Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive284

This is an archive page, last updated 7 April 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>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <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)

Unclear on the Concept, Take 7,453

Ken, the cowcatcher^img is there to protect the train, not the cow.

This has been going on since June last year - Ken making some post about going full steam ahead but then nothing happens. He says things are about to happen but refuses to say what effect it had...probably because nothing is happening and nobody cares. Ace^Moderator 01:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. I'm just trying to envision how he thinks a cow catcher works. The large pyramidal bit of metal attached to the train going 100 miles an hour just gently guides the cow off the tracks or something? Maybe his plan is to boggle evolutionist's minds with how dumb he is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(Also, what the odds that the "member of the Question Evolution Campaign grassroots campaign who is an excellent writer" is Kendoll, talking about himself in third person? I can hardly wait for 50 page of "in regards to x, y said z.") --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It boggles me how he calls evolution a 'sacred cow' as an object of worship, as if we're obsessed with it. I think what's happened is that he's so continually wrong on the subject that people keep telling him about how wrong he is, leading him to believe that it's all we ever want to talk about:"God made people!" "Actually, we evolved like everything else.""Giraffes spontaneously manifested long necks!""Well, because the trait was selected for as an advantage, the species selected for it and eventually evolved to one with longer necks on whole.""Diseases are God's will! That's why vaccines don't work!" "Well, bacteria evolve over time and-" "GOD, EVOLUTION IS ALL YOU TALK ABOUT, GEEZ WHAT IS IT WITH YOU FREAKS."±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 01:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just you wait; the greatest work by Ken ever will come, alongside the wildfire of Christianity unleashed by the arson of QE, Atheism, evolutionism and liberalism are going to be cut atleast 50% in half!--il'Dictator Mikal 02:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some people mistake it for an object of worship. Fortunately, those people are no longer in control of public policy, unlike the god-botherers and Bible thumpers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

His penchant for making violent analogies for his Christianity vs atheism campaigns is really disturbing. He's either doing it on purpose, which is creepy, or he just can't see that he's doing it, which is kinda sad. Also when I was a kid my grandad (who is a train fanatic) told me that cow catchers were so the train could slow down and gently nudge the cow off the track. Thanks for ruining my childhood, rationalwiki. X Stickman (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you had the same grandfather. Maybe Ken is your long-lost second cousin. Whoover (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that could be one of our many slogans. RationalWiki. Exploding treasured childhood fantasies since 2007. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Same grandfather => first cousin. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. I guess the threat of someone being Ken's first cousin was overwhelming. Whoover (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A good-faith question to the Gentleman at the other Website

User: Conservative, I'm a little unclear about the scope of your project over the long term. Do you believe that your efforts, combined with those of your colleagues who blog, vlog, etc will bring about the end of atheism--as in everybody will start believing in God or become a Christian? I get the sense that that is your position, but I'm wondering if I'm correct on that.

As someone who mostly identifies as an atheist but who has moments of doubt, and who is attracted to large parts of the Christian doctrine as a social philosophy, I'm curious as to how, exactly, making fun of people's weight, gifs of flying cats in pilot's goggles, misplaced analogies about railroad equipment and musings about Hispanic women are going to bring somebody closer to Christ. Sometimes I read the Gospels and think "maybe there's something to this. It's a beautiful philosophy...." Then, I fire up my computer and am confronted with one of your articles/essays--a picture of a rabbit in a hole, or of a clown, or of a dog chewing a bone, or your analysis of peanut butter, and the feeling I was left with after reading Scripture goes away in a hurry, to be replaced with the realization that anything that drives a man to write such nonsense probably isn't for me. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear, P-Foster. You and I agree, again. Converting someone from atheism to a belief in God is not Christian doctrine. "Even the demons believe, and tremble" (Js 2:19). nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If the aim is to convert everyone to Christianity by ending atheism, it's probably not going to be very effective. ^gnostic 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. User:Conservative is not engaged in Christian ministry. He is not carrying out the wp:Great Commission, nor doing the work of an evangelist. No better illustration than 1 Timothy 1:5-6: "the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion."

And User:Conservative, if you're listening, you should know what "fruit baring" means, i.e. winning souls for Christ. "By their fruits ye shall know them". nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off parodists. Just fuck off.

OK, I'm really getting sick and tired of all the Bugler-lites at CP. It's over, fuck off. You're not going to get promoted to sysop, Andy doesn't trust anyone any more. Just fucking stop.

Whoever is running "JamesWilson" should be fucking ashamed of themselves. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not true; I got promoted to sysop. Admittedly, it does seem much more difficult now. 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's effective, there's no real difference between pretending to be an asshole and being an asshole. Phiwum (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And really, the evidence suggests it isn't effective. The only parodist who achieved real sysophood did it by being nice, not a banhammer wielding prat (OK, unless you count TK as a parodist. I guess he's in a class of his own.) As it stands, Andy just seems to be exploiting the parodists to block, revert and rearguard for him. Just think how much extra work he'd have to do to keep CP alive if all the parodists just knocked it off. It'd be much better that way. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And my being de-sysoped should be a clue, no one will be promoted to full sysop status without User:Conservative's, Karajou, and Andy's consent. Probably TerryH, too. Anyone of those exercises veto power. So it's not a matter of just trying to fool Andy. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The parodists aren't even funny, especially compared to Andy's real "insights". --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should remember that having power is not enough, you'll never climb to the top, you'll never get to steer, if you want to be in the garden be a thorny plant, or a cooperative plant, don't be the pruning sheers, force the people who really believe it to be that. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is Possible that not all Parodists have the Objectives you ascribe to them. There may be Many Reasons for posting comments which do Not Reflect your True Beliefs. Not all Parodists may desire Sysop-hood. (Though it may well be Thrust Upon Them at RW)--Tolerance (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I give up, Why are you Capitalizing Words that don't Need to be Capitalized? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tolerance has always done that. It just shows that you haven't been around here for as long as it seems. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I got as far as "Objectives" and realised who it was. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Conservapedia has a problem."

I just gotta say, I think that error page is one of the funniest things on the whole internet. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Understatement of the millenium. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see they broked it in a more serious way than usual. I wonder if this'll be the missing week take two. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they're praying it better? Or better yet, Andy's trying to fix it by trying to read a book with those big, hard-to-read words like corrugated and marmalade. This should be fun. Place your bets for how long it'll take to fix... Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps the lord smote their server with electrostatic discharge for daring to suggest that he makes it rain to mildly inconvenience atheists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to bet they are going to spin this as an illegal attack by the Atheist/Liberal world empire on the truth that is Conservapedia --Revolverman (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is their sysadmin at the moment? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've actually looked at the page to see the error message...that's exactly what I thought the error might be (before I looked at it) and it's one of the simplest fucking things to fix, if you have terminal access to the server (yes yes, an obvious statement for an obvious website...I'm sure I'm not the only programmer here). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of people who both noticed and cared must be incredibly small. We only noticed. Andy & Co only cared. Jaxe (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just got a 503 error, they appear to be rebooting...which belies their understanding of the whole LAMP concept. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, RC is back, but is only showing the most recent edit as 24 hours ago. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page back on but it's not a well wiki. Most other pages returning errors. StarFish (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Welcome to Conservapedia. Please remember to set your watch accordingly."

As though nothing weird had happened.

Yup, a whole day gone, including that wonderful fustercluck that was Talk:E=MC2. Classic. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Awesome, good thing we have screenshots. It looks like they did a restore from nightly back-up (am I still being obvious?), because something borked in their mysql tables. My guess? Disk allocation exceeded. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Still plenty of it not working. Try various links from the main page. StarFish (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So I wonder if they're still on a weekly backup schedule and just got luckyish this time that it happens on sundays, or whether they really do nightlies now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, awesome...cp:Talk:Main Page is gone. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The history is still there. Two days out of date, but there. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like somehow they've managed to restore the changes and text databases from two different time periods, or different backups. This is the kind of cockup only conservapedia can manage. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(ECx2...Jeeves, I think we're on the same wavelength here) I'm not sure what the backend schema looks like, but it seems to me that their page records and their revision records must be in conflict--that is, if people were to start make edits right now (if that were possible) it would completely screw up their tables as foreign keys to edit records (which don't exist) become "overwritten", as it were, and the revision IDs re-increment on top of themselves. Their restore didn't work as well as they wanted it to, I don't think. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If they ask nicely, I'll send them the missing revisions 970262 - 970704... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see Chuckarse's contribution to crisis management is to re-spam his blog links that were lost. Because that's the important part of Conservapedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy^img:

“”SPECIAL NOTE TO EDITORS A technical failure occurred for the first time in more than three years on this site, in the afternoon of March 26 (Eastern Time). A restore from the backup was performed. As a result, edits made during most of Sunday, March 25 and until about 4pm on Monday, March 26, were lost. Please reenter your substantive edits made during that time. The talk, talk, talk, is not necessary to reenter. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Conservapedia

LMAO! --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that means none of their non-talk edits should be re-entered. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, AugustO pisses all over that order by restoring a fairly current version^img of Talk:E=mc2, meaning that the whole Rain discussion on Talk:Main is the biggest loss I can think of right now. --Sid (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Something about scanning the tone in that andy blurb just makes me imagine what he acts like and speaks like in real life. The pit of my stomach is churning... how can this man make something so simple as an admission of technology failure sound so condescending? Maybe it's because he has to defend that it's rare and usually CP always runs perfectly in the very first sentence. Ugh. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not their fault. It's proof the RDBMS is liberal technology. Expect the essay. Whoover (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia:The week that never was 84.134.185.141 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A rare instance of Andy being a reasonable, regular, even fun guy.

Here^img.

Congratulations, AugustO...an asshole likes you. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Ken runs the show now. --Revolverman (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is creepy: I'm going to thank God now for sending you to this site.

Let's pray for a software update next! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Man, this incident really took its toll: Andy rambling about Satan, divine intervention, entropy and order.^img --Sid (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not god, you idiot, it's called Google Cache. --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's one of the corollaries of Clarke's third law. To a moron, any technology is indistinguishable from magic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew Andy couldn't remain a reasonable, regular fun guy for very long. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Larron, Andy whole reaction was really creepy. --Tlaloc (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... wow and I thought Ken was the insane one. --Revolverman (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Freudian Slip in his edit comment? "I'll think twice before blocking your account again!" So, he's admitted to AugustO blocked unjustly before? HA! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No. He's only saying that he's a giant cunt who is very sure of himself. All common knowledge. --★uːʤɱ sinner 11:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy been hacked?

I'm thinking aschlafly done got his account taken over. C®ackeЯ 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're right. Anyone have a means to verify this? --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 04:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're right. It should be noted by whomever has done it that gaining unauthorized access to a computer system, unlike wandalism, is an actual crime. I hope that they aren't someone who is active here, but if they are they should know that I will not cry for them when they spend 6-18 months of their life in a jail cell. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. His last edits are pretty normal (so it is most certainly him), and he did not erase or oversight that weird conversation. --Tlaloc (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to wonder about Andy's thought processes. Does he not consider why AugustO would have those missing edits? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that God made Andy trim and delete enough of AugustO's comments, so that he kept copies - which then came handy to thwart the devil's attack on Conservapedia's database? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"I'm wondering if I should ever edit an entry again after you've edited it!^img"??? Either he's been hacked or he's had a big bump on the head. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy is incredibly gullible. Despite the laughable contributions of Ken and Ed he persists in thinking that they are meisters of SEO and wiki-fu. Suck-up parodists con him into things like the Lenski-affair or, like Bugler, they might be suitable candidates for sysopship while overlooking the Iduans and BrianCos. We could all see what a scheming douchebag TK was, but Andy welcomed him back like a prodigal son, even over the advice of his other sysops. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Some stats on the outage

• more than 400 revisions went missing
• more than 200 were to the main name space
• 88 edits missing were made at cp:E=mc², of this 25 by Andy (a second to AugustO's 36)

Andy thinks of his contribution to cp:E=mc² as outstanding work, and thus was very relieved that it wasn't lost: this feeling of relief is shown in his comments to AugustO. And while he is glad to have his work back, he is utterly unmoved by the distress of everybody else:.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone at CP immediately did the most important thing to them. Kendoll immediately removed Andy's stuff that was once again hogging his MPL glory, Terry immediately re-spammed his blog, Joaquin immediately reasserted his support for middle eastern dictatorships, and Andy of course immediately bemoaned how unfair the media is to frothy. Karajou and JPratt probably didn't even notice CP went away. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

At least Andy has admitted that something went wrong. IIRC during the week that wasn't he basically called several users liars for daring to say there'd been a problem with CP. --PsyGremlin講話 12:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So much for re-entering any of their substantive edits. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To me the most regrettable loss was watching Andy squirm when confronted with just how horrifying a certain insane gentleman's conduct is; Karajou's conspicuous absence from the conversation is telling; parodists abound, making things worse. 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't get Jomar.

What the hell is this doing on a website whose main page proudly linked to a story that used the word "ragheads" not four days ago. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that he's unaware of vast swaths of the internet. Maybe CP is one of the only bookmarks his kid(s) set up for him? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I once worked with an American who had been in the US army and was told by his drill sergeant that they were all a bunch of dickheads. As proof the sergeant told them to look at their shadows. QED. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What I Don't Get

The cult-like dynamics of CP are very odd. Normally, the only response to "E=mc² is liberal claptrap" by a non-moron would be "Don't feed the troll." But over there, seemingly intelligent people (like AugustO) go to lengths to "convince" Andy that he just doesn't get it. Stepping back, these seemingly intelligent people would have to ask themselves "what the fuck am I doing?" But they continue to expend energy that can only result in more frustration. What do they hope to accomplish? Whoover (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

About as much as QE! will accomplish, both in their minds and in reality. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else it makes the article look totally schizoid. There's half crazy "liberal claptrap" and the other half is the proof that Andy's off his nut. Plus there's the added lulz of watching Andy run around attempting to censor reality to fit his preconceived notions. He has to go around adding "alleged" in front of words like "proof", it just makes him look incredibly petty and stupid. Which I suppose he is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If I were to guess, they're probably just doing it for shits and giggles. Some of Andy's funniest quotes come from him defending the "insights" he's pulled from his ass. I doubt they honestly think they can change his mind on anything.--Night Jaguar (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that Andy is stuck inside his own head, banging around the walls of a tiny room of crazy and totally oblivious to how he comes off to the outside world. If he speaks to people the same way he types out even the most innocent of statements, I am amazed why people haven't just started slapping him across the teeth wherever he goes for being a condescending loser.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 18:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this question is posted on RationalWiki gives me irony-induced lulz. --★uːʤɱ soviet 19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say. I think it's clear to me why so many people come here from there: we are exactly the kind of asshole who can't walk away from a troll and who thrive on engaging with a troll. no wonder our dynamics are so weird: look where most of us came from. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In the Poe world, Andy is wringing his hands, going "yes, yes...good, good..." -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I find arguing with Schlafly or (more likely these days) Hurlbooty, is a kind of... relaxation exercise. I know several theists of far greater intelligence than anyone on CP/CNAV, and I have to say it's nice every so often to - metaphorically - hold the gun above the barrel, ignore the aim, and obliterate the fish. ChuckArse is particularly good for this because he responds to everything with such extremism that even teh Assfly looks like a liberal. From my experience on CNAV, he'll even respond to direct insults as long as you hold out a big enough target, and his responses usually give further fruit. Fundies are simply too much fun to avoid baiting! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

CNAV is definitely more fun than CP these days. The Trayvon Martin thing has got Terry actually defending, in the name of "freedom" and rugged American individualism, the right of self-appointed petty fascists to stalk the community demanding that people close their windows and explain their movements. Here, in socialist atheistic Germany, we rather prefer to be left alone to do our own thing. Ironic, isn't it?--Fergus Mason (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack-booted thuggery is alright as long as it isn't government-approved. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings about Hurlbut. I suspect that he's often being contrarian/sensational to get that next pageview. What's fun is how quickly and vehemently he disagrees, even if it means sacrificing core "conservative" principles. There's gold in them hills, and with the right coaxing, you could get Terry to say some pretty wild and contradictory things. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are things about Terry that would make me suspect him of being a parodist, except that the views he's expressed in private emails to me are even more horrific than what he puts on his blog. Naturally I'm not going to reproduce them here, not being the sort of untrustworthy, repellant weasel who thinks it's OK to reveal private correspondence on a website without the originator's permission, but he really does seem to believe all this shit.--Fergus Mason (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mystery time.

Tebow is a mystery^img. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cite errors on CP are much funnier than anywhere else. --★uːʤɱ pirate 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow... for somebody who just taught a writing course (what's happened to that - also died a mysterious death?) those opening lines read like something Ken would have written. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And after all the "Mysteries" that Andy has written over the years, how come he's put it in a red category? --Spud (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did Tebow end up in New York? Because that is where he wanted to go. Mystery solved.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but who made him want it? Eh? Eh? Mystery! --Sid (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually feel like I need to defend Ken here - that opening paragraph makes his word-salad image-with-caption taunts look like Shakespeare. --Sid (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is one for you, Ken

Mississippi is the most religious state...which is also the fattest (note that Alabama, third most religious state is also the second fattest), has the fifth highest rate of unemployment, is one of the poorest states and the one of least educated. Not to mention the higher divorce rates and the worst healthcare in the nation. You'll kindly note that the least religious states are often near the top of these lists with the other more religious states appearing near the bottom. I look forward to your deflection and irrelevant muttering about the 15 questions. Ace^Moderator 20:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

blast from the past --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Ace^Moderator 20:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The horse you're beating is not dead yet, but it already gets retirement cheques. We've seen how he reacts to the mentioning of other states, he ignores it and screams "Utah! Utah! Utah!" within the confines of his padded cell… --★uːʤɱ kant 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

None the less it brightens my day. Ace^Moderator 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's easy to explain: the few atheists in Mississippi were so frustrated when they were being swamped with QE!-pamphlets by all the lean Christians that they got tremendously fat - and so, the average rises... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and Nazi Germany"

didn't know Ed was into historical Revisionism?^img. Page captured is the last edit by Ed, principle author of the page, --il'Dictator Mikal 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing a four-year-old article that has not been touched in a year to our attention. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

not like theres much else going on at CP--il'Dictator Mikal 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Yet, according to some historians, homosexual men constituted the core of the Nazi Party in Germany.[2]". What happens when you click 2? "See "Homosexuality and the Nazi Party". HEAD GOES BOOM.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia: contains 200 percent more gay nazis than RationalWiki±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think The Pink Swastika may be the only book Ed has ever read. You know, that book by the charming guy who originated Uganda's kill the gays bill. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again the outside world peeks into CP and is shocked

By chance a friend linked to a Facebook group called 'I fucking love science' that has the "liberal claptrap" quote (written by Andy) from CP's E=mc² article^img. It's fun to see the reactions of those who aren't desensitized to CP's shit. A few believe it's a joke or vandalism. Anyway, one more reason for Andy to hate FB. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the more that Andy's statements are passed around as awful, the better. The internet is in many ways a public place and the less that Andy can call his little echo chamber of crazy his secret funtime clubhouse the better. He's not the leader of an enlightened campaign of godly information; he's an awful clown man that chooses to douse himself in fish guts and rainbow sprinkles and dance naked while anybody who wants to can look on. Whatever delusions of power or dignity he has are best shattered. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am curious wherever Conservapedia is displayed for Web audiences at large, is the response ever positive? Even WND's one commentary on the CBP was extremely negative, basically calling the site blasphemous. Sure Conservapedia is touted by ShockofGoat and LaunchBooty's blog, but I am talking places on the web that have any actual influence, even if its just within the conservative movement.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked for positive mentions of CP and they are few and far between. Almost all are ShockofGod or other's in Ken's Kliques. I think there was one brief blurb on a tucked away page on some conservative women's group's site - a few sentences by someone who obviously took a quick glance at CP and had very little to say about it. That's about it. Other than that the closest you're likely to find is Wikipedia, only because their NPOV policy prevents them from calling it a haven or morons, which is basically what everyone else in the world does. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just about the only time something positive is said about CP, it's usually one of Ken's socks link whoring the evolution or atheism articles, or fringe nutjobs like SchlongofGod or Mariano. Which is funny, given that more Americans identify as Conservative... according to Andy. He desperately wants people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc to put CP's name out there, but deep down I think he's terrified that they'll collectively facepalm. Even Mummy Dearest calls it "this thing on the internet." --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We should have an article on "This thing on the internet". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as we already do, I took the opportunity to redirect that link to our CP article. --_transResident Transfan^form! 11:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've occasionally seen CP cited positively by bloggers etc. who clearly don't know very much about it & have found one of its blander & less crazy articles while looking for online sources. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll is adorable

Creationism: Now with more blueberries!^{img — Unsigned, by: Hiphopopotamus / talk / contribs}

Nice to see that "that evolutionists can not sufficiantly answer" now becomes "that evolutionists can not effectively answer". Because basically he is now at least speaking the truth, no matter how correct the answer is it won't have an effect on him. --★uːʤɱ kant 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RATIONALISTS used logic! It's not very effective...±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 02:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

QE's blueberries are past their sell-by date and far from tasting fantastic they actually make one gag a bit. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is miles better than going on about bombing and tsunamis and whatnot. More please.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I don't get it. Is the sacred cow on the track eating the blueberries? Or are the blueberries driving the train? ^{ONE / TALK} 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's cute but it's in the news section and it's not news! First Ken puts his super-duper score in that vocabulary quiz thing in the news section and now this. Come to think of it, "Featured on Conservapedia" doesn't accurately describe what's on the left-hand side of that page. More than half of it isn't on Conservapedia at all, it's on creation.com and that poxy Question Evolution! blog. --Spud (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a WIGO: Question Evolution, but I know whats going on. Nothing.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 12:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Their big success story is that some guy, somewhere read the pamphlet. Was it in a dentist's office or what? My doctor doesn't keep magazines in the exam rooms, so I'm reading the vaccine data sheets after about five minutes of staring at the wall. I'd certainly hold my nose and read a QE! pamphlet, if there was one in there. Hell, I'd even read Twilight, if someone left a copy. - Ellipsoidal (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed. Kendoll's booklet train now has a cow catcher. You're welcome, Kendoll. Where would you be without RW to educate you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, they slam into sacred cows at a high rate of speed. Ken, trains can be damaged in collisions like that. You should equip the trains with big weapons of gun so the cows can be destroyed before you run into them at a high rate of speed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Projection much?

Andy of the past: "Everything is political".

Andy of the present: "Democrats continue to make a political issue out of the Florida shooting."^img

Either he's projecting the shit out of this one, or he has a convenient switch in his head to forget and remember stuff.^img --★uːʤɱ libertarian 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything breaks down into two convient quotes. Give it up liberals, or Because Liberals. Thats all you need to know.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrase BUT WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE??? pretty much sums up the mindset. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Chicago's Gay Shoreland

Kenny uses as one of his cites for his homophobic screed on the mainpage left a claim that "55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease"^img; his source, a Baptist Press article, which I am sure is truly impartial. Here is the problem though as someone from Chicago: There is no neighborhood, ward, or "gay center" called Shoreland. The only thing in Chicago called the "Shoreland" is The Shoreland, an old luxury hotel built in 1926 in Hyde Park that had since gone out of business and was later used as Student Housing for the University of Chicago (but is currently vacant). Chicago's "gay center" is in Lakeview and is nicknamed "Boystown". If you source is so ill-informed as to make up a neighborhood of Chicago for their article then I sincerely doubt their statistic is anywhere near well researched or accurate, just an FYI Ken.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Truth is irrelevent, the point is it proves homosexuality is a invalid way of life.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up on the Amazon preview for the book referenced. That Baptist press thing is pure bullshit. The data collected shows that 26% of respondents from the gay district had ever had an STI, which compares pretty much with other areas like Southtown (35%) and cook county (17%.) But never having read the source has never stopped Kendoll, nor will pointing out errors stop him from claiming constantly that no one has ever pointed out any errors in this articles. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken has an answer for us.^img For some reason the image is wrong but the link is right. Ayzmo (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The page will have already been captured in an earlier incarnation.^img Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 03:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh silly Ken, no matter how much you want it to be true, that neighborhood doesn't exist even as a "gay village". Everyone from Chicago knows its Lakeview/Boystown in the north and a smaller community in Edgewater in the south. Be happy when I am telling you this, now you won't be as lost when you come and visit our fair city.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious. I came to the talk page to laugh about Andy's bizarre Castro-is-dead theories, but I somehow missed this. Now that Ken is catching on to the fact that Chicago has a vibrant gay community (I'm guessing this discovery was a result of the highly entertaining use of Windy City Times as a source) I'm guessing the next step is to manufacture a link between the Cubs and homosexuality, since Wrigley field is smack in the middle of Lakeview. User:ORavenhurst (gibber) 12:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard. Vulpius (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Chicago doesn't have a monopoly on fun. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This kind of shit is exactly why I vote each and every Ken-related WIGO down. The man suffers from a combination of mental illness and borderline retardation, so it's not surprising that he doesn't recognize the sociological convention of referring to a subject community by a pseudonym. This isn't exactly common knowledge among non-sociologists, Middletown notwithstanding. And him being a repressed homosexual makes me feel...even sorrier for him. Godspeed (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy fails at teaching, part... oh... about 60 billion.

Gah^img. Andy, stop interacting with children. Please stop. How is it you can read that at a basketball tournament that includes 32 teams, there is a pickup game for the coaches and comment "THAT'S RIDICULOUS - COACHES ARE COACHES, NOT PLAYERS!!!" What the hell kind of moron are you that you have to be that fucking stupid, and accent your stupidity with excess punctuation? Even your actual writing related criticisms are fucking stupid. Avoid contractions? NO. DON'T. That's fucking terrible advice. "IN GENERAL ALL SPELL OUT THE FIRST REFERENCE TO AN ABBREVIATION"? Shouldn't a writing teacher be able to write a coherent sentence? Schlafly, you're a fucking awful teacher. Nobody would ever think to employ you in that role if it weren't for the fact that you're a particular type of crazy that some families seem to want to transfer to their sprogs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was taught in college English to avoid contractions in formal writing, too. Perhaps the standard has changed, but Andy would have taken his college English around the same time I did. MDB (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that [HYPHEN] could, or even should, be [SPACE]. Scream!! (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

not to mention that the OK TITLE contains a glaring spelling mistake. Ace^Moderator 01:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how you spell homskoll. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think that's the case (about the crazy I mean). I am not sure anyone, even crazy fundamentalists would value the sheer immaturity and condescension that Andy performs on a regular basis. I know several people of that persuasion, and despite their lack of connection to the real world they're human like anyone else: most definitely turned off by blubbering manchildren. I think that if people value Andy it's because they're afraid of the alternative. "I want a school where my child won't be indoctrinated to views that aren't my own" and all that. So they don't have to send their babbies to the scary scary alternative of O NOEZ public school. I'm not sure it's about transferring Andy's crazy to kids, but more sure it's about sheltering kids from the perceived crazy of the outside world. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 01:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy says "avoid a contractions in formal writing" but then says "try to be more colorful in your writing". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So the "good... but not spectacular" essay got a 95% for substance and 94% for technical correctness. Good thing liberal cp:grade inflation doesn't exist in Andy's class. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And now Obama's gay

Looks like the Obama article has a new section. Hmm, and I thought Lincoln was the first gay president. RachelW (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Gay prostitute Larry Sinclair revealed details of drug use and illicit sex by Obama at a news conference...(etc)"

Wow. That must have been a really, really interesting news conference. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah redlink editor, content removed, everyone knows you have to ease your way into the gay stuff. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness}04:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that is what lube is for. --★uːʤɱ digital native 08:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll be the one to say it. That has to be a parodist. -- 07:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Larry Sinclair allegations are real, in that there's a guy named Larry Sinclair who claims to have had gay sex and used cocaine with Obama. Sinclair, however, is himself... problematic. He's basically a con artist. He very publicly took a polygraph test, and failed it. The only attorney he could find had his law license suspended, and felt a kilt was appropriate attire for a press conference. Only the outer edges of the right wing media (World Net Daily, for instance) would even touch the story. Oh, and he's tied in with Orly Taitz, though they apparently had a falling out. Basically, only the birthers take him seriously.

And anyway, look at the guy's photos. Does anyone really think he could have been a successful gay prostitute, particularly one that would service a US Senator? MDB (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the edits have been removed, with Andy doing some of the removing. Apparently, there's claims about Obama even he won't touch. So note this: the Larry Sinclair claims about Obama are so ludicrous, even Andy Schlafly will have nothing to do with them. MDB (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The claims though were vastly better sourced than Andy's Castro is dead thing, or indeed just about anything Andy has ever had to say about Obama. It seems like the difference between acceptable crazy and a craziness too far is only seniority at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Andy getting worse?

What, with the whole Castro being dead and an impersonator is meeting the Pope thing, attributing computer glitches to the devil, calling E=mc² meaningless "liberal claptrap" and now saying dreams are God tricking you for His own amusement^img. All in the last few days. Yeah, he's always been spouting some crazy shit, but this seems excessive even for him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My theory wild ass guess humorous suggestion is that he planned on having a big St. Patties day party, and since no one turned up he has been doing a lot of drinking alone in the basement, has to get all that booze out of the house somehow. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

His ideas about dreams are about as plausible as much of the "research" in said area. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think Andy's not all there, mentally. There's been some limited communication between some RWers and some of Andy's classmates at Harvard at it seems he wasn't like this then (I don't think he could have got through Harvard if he were), so he's been on a downward trajectory. He might legitimately need help, and, unlike Ken, he certainly isn't getting it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

By chance, a friend of mine was married to someone who knew Andy when he was at Princeton. I'm told Andy spent one Halloween in Greenwich Village and was shocked at what he saw. Apparently, afterward he said "Geez, I guess Mom was right". Perhaps that's where the downward spiral started? :P --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging the gay community based on Halloween in Greenwich Village would be like judging Christianity based on... Andy and Ken. MDB (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I always find it amazing how many random personal stories can turn up decades later about random people. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken's been getting help? No joke: that's good to hear. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it's working is a different issue. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If dreams are god fucking with your head, all you positive sex people have nothing to fear, from what I can tell, god's a freaking pervert. --★uːʤɱ heretic 08:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So God's true name is Loki?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy must've had some pretty embarrassing dreams lately. Probably involving Tebow. Vulpius (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that it's not just confined to the pages of Conservapedia but also a part of Andy's "real life", his inability to ever admit that he's a made mistake must surely count as some kind of mental disorder. Also, after Andy recently praised Ken's "meritorious contributions" again, I got the feeling that Mr. Schlafly would be creating pages like "Mystery:Why don't Hispanic ladies like short, fat, grumpy atheists?" himself if Ken wasn't there to do it for him.--Spud (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been convinced for a while that Andru suffers from NPD. This, unfortunately, means that those AROUND you are the real sufferers. Jimaginator (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Syllogisms vs Andy Schlafly

Britain = Atheist^img; Brits^img = supporter of Republican causes^img; Republicans=Atheists? Brits=Christians? Brits=Atheists? Christians=Atheists! Cats & dogs having sex! United States winning the Soccer World Championship! Up is down and down is up or both! No rules! No rules! --★uːʤɱ constructivist 11:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No issue here at all. It is Britain which is atheist(ic), while the British support Republicans. One is a country, the other the people. Not everything which is true of the latter is true of the former (there are mumblety-mumble British persons, but only one Britain).

There. My best defense of Andy. My second best defense is that you put syllogisms in the title, but you didn't clearly present a syllogism (though, it's obvious you meant something about transitivity of equality, it's also obvious that this is a horrible abuse of the equality symbol. Britain is not identical to atheist.). Phiwum (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be anything new for him. For him, Atheists = Something That is Bad, and Hitler = Something that is Bad, so Atheists = Hitler. :S ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not what I meant. I meant he can write this stuff within 24 hours and doesn't see that what he's writting is logicly incoherent. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy is so fascinating to watch - he has been changing over the years. In the early days he was a lot more angry, more prone to chew out some editor before one of his goons blocked them. These days, he simply ignores anyone who tries to argue, and displays of anger are very rare. But the crazy is definitely growing, I think whatever remnants of reason he had are slowly disappearing as he grows older. This bodes well for us! [JC] 09:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

For sure. The quote generator is out of date by this point. I can't remember the last time he accused someone of denying that vaccines prevented school prayer, or whatever. Godspeed (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Should somebody get on that?±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had never thought to check on their page for vaccines. It's an amazingly neutral article for them. The talk page has plenty of crazy, but the article comes down very fairly. Anti-vaccination nonsense of one of my peeves, and I was really expecting to get worked up by their article. Someone should stock them up on crazy. -Lardashe

Castro, still dead, to meet the Pope

Fidel is gonna meet the Pope. When I go over there and post links to pics from the Vatican newspaper showing His Holiness with the deceased former dictator, how will Andy react?

He will admit that Castro is alive	" 1
L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican paper) is a liberal source and not to be trusted	" 3
The Vatican was duped by a doppelganger	" 11
Pretend it didn't happen. Any mention is verboten.	" 43
Mystery: Did the pope perform a miracle by raising Castro from the dead?	" 7

P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The pope, on account of being neither american nor a BL/YEC Christian republican, will work with the commies to propogate the myth Castro is still alive. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Dr Strangelove... 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Vatican was duped by a doppelganger wins [1]^img --108.87.37.69 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But... wait... wow. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah what the fuck? Ace^Moderator 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At what point did Andy flip from 'painted-in-a-corner-defence' , to outright, batshit, DT insanity? Are we sure that he and Ken aren't the same person? 'cause they appear to be rapidly morphing into each other.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy sez: that publicity stunt by Cuba was predictable; obviously the Pope has no expertise in recognizing who is (was) Fidel Castro

Presumably other people saw Castro too though... such as, I don't know, the Vatican's foreign policy advisors? The very people most likely in the Vatican to recognise a Castro? I really hope this balloons into another damning example of Andy's utter balls-to-the-wall pig-headedness and outright stupidity. These flames need fanning. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's moments like these that make me lose whatever respect i have for the man, which is indeed very little. Then i feel sad because i remember his grasping at straws in his arguing about recall.--il'Dictator Mikal 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Vatican newspaper has now released eleven photos of Castro and Pope Palpatine together.--Fergus Mason (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If we finish off Andy's sentence with the full intent, the logic is flawless; "The Pope has no expertise in recognizing who is (was) Fidel Castro, Whereas I, Andrew Layton Schlafly, do thanks to my years in diplomacy and international affairs." QED liberals. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dang, I was going to say that. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is - it is difficult to tell one 8ft reptile from another. (Meander into 'correct handshake/clones/android/Face Off fantasy.) ;) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Poll closed.

I've closed the poll. Also, I am awarding myself 1000 internets for seeing this moment on the horizon. also, who beat me to posting about the Castro meeting on CP? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

August O comes bearing logic and proof

This won't end well.^img--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he seems to be frustrated by the E=mc^2 stuff..... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He's got credit now, so he goes for the big hit. --★uːʤɱ digital native 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken:The pope and his road crew can't see^img. Sigh......--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Moar Ken: 13 edits^img to get one talk page post right.^img Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly he seems imply that I've been here for a while and not just since I was banned from over there. He should check his facts better. Ayzmo (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, is Ken mocking Andy's "Castro is dead" obsession? It really seems like it, but with someone as nuts as Ken it's impossible to tell. Turpis 3:16 13:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a MYSTERY

That didn't take long^img. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is fucking stupid. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I'm taking away all your internets and awarding them to myself for my clairvoyance in predicting this mystery! Another instance of Jeeves proven right! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"the person in the recent photos is only a few inches taller than the Pope." In the fourth picture, where they're seated across from each other, "Fidel"'s kneecap is about 8" higher than the Pope's. Whoover (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

People tend to shrink a little and stoop as they age so of course Castro will appear shorter than he was, especially if he's been ill; also noses (and ears) carry on growing so those perky little noses end up as beaky lumps. Andy is an ignorant fuckwit. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hah, even JPratt^img is hedgingly suggesting that the dear leader is full of shit on this one. CP must be getting really bad when even he thinks what's written there is idiocy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is even sillier than fake Fidel fantasies

Andy's latest MPL offering^img completely misreads an obviously sarcastic ESPN article about Kim Jong Il's first golf game, as reported in North Korean state-run media (eleven holes-in-one, with a final score of 38) as if ESPN believed the report. Honestly, that is just a deranged misreading, on par with his armchair Castro sleuthing, if not better than it. Phiwum (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Kim Jong Il's first golf game, Rick Santorum has a few sports sports achievements he wants to share. Ace^Moderator 20:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy must have some weird form of Dyslexia that rearranges words in things so that to him, what he cites actually backs up what he said rather then de-bunk it. --Revolverman (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the citation, I thought it was odd that Andy didn't place ESPN in the lamestream media. Like "if ESPN could spot this, why couldn't CBS?" His quoting it as serious reporting never occurred to me. That's just sad. Whoover (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one, cannot help but think that Andru is either genuinely nutball (NPD), or the greatest parodist of all time! Are there really any other choices? Does he know how to read? Does he know that you should read the entire article? The ESPN thing is so heavy-handed that they don't even leave you guessing of their real intentions at the end. Holy Zeus Andru, what the Hades is the matter with you? You are the laughingstock of the internet! Jimaginator (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) It really amazes me that they don't see the similarity between the mythologisation of the Kim family and North Korea and their own religion. Jesus walked on water and was the son of an almighty god, Kim Il-song was born on Mt. Paektu equally the son of a heavenly father, his daddy makes the weather and Kim Jong-il is a golf studd. You take a historical figure, repeat a claim so long until a generation comes along believing the bullshit — because they have never heard it any different — and than it's a religion, religion turns into ideology or ideology turns into a religion and what you get is a age of terror in which science is manipulated to only further the causes of those that brutally rule and keep a system running that can't ever work. Yes, you are reading correctly, I say American ultra-coservatism and Juche are euqally dangerous, hatefull and bullshity. --★uːʤɱ secularist 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So Christianity and the North Korean Kim family cult are similar now, are they? The post above makes some good points ruined by the opening statement. You really should watch for that, UHM. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, doesn't Andy realise that the media never took Kim's so-called golf round seriously and basically just giggled at it? Oh wait, we're talking about Andy here. The man's getting nuttier by the day. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy thinks that the media is taking him seriously. Vulpius (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we all know that Andy is incredibly gullible, he gets suckered into all sorts of craziness by parodists and fails to spot most of the prevailing parody at CP. Don't forget the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

He does realize ESPN is associated with ABC and owned by gay-friendly Disney, right?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just for some background... the lowest golf score ever in a PGA tour round was 59. Scores as low as 55 have been officially recognized (for varying definitions of "officially recognized".) So, as Darkimind1970 says above, the reason the media didn't question the claims about Kim's golf score is that they're so ludicrous as to not require further comment. MDB (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what I don't get. The media "doesn't question" Kim's golf "abilities" because not only is it so ridiculous as to not merit serious comment, but the fraud is so obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of "cult of personality" dictators. Andy obviously knows it's bullshit, so all he is doing by using Kim's golf score as an example is publicly undermining his own argument. Is his pride so immense that it blinds him to the ridicule his own "examples" open him up to? How does clinging onto the "Castro is dead" angle benefit Andy anyway? No one else believes it and even his own inner circle views the very notion as absurd. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Page hits? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In this edit^img, Andy suggests that unless the media "questioned" Kim's remarkable feats prior to his death, it doesn't count. I don't personally remember any reports of his stupendous golf or bowling game until his death, presumably because such reports aren't generally newsworthy but they provide humorous commentary for an obituary. (On his own talk page, he seems to add the reported 300 pt. bowling game to items the New York Times has credulously accepted. Surely, he really isn't so incompetent that he can't see the mocking sarcasm? Really?) Phiwum (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about golf at all, but I found out about Kim Jong-Il's remarkable golf abilities a long while ago due to a wikiwalk, and I instantly knew how ludicrous the claim was despite the source (wikipedia I think?) not actively mocking it. You don't need to comment on certain claims to mock them, you just need to bring them up. Either Andy just plain doesn't understand that concept, or he's actively nitpicking so he can point fingers. I honestly don't know which one is going on here. X Stickman (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This site is growing stagnating rapidly!

I've had a look at the crazy house and it seems that it is utterly mad. A look at Special:Newpages^img reveals that not many new items are being added, despite the site claiming to have all this stuff and pageviews going on and replacing conventional media. The new page list is Andy's insanity, homework, and Jimmy's Elvis crap (there's more stuff on Elvis now than Jesus it seems...) as well as his bizarre Springsteen hatchet pieces. This site has to be on its way out- it's a miserable failure. Thoughts?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's succeeding quite well as an Elvis-o-pedia. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but I think Wikia already has one of those. But there's a crapload of Elvis articles, yes....--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That old E=mc² chestnut

Some amusing edit-warring with Andy pushing the loony boat out even further.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor August. He'd very nearly rid the article of Andy's bullshit "insights", but I guess Andy noticed his scientific expertise were being questioned. You'd think he might be grateful for the opportunity to back quietly away from his idiocy, but apparently not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Ed Poor, stepping in, smilingly proclaiming We all love science, and than banning AugustO and his ilk for some spurious reasons.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't August have a couple of graces after resurrecting the missing edits?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his status as messenger of god will protect his from banhammering if he continues to cross the dear leader. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Where on earth did Andy Pandy get "The Theory of Relativity played no role in [E=mc²]"? Verily, he knoweth not that whereof he speaketh. And I'm amused by the succint (and accurate) description of Cockcroft & Walton's experiment in an article that starts by saying that E=mc² is "liberal claptrap". Bonkers. Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I (JoshuaB)was working on slow-waliking Andy into the ultimate untennable postion on this and several other topics, but I got ban-hammered before my plan could unfold. Oh well, I'll leave it up to AugustO to keep up the good fight. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Those moments when CP makes one particularly angry....

I can look at a lot of CP and just be amused at the sheer stupidity. But as a guy writing a dissertation on a topic related to this, at least in broad sense, FOIA's out-of-date, zero-meaningful-historical context red-baiting of one of the most important radical activist intellectuals of the past 150 years really brings me down. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes me fucking angry is the comment that E=mc2 has never been "demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner". If I was over there I would ask him about atom bombs. How do you think they work Andy? It is a direct result of E=mc2 (albeit in reverse). Please, someone ask him about fucking atom bombs. Fuck. Ace^Moderator 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Atom bombs are atheist liberal communist-lovers enslaving the Will of God to explode in bomb form. It is the ultimate proof of God's might yet the greatest murderous blasphemy when used by godless liberals, and all atomic bombings so far have been mockeries against the Lord. This is why only conservative presidents should be allowed; they can use this awesome might of God to bomb heathens in submission without violating His will. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 00:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you, fucking fucker. Ace^Moderator 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If E=mc² really was somehow wrong, then I guess everything would just be made of fuck. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 01:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Except Conservapedia, which would continue to be made of fail.--Fergus Mason (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

^And that comment FM, which is made of solid gold win. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 02:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's rare that I read something that makes me actually laugh out loud. Good job, FM. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing that makes me particularly angry at CP. It's all just too foolish to take seriously. Probably because the topics they attack with such idiocy are not in my field (aerospace engineering). When I was over there, my goal was never to directly rebut any of their ludicrous claims, I just wanted them to distill and clarify their house brand of stupidity. Get straight to the 180 proof retardation, as it were. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The main purpose of the science articles on Conservapedia is to prove that the science of the Bible is true. Which means that the Bible is literaly true and therefore its morality must be correct. Which means that homosexuals, atheists and other "liberals" are evil and it's OK to dehumanize them. With the exception of a few pages like the stubs about birds and Elvis movies, pretty much the entire site makes me angry, even though most of it makes me laugh with incredulity at the same time. --Spud (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Conservative to Andy: What, exactly, is your problem?

"I mean, do you have some sort of martyr complex or something?"^img P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IT BEGINS. Yay.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative: Yeah Andy, WTF?^img Ace^Moderator 01:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now we know the truth. Kendoll terminated the real Castro^img. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until atheism is dead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to show how Ken misunderstands Goggle ranking, that same search URL gives CP at #8 not #5 on my cache cleared iPad. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?},

Ken is such a strange person. Most of he seems trapped in his fog of insanity. Sometimes, though, it seems to clear, and he at least seems like he knows what the hell is going on around him. --Revolverman (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting a big fight feel from these two. And much like the prelude to the main event features a man clearly beatendown by the fighters (and life itself) providing commentary, we need the insight of someone who's been there. Doornobs, whats your take?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In a parallel universe, Thunderstruck is a sports commentator. But you forgot that Andy is a coward. He won't fight. If he thinks Kennie goes to far, he'll just block him. --★uːʤɱ pirate 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Very, very unlikely. Unless Ken does something monumentaly retarded, such as try to asset total ownership over Conservapedia or out himself as a deep cover liberal parodist, Andy won't block the single remaining active contributor to Conservapedia. Instead, we'll see Andy's ignore skills being played like crazy... Or possibly another "server mishap" if things get REALLY bad. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's exercising his ignore muscles quite nicely in that thread, with everyone talking around Kendoll's weird pronouncements. I wonder if he ever gets pissed that everyone ignores him at CP, or wishes that just once someone important would reply to one of his weird talk page shout outs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what's going on here. Ken is worried that Andy is making Conservapedia look silly. Let that sink in for a moment. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's coming to something when Ken tells you that you're acting like a twat and he's actaually right! This does not in itself prove that Ken has a firm grip on reality, though. Fidel Castro may be alive in Ken's world but also in Ken's world converting to Christianity changes men from fat, nerdy sissies into Chuck Norris.--Spud 12:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is Andy's problem?

His ridiculous insistence that Castro is dead despite all the evidence to contrary has now led to his ridiculous insistence that the "lamestream media" credulously reports Kim Jong Il's sporting achievements no matter how many articles he's shown where reporters take the piss out of them. What's wrong with him? I really don't understand why he's so stuck on these trivial things. I don't even understand why he has a strong opinion on Castro's health. What's his investment in the issue? Is he really a person who makes ill-considered snap judgements and then feels obliged to stick to them despite evidence? What the hell kind of person does that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same way that lawyers will knowingly defend the guilty, Andy will defend what he knows is wrong. He's just lawyering. It's not like he has shit else to do. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Is he really a person who makes ill-considered snap judgements and then feels obliged to stick to them despite evidence?" - Bingo. We've seen it over and over again. [JC] 11:45, 30 March 2012 (EST)

As pointed out by Ken (*shudder*), Andy hates to admit when he's wrong. He came up with a crackpot theory a few years ago about Castro being dead, and now that that has been proven wrong many times over, he has to jump through increasingly crazy hoops to justify his completely wrong theory. It's in the same boat as Relativity and the geometric insight thing. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Karajou^img jumps on the "Castro is alive" bandwagon. It looks like he tried to make his reply "edgy" and forced-conservative to take the sting off for Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The reality of the situation is laid bare to thinking men. Andy's process here is a great mystery to me: simply deny facts and continue asserting an absurdity without the least evidentiary support; but the responses either show an unreasonable man like Karaturd to not be mentally retarded, or they show Andy's minions to be either as disconnected, dishonest, or flat our parodists. The upsetting part, as with watching creationists play their games, is that any of these is indistinguishable from the other except in the broad context of watching a man like Andy fall farther and farther down the rabbit hole. 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how "every reasonable person and a whole smattering of idiots who are still smart enough to not deny the reality of Castro" is a "bandwagon". Karajou is off on one part, though...liberals would not be sad to see him go and Cuba return to the western hemisphere as a contributing country. If sanctions ended and diplomatic recognition were re-established, Cuba could thrive on the tourism that it once had back in the 50s, before it kicked out the Bacardi family, and Floridian Cubans would no longer be considered "refugees". It'd be a win-win for all. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I've got pictures of my grandfather and his young family (my dad was born in 39) vacationing in Cuba. Super nice beaches. I can't wait to be able to go at some point soon without having to use my Canadian passport. 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Memo to self: Visit Cuba before it gets swamped by American tourists after Castro dies and the prices skyrocket. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that what's going on here is that if he admits he's wrong on this, he sees it as a threat to his credibility as a whole. As in, he uses the same bad logic on himself as he does on other subjects: If science is wrong once science must be wrong a lot, if Andy is wrong once Andy must be wrong a lot, etc. If people get him to admit he's wrong on this, he sees it as that people will then be able to make him admit he's wrong on other things. So in order to defend himself and his ideas as a whole, he has to just not ever admit to being wrong. It's probably not even conscious on his end. Just a looming fear connected to his ego. His limited capacity to reason probably controls his entire life and self worth (Not really that special; I think all people get security in sense of self from the ability ((or inability)) to reason anyway...) rather than just his crackpot political ideology. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, but I will take it a step further. If Andy has to admit error, he may believe his credibility and ability to "lead" Conservapedia is in jeopardy and he may somehow lose his position, (even though in reality he is perfectly safe as he pays all the costs and owns the place). Conservapedia is where he has control. Conservapedia is where Andy is king; is respected, even lauded (mostly by parodists). In his mind any admission of error is lose of prestige and thus authority over his one and only dominion in life. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, Andru has NPD. It's kinda sad. Jimaginator (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well look at why he made CP, he was tired of being overruled by common sense on wikipedia so he made a wiki where he could always be right, the only problem is that he is incapable of being right all the time. --Opcn (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If Andy is wrong then he can no longer rule by decree and everything is open for discussion, that would be the final nail in the coffin. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, it has a lot to do with the whole 'atheist liberal lie' crap he's so caught up on. At some point he got this idea that Castro might actually be dead, and figured that clearly those godless commies would lie to preserve their precious personality cult (which is definitely nothing like the one he builds up for himself - or other fundamentalists, or any athlete who is an outspoken Christian...). This is, after all, the type of mind that comes to a conclusion with absolutely no evidence, goes out in search of anything that might support its position, and conveniently ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "You see, liberals love their lies and propaganda, and the fact that they say Castro is alive while everyone knows otherwise proves it!" Q0 (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedant's corner

I thought Ken was supposed to have won some sort of spelling bee. So how come he doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? Dance for me little man, dance!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of the fascinating way that language is translated into keystrokes by the brain it's fairly common for people who are well aware of the difference between you're and your to type the wrong one anyway. The same for various other homophones. Unless they actually review (this is Ken, so no) their work before hitting submit they won't catch the mistake. This is arguably also why pronunciation keyed input systems for Han characters are a success. The ordinary keyboard user when trying to type an arbitrary word actually ends up mentally "saying" the word and then typing what they say so an input system which reflects this is easier for them to use than one that e.g. relies upon knowing how to write the characters by hand. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was an element of rhetoric in my question because I do sometimes make the mistake you describe. However, normally I will correct it after reading the actual post. In this particular instance, Ken has made the same mistake three times in the same post. And if you think that someone who makes 13 edits to get one talk page post correct doesn't review his work, then you obviously haven't been following the story and know bugger all about Ken.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedians laugh at superior atheist intellect

Oh the irony strikes again! Speaking of intellect, Ken

, you are aware that richarddawkins.net is higher than conservapedia is, right? Those little numbers to the left mean more than the pretty line going up and down. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ran a quick Alexa check. Richarddawkins.net at the time of writing: 6397 link-ins, ranked at 36,859 globally and 19,218 in the US. Conservapedia has a higher traffic ranking in the US (15,435), which I don't think is too surprising given that it's pretty much the funniest site that's come out of the US, but globally it's got a much lower 53,102 and 3,051 link-ins. Incidentally, Dawkins' site hasn't been reviewed yet, but CP has and it's got an average of one and a half stars, coming from two five-star reviews, and nine one-stars. So, if Alexa's anything to go by, Ken is either lying or stupid. Or both. Probably both. -- 10:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone really needs to teach Kendoll how to use templates, then he wouldn't have to expend 50 billion edits copy-pasting his various pictures with captions in to each of his "essays." If only there were someone left at CP who actually understood how a wiki works. (His Spock pic makes me chuckle every time I see it though. "Since God clearly exist, Richard Dawkins' plan of atheist nerds achieving the world denomination of atheism over Christianity was clearly illogical." is gloriously incoherent.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stunning Poe from a 5-star Alexa review of CP:

The best use of this site is Research.

Likes

• Active community
• Easy to navigate
• Good content
• Site is fast and responsive

Dislikes

• Other

Comments: Conservapedia is pretty reliable.

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the top 5 related sites for CP include Cracked.com and Rationalwiki.. note that 10-13% of before / after clickstream traffic also comes from RW. This shows that a high percentage of visitors come to laugh, not take CP seriously. Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to have that problem. [JC] 12:01, 31 March 2012 (ET)

This whole thread....

Awesome^img. Andy is such a colossal dickhead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading stuff like that makes me wonder how Andy would do on an IQ test (a proper one, not one of those 'hey look, you're super smart, why not send us money?' online ones.) You'd think he'd have to be moderately clever given where he got his post secondary education. But I'm starting to think that he's accomplished nothing in life that can't be explained away as the result of having rich parents. And yes, that was a dig at the old Obama article (at least I think they took the affirmative action part out.) Ego (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy would do fine on an IQ test, but he suffers a severe case of dysrationalia. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Even CP joins in the festivities!

although why isnt it jeb bush?^img--il'Dictator Mikal 04:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd be a fool to believe what you read on CP 365 (or 366) days a year. --Spud (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to tell Andy that putting "April fools!" after the joke totally ruins it. Not that it's really a joke so much as his masturbatory fantasy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...for fuck's sake, I fell for that. -- 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy!

The liberal media KNOWS^img Castro is dead, but they don't say it. Because liberals. Is there something in the water coolers at CP towers? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of conspiracies, Andy keeps repeating that the Times only reported on the Great Golf Lie posthumously and that this silence enabled his reign of terror. Can somebody with access at the Funny Farm add this link from 1994 to the thread? It's annoying when Andy pulls crap out of his ass and it's not challenged. Plus it will be fun to watch Andy insist this article contains not one whit of irony. Whoover (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet didn't exist in 1994. That was clearly added later, with a false date, because liberals. X Stickman (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it up liberals, everybody knows Castro is dead. Just like black holes make you lose interest in reading the bible. Cake doesn’t give you energy times the speed of light squared. Do you doubt that Facebook and video games cause mass murder? The best of the public can shake your intellectually inferior girl baby better than any so-called expert. I’m sure you waste time washing your hands after closing your mind to the fact that all of the world’s greatest contributions were made by teenagers! Godspeed! You know... a person who wasn’t used to listening to Andy would rightfully mistake him for a mad man. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure most of us who are used to listening to him still think he's a mad man. -Tygrehart

Considering that Fidel formally resigned last year, this has to be the most pointless conspiracy ever. Next up: Is the liberal media covering up evidence that the queen of England is a reptoid? Stay tuned!

Andy learned a new word, thanks to the KGB.

What a fucktard. It's SO unbelievable that a candidate who won't win the nomination receives an endorsement^img from a football player who retired 4 years ago wouldn't receive massive coverage! Liberal conspiracy! Holy shit do I pity that cocksucker. His world must be miserable. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney is currently in the lead here in Wisconsin and I believe he will win this state, Washington D.C. and Maryland on Tuesday. All three contests are "winner takes all" which could give Romney 98 delegates (if he wins all three). Andy will have to downplay this of course. What really will be interesting is the April 24th primaries, which are Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Rhode Island. I can see Romney easily winning four out of five in that primary as it is basically the Northeast. If Romney wins Pennsylvania in addition, that could be a fatal blow to the Santorum campaign, as he couldn't even secure his home state (and fall hopelessly behind in a delegate rich region). I'd love to see Andy spin that scenario.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All states romney wins are unimportant, media-hyped events designed to distract voters from real candidates. Florida got the worst of it, switching from the most important in the 2012 primary to worthless in the space of 40 hours. The problem though, is those candidates don't seem to want to pull out of the race, so andy can keep shilling his THE CONVENTION WILL BE BROKERED fantasy. --il'Dictator Mikal 06:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck, man?

Kendoll confuses me.^img is this lucid and incoherent? Or is it coherent and fucking crazy? Either way I'm irritated enough that I'm going to punch a kitten in the nuts. Goddamn you Kenny, fuck you. Get some fucking help. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

as Ken knows but ignores the most religious in the USA are the fattest. Ace^Moderator 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually makes me even more mad, since it appears he's going for a power grab^img it pisses me off that he's blowing it. I can't possibly be the only one who was looking forward to seeing that play out, but he has to shoot himself in the foot by reverting to his batshit ways. Kenny, keep it together and you could soon usurp Assfly. We're all pulling for you, you know, schadenfreude and all. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, poor Ken. His heavily Christian country, leader of the free world, is also the fattest with a full 1/3 of the population overweight or obese with a mere 9% or so atheism rate. It seems as atheism is halved and becoming a mere squeak in society the population is getting fatter and fatter. Ace^Moderator 03:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind that the redder states are the fatter ones. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, cake.

"Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.^img Wait, what? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically Andy's a fuckwit. Someone should ask him how he thinks a thermonuclear device that weighs a few tons yields the same energy as 20 megatons of TNT. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I love it; from "does not meaning anythimg that makes sense" to the fact that he bolded the whole thing, including his signature. And it relates cake to the theory of relativity. Classic Schlafly. He's still got it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is he aware that it's April 1st? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 21:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy could be a closet drunk. It would explain a lot of his "theories" and his general failure at life. That, or he's simply stupid. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I don't think there's much closet left. There's nothing I've seen out of coming out of Andy's keyboard the past few months that doesn't seem to have been inspired by toxic stupidity.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And Andy locks it down because August dared to insert a {{fact}} instead of "finding and adding a reference" for Andy's bullshit. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joaquín Martínez

[2] Tea (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, what? Ace^Moderator 03:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes more sense if you read it aloud Tea (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did that and it still doesn't make any sense (though everyone on the bus is looking at me strangely). Ace^Moderator 04:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Piss off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a childish vandal boasting about their childish vandalism, Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's just an admin doing what admins are supposed to do, deleting stupid unfunny wandalism. Any attempts to draw a connection between the dicators' friend and hairy German arses are meaningless. There's nothing to see here. Move along. --Spud (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANDY, THE CAKE IS A FUCKING LIE!

I'm sorry, I just had to say it in response to the latest WIGO. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has to post Still Alive there at some point. -- 11:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Or this version. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Headline versus the Truth

Andy: Big brother (by which he means the government) is interfering with the NFL to stop bullying!^img

Actual article: NFL warns it is possible there may be criminal charges against players paid extra to cripple opposing players and will determine what course of action to take.

No where in the article does it mentioned that any government institution: Whether federal, state, or local, are pushing to even attempting to get involved in what everyone sees as an internal affair of the NFL. In short, Andy again messes up by only reading the headline of an article and possibly the first paragraph in order to support his misguided worldview.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hell, since Andy has no problem with this: $40 to anyone who can ensure Andy Schlafly never walks again. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Never walks again? He'd just be at the computer even longer! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's "an internal affair of the NFL". Does US law really say that's OK to pay someone to injure other people? I can set up a company where you pay us $500 and we kick your daughter's boyfriend in the nuts until he promises never to see her again? That sort of thing? I know you guys take pleasure in behaving like monsters (executing children, leaving the poor to die in the street etc.^{[citation needed]}) but surely you have some sort of rudimentary rule of law? In most countries if A pays B to punch C in the face, then it doesn't matter what A, B or C think of this matter, that's a crime and you'd better expect A and B to get prosecuted. So much so that for-pay S&M is problematic, if you pay for a service that leaves bruises they're taking a risk that they'll end up in court and you'll have to testify or be in contempt. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I hope you're wrong. My defense in the paraplegic Andy case is that "C" doesn't mind. And I have it in writing. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Knowing Andy though, he won't give a shit until it affects him, and then cry foul and flip like a coin. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

C signed a contract that grants A and B the right to punch him in the face, in consideration of several million dollars. This is certainly an NFL "internal matter." But the NFL must be part of the gummint because they're liberals. Whoover (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well players are contracted to tackle other players in the game with the understanding that injuries do happen. These bounties were never written deals, and worded in such a way as to never really say "go out and hurt him and you'll get x dollars" but instead would be "tackle him and if hey, your tackle just happens to take player x out of the game, well then you'll get this nice little cash bonus". Of course you couldn't do it using an illegal hit or tactic in according to the rules, so you had to use legal hits in just the right way to hopefully take the other player out. So none of this is criminally int he sense you are committing battery.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's selective reading....

This article about planets and stars that are billions of years old is a great argument AGAINST an old Earth^img. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A planet that formed after only a billion years of the universe? I don't think I've ever heard such strong evidence that the entire universe is only 6000 years old. Good job on the reading comprehension there Andy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh... What? So, in answer to Andy's question, how many counter examples an atheist needs: We only need one. One that actually does "withstand scrutiny", as you are so fond of saying. And we're still waiting for it. -- 17:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if his aim is to train his class of kids such that they are incapable of noticing he makes mistakes. If his ideas don't conform to reality, he instead makes his ideas the reality for someone else. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a form of grade inflation to me. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity that he hasn't added that to the cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth. Did we miss this gem? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I love there is no citation to back that claim up. Likely Andy just came up with that concept on his own (or read it once in some YEC publication), liked how it fit with his preconceived notions, and stuck it on his counterexamples page as fact; I also wager he would defend that belief to the end.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

These two worlds are not the first to be discovered at this age. PSR B1620-26 b, nicknamed "Methuselah" is also estimated to around 12.7 billion years old, (confirmed in 2003). What the difference here is that HIP 11952 (the star these two new worlds were found around) is the most metal-poor star we have found planets orbiting, (We do not know the metallicity of PSR B1620-26 because it is now a pulsar and thus all compressed neutrons, long ago losing any non neutron-degenerate matter). What makes this interesting is the more metal-poor a star is, the less likely it is to have planets according to current theories. Thus the first stars (Population III, or metal-free stars, which came about in the first few hundred million years) would have none. HIP 11952 though is an old population II star, and despite its metallicity being only 1% of our Sun's, it is considered very metal-rich compared to other stars of a similar age. The chances of planets around such stars is remote but not impossible. It should also be noted both worlds appear to be gas giants and thus likely almost all hydrogen and helium with very little else. It would have been far more shocking if a rocky world would have been found as it is believed nowhere enough "heavy elements", (anything above hydrogen and helium), would been around at that time in the interstellar medium to form such a world. What I don't get, and has been stated above, is what this has to do with the age of the Earth itself. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If he only read the main headline "Planets found at dawn of universe, but their existence is a mystery", and read it literately, he could easily make that mistake. However, the sub-head gives the correct gist of the article.

Judging how Andy has reacted to several articles when making commentary on the main page; it would appear that reading just the headline is a very common mistake of his. One that makes him slowly lose what little public credibility he has on a regular basis. Fortunately for him, strict control over what opinions are allowed to be expressed in Conservapedialand shields him from his own stupidity, thanks to the work of his loyal acolytes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Inside the same article...

Links to a quiz, "Are you scientifically literate?", containing actually correct questions (50 of them). I already know which ones Andy would stumble on. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At the end of that test, does it tell you you are socially illiterate for allowing the CS monitor to exploit you for so many ad impressions? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet has ads? I had no idea. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What P-Foster said. The test is kind of irritating in that for 50 questions it requires 100 clicks. That being said, I only got the last one wrong...not bad for someone who only took two science courses in college (Chem 1 and 2). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Neal deGrasse Tyson talked about the conservative mindset (as far as science, anyhow), and the crucial difference between most people and religious conservatives. For most people, especially science, "I don't know" "it's a mystery" (small letter m), is an invitation to find out, to discover, to question. For a small group of people "I don't know" means "it's a Mystery", and therefor it can never be known, should never be known and Δ God. Sadly, andy and other across the nation, want to keep our kids from getting excited about what they don't know. What a dull existence to just think "goddidit" Godot What do cats dream about? 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just gave up on that test after 10 questions of which I got 3 right. It seems I don't understand science for not knowing what "thunder lizzard" means in biology-speak. Now can somebody explain to me why it is important to know things and not understand how the underlying method works? 'cuz in my mind that is exactly Andy's problem. And don't come at me with studies, I just wouldn't get them. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's usually the ones who can regurgitate page after page of "facts" that are the most scientifically illiterate. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What sort of quiz has a "previous" button which allows you to correct an incorrect answer? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A quiz that's more concerned with getting you to view more than a 100 different page on a website than actually testing something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about completing that survey. I've done 5 questions (and got 5 right) and I can already see that "Christians know everything about science - take that atheists!" headlines after we all fill this in. 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that the people who write those articles are not fundie crazies. They are scientists (or writers interested in science) who happen to be Christian. Nothing strange about that and unlikely to play the "all atheists are Hitler" card. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Too often people (especially journalists) take "scientific literacy" to mean knowledge of scientific trivia (often not even interesting trivia). The quiz seems to test mostly just that. Unfortunately, rote memorization of facts is how science is often taught in primary and secondary school and many students leave thinking that's all there is to science. Sure, you have to memorize some basic facts and definitions to do science, but that's just a prerequisite. For many scientists, "scientific literacy" would mean comprehending important scientific theories and having a deep understanding of the scientific method. That's harder to test and teach than rote memorization, but it's by far more important. (For the record, I got 41 out of 50 on the quiz.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As for "it's a mystery", Dara O'Briain said it best: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd would stop.... Just 'cuz science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to ya." --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I got 44 out of 50, but having a periodic table on the wall beside my desk may have helped a bit. In any case, when someone asked Einstein how many feet are in a mile he replied, “I don’t know. Why should I fill my brain with facts I can find in two minutes in any standard reference book?” --Fergus Mason (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

50/50 with out reference materials, though honestly I did guess on one of them, and one I very nearly got wrong because I misread it and guessed between what looked like two correct answers. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had a good IRL friend who started...

• rewriting the Bible
• claiming earthquakes were getting worse
• swearing up and down that Castro was dead
• alleging to have disproven the theory of relativity

what would you do? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I could never have a "good" friend who thought along those lines. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Among my closest friends, we call that a "Code Red". YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that each one was new at some point. One day Andy woke up and started believing Castro was dead. Just makes me think if that could happen to someone I know. Extrapolating the crazy backwords, Andy could have been pretty normal in college/highschool. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When you say "normal", do you mean normal for a high school student, or normal for someone born from the loins of Phyllis? Cuz my thinking is that he was probably a lot like this guy (a Google Search turns up some scarier results). And the proper term used among doctors and psychiatrists is "baseline". -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My parents went through a fairly unpleasant (for me) transition to Pentacostal religion. This included speaking in tongues and prophesying to me in the middle of the night. My brother has expressed belief in birtherism. What can you do? A good man would steer the conversation elsewhere. A weaker man ends up getting into largely pointless arguments with little good effect (a year ago, I thought I had given my brother good evidence that birtherism was bullshit, and which he at least agreed was worth considering, but I would be surprised if he wasn't a birther today). Phiwum (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My cousin recently started believing our dead relative was alive and needed to be dug up. They even went and bought shovels. Ignore them? Change topics to the weather? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Get him psychiatric help? Nihilist 20:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is what we did. Sometimes it just seems like a fuzzy line between their delusions and Andy's. Like maybe Andy really does need help, too. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave America and never look back? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Offer them a piece of cake? DogP (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I would turn them into a flea... a tiny helpless flea. Then I would put the flea inside a box. Then I would put the box inside another box. Then I would mail it to myself, and when it gets here I'D SMASH IT WITH A HAMMER! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered whether Andy has a disorder of some kind for a while. My particular beliefs have him somewhere in the Schizophrenia Spectrum D/Os though I know some people would disagree. He really seems to fit many of the criteria. Ayzmo (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia has a fairly distinctive writing style (see: Time Cube), and I haven't seen any of that from Andy. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Andy's not schizo, but something is certainly wrong with him. It isn't a matter of disagreeing with his politics, his ideas aren't even really all that "conservative." They are more paranoid than anything else. He does seem to have some degree of obsessive thinking, you'll notice how he latches on to some strange ideas and sees evidence of his "correctitude" everywhere he looks. Right now its Tebow, Castro and E=MC₂, but his focus has changed over time. What I really wonder is if he shares his strange ideas with those around him. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think his "Castro's dead" theory would fly, in all but the most ignorant and paranoid of fundy circles. This leads me to believe he is isolated, at the very least intellectually IRL. Whether it is alcoholism or some other disorder, it is clear that all is not right in his head. Conservapedia has really dwindled down to two mentally ill men trying to one up each other in a bizarre race to see who can be the most obsessive delusional. --Marlow (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it really depends on what symptoms they display and what their delusions are. Some are more lucid than others. Not to mention that the Schizophrenia Spectrum is pretty diverse and includes Paranoid PD, Avoidant PD, etc. and it is changing for the 5. Delusional D/O might be another one but I'm iffy on that one to begin with. I agree. Andy is isolated and he has built a world around himself that supports him. I don't really know why but he has built up a world against him. Ayzmo (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Amateur-hour online psych evaluations of people that you've never met are tacky at best, and make this community look petty and stupid. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. While this page is made of snark, it's still nothing more than ad hom. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Andy's real problem is siPhyllis. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd nod my gead politely as he speaks and debate him if he engages me. I've known people with odd views, it doesn't bother me so long as they aren't a danger to themselves or others. Besides, I'm sure more than one RationalWikian has a friend who is a 9/11 truther or something like that.--Brxbrx 02:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a friend who's a theist. Needless to say, it's really embarrassing for me. Nihilist 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

for the love of goat

Please, someone tell me he does not have regular contact with chil'rens. C®ackeЯ

He has regular contact with children. DogP (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy is not going to attract Hispanic ladies

Andy applauds CNN for mentioning that Zimmerman was Hispanic and leaving out that he was white.^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the third time now that Andy brought "that" up. Andy, Hispanic is a cultural background, like Italian, Jewish or Scottish. White, Black and Brown are races. George Zimmerman is a white dude with Hispanic background, therefor he is a "White Hispanic". --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 06:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jomar, again unclear on what counts as "conservative."

Picking on the Koch brothers^img is a liberal game, dummy. High gas prices are Obama's fault, not the market's. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes. He's straying dangerously from the "Obama did it by refusing to drill" narrative. Silly Joaquin. He needs to learn that truth has no place at Conservapedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The About Us section of the source Jomar cites reads "Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads." So yeah... --Inquisitor (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, something is the fault of companies? Socialist! --★uːʤɱ constructivist 06:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it was posted by JM, that explains a lot. Yeah, I was also rather confused about CP suddenly implying that private companies making money through the free market without government oversight is now a bad thing. --Sid (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And Kendoll of all people^img leaps in to sanitise CP and make it safe once again for Conservatives. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a theory. It is my theory and it is mine

What are the chances that Andy knows what he's doing is batshit insane, but he's doing it to garner attention from the serious scientific world again. CP hasn't been in the news much lately and I wonder if Andy's pushing this to get another mention, al a Lenski and relativity.

Of course, I can't begin to fathom just why Andy's doing this, other than that he thinks any publicity is good publicity and if Big Science (thank you, Bugler) do go after him, then it feeds his persecution complex. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is simply a clash of immense ego with the realization he hasn't achieved any of the greatness he believes he is entitled to. This failure in his mind isn't through any fault of his own, but because of a liberal/atheist/commie/demonic/Illuminati/NWO/Reptilian/Grey conspiracy to keep great conservative apostles such as himself from enlightening the world with The Truth™.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Castro agrees to meet with Schlafly 12:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

It still suffers from the Kendoll paradox. Even if he doesn't believe it, he's still insane for putting in so much effort defending his craziness. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy is deluded by his own ignorance. He thinks that these amazing aperçus of his are brilliant and correct; a thought process he has probably copied from his mother. Surrounded by yes-men on CP where the only dissenting voices are liberal parodists, he believes that everyone else is stupid for not being able to see what he sees. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The scary thing is that he doesn't even have yes-men when it comes to Castro. I think there was one parodist feigned support for Andy. Maybe that's all he needs? I think this is a new development. If he continues to make up beliefs that even his cabal won't endorse... Occasionaluse (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The remaining sysops - with the exception maybe of Jpatt - won't walk away from CP, no matter how crazy Andy gets. Ken has nowhere else to go; it's the only place Karajou has ever had any authority; Ed needs it, so he can do the wiki equivalent of punching puppies in the face every time he gets smacked down on WP, and Flingbooty needs it to linkwhore his blog. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that JPatt could walk. I don't think it's a matter of who stays and who leaves. I'm more interested in Andy's behavior. It's like he's being weened off of having support for ideas. For instance, he probably wouldn't have done Lenski if not for support. But in this new age, he doesn't need even a single conspirator to latch onto an idea he thought up. Could mean interesting times are ahead Occasionaluse (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken could walk because he has his little Question Evolution blog and Shock, but I will agree it is extremely unlikely. Launchbooty could also since he has CNAV (and I doubt CP brings in a lot of traffic to it), but he has no incentive to leave because he has to put in zero effort on CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Andy's mind is a proto-brain capable of containing only two states. Good and Bad. He's chosen to align Good with Conservatism and Bad with Liberalism. That means anything he feels good about for any reason is Conservative, and anything he feels bad about is Liberal. It's that simple and he can't understand why people don't just agree with him because it's blindingly obvious to him. He thinks, I feel bad about Obama because having my editor be a (Liberal/Black/whatever), therefore Liberals. Obama got to be President? He's Liberal, therefore bad. Can't trust what he says about the birth certificate, because bad. Because Liberals. Castro is Liberal, therefore bad. Bad people deserve to die and burn in hell, so that's what Castro must have done, because Liberals. Fred Phelps is a national embarrassment which makes America look bad, therefore he's bad, therefore he's a Liberal. E=MC^2 is science and science is bad, therefore E=MC^2 is Liberal because Liberals. Because Liberals.

Bad is bad because Liberals.

Because Liberals. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He might well be trying to get Conservapedia back in the news again but I don't think it will work. Who in the scientific community is going to pay attention to some looney who just keeps shouting that Einstein's famous equation is nothing but "liberal claptrap"? He's got a better chance of attracting attention by claiming that the Battle of Trafalgar was fought on dry land near Cudworth in Yorkshire because Drake was too clever for the German fleet. --Spud (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that E=mc^2 is literally "meaningless" — despite the fact that one can see its uses in calculations — is honestly too silly to attract attention. Phiwum (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"E=mc^2" is literally meaningless, until you assign some kind of value and/or meaning to each letter in it. That seems to be what's at the core of his issue with it, to me at least. Twisted through a shit ton of other stuff. X Stickman (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A new one from Andy

Exact quote from Andy: "The "12.8 billion years" date is based on flawed assumptions. It's as meaningless as speculating precisely the time that a crime was committed, when all that matters is who committed the crime. " (Emphasis is mine). Is this a lawyer speaking? I imagine him in court: "I don't care when the crime was committed, but I garantee that my client has an alibi for the time of the crime". How can the moment of a crime not be important as this is a clue to who did it.

I find myself asking this more and more often. You're new here, eh? Don't ask why. Just be thankful he's not teaching your children, representing you in court, or responsible in any manner for your well-being, safety, etc. 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you not seen the videos of Andy going a-lawyering? You can see how he is in fact a lawyer. I wouldn't call him a good lawyer. I'd call him a nice lawyer in the same way I say a fat girl has a nice personality. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Breaking News! Conservapedia calls "creation of the universe" a crime, compares God to criminal! Man. I can see why those journalist hacks do this so often, it's pretty fun. X Stickman (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the OP, so I'm just going to assume that's true. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This statement is so full of convolutions it makes my head hurt. "Speculating precisely?" And um, yes, it is important to know when a crime is committed. Because if somebody's alibi says that they could not have possibly been there at the time, then they likely aren't the culprits. Speculating might not help, but concluding with evidence (say, with an autopsy) certainly would. Which we have done to the best of our ability. Andy is a really, really terrible lawyer. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another great example of Andy teaching how the writing. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting interpretation of Andy's ramblings would be a suggestion that it didn't matter when god made the universe, only that god made it. Quite astonishing from such a hardcore YEC. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Epistemological nihilism: The last refuge of the damned. "It's impossible to know the exact circumstances by which the universe came into being, therefore my belief that the universe was created 6000 years ago during a 7 day week is perfectly valid and ought to be taught in schools." Stile4aly (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NCAA Got it Right

Conservative Kentucky beats Liberal Kansas!^img Wait. What? Sam Brownback the RINO? Whoover (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal Kansas"? WTF? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 06:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone should point out that since the Kentucky starting five are all black, it's odds on that they will all be voting for Barack Obama this November (if they bother to vote). Tacitus (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kansas is a reliable example of a conservative state, having voted for the Republican candidate in every Presidential election since 1968. Doesn't Andy read his own blog encyclopedia? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, he doesn't actually call Kansas liberal. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Andy had converse political spin statements written in the case of either team winning ahead of time. With one lauding Kansas' conservatism over Kentucky if the game went in the opposite direction that it did.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kansas is liberal? Maybe in the Negaverse. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's totally true though! Why else would Fred Phelps, a democrat, wear a Kansas windbreaker as much as he does? It's because he's a liberal, obviously. 76.16.137.33 (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Christian college shootings don't get covered?

I'm shocked that the shooting at an Oakland religious college hasn't been covered at CP. Phiwum (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't fit Andy's neat little categories. Atheism didn't make him do it, nor can he by any stretch of the imagination be jammed in to the young mass murderers category. The only way he'd post this is if the shooter liked playing computer games. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The school was a Korean Christian school. Perhaps he's still stumped trying to think of a racist slant on the event? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second, can Asians be TRUE Christians? I'm confused. Jimaginator (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew the school was a Christian school and the student Korean, but I hadn't heard that school was a Korean Christian school. In fact, I thought the student was mocked for his accent, but I never considered that he was being mocked by others of Korean descent. I guess I missed part of the story. Phiwum (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Here it is: Oikos University fills a particular and unusual niche, enrolling a heavily Korean student body and offering only classes in Bible study, nursing and music, according to its website. Phiwum (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy never comes off as the racist type in general and I don't recall him ever slamming Asian people, even indirectly.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude is Americo-centric for sure, and has a hate-on for the whole rest of the world based on that. Dude loves to play off of a common type of "race blindness" that does a good job of hiding the real effects of race and racism in our society (a lot of white males in positions of privilege love to tell us how they only see people, they don't see colour), but dude is not the kind of guy who is going to pick on a criminal because of his racial background. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not a person I would characterize as being racist. But if you consider his positions in certain areas - his gender bias under the banner of chivalry - I don't think he's specifically racist, but he is willing to buy into a variety of stereotypes. He's willing to paint massive groups of people with a broad stroke - "Atheist Britain." - Lardashe

Most conservative commentators are very careful these days not to say anything that could be construed as racist. They've picked up that racism is a no-no among broadcasters and publishers. Sometimes their skirting of the issue is so obvious it's almost laughable. They are, though, getting adept at twisting and blurring race issues around to make themselves/their side look better. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's not a racist inasmuch as he doesn't believe people of a certain skin color are inferior to whites, but \he's happy to use racist or bigoted arguments in furtherance of his standard arguments against liberals or unacceptable groups. See his various ridiculous claims about Obama, or his argument that the Bosnian genocide doesn't count because it was just Muslims being killed. Stile4aly (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes Andy can be racist. See Affirmative Action President^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy could more accurately be classified as a culturally insensitive moron. He's the type of idiot who'd tell a wheelchair bound person that they probably never got tired because they got to sit around all day. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nail. Head. -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"his argument that the Bosnian genocide doesn't count because it was just Muslims being killed." ^{[citation needed]}. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Christians v. Muslims strikes me as religious conflict or civil war, not genocide. The numbers are only slightly bigger than the casualties for 9/11. Was that genocide? 9/11 was mass murder, but I haven't heard people describe it as genocide.--Aschlafly 23:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)" Basically, the whole talk page on CP: Genocide Stile4aly (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks like he's ignorant about what genocide is (even though the Krstic case from Sreberenica was the first-ever conviction for the crime of genocide...) He's arguing that it's a civil war, not an extermination campaign; he's arguing that the numbers weren't big enough (an easy-enough mistake to make if you can't be bothered to read the Genocide Convention and learn what genocide is, legally). He's not arguing that Muslims don't count. Maybe he's deliberately misunderstanding genocide because he does not want to see a group of Muslims as being able to claim victimhood against Christian perpetrators, or maybe he's just too lazy to learn the legal definition. You and I are not qualified to make that call. Like people said above, there's no doubt he sees the world through American-centric and Christian-centric lenses. There's little doubt in my mind that he embraces a strategic colour-blindness common in US conservative circles. There's little doubt he's culturally insensitive and stupid. But he's never tied an individual criminal act to race/ethnicity P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not going out in a white sheet, but he gives a platform (if you can call CP a "platform") to rhetoric with latent racism, from the constant birtherism to affirmative action presidents and Terry's deranged bile. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that he's being willfully ignorant about what genocide is. Originally, the genocide list only included 3 items: The Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the Holodomor. Andy didn't want to include the Bosnian genocide because Muslims cannot be victims of genocide. Likewise he didn't want to include the Rwandan genocide because Christians cannot be perpetrators of genocide. Stile4aly (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)