.

Yes I'm stuck all alone with the booze,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this Ken from my place,
Losing control, yeah, I've egg over my face,
RINO's to the left of me, no one to the right,
Here I am, stuck all alone with the booze… ♫

etc; etc.
Sunday, it brings out the crazy.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, but also a little sad because you know it's hitting a little too close to home. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CraigF

One of my faves, seemed to be doing so well.... banned by Andy for being a sock...

no real evidence, he just appears to be^img. i guess worshiping ford as jesus 2.0 wasnt obvious enough--il'Dictator Mikal 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what was said that prompted this; Andy reverted and burned an edit to Talk:Main Page immediately after blocking. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

comment="/* Family Friendly? */ new section"

Family Friendly? This site really doesn't seem as family friendly as it should be. My little brother (he's twelve) was just reading over my shoulder and saw the stuff about hermaphrodites on the main page. He went and asked my mom what that meant and now she is mad and said she may consider blocking this site our home computers. I thought that this site would be appropriate for children his age but recently I've noticed quite a few strange things, like the article about peeing on people, many articles about bestiality and stuff about hermaphrodites on the main page. I think we should avoid these topics when possible. I wont let my younger siblings read over my shoulder anymore, but I'll be honest I don't like seeing this stuff either. --CraigF 14:01, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

i was hooping it had to do with him calling andy a rino--il'Dictator Mikal 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Larron to the rescue once again! :-D Thanks for finding that, I was curious too. So, that was an incredibly reasonable post - he was banned for that? No hope whatsoever, CP. Refugee^{talk page} 22:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems that Andy's made up a new block reason lately and it sounds like a pathetic guess/reason to get rid of someone than just declaring them a sockpuppet. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

He committed the one cardinal sin; he questioned the sysops. It's Siberia for poor Craig!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, LArron. My mind is at ease now. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

While was he blocked for complaining about something that is likely an issue for some conservative readers, Andy decides that his nonsensical arguments for God's perfect sense of humor [2]^img are good enough for primetime. [3]^imgMarlow (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, was whoever who was driving CraigF using Google Translate as their proxy? I was just curious since one of my (far less notable) socks got blocked by Andy with the same reason. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner

I noticed that conservapedia seems to have no entry for the former congressman. This seems strange, given Andy's fondness for harping on that sort of thing. Was it deleted at some point?--TheGoodDoctor (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be completely untouched so far. Not too surprising, really: Jpatt focuses more on organizations (making ads for the ones he likes and smearing ones he doesn't like), Karajou only reverts vandalism and occasionally dishes out oddball stubs, Ken... is Ken, TerryH is too busy pimping his blog and rambling about Atlas Shrugged, Ed is just stumbling around randomly, and Andy is too busy with the election (including Insights, Proven Right, and of course the merry world of Endorsements). The few people who would love to piss all over the Weiner article are too lazy to make a solid start. Your best bet is either a well-meaning fool, a parodist, or a sysop starting with a stub like "Anthony Weiner is the leftist lightweight who showed his Democrat Values when he sent sexual images through a liberal web service and was brought down by the Best Of The Public." --Sid (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Weiner is on their list of words that are verboten at CP. Is it actually possible to even create the article? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe as an article title, but apparently not as a general word: A month ago, the word "Weiner" was used here, for example. --Sid (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Good Doctor is confusing the Schlafly brothers. It's not Andy, but John with a fondness for weiner. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger is known to enjoy weiner too. Professionally, even. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Trusworthy Encyclopedia made cp: Weinergate, not even bothering to make the article of the person its discussing (red-linked). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tragic. A missed opportunity. Karajou talked about it once, but nothing ever came of it. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kens world: Three belief systems

Either you're a militant baby eatin genocide atheist, an agnostic^img or a bible believing YEC. no other choices but these three accordin to jesus. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So either you are a evil, a giant pussy or you agree with him. Mmmh, I'm going with evil and halfway sane definition of agnostic. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it intriguing that he makes up quotes and directly attributes them to Stalin and Jesus, all just to take a cheap shot at Dawkins. --Sid (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

i just noticed what the stalin quote said, i assumed it had to do with him being a baby eater; not a longer version of the Jesus quote --il'Dictator Mikal 19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm not the most overly educated in Christian theology, but attributing a quote to Jesus has to be a sin, doesn't it? --★uːʤɱ digital native 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe? I do know thats a bit of a liberal jesus that kens got going: bible jesus would probably say "Satanism/Rebellion or YEC-BL"--il'Dictator Mikal 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the quote? Also it is quite possible to be a Atheist-Agnostic - Agnostic as you are not 100% certain that any gods do not exist but atheist as you have no reasons or evidence to believe that they/he/she/it do exist, that is what Dawkins is, and that is what most atheists are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Richard, didn't I tell you that if you studied the origin of life that first you would become an agnostic and then a Christian creationist! By the way, your Ben Stein Expelled interview was a disaster for militant atheism. I wept like a baby while watching the interview." - Joseph Stalin and "Richard, you do know the next step after agnostic don't you? Bible believing Christian creationist." - Jesus --il'Dictator Mikal 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Having your god say things there is no record in your holy books that he said? Tsk tsk, putting words in Jesus' mouth sounds like molding your Lord God Jesus to fit your desires Ken, that's idolatry you know.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Except Darth Vader, who's your relative. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the quote which Ken made up for Jesus has now been switched to Shockofgod. A picture of a motorcycle helmet, to represent Ken's buddy, has replaced whatever picture of Jeremus (as my old dad calls him) was there before. I'm surprised that Shock didn't actually say that. After all, there must be only three beliefs in his world too. --Spud (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my official position now is Ken is a parodist -- an extremely committed parodist. There's no fucking way he could be serious. NO FUCKING WAY. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Praise the Lord, it's Mystery Time!

Does God Have a Sense of Humor?^img (<-- current version, which is all Andy's doing) --Sid (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

When I saw that on CP, I had to check and see if it was a parodist. This is why Andy is more fun than Ken. GayGator (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I think Andy may have a point--he ought to add that story from 2 Kings where God sends down warbears to slaughter children for calling Elisha bald. I think we can all agree --that was some funny shit. GayGator (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheistic political figures like ATTILA THE HUN! Classic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit humor did increase with Christianity. It's about the biggest joke there is. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, even by Schlafly's standards.... deserves a WIGO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see... He put the centre of the three world major religions within a few hundred miles of each other with a whole planet to choose from, then put the oil in the middle (MTW). He gave us the appendix, which does nothing but disintegrate abruptly, threatening life (Dara). He also allowed Kenny DeMyer to live.

That's a yes then. -- 23:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Andy didn't think the Conservative Bible Project was enough blasphemy enough.... He should pray that there is no God. He'd be in much more trouble than all the atheists here. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'd be in more trouble then andy. I spent a day off seeing how fast I could violate all 7 deadly sins. The key is multitasking.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Andy claim that Jesus invented humour? Doesn't that mean that for the few thousand years of existence before Jesus, God was a humourless git? X Stickman (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

yes--il'Dictator Mikal 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe god is the greatest comedian of all time. In the year 3,000 he'll release a new book, and all it'll say inside is "The Aristocrats!" X Stickman (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy's basically acting like his "Jesus invented comedy" insight is a known fact now. Gotta love the "Mystery" section of CP... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's god still has a cruel sense of humour. Apparently he's still laughing at the elderly global warming-believing Brits that he froze to death during the recent cold snap. And what's with the Atilla the Hun? Come on Schlafly, there must be a lot more evil-lutionist, humourless , liberal god-hating politicians you could have named. Like David Cameron, Hitler, Stalin and Barack Hussein Obama. --Spud (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you, Spud, for bringing this up because it has also been bothering me: Andy is again opening a can of worms there by making a case for a God who regularly intervenes with the modern world (even worse: doing so for His own amusement). This applies both to the snowstorms (which apparently means that God murdered those people because... liberals?) and the Tim Tebow craze (which makes Tebow just some mediocre player who literally has to rely on divine intervention to win games). --Sid (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

“”God did not, as the Bible says, make man in His image; on the contrary man, […] made God in his image.

—wp:Ludwig Feuerbach

→ Andy is being nothing but an gigantic inhumane asshole if not a sociopath acting like a nice guy. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As if more proof were needed, Andy can't tell^img when he's being trolled^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL...yes, the British are the least funny people on the entire Earth. -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"logic: man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor." Man also likes to do other things such as stealing, murdering and putting his penis inside things which includes, in many cases, other men. Hence God is a thieving, murdering sex addict. Albeit a very funny one. SJ ^Debaser 20:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this Confusion of the Inverse, or something? Also, I'm reminded of Frank Zappa's line (again). And Alan Rickman in Dogma..."the faces you people make during sex." "Wait, sex is a joke in Heaven?" "From what I hear, it's mostly a joke on Earth too". -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

But you forget, all the sinful things people do come from satan, so, god only is all the good things people do. OK, how exactly could people believe this crap for over a thousand years all over Europe and not think "Well, that's quite an easy way out of it"? Seriously, were people more stupid back then or just fucking lazy…? --★uːʤɱ pervert 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I love this part of the talk page debate:

User^img: Okay, even if God made Tim Tebow throw for 316 yards with 31.6 yards for completion, how is that funny?

Andy:^img: I guess you don't have the sense of humor required to appreciate it.

--Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We all need to remember that humor didn't exist prior to Christianity and that the Bible is replete with humor, but not written by God (the last quote in the article is extremely telling...if you understand the history of the word "cretin"). Nevermind that if Christian piety and humor were correlated, then the ultimate Christians (e.g., CP editors) would never fail to miss parody. Also, if God has such a great sense of humor, why do his followers think he can't take a joke when people make fun of him? -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I see of it, God is one helluva kidder. "Abraham, kill your son to show you love me! No, wait, just kidding. Whew! Got the punchline out in the nick of time there! Now, let's watch Moses freak when I do some ventriloquism with this burning bush." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Psy, you're ramblings are legendary. The bible even mentions how God used the jawbone of an ass. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

--transResident Transfanform! 22:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Rob suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. Just smile and not politely. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This Isn't Even Truthy

"Interest rate set to double on many student loans." Will mindless students flock to Obama again for the presidential election 2012?^img What the article says (does Andy read?):

"President Barack Obama has asked Congress to block the rate hike for current and future Stafford loan recipients, but legislation aimed at keeping it permanently at 3.4 percent has stalled in Congress.

Obama's fiscal 2013 budget would freeze the interest rate at 3.4 percent for a year." Whoover (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Silly liberal, you are blinded by you're worship of the false messiah obama! OPEN YOU'RE MIND and SEE THE TRUTH--il'Dictator Mikal 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in dirty European Socialist Germany, all private student loan's interest rates are capped at a certain level (2.something% at the moment). Dirty socialists, always making it easier for people to get an education. --★uːʤɱ federalist 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It used to be the case that the British loans were fixed at inflation. So most years you could actually make money by taking out the loan (everyone was entitled to a loan regardless of their parents wealth) and putting it in a good tax free savings account (easy if you're a student with no income, in that case all savings accounts are tax free for the cost of filling out a form). Or, if you were slightly less rich, you could at least treat it as an effectively zero real money interest loan. But modern students are subject to a far harsher regime, in England anyway. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold a tick, isn't the State offering loans at below commercial rates socialistic communist, and interfering in the invisible hand of the market? Condemned if he does, damned if he doesn't. CS Miller (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're lucky to break 1% on a savings account. Mortgages are below 4%. Hitting kids up for 6.8% is usury, and is because Republicans are pissed that Obama cut the banks out of student loans. The banks get to say "we told you gummint loans wouldn't be cheaper." Whoover (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now here Santorum's got a point; since not everyone should go to college, if those dirty commies really believed in justice and equality, why shouldn't every non-college student get rebate check = to the amount of the interest on the fair market value of an average loan minus the 3.4% cap? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Token Black

Not sure of the relevance, but having a basically all-white cast^img is worthy of an addition to the Karate Kid article, and subsequent article^img. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pat Morita is white now? Ed, you're an idiot. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed is dumb and sexist^img. News at 11. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did Ed write a synopsis of both films, and managed not to mention the climax of either? (Yes, I just made you think of Ed and climax) --PsyGremlinTal! 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wax on, wax off.

I also enjoy the fact that they feel they have to use a specific term ("token black") instead of the more general form ("tokenism") of the concept. And nevermind that the more recent (and thus, slightly more relevant) version features Jaden Smith...which should be interesting to Andy's audience. That is, if Andy's homskooled kids were allowed to watch movies that feature black people. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Why is evolution pushed by fanatical evolutionists?"

Oh ken... why do Fanatical YEc's push YEC?^img; The actual link is the same QE bullshit we've seen before.--il'Dictator Mikal 20:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"But you don't see Darwinists protesting outside the Flat Earth Society headquarters" No, that's right Kendoll. That's a) because the flat earth society don't have a headquaters building. They're two cranks in their bedrooms, and b) even if they did, flat earthers aren't pushing their shit on unsuspecting children like YECs do. In fact isn't pushing YEC on children exactly your plan, Kendoll? I know you can't possibly carry it out because you're incompetent in the extreme, but you're exactly the reason "darwinists" don't like you and your whole silly movement. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Do supporters of evolutionary theory and scientists protest at the headquarters of various creationists institutes? I have never once heard of such protests.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If by "protest" you mean "comment on articles", and by "headquarters" you mean "Conservapedia", then yes, they totally do. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The closest would be PZ's visit to the Creation Museum. Is riding a model triceratops a protest or just taking the piss? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)