Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive289

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 21 May 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>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <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)

Andy takes notice[edit]

andy: Obama must have forgotten blacks supported prop 8img, and declares gay marriage the central issue in November--il'Dictator Mikal 22:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly why many of us don't think this was a political move, but rather a moral move. NC said "no gays", and Obama said, ok, it's time to be a man and own up to what is morally right. Just sayin.....--Green mowse.pngGodot 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy is probably right this time, It's a risky move with a relatively small political payoff, for Obama, but one that will play well a few presidencies down the line.--Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 00:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, because if there's one demographic Obama has a tenuous hold on it's the black vote. Surely now they're going to vote for the other guy (you know, the Mormon). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You all seem to miss a huge part of politics. It's not that they will switch their votes, duh. any more than extreme liberals who are tired of all talk no action, of obama will switch there vote. There are not just two choice, but three. and the third is extremly damaging. They won't vote at all. --Green mowse.pngGodot 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)LLL
What about the fourth option: throwing away their votes on a third party!--il'Dictator Mikal 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
From where Obama sits Option 3 and 4 are identical. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 01:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy's just looking for anything to hang his hopes on an Obama defeat. I just don't see this as enough of an issue to disenfranchise his 2008 voters to suddenly become terribly apathetic about voting for him again this year. Sure there are some voters that will be somewhat upset about this interview, but they're still going to be concerned enough with the thought of a Republican president to vote for President Obama in droves. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping for one a month of these from Obama now. Just to keep his "base" psyched. Romney is screwed, since the GOP hate machine, well, hates him. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As an added bonus, it would stir up the paleoconservatives and force Romney to pander to their views again and again, therefore scaring away moderates. It'd be like an extended primary season. Vulpius (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gays dragging down real estate values[edit]

Andy: after looking at some dataimg i can conclude that Mass. allowing gays to be together has destroyed the Real estate market. When told it hasn't ruined Canada, Andy Mentions there's no choice in the matterimg. So to sum up: if there's voting for gay marriage, the gays will drag down home prices; if there isn't, the gays wont drag them down. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's point seems to be that there's no escaping from gay marriage in Canada unless you emigrate. In the US you can move to a nearby state pretty easily, if you don't mind quitting your job to escape the awful gays. However, if Andy looks closely I think he might find that a nationwide housing market crash had more to do with decline in property values than gay marriage, but that might just be the hearsay society talking. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice Andy focuses on loss of real estate value, not the absolute value of property. It's not surprising that values drop more where the values start highest, in a global downturn. But if we conclude that areas of higher real estate prices are more desirable places to live, gays seem to not be the curse he believes. Whoover (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Plus lots of those houses look absolutely FABULOUS with their rose gardens, ornate trims and matching colors. Who wouldn't want to live next door to those guys! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
So is affordable housing another plank of the homosexual agenda? The more I hear about what these gays want, the more I want everyone to get gay married. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess supply and demand have to look for a new job now. "Strong families" and a "growing economic base" (wtf does he even mean by that?) are here to save the day. — Seriously, is this guy high? --Raga Man (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
In Andy's world gay marriage leads to bad real estate markets and The King's Speech winning on a Oscars leads to Sarah Palin not being president. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy logic is a wonder to behold. Using his system, I am going to jerk off into a sock, which means there will be no magnitude 8 earthquake on the eastern seaboard tomorrow. When this happens, it will prove that jerking off prevents earthquakes. Just like Rob not writing on the CP newsfeed led to the election of Obama. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed on CP's Conservative Bible[edit]

Although Schlafly has decided to remove the interpolated passage on the woman taken in adultery John 7:36047 (which even real scholars admit is an intepolation) as a "liberal" interpolation, Andy has left in the final 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark giving a detailed 'account' of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus to the disciples, which is just as well-established as an interpolation as the woman in adultery story.

Looks like AS only removes interpolations that don't jive with his world-view, not ALL passages known to be interpolations.

And it's old, but I just discovered the Fun: essay, Conservative Shakespeare project. Wonderful.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone is enjoying a CP-related article!?!? Quick, delete it!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much how Andy rolls. ... of liberals? (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone should troll Andy to make the Conservative Shakespeare Project. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Magnificent comment. Much thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Liberal, intellectual, British art. If Andy were to translate it, nothing would be left. Just a few blank pages. Phiwum (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I tried to get him do a conservative constitution, but unlike the Bible, the US constitution is perfect. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Terry,[edit]

Thisimg is nothing special in multi-party democracies. It is called a grand coalition. Politicians use it when the smaller parties have gone so far of the rockers that the other major party has more in common with them than the smaller ones. It is also used in a time of crisis, to push through plans or make big reforms - austerity meassueres for example. Now, class dismissed, go home and tell your mommy about what you just learned. --Raga Man (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I swear, Terry's entirely unsubtle "bring the end times so I can be raptured away to heaven where everyone will agree with me and Liberals will no longer plague me with their endless facts and science" bullshit really is aggravating. I wonder how much of his stuff he actually believes and how much is wishful thinking. Another way to look at it is, "I want thousands if not millions of people to die in a literally apocalyptic war so I can go someplace nicer than I am right now. That is, being a white, male citizen of America." It's beyond selfish, it's almost sociopathic. Or maybe just extremely racist. Arabs aren't people anyway, so who cares if they burn for my comfort like a nice thick log on the fire? --Sasayaki (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Iranians aren't Arabs. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that. What's the most correct term? --Sasayaki (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You have to laugh at Chucky because he likes to pretend he's a bit of a Biblical linguist with his pocket Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. So he translates the minority coalition partner Yisrael Beitenu as "Israel, Our House" party. Even I can see that there is something wrong with that; "Israel is Our Home" is a much more sensible translation, you dumb twat. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(Iranians are persian, indo-european, closer to indians. They are muslim, if you want to build that connection, but have no genetic (?) connection to Arabian people or the arabian language).--Green mowse.pngGodot 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Iranians are Aryans. In fact, the word "Iran" comes from the Sanskrit "Arya." They are similar to North Indians because Persia conquered Northern India. They are quite different from the native Dravidians. Whoover (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Word of Advice, don't call iranians arabs; to either group. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you do though, adopt your best west Texas accent and pronounce it "Ay-RABS" for the lulz. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be "AY-rabs"? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There are some Iranian Arabs, but the majority of Iranians are Persian. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just forget all that liberal hooey and call them Chinamen. By the way, is Terry still getting paid per view, or does the site run off ads now? I can't remember. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

George Clooney, or There Is No Cabal[edit]

Clooney "was placed" in movies because of his liberal politics.img I love the conspiracy-theory-evoking use of the passive voice, combined with the idea that Hollywood directors overlooked Clooney's good looks and acting skills and made him one of the industry's leading men strictly for political reasons. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I really like the part where they point out that Clooney didn't have much dialogue in "The Perfect Storm". Because that means the part was easy, since he didn't have many words to remember. Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which a Shakespearean actor discusses the difficulty of various roles solely in terms of the number of words of dialogue. "Ah, well, I don't want you to get the impression it's just a question of the number of words... um... I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important." Phiwum (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess the liberal conspiracy in Hollywood helps explain why Clint Eastwood keeps winning Oscars year after year, and why the actors with the greatest success running for office are Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Eastwood again, and Sonny Bono.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Good point about Eastwood, but he has gone more liberal nowadays. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
George Clooney was placed in movies cause he's fucking hot. Old time "class" that women want. And the fan girl in me (the reason I don't talk politics with intelligent people like many around here - I love obama at an irrational level) saw the Pres and Clooney and just drooled. sighs... God conspiracy people are funny, though.--Green mowse.pngGodot 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam gets boomeranged over at WP[edit]

Anupam, long time troublesome Wikipedian and creator of such CP articles as Militant atheism and Atheism and the suppression of science, ends up in some trouble when his attempt to call out another WP user for 'threatening' him backfires. Turns out he was blatantly plagiarizing sources and engaging in other questionable WP behavior. One interesting revelation is that he was copying content from CP and trying to insert it into WP articles (and not just his own writing at that). When he realizes he's going to be in trouble, supporters on accounts that have had no activity in years start showing up out of the woodwork, and wp:canvassing is added to the list of his wikicrimes. When users start posting links to his talk page on CP, most of it ends up being wiped.

Annnnd despite most people there advocating for at the very least a topic ban, he gets just a slap on the wrist: [1]

(It's really a testament to the fact I spend too much time on WP that I recognize - negatively - the few legitimate supporters he had in that messy incident... ugh) Q0 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Ken deleted everything inappropriate, i.e., all his edits to Anupam's talk-page. Here is a pre-wiped version:

That's exactly why I believe Ken and Anupam know each other; they probably even go to the same Methodist church. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading that Atheism and Suppression of Science article and... and... I just... ... *psyduck face* How can this be...? How could this be written? D: ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There's also this, where Anupam's claim that the others were engaging in an off-wiki mailing list gets put into a request for arbitration by wp:User:Hipocrite. From what I can tell either it gets dismissed, or it ends up as yet another boomerang... in which case I have to wonder if Hipocrite decided to do this on purpose just so that further action would be taken against Anupam. Accusations of off-wiki collaboration are not taken lightly. Q0 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that Hipocrite has now called for sanctions against Anupam, that seems likely. Omar (gibber) 18:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Three Arbs have declined with a referral back for possible community sanctions; he's been served notice by JzG of a community concensus and agrees to take a wiki break. Viriditas concurs with the restrictions. What's amazing is Anupam links to his CP talk page to claim neutrality and dispute collusion with User:Conservative, but User:Conservative deleted the page which only made it look worse. User:Conservative's ignorance on display for the whole world to see. nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Rob is clearly sane. Why do you all hate him? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Ken, of course, is a known sock muppet at WP. I noticed that most of the editors who actually supported Anupam had sub-continent affiliation. Whether it was a case of him canvassing his buddies or just people supporting one of their own is open for discussion. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole discussion over at Wikipedia is classic CP readings. TL;DR version:

  • Anupam is accused of plagiarism and POV pushing
  • Evidence is more or less overwhelming, Anupam's past history is brought up
  • Anupam cries that there's a cabal out to get him (through email)
  • Editors defending Anupam are either inactive or came through his cries of help
  • Anupam gets slapped with canvassing for trying to sway opinion
  • Anupam keeps asserting of "they're out to get me" without evidence, ignores evidence against him
  • Whole issue is closed without any serious punishment, everyone going WTF? The end.

AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you managed to keep up with that discussion (or any AN/I topic for that matter), have aspergers. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Four Arbs voted to Decline with two abstentions, but Anupam did get some pretty stiff community sanctions:
  • placed on a final warning with respect to plagiarism. Any further examples of plagiarism will result in an immediate and lengthy ban. No further warnings need be issued, any administrator noting plagiarised content inserted by Anupam from this date may block immediately for a period at their discretion but probably between one and twelve months, which block would be considered a community ban per the consensus here, so that any appeal would be to WP:BASC.
  • Anupam is placed on 1RR parole for 6 months.
  • Anupam may be topic banned by any uninvolved administrator from any article where he appears to be violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). No further warning is necessary.
He'd do best to avoid those articles, topics, and editors, and/or take an extended break. They cut him some slack cause he's a long time user with a clean block history. But any incident like this will not be repeated.
Let me add, he does seem to be a much more congenial editor than User:Conservative, but as the bible says, "Bad company corrupts good morals." nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Anupam is also unblocking people that have been in the freezer for a long time.... many of them were TK's victims... looks interesting! JC--JC (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Those unblocks really look random - I wonder if there is any contact between those people and him. Otherwise, does he REALLY believe that people whose last contribs happened years ago (some dating back to the 2007/2008 era) and who have been banhammered ever since will suddenly bother to show up again (only to be inevitably re-hammered within days or weeks)? Or maybe the block review process just takes a while? ;) --Sid (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"No citations required" beginning to bear fruit[edit]

On the front page. Andy's policy that one never needs citations, that Conservative InsightsTM are better than reading or studying anything, and that everyone else is just part of the "hearsay society", is now getting plastered on the front page, in magnificent form for all to see. He says that a paper by 815 scientists describes the futile search for gravity waves, and they should have read Counterexamples to relativity instead. All without a single reference to where that paper might be found, or who those 815 scientists might be. He also made a new page on gravity waves, also with none of that hearsay stuff. Yes, Andy, if everyone read and heeded your articles about relativity, science would be, well, different. And people wouldn't need to read about the Hulse-Taylor measurements, would they?

I don't doubt that people, perhaps 815 of them, have written about the search for gravity waves, but it seems unlikely that what they said is that they are giving up the search because they know it is futile. There's still those pesky Hulse-Taylor observations, after all. And it seems that the eLISA symposium is still going to be held in Paris on 21-25 May. Maybe we should tell them to read Counterexamples to relativity.

Interesting tidbit: A Google search for gravity waves 815 scientists turned up the Conservapedia front page only 55 minutes after Andy's post. They must scan RC as much as we do. Gauss (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why those silly scientists keep doing experiments. They should publish a paper that says something like "Gravity waves definitely exist" and use a reference of "private dinner conversation between me and Steven Hawking". Prodigal (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this is what you're looking for. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 07:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't waded through the comments on that blog but if you click on the "756 authors not shown" in the original paper then it expands to give the full list. And you can read the full paper here which seems to show just 12 primary authors and the rest being the observing teams. Like a movie the credits go way beyond the lead actors. (BTW why are there no Oscars for best Dolly Grip, Key Grip or Catering?) Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 12:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the paper, I am wondering if Andy even read the abstract (because we all know he didn't read the actual paper).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I loved during the Lenski affair he made a huge public spectacle criticizing Lenski's paper and then admitted to only have "skim[med]" through the paper. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed'll learn them crazy Dutchmen[edit]

And now, it's official! The town nickname has become the official nameimg. Why? Because Ed doesn't get how a word can start with an apostrophe. So, I guess, it can't. Atta boy, Ed! Phiwum (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't question Ed, he was user:188, what have YOU accomplished?--il'Dictator Mikal 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think he should fix the spelling of Den Bosch, while he's at it. It sounds like "Den Boss" so it might as well be spelled that way. Phiwum (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I love the last sentence in this comment. Why, August? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?! Cow...Hammertime! 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If only there were an article to explain to Ed where his reasoning had gone wrong. ... of liberals? (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course Ed screws it up because Den Bosch does not literally mean the Duke's wood. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is why I love Ed. He isn't destroying CP by turning it into his personal soapbox but by making horribly misguided improvements to it. He doesn't fill it with unencyclopedic content about fat atheists or personal insights, he fills it with laughable stubs and creepy liveblogs. He doesn't remove content for ideological reasons, he removes it because he doesn't understand it. He thinks he's a Wiki genius but is actually leaving a path of ruin behind him. Also, "Duke's Wood" uh huh huh huh... Vulpius (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The thing CP constantly leaves me with (other than the political crap which is what it is), is their choice of articles. Of all the things in the world to write an article about, why write on "Den Bosch" if you know nothing about it, do not live there, are not dutch, etc. I mean, it's not unlike us deciding to write an article about the fourth largest crater on the moon, cause well it's sorta sciency.--Green mowse.pngGodot 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Er, no, WfG. That's not how it works. Most of these articles have been written by European parodists either to directly insert parody/misinformation or to fulfill some editing criteria. When CP started there were dozens of articles about slices of British culture or minor English and Welsh towns when nobody was writing about The US except for Andy's political, legal and religious interests. It was amusing to see Andy's America-centric encyploedia being over-run by European topics because nobody in the US was interested in doing a similar thing- Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
I see Smeg Ed is being his usual condescending, smarmy, idiotic self on the talk page. He really is a vile little man. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I love that Ed moved 's-Hertogenbosch and refuses to move it back on the same day that he wrote "I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes," on his user page. Yes, indeed, he corrects his mistakes readily. Or, he would, if he ever discovered he had made a mistake. What a douche. Phiwum (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey, this topic is relevant to me, I live in 's-Hertogenbosch. Typing in it right now even. The official name is indeed that and not Den Bosch, as many many sources state. Hell, there's even a committee for promoting the proper use of the official name in other languages. Also we've got woods, though not a lot of dukes anymore. Maybe CP is just jealous cause the town has been around since Roman times, and officially a city since the 12th century. Young whippersnappers and their silly shenanigans --GTac (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
For all those that don't get why GTac started talking about woods and dukes, hertog means duke bosch means woods. --Raga Man (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, UHM. It's only the lead-in to CP's article, as well as the point of contention on the talk page discussion this section is about, but I'm sure bringing it up once more won't hurt. (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I lived in Nijmegen for about five years. I think Den Bosch was my favorite Dutch town. Phiwum (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good list, JPratt[edit]

But you forgot Vlad the Impaler, Rasputin and Ghenghis Khanimg. Ah well, at least we know from that list that Republicans will never possess our liberal time travel technology. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that they included Foucault, author of A Powderkeg Called Islam and the original critic of "big government."--"Shut up, Brx." 18:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I always find it interesting how many "Conservative, usually christian" americans practically worship the founding fathers.--il'Dictator Mikal 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Schlafly wanted to beatify George Washington--"Shut up, Brx." 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Seeing the personality cult that surrounds the US' founding fathers and the constitution is the biggest argument that persuades me that the UK should never, ever have a written constitution. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, many countries have written constitutions and haven't deified its writers. But yeah, it is creepy how Americans worship the Founding Fathers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I said that in my history class and I got yelled at by the repubs. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
We respect the founding fathers for the level of foresight that they showed. It's not by pure chance that the USA has one of the oldest governments in the world. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first, the government are the guys actually sitting in chairs doing stuff, what you mean is the state. And second, that might also have something to do with everybody criticising the thing is threatend to be hunted down and killed horrificly by half the population. --Raga Man (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
America's founders were enlightened rationalists, which means they were fallible and could be wrong. They had all kinds of peculiar notions about women and blacks, for example. And not a damn one supported or advocated gay marriage, as best I can determine. nobsCorporations are people, too. 22:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
They were human, which means they were fallible and could be wrong. Being enlightened rationalists meant they may have been more aware of the ways in which they could be wrong - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Respect doesn';t mean to need to put up what amounts to religious shrines and worship them. Also; i would assume the still existing monarchies would be older... --il'Dictator Mikal 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems to go much further beyond respect of foresight. Many seem to believe that the FFs were able to account for everything that the US could possibly experience and therefore the Constitution is perfect(unless gay marriage looms). They are almost seen as infallible by many conservatives I have met. Ayzmo (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Funny how the FFs could absolutely always be right when they had bitter arguments among themselves. This is a group that included both Alexander Hamilton ("Sir, the people are beasts.") and Patrick Henry (who made FDR look like a teabagger). I suspect the conservatives you have met happen to believe that the FFs agree entirely with them, right? Godspeed (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before but many on the right in the US seem to hold both the Bible and the constitution to be perfect and inerrant, while Washington and the FF are akin to Jesus and the apostles. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Reminds me of an Onion article: Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be. ""Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination." Applies also to Founding Fathers, Jesus, and the Bible. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Religion you say? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing the founding fathers did that enabled them to 'account for anything' was putting a process for amendments in the original text, and that by itself completely nullifies any claims that it's some kind of perfect document. Times change, and such important documents have to as well - when needed. Q0 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment..."But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." -Thomas Jefferson Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Said it much more eloquently than I did. Maybe we should worship these guys after all. Q0 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
We should not respect the Constitution because the Founding Fathers wrote it, but rather we should respect the Founding Fathers because they wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is that rare object of law that manages to enshrine the rights of the citizen, set out a working government, and still have within itself enough room to adapt to new demands. It was terribly imperfect when written, and remains imperfect even today. But in that respect it is much like democracy itself: not ideal, but only the best solution we've found.
Also: Washington and Jefferson were titans among men who do indeed merit emulation, although even their words aren't holy script.--ADtalkModerator 09:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The FFs are not the story. The story is that these guys think that the average Democrat reveres Robespierre, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Saul Alinksy the way real Americans relate to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams. Every time a jackass says something like that and doesn't get a bullshit pie in the face, a little bit of freedom dies. And the jackass's paranoia center gets a little closer to bursting. Whoover (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I was stricken that they included the root of modern conservative thought, Michel Foucault as a liberal figurehead. Stricken with laughter, that is.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually ever read any Foucault? Lol. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
"...the root of modern conservative thought, Michel Foucault." Wait, what? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's not all that obvious, but all the "big government" stuff we here is basically just biopolitics rehashed. And everything the American right says about Muslims sounds like it was ripped off of A Powder Keg Called Islam. Also, Foucault endorsed certain anti-communist authors from the so-called "nouvelle philosophie," although being anti-communist doesn't necessarily make one a conservative. What I'm saying is that Foucault's ideas and much of the ideas put up by conservatives today are very much alike (obviously, I'm excluding Foucault's thoughts on sexuality, etc)--"Shut up, Brx." 06:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
"but all the "big government" stuff we here is basically just biopolitics rehashed." Only insofar as critiques of "big government" and the model of biopolitics are both critiques about power--but to equate them is to reveal an incredibly simplistic reading of both. "Foucault endorsed certain anti-communist authors..." Post-Stalin, LOTS of leftist intellectuals embraced anti-communist positions. That didn't make them conservatives. "I'm excluding Foucault's thoughts on sexuality, etc..." In other words you're heavily cherry-picking your source and ignoring his most important interventions. Here's a challenge for you: if you think Conservative critics are drawing on Foucault's thought, give me some examples of that. Either that, or stop throwing around the names of hip thinkers in an attempt to impress us with how incredibly well-read you are, because what you're arguing here convinces me that you have no idea what Foucault AND conservatism are each about. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Look up A Powderkeg Called Islam. Listen to Glenn Beck talk about progressives. He may as well be saying pastoral power. And I've never claimed to be well-read, ever. I've admitted as much to you before, too. But you know what? I'm done with you. I'm sick of your selective enforcement of political correctness, of your passive-aggressive refusal to even consider others, and of your trolling of myself and other members of this site. I'm finished with you, stop bothering.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if it is true that Foucault and modern conservatives have some things in common that doesn't make Foucault the "root of modern conservative thought" (using the word 'thought' very generously). --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson....
[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter To James Madison Sep. 6, 1789
Funny enough, 19 years after the constitution took effect (and 19 years after that letter as well) he was President of the United States. No idea if he tried to introduce a new constitution or if considered part of his presidency an 'act of force'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
So to make this argument, one needs to seriously review the Social Security Act of 1936 -- especially considering the 'scholarly' and 'expert' assumptions the legislators of its day relied upon have been thoroughly rejected by modern science and scholars. nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't any one of you joked about John Quincy Adams being one of the Right's Founding Fathers? I am disappointed. Vulpius (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Because John Quincy Adams was the guy who rode around ringing bells, warning the British that they weren't going to take our guns. Q0 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh shit, you're probably right. I guess it's time to head over to Wikipedia for a quick update. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
What is it with old time people and their preference for wacky quantities of time? Nineteen years? Well, ignoring that Jefferson is just explaining no-forward-binding. Either your system of government is set up so that today's government can change yesterday's rules, or else instead of seeking government people will foment revolution since by definition a revolution lets them abandon the old laws. It's a spectrum of course, but the 21st century US appears to have created a situation where changing the constitution is politically impossible and that creates a dangerous tension. If you're an American you ought to be at least a little worried about that. (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Jefferson was attempting to define the term, "generation". Jefferson must have assumed through some rudimentary statistical analysis of his day a typical human reproduces by the age of 19. And 19 stands in contrast to the biblical literalism understanding the term being 40 years - the generation lost in the wilderness. nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not the gun control that's the problem, here, Andy[edit]

It's the fact that blacks do more time for the same crimes.img

AKA, racism. (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If you knew your history from a source more reliable that Michael Moore you would know that historically gun control laws were passed in order to persecute, harass, and victimize black people. The KKK has a real player passing gun control laws, and it was Yankee generals who founded the NRA. the two issues are intertwined, and Any mentioning that the woman who is getting screwed with a bad gun control law/application is black isn't him hiding anything. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 11:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint Romney's altruistic campaign.[edit]

Obama is fucking selfish for wanting to be reelected. I mean, seriously, what kind of selfish prick would try and get reelected by raising money? Conservatives would never raise money for a reelection campaign. That egregious. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) (Warning: Poe's Law in action!)

What is that I don't even... -- (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I know there's some sort of double-standard going on here, but I'm not completely positive what it is. Nihilist 07:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult to decide on an exact double standard when at least one party to be compared doesn't have standards in the first place. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 07:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Andy has been running for office himself. --Raga Man (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sure, Andy[edit]

Because world leaders are well known for their childish petulanceimg. Andy's view of the world is so bizarre I can't imagine what goes through his mind. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the name of that fallacy were somebody thinks just because they would act like this everybody would? --Raga Man (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Some kind of borderline antisocial behaviour disorder, maybe, but probably not. Have a look at wp:Narcissistic personality disorder and especially wp:Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Splitting. Again, not saying that it is, you can't diagnose over the innertubes, but man, that's a description that's worryingly accurate to some of the personae put across on CP.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 12:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
LessWrong calls it the typical mind fallacy, not sure if there's a proper cog psych jargon term - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So, Putin snubs Obama (a possible real world example of childish petulance, I hadn't heard about it). Andy says it's because Obama is pushing the homosexual agenda and Putin doesn't like queers. More than anything else, that looks to me like wishful thinking on Andy's part.--Spud (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that fallacy you're looking for psychological projection of some description? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be so, thanks. Ok, it's not a fallacy, but I needed a word… Looking at that Wikipedia article Andy seems to be narcissist. --Raga Man (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because it's MOTHERS DAY you nitwit.[edit]

Jesus Christ, the man is a fucking toolimg Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice how your post includes facts and thinking. Using Conservative Insights would be politically incorrect. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
So then what the fuck happens when FATHERS day rolls around Andy? --Revolverman (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn';t he just complaining that feminists wanted to turn mothers day into parents day?--il'Dictator Mikal 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The insinuation that fathers are politically incorrect is fucking hilarious.
I know I've said in the past we should stop stalking Conservapedia, but I'm really genuinely interested now in how crazier Andy can get. Nihilist 07:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, liberal Mikalos209, wanting to turn Mothers' Day into 'Parents' Day' is homosexual-enabling feminism, while solely focusing on mothers and leaving out fathers is female-superiority feminism. You just can't win. Nihilist 07:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait... so Google is bad for not including fathers in it's Mothers' Day thingy, but it's evil feminists who wanted to call it "Parents' Day". I know asking for consistency from Andy is a lot, but totally opposite points of view 12 hours is going some. --PsyGremlin講話 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing how the steaming great tit will contradict himself again on Father's Day.--Spud (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

CP is not part of the hearsay society[edit]

Not in an article or talkpage, but as commebt when creating an new page: (a start, please improve - this entry is an example of how Conservapedia is not part of the hearsay society) img — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I thought we were post conservapedian?RandonGeneration (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
what?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
After the great purge of Conservapedia articles, I assumed it was the will of the mob to restrain from acknowledging CPRandonGeneration (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
... you do realize this is the WIGO:CP page....right?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia, where the facts are made up and the truth doesn't matter. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I love how CP went from "Always cite your sources!" (still in the CP Commandments, showing nicely how outdated they are) to "Always cite your sources... unless you made it up!" to basically "If it can be sourced, it's probably wrong and part of the hearsay society!" --Sid (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
when all the sources become liberal citing them becomes an exercise in futility; but as proper conservatives god will guide you to the truth... and that's actually something people believe. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I see you still suffer from conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. This could be because every time you read the article Atheism and obesity article, you feel frustrated by the large flaps of flab hanging above your groin?
Conservative16:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the main emotion I have when reading your essays. I really can't think of anything else that I would think or feel instead. Nihilist 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This has to be a great tool for sysops now, if you cite something, you're a liberal, if you don't, you're a liberal. If you demand citation, you're a liberal, if you don't, you're a liberal. "Whatever shoe may fit" has a whole new meaning. --Raga Man (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has been reading Ken's work[edit]

Wow, Ken should seek this woman out and marry her --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

She's not asian enough for Kendoll. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ken should settle. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 05:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You see, this is why Ken is doing the world a great disservice by merely being an asexual conglomeration of anonymous people, hiding in his mother's basement. He needs to get out there (assuming his care-givers allow him, of course). He needs to speak on more public platforms. The world needs to hear about gay bowel disease. And we all need to laugh more. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ken on a public platform would be like some Victorian spiritualist performance with funny voices and strange noises coming from behind a curtain. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Holy shit, that video is insane. But you guys keep forgetting that "User:Conservative" is an international man/woman/group of mystery - how can we be sure that this crazy lady is not "User:Conservative" or a part of the group? ;) --Sid (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: It somehow should come as no surprise that Ken's perfect match is actually mentally ill. --Sid (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
According to that article, she has gone off on rants about a whole slew of conspiracy theories during these council meetings. "Svoboda has talked about Chinese "subliminals" that come through cellphones and other electronics, paradise on earth and family members being killed by doctors." άλφαΤαλκ 21:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This is becoming a bit uncomfortable. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It does put a new spin on things. That said, it's interesting that she went on a bizarre anti-gay rant, and not say, "I'm being controlled by Fidel Castro's radio that's implanted in my neighbour's dog." She must be responding to something in her environment. In a way, she's Ken without internet access. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I sort of have a problem with this article; if she has these problems, then why does she have the resources to attain flyers and stand outside on a college campus for hours at a time, presumably unsupervised? And if she is supervised, why is this okay? I mean, I guess you're free to do what you want with the rest of your life at that point, and I don't believe anybody should be locked up or anything... but these things take resources, transportation, and support and she has to be getting it from somewhere. I almost wonder if this can even tie in to health care; the article indicates that she's barred from getting actual help, and bearing in mind where the campus she protests is... I still am not comfortable with this article going 'shame on you for making fun of her!' when it's clear that she's done this before, someone allowed her to and even paid for her to. Especially when if she really does have these problems, she should be getting help. I want to know how Mr. Patrick Svoboda can accuse others of not caring about mental illness when it's possible that no one is caring for this mental illness in any meaningful way at all... ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 22:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for summing up my own concerns in a far better way than I could manage during my attempts. --Sid (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
to avoid going gay like Clinton did, college students need single rooms and single gender dorms Uh... Same sex dorms- way less gay than co-ed--"Shut up, Brx." 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I also notice that, according to Wikipedia, Dean Acheson had no daughter named Eleanor. This may sound strange, but I think this lady may have got one of her facts wrong. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there some green ink/time cube law that she's clearly upholding? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For the 9,000,000nth time now[edit]

The European Union and the Eurozone are two different things!img For god's sake, you teach History, get the treaties straight. --Raga Man (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In theory yes; but for practical purposes if your talking about the EU, your also probably talking about the Eurozone; given how tied together the two are; though in this case EU is not the right word like you said--il'Dictator Mikal 21:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
More than a third of EU countries are not in the Eurozone, so it's not a theoretical difference. OTOH, Andy is certainly rooting for the broadest possible disaster. The Czech Republic? Poland? The Baltics? A bunch of commies deserve chaos. And Sweden? The poster child for European Socialism? Who cares about the Monopoly money? Whoover (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
What's Andy's dog in this hunt anyway? If it were Kendoll or Chuckarse I could understand, they're both pining for the apocalypse and every financial setback encourages them to believe Jebus will be coming on the clouds with a fucking machine gun any moment. I didn't think Andy was a rapture nut though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The europeans are different and not like him, therefor he needs their collapse to prove his worldview "beyond a doubt"--il'Dictator Mikal 22:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. I guess that Andy has to have heard the same old song from liberals and progressives all his life. "In Europe it works" "In Europe people are hyppier" "In Europe people are freer" Put together with his hatred of Brits (because that's the only Europeans he can understand, not because they are so left-wing), an economic brakedown in Europe would have him jumping on his bed singing all the glories to god. The problem is that he has this idea of "European Socialism" in his head and if that crumbles it will once and for all show Americans that one shouldn't espire to be like Europe (a.k.a. "conservative"). The bigger problem is the complete mis-representation the Eurocrisis gets in America. All you see is high unemployment figures in some countries, fear-mongering about an economic downturn, violent protests and failing politics. What many don't and Andy for sure not hear about is that life continious, the social welfare systems are still working, businesses are bought and sold and still make money, people are still going shopping, left-wing parties get elected and polls show that all over the EU Europeans don't want less Europe but more Europe (cooperation, equalization of laws and so on and so forth). That's what makes this so hilarious to Europeans actually sitting in the middle of it. Watching American media you'd think Europe is on the dawn of civil war, and that's what Andy is hoping for. --Raga Man (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
To be fair to the US media, that's how it's represented in a lot of European press as well. (Although not in France where the press is simply an extension of the state.) Not so much "right now" but more about what might happen if Greece exits. Even the BBC, which is traditionally much less Eurosceptic than most of its competitors, is pulling no punches when describing the potential for catastrophe. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

" What's Andy's dog in this hunt anyway?" If the euro tanks, the American economy may well falter, thus risking Obama's victory in November." Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Honestly, who is Abraham Millerimg? Another Poor stub fails to tell us anything about this guy, aside from his opinion on liberals in higher ed. I'll be Unca Ed has no idea who this guy is, either. Phiwum (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia has those pesky rules about notability or establishing said notability in articles. (And don't get me started on the Manual of Style or the guides/policies on what belongs in an article from the start...) --Sid (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FGM is a serious human rights issue.[edit]

But when Unca Ed writes about itimg it just feels creepy, for some reason. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed has actually been better than most conservapedians on women's rights. He's tried to remove some of the overt sexism on Conservapedia, such as the downplaying of the women's rights movement. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Er, are we talking about the same man who suggested that women wearing pants was an abomination? --YossarianSpeak, Memory 08:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
He's such a blithe liar saying that it only occurs in some parts of the non-Christian world. I guess Eritrea, Ivory Coast, Chad, Burkina Faso, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, etc. don't have substantial Christian populations. I guess his lie is no worse than what was already in the article: FGM "is widely practised in parts of Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa, especially where traditionalist and fundamentalist Islam predominates." Lol. East Africa. I guess the substantial Christian populations in sub-saharan Africa are Muslim or something. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
With Ed, no matter how vile his work is, you can always assume it's due to stupidity, not malice. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a picture of Ken![edit]

Last panel ONE / TALK 06:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

nah, it's not Ken. Too skinny. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 06:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know a little Hebrew?[edit]

As a gift for mother's day, Andy decided to abuse some verses from the Bible:

In honor of Mother's Day, we will translate the story of a mother's selflessness at 1 Kings 1-11 (Translated)#3:16img

Unfortunately he is immediately criticized by AugustOimg - and another project is abandoned not even half way through...

larronsicut fur in nocte 12:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What Andy has overlooked is that Mothers' Day in the US was originally a secular pacifist occasion and stands in contrast to the Christian Mothering Sunday which is celebrated on the fourth Sunday of Lent in the UK. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 12:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, those Godless Americans. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"I did review the Hebrew before translating the verses, just as I reviewed the Greek before translating portions the New Testament." I can barely get along in the two languages I grew up in and the one I'm learning now, and struggle to keep up with developments in the very narrow field that I study professionally. On top of being a qualified engineer and a crackerjack attorney, not to mention a thoroughly capable website administrator, American history teacher, world history teacher, writing teacher and math teacher, Andy casually reviews ancient texts in Hebrew and Greek over lunch. I stand in awe. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy speaks in many tongues and it's still another 12 days until Pentecost. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 13:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I suspect "review[ed] the Hebrew" means "put it into Google translate, then did what I was planning to do anyway." Cantabrigian (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even know google translated ancient hebrew. Andy has stated that he believes you can "review" a langage by looking at a dictionary. Even in living lanuages, where we KNOW what words mean fairly well, I dare you to use a dictionary to understand most sentances: "He flew off in a pique of anger". "She left me depressed" (did she leave me, and was herself depressed? or did she leave me and I was in the state of depression". As my own background includes a significant amount of linguistics, I watched in awe (the original sense) as they first started this translation thing. Blew. My. Mind.Green mowse.pngGodot 15:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
PEDANTRY ALERT! Pique means anger or vexation, I think you meant "Flew off in a fit of pique". Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Really? huh... I shall add the correction to my mind. Green mowse.pngGodot 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
From the French - piquer, to sting. Don't you Americans know any foreign languages? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you do, anyways? Nihilist 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Me? I'm a researcher for a legal firm, that specializes in legal opinions on Native American issues. My dissertation was an analysis of the lingustic changes underscoreing the shift from native Lakota traditional religion to the Christian influenced "modern traditionalism" that is really a syncretic religion (even though modern traditionalists will sware up and down they are just traditionalists). (Ie., linguistics, xian theology and historical lakota studies all wraped up in a worthless degree).Green mowse.pngGodot 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy's just "translating" the English version of the bible he likes the most (whatever version of king james he prefers) into different english. All the bullshit about ancient greek and hebrew is just showboating to distract people from that; he can't read it and has no intention of doing so, because it doesn't matter. He knows the "intent" of the original authors based on a 1600s english translation of what they wrote, because he's psychic. X Stickman (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
He once said he looked at a lexicon but I honestly doubt he can even sound greek out. He definitely doesn't know how to decline or conjugate. At best he's taking the KJV version and deciding how to rephrase a verse or substitute a word to say what he wants, then looking at an interlinear bible so he can cutnpaste the word into his edit comment or wherever. $5 says he can't read a single word of koine out loud. He sure as shit can't read Hebrew. Jesus this guy is a weirdo. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:section title. I know a Jewish woman who's 4'10", if that's close enough... (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good post! Bad Faith (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's Best to Look at Who's in Charge -- Unless They're Republicans![edit]

Problems with California schools are because liberals. Problems with Florida schools, where Republicans cut school funding by $1.8 billion in two years, are because liberals. Whoover (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice one. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad Andy pulled the "video games and Facebook" out of his ass entirely, rather than finding a blog that agrees with him. Another hefty blow against the hearsay society. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Mass is nummber 2? YYYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH. WE'RE NUMBER TWO, WE'RE NUMBER TWO. Wait a sec, I don't think I thought that out...--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 20:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sums up Andy to a tee. Prodigal (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
From the second of Andy's sources:
Volusia Superintendent Margaret Smith agreed. "How can all of a sudden our students get that dumb over the summer and score at this level?" she said.
The state made the scoring for the writing exam tougher this year, demanding students use correct spelling and grammar and do a better job presenting logical arguments backed up with relevant details.
But local educators said those changes, at least at first glance, couldn't explain such a dramatic drop in scores.
Really? Are the students really the ones we should be worried about here? --Raga Man (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This "hearsay society" business[edit]

Do we have an article on this? I ask because I was away for the week it graced CP with its madness. A google suggests it was created on CP, and as far as I can tell from discussions here:

  • A parodist made it up
  • It became Andy's new baby, the perfect excuse to do away with that inconvenient need for "citations" that has always been at odds with CP's need for Making Shit Up and Outright Lying

Is this right? And why is it a "society" anyway - is that just a way to groupthink the very concept of citations into a bunch of co-conspirators? ONE / TALK 08:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer created the original template, I think in an effort to silence August's repeated demands that Andy stop making shit up. Andy, of course, leaped on it, like a sailor on a wharf whore offering freebies, and now it's defacto policy at CP. As for an article, good luck with that. Apparently we shouldn't focus on CP too much anymore. The n00bs don't like it. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This n00b likes it! Prodigal (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I'm not suggesting an article be created - just wondering if there was one for me to peruse over breakfast. ONE / TALK 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Not yet, but this notion could really start to bear fruit when Andylogic starts to trump credible sources. On second thought, that's been happening for years...I guess it's just a codification of CP common law. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I miss the articles on stuff like this, a lot of good archival material got thrown out by dumbasses that didn't understand its value. - π 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I agree wholeheartedly. larronsicut fur in nocte 12:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Not to be one of those if-you-don't-vote-then-don't-complain guys, but, well, I guess I'm going to be one of them. Lots of stuff (mostly junk, sure, but quite a bit of stuff that was better than that) got tossed because about 5 or 6 people wanted it gone and very few who apparently didn't expressed those sentiments when it mattered. For instance, we lost quite a few side-by-side rebuttals, even though I noticed some people expressing a desire to keep most of them, but didn't actually place any keep votes on the articles themselves. Anyway, even though Hearsay Society isn't original Andy, he's taken it as his own and might warrant inclusion on his greatest insights page, with a mention that it was first proposed by an acolyte/parodist. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even realize there was a voting process until all the shit was gone. Seemed like it happened quickly. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Well RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles? was created at the end of March, and still has some unclosed entries, so no, not quickly, really. The obvious ones (unanimous/near unanimous) were closed out as soon as possible to get the page to a slightly manageable size, but generally the ones with as few as 2 or 3 keep votes were open until the last week or two. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I for one didn't know anything at all about a vote taking place until this thread. But then I'm not all that active here; mostly I just look at the WIGOs, with an occasional random CP/random article WikiWalk if I have some time. For my own edification, where were we supposed to have found out that this vote was going on? Random surfer (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I could tell, looking at the recent changes. --Revolverman (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There was also an intercom announcement. Perhaps we should set up an e-mail listserve for you, or call? Perhaps a telegram? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How 'bout, I dunno, a sticky at the top of this page? «-Bfa-» 01:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously I was aware of the deletion in progress: I only voted on a view articles.
  • I spoke my piece to no avail.
  • The trimmers have won and I decided to put up with it - though I will bemoan this from time to time: the side-by-side rebuttals are a good example for things I'll miss. Some of them were dated, but much thought had gone into them...
  • The whole process showed that it is much easier to delete an article than to create one: if only for each trimmed page another at least equally thoughtful one on a new interesting subject in main-space would be created by the trimmer...

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did speak your piece, but in a place hardly anyone was likely ro see it. Honestly, how often do people look at each others' user pages? If you're anything like me, rarely. I don't think the whole process was handled terrifically, either; though, if it was going to happen, I'm not sure what the ideal way would be. Yes, the process was dominated by a handful of editors, a few of whom were relative n00bs, and some of whom obviously didn't read the articles they were voting on, but in a place like this where decisions are made by those who make decisions that's how the process works. No doubt there was a lot of stuff that had to go; I was, for the first time in my life, an "inclusionist", and even I voted to delete hundreds of articles, and deleted dozens myself. But, yes, there were many articles that were deleted, basically on the IDONTLIKEIT principle, without any regard to number of edits, editors, incoming links, history, talk page activity, etc. Our Conservapedia template now has 2 redlinks, which no one seems terribly inclined to fix. The two articles you were most adamant about were kept, thankfully, but others are gone, often with no reason stated. If anyone cares enough to get involved in a undeletion/deletion review process, in which we can re-examine some articles people think we were too hasty on, I'm willing to undertake it, if I'm convinced we'll get more than the same few people voting all over again. A forum in which, say, a couple dozen borderline articles are tackled, rather than some 700 all at once, might be able to get more of an actual consensus, rather than a 6 to 3 vote in a community of hundreds. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The real death of CP[edit]

It's now been over a year since we last had a Karatoon to mock. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

His blog has died a death too. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't so much a blog as his way of saying "I love you, Psygremlin." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Karajou is too much of a coward to make another post on his little blog! Occasionaluse (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Karajou's biggest problem is he has nothing to say, that is why he is CP's swabbie/part-time Master at Arms rather than writing anything. Even Kendoll has more thought than he does, even if it regurgitated bullshit. - π 13:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, I think Karajou can write better articles than Ken. The man actually gives a shit about sources; and I don't mean "Some crazy guy on a blog that only I visit said so!", I mean books and stuff. But as the place spiraled further and further into madness, every sysop scrambled to secure a niche... and with seconds to spare, Karajou had to choose between "write about the Bible and stuff" and "be a gigantic douchebag and get away with it". --Sid (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You forgot the birds. but yes, Kara could write articles, but honestly anyone who can write articles has no reason to with how that shithole is run. It will never be a project worth contributing to so long as Andy is in charge, so it will only be a project worth extracting from. Which is what all of the non-Andy content generators are doing. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 09:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The birds are probably a good indication that Kara has given up on CP being anything other than a home for his monumental ego. Most of his work has been copy/paste stuff anyway, from the countries taken from the CIA worldbook, to the ships, to the Civil War (useless summaries pasted from the NPB) and finally the birds, where he couldn't bring himself to progress beyond creating a 1,000 pages with merely a template inside (I think he's still awaiting the arrival of the conservative masses to finish his work for him). Most of them don't even have a pic. Although he is quite talented at drawing his cartoons showed a singular lack of skill at satire and parody, and even the scribbles themselves became lazier and lazier. Hde probably weighed things up and decided that being a gigantic douchebag was easier. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
As a long-time follower of an eye-opening thread in the somethingawful forums, may I just point out that there are conservative cartoons far worse than Karajou's and they actually get published. If Karajou knew how to interact with other humans in a manner that gains their co-operation, he could potentially see his cartoons on paper. ONE / TALK 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In which Ken's right hand is oblivious to what the left hand is doing[edit]

User "Why were my essays deleted?"
Ken "Because they sucked and you stupidly confused "non-religious" with "atheism".img They are not the same"
Elsewhere...: Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious...
Ken: "Atheism and obesity!"img
Dude just doesn't even try anymore. AceModerator 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a sinking suspicion that he says whatever makes him feel good. Meaning, correcting some poor soul about how REAL men categorize godless hellions, making him feel better than whoever he's picking on. And yet also writing huge long essays to make himself feel more sexyhandsome than those ugly unmanly uncool atheists. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This actually appears to be common behaviour amongst extremely sheltered, egotistical, deluded, borderline retarded men. See Christian Weston Chandler. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This article made the major news rounds earlier this week and might give a hint into Ken. --Shagie (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture of the hot chick. AceModerator 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have mistaken dishonesty for obliviousness. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 08:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that essays were personal works and arguments on CP, and therefore you could post them to argue a point and they be left alone (although debated); at least that is how it was when essays were fairly popular on the site back in 2007-08. I guess now even they are only allowed if they tow the party line verbatim, the party line being whatever the fickle sysops decide it will be.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The two essays were called "Has the Question Evolution Campaign had any discernible effect on Evolutionary Science or atheism at all?" and "Is the Question Evolution Campaign fighting a losing battle against the long term rise of atheism" and both took the piss out of Ken's pet project. My favourite part of Ken's stated reason for deleting them is, "This website is not a dumping ground for trash spewed by atheists." True, first you have to convince Andy that you're a true-blue conservative Christian, then you can spew trash to your heart's content all day long.--Spud (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

larronsicut fur in nocte 14:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Good old fashioned racism[edit]

I figured this would be the best place to post. If CP hasn't been hitting you in the "WTF" button, check out one of Terry's latest post Crime, police, and the Constitutionimg. The cognitive dissonance is mind blowing. Terry writes an article about how giving up constitutional rights for safety (or anything) is bad. When given the example of his hero Arpaio and unconstitutional practices, things start to unravel. Basically...

  • Looking Mexican is a crime, or at least raises probable cause for suspicion of a crime.
  • There are no real(TM) Mexican-American US citizens.

Great stuff, I suggest you go and gawk. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly man. Don't you know that the Constitution was never meant to apply to hispanics and arabs? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The comments are where the true crazy comes out on Terry's blog. I'm busy poking him with a stick over Adam and the replies are... interesting. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that while this is blatant racism, it isn't evolutionary racism, so it's OK. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I like how the same drone picture is featured with a full one paragraph between them. It really illustrates the theme of the article - droning on and on and on. ONE / TALK 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really surprising since he started peddling the "Obama's stoking race riots!" bilge. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or has CNV far surpassed CP in posting infuriating shit? CP is just goofy, CNV is down right offensive. --Revolverman (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No, that is rather spot on. CP is rather bland and boring outside of Andy, who regularly brings the hilarity and is who makes the site interesting to watch. Kara, Ed, Ken, and JPatt bring very little to the table other then flashes of mediocre WTFery. CNV seems a bit more radical, at least with some of the other contributors. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
[insert cheap "It's best to look at who's in charge" shot by posting a photo of Andy next to the infamous TerryH one] --Sid (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The comments right now are the worst I've seen since the Tonto "genocide for Muslims" shortly after comments went registered users only. Terry is insisting that it's not possible to be Hispanic and a U.S. citizen, and is responding to the people rightly pointing out how crazy this is with "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." CNV has gone so far over the line right now he's getting dangerously close to white supremacist territory. Omar (gibber) 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only is CNAV pretty awesome right now, but Terry's delusions are on a much more direct and imminent collision course with reality than Andy's. It's only going to get more shocking and entertaining. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I always knew Terry was a bit of a racist, but I hadn't realised just how much of one he is.
CNAV has been more fun than CP for ages now. If you poke Andy you get blocked or ignored, and besides he's funnier left on his own anyway. Chuckarse will usually reply, digging himself deeper and deeper into the idiocy. He will occasionally refuse to publish posts (and I know I'm not alone in this) but generally prefers to come back with something devastating like "No. I'm right".
Terry's great fun on his own, but I really wish Salanitri would write more. The post she wrote after getting her ass kicked in an election was a classic of the wingnut genre - the message was essentially "These people all voted against me! HOW can they be so misguided???". Purpura seems to have a history of annoying the courts and loves writing about it. More fun.
If you aren't already posting (and I didn't realise JT was PsyG), come along and join the fun! rpeh •TCE 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Debate Offer for Ken?[edit]

Wow, talk about changing the subject, AND following through with it over and over again. Why won't you debate when I change the topic to debating? What a douche. Really, there are only two possibilities here: He realizes that he is changing the subject, or he doesn't. If he does, then he knows he has no arguments to bring to the table concerning the original issue. If he doesn't, then he's just plain crazy. Jimaginator (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wha?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If AugustO is a smart man, he should either complete ignore Ken or keep doing what he has been doing, just keep asking the same question and avoid the red herring bait. Absolutely avoid the so-called "debate" offer in Shock's room were censorship of opposing views reign, and disrupting or cutting off unfairly anyone who disagrees with Shock's premise and the red herrings he tosses is all par for the course.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Y'all have been editing here long enough to know how to link to an article, right? Nitwits, the lot of you. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that when discussing things linked on the WiGO page, further links on the talkpage aren't necessary. Is that not right? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Who the hell reads the WIGO page anymore? All the fun stuff is here. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Excepting a few brief and intermittent periods of active interest in the site, WiGO is about all of CP I ever see, so yeah, I check out it's every-other-day or so updates. Sometimes it's good stuff. If you see something discussed here as if it's assumed you're familiar with it, it's probably been WiGOed. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Having made the original section, I did not link to the WIGO, because in the past, I and others have been told it isn't necessary if it is WIGOed. Jimaginator (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A blast from the past.[edit]

Ken digs up "Gay Bowel Syndrome, puts it on MPL.img Haven't seen that article in years. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

He got completely destroyed on the subject here and here last time it was mentioned. AceModerator 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What a sad wiki. Spam accounts being created non-stop since May 10th, and PJR is the only one who edits. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
... Harrison, you seeing right?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, just noticed what ace was linking to.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I just took a peek at the recent changes page, the last time an article was touched was May 14th and its all PJR. The wiki is effectively dead and now is solely the playground of bored spammers, and even more bored trolls.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Republican Primary upset![edit]

both terry and andyimg are all happy about whats his face winning the republican nomination here; i can tell him right now i barely noticed much interest; and he managed to get 41-36%; which isn't. honestly, much of a victory. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more than Andy got in his primary. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
"Deb who" indeed; nobody's bothered to make an article for her yet. Well, nobody on CP, anyway...Wikipedia's known of her for about six years. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 12:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maurice Sendak (June 10, 1928-May 8, 2012) was a lower-class Jewish homosexual[edit]

Classyimg, Ed. Classy. Phiwum (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job, Ed. It's been a while since CP genuinely disgusted me. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, even for CP... wow. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The edit comment, "gay and dead," is the icing on the cake. Phiwum (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. There are no words. Fuck you, Ed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed's renowned for his stubs but I think this is the greatest amount of bile he's crammed into the fewest words. What a loathsome tosser. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed already be,leives the nazis were all gay, this isnt much of a stretch for him. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Where's Ed been? There are no classes in the United States. The notion of class is an idea invented by Marx. nobsCorporations are people, too. 00:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It's one of those things were conservatives could just be screaming from the roofs "I do no research at all! Even though I have a college degree!" and it wouldn't make much of a difference. --Raga Man (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait. Doesn't the CP homosexuality article say something like, "Jews don't have gays, therefore homosexuality can't be genetic and is a choice"? --Sasayaki (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw the title of this section in Recent Changes and thought "Ed must have written that." I wish he'd come back here so I could berate him for being a spiteful moron. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
At least AugustO tries to add back in a little class. Seriously, is he the only decent human being there? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
An asshole parodist is having none of that. Geez, why do people bother? Leave the remarkable indecency to truly indecent folks, like Ed. Phiwum (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ed sets it back to the AugustO version, erasing links to CP's other articles on pedos and "liberal deceit", and by doing so in a way admitting those articles probably aren't worth linking to.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Also came here thinking, "Ed, right?" Just wanted to hop on the bandwagon and register my disgust. He truly is the worst person on CP. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 17:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm telling you, man, Terry Hurlbut is a rising star in being an awful, awful person. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I find Ed's malice so much more concerning and ugly than Terry's third rate, reactionary diatribes. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 08:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
With most of the CP goons it's a case of "it does what it says on the tin", but Ed cloaks himself in a veneer of niceness and reasonableness which hides a distasteful centre - a sort of chocolate-coated pus ball. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agnostics Destroy Atheism, or Something[edit]

I've never understood why they consider Agnosticism ("I don't believe in God, but it's not provable either way") to be a victory for religion over Atheism ("I don't believe in God"), but it's acceleratingimg. Is it just a way to save face? I mean, if Richard Dawkins is on their side how can they lose? Whoover (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Because its less atheism then atheism; because it means they are more open to theism then an atheist would be (depending on how much of an agnostic that person is). --il'Dictator Mikal 23:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, you have to remember, in their world it's "Our correct worldview and all the incorrect ones; whether religious or secular" or in kens; "Hardcore atheism > Agnosticism >BL/YEC Christianity" --il'Dictator Mikal 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you start applying some quantitative analysis, assigning "No Rapture for You" points, I would think it would be Atheist -- 100; Obama (Antichrist Muslim) -- 99; Agnostic -- 98; Regular Muslim -- 90; Mormon -- 85; Member-of-church-that-allows-gays -- 84; Catholic (except for Mel Gibson) -- 75; Evangelical RINO (maybe voted for Romney) -- 70; Tea Party Evangelical -- 10; Tea Party YEC Evangelical -- 2; Ken -- 0. But apparently the spread between Atheist and Agnostic is wider. That's the bit that confuses me. Whoover (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You are forgetting one thing. Christians generally understand "agnostic" to be "I believe in a god, but don't know which one or what religin". I was taught that for my entire life. Christian then agnostic then atheist. So if he was taught something similar, you might have a smiliar idea that "oh, maybe they aren't christian, but they beieve in god".--Green mowse.pngGodot 00:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It might be because they are using an improper understanding of agnosticism and atheism. To them, atheists say there is no God, which to them is Bad. To them, agnostics say 'well, we can't know for sure' which sounds an awful lot like bad arguments for there being a God. So perhaps in their minds, agnostics are arguing against the nonexistence of God. Meaning arguing for the existence of God, to them. Making them Secret Theists. Which is not what agnosticism is, but that's never stopped them before. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
EDIT, Blue beat me to the idea. 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. Agnostic = deist. No worse than the second-tier Founding Fathers. That makes sense. Except it's wrong. Whoover (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deism definition and agnostic; for reference. il'Dictator Mikal 00:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fundies like to twist definitions when it suits them. For example, when Ken wants to talk about how atheism is dying or whatever, he'll include deists and agnostics as religious people. But when he wants to slander someone for being an "atheist", he'll label them that even if they are an agnostic or deist - take Jimmy Wales, for example. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience in red state America, most people who identify as agnostic were raised Christian and are still quite sympathetic to its ideas. They just aren't sure if they really believe in it or not, honestly. Many of them are actually just looking for a religion to 'fill the void', and so retain some modicum of respect even from fundies. On the other hand, most actual agnostics tend to identify as atheist to remove any doubt from people's minds. Q0 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there's also a lot of people who don't believe in any god but identify as agnostic and not as an atheist because of the increased stigma attached to it. Also, one of the reasons why fundamentalists like agnostics more is probably because they're seen as easier to convert, which is probably true to an extent, although they still usually have a misunderstanding of what atheism and agnosticism are. Nihilist 03:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
All right, kids, time to break out the charts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, godless heathen. Go have sex with goats or something. Nihilist 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You have to remember that these fundies see everything as black or white, there is no place for nuance or shades of grey. The Bible is 100% true; if the scientific evidence doesn't show the Earth to be 4.5bn years old then it must be young; if someone doesn't deny outright the existence of God then Christianity must be true. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 06:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sliding onto a tangent here a bit, but reading the "Man's downhill genetic slide" section of Talk:Main, I finally got curious enough to look in depth at the source for Ken's bullshit mantra about the rise of Christianity and decline of non-religious populations. I have to admit, I'm a little confused. I expected the data to be extrapolated from polls. Instead the only source they reference is the 2010 revision of the UN's World Population Prospects. I browsed around the seminary's site, looking for more detail on how they got the data, and, surprise, surprise, found nothing. As far as I can tell, the UN data doesn't even include a cursory summary of statistics on religion. Does anybody have a clue what these numbers are supposed to be based on? I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to Gordon-Conwell that the values aren't just liberally pulled from somebody's bung, but that's sure what it looks like. --Ellipsoidal (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how they derive the numbers either, but no matter. It says something that makes Ken happy, so it is true. (More seriously, perhaps you can contact the site?) Phiwum (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I dashed off an e-mail to them, but I was worried I might be missing something obvious. I finally got a reply back this afternoon. The data comes from the World Christian Database, which Gordon-Conwell also maintains. Naturally, that doesn't even enumerate its sources in a freely accessible place, and I'm not paying for access to it. Not only that, but according to reviews I've looked up, you aren't even told what the sources are once you have access. The summary just notes that they get the information from "censuses and surveys". Elsewhere they list 5,000 questionnaires (collected over the course of about two decades starting thirty years ago) and data collected from "undisclosed sources" as additional data points. It seems like a fair number of estimates basically come from asking someone who seems credible to provide numbers, and then adding those numbers to the amalgam. There have been some academic reviews of the WCD done because it's sort of one-of-a-kind in its scope. They boil down to pretty much what you'd expect. The data is difficult to track and collect; methodologies can be questionable at times; Christian populations tend to be overestimated, possibly due to a tendency to uncritically accept numbers provided by Christian organizations; estimates can be skewed by biases regarding mixed religions and self-reporting; and so on. The consensus I seem to get is that their overall data set is highly useful, and often better than similar data from polls and so forth, but using it for forecasting is an overreach. In the specific case of the non-religious group, it seems they choose to allocate people to religions based on culture and upbringing at times, and the numbers are reportedly somewhat sketchy to begin with.
The short version is that they seem to have made a good faith effort to collect the best data they could (mostly), but there are too many issues to take a statement like, "there will be 1,100 fewer atheists by the end of the day". Sane people had already guessed that, and the insane obviously won't care that the source is dubious, so this was mostly an interesting waste of time. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm so excited!!![edit]

A brochure said Obama was born in Kenya!!! This is going to be fun. It's so much fun to watch these people lurch around trying to find something, anything, that will support them. I always value random literature over state documents. Brochures don't lie! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was going to use this as the link, but it refers to the article you mention. I cannot believe these people. Which will be first to break the news, CP or CNAV? rpeh •TCE 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Depends on how quick Karajou is. You know Terry is hammering away as we speak. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Terry won't be hammering away yet. At his age it takes him a few minutes to get hard. rpeh •TCE 20:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
................*reaches for the brain bleach* --Sid (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Puts the eyes in context, doesn't it? And you can't see his hands..... rpeh •TCE 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Fuck you, dude. How am I going to sleep at night? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Exhaustion? If you give him a mile, he'll give you an inch. rpeh •TCE 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Aaaaaaand the agent responsible calls the whole thing a mistake. I'm sure that will satisfy the birthers. rpeh •TCE 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a cover up! Obama's deadly ninja assassin squad that killed Breitbart have the publisher's wife held hostage! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Launchbooty is busy anyway, planning his move to Arizona. The man wants to be with his people.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
His latest Obama Scandal is the NDAA. Honestly, on this Obama and Bush are two peas in a pod. But if Obama did it, it's the End of Freedom. (If Bush did it, it's Keeping Us Safe.) Anyway, follow the link to CNV. The embedded video is from that familiar Tea Party ally: RT (the Russian state English-language propaganda outlet). Whoover (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It is amusing to watch them having to squirm out of the fact that Andy's lib-uh-rhuls were the ones who opposed indefinite detention without trial all along while they're only now speaking up about it because it has the taint of Obama on it. I'm sure if a president Romney wanted to lock people up and throw away the key then they'd be fine with that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, from what I can tell RT just gives time to anyone criticizing the US government - sometimes sane, sometimes not. Q0 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of US citizens. The following is the actual text of that particular section:
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
So yeah, Conservapedia is resorting to conspiracy theories that unfortunately too many people on the left are buying into. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
And Carl Levin, the (actually really progressive Democrat) Senator who wrote the bill, has stated clearly that indefinite detention is not the bill's intent. Compare to Bush who never denied his indefinite detention practice. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears that Bickel beat Terry to it.[10] Omar (gibber) 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
In other news: Bickel's blog is just as hateful as Terry's, but with more green-ink. Omar (gibber) 13:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

JPatt never fails to demonstrate that he is a profoundly stupid man[edit]

Guess you didn't read the part where the guy who made the mistake totally disavowed it,img eh, there, Johnny Sedition? Fuckin' nitwit. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to click any links to know that Jpatt's stupidity is of such a level that it should be an embarrassment to all of humanity. We should all be ashamed that we are all the same species as this profoundly idiotic individual. The only silver lining of his existence is that his death will raise the average intelligence of humankind by a measurable amount. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Pocahontas Warren and Zulu Obama, the leftwing conspiracy continues. HiDICK User:MudPie — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Jesus Christ, you're dense. Did you even bother to read how the guy who wrote the damn brochure disavowed it? ("Disavowed" means "said it was wrong," I know it's a big word for you.) Also, the Zulu are from South Africa, not Kenya, you dummy. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody deprogram the Obamabot. You're pathetic to always give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He disavowed it, he actually meant Obama is a lilly white angel from Mt. Unicorn, he's seen the birth records. Keep on smokin kid. User:MudPie — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Every time you invoke the name of JPratt, a moron appears. It's like magic. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
And if you say it three times in front of a mirror... --Raga Man (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
He appears in the traditional white hood.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)