Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive291

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 25 June 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>, <289>, <290>, <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)

Sounds like someone we know[edit]

Lazy writer + plus book to flog = press for Ken. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That is probably the saddest thing I have ever seen on WND. However I do love that the Gallup poll shows creationism on the rise, and it just so happens that Carl Gallup is flogging a book on WND. Coincidence? --PsyGremlin講話 14:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The author is Gallups, not Gallup. It took me a while to notice, I thought he was a bit chatty for a pollster. Pi 3:14 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Love the title: The Magic Man in the Sky. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a great title -- too bad it's being used for that book. Nihilist 21:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We know Ken has some association with Gallups and his Ppsimmons channel. Although he is a much better writer than Ken, he still suffers from the same lazy thinking, demonstrated by the tired creationist canards he uses in the mists of the article to spiel his book.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If you actually take a look at the Gallup poll it is quite clear that acceptance of creationism has remained steady over time. Fluctuation within a couple of percentage points have occurred in the past, both up and down. The authors of the poll conclude that the percentage of those who accept creationism has remained steady since 1980. Ken is just clutching at straws in order to justify his silly attachment to the failed QE campaign. --Horace (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
His campaign was stillborn, failed implies that there was ever a change in the state of things. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 06:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, Karajou bans me for saying the Bible is true![edit]

  • (Deletion log); 23:59 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:TheBibleIsTrue" (Vandalism / parody: content was: "The Bible is true! It is the perfect and inerrant Word of God! Thank you Jesus for dying for my sins! I love Jesus; he is my Lord and Savior! Jesus..." (and the only contributor was "[[Special:Contributions/TheBibleIsTru)
  • (Deletion log); 23:53 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:FaithfulServant" (User blocked indefinitely: content was: "Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God! Thank you Jesus for dying for my sins!" (and the only contributor was "FaithfulServant"))

LongStandingUser (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No doubt you were lying when you said it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Oneday I wish I could be as cool as you,'Dictator Mikal 04:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey that's awesome. AceModerator 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Karajou gives us one of the most confused ban reasons ever: "Trolling: Either you lied about you having Jesus as your Savior, or you lied when you admitted that RW believes the Bible is true...which is it?" --Sid (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Terry never allows my comments...[edit]

... I'll post my reply to his latest column here:

Oooo, Terry, your mysterious Washington, DC sources are back again.

Now, I know that real journalists (not that you are anything even vaguely resembling a real journalist) use anonymous sources. But even they usually give something like "a highly placed source at the Justice Department" or some such, so the reader can evaluate the information provided.

You, though, being a gutless wonder and general piece of crap, just say "my sources in Washington, DC", giving your unfortunate readers no information beyond a general geographic location.

So, Terry, man up. Give a little detail. I seriously doubt you have sources at the Supreme Court, considering the justices practically never talk about their deliberations and a clerk who talked about inside information would be short-circuiting his or her career — especially if it was with a nutjob like yourself. Otherwise, I’m just going assume what’s probably the truth anyway: your DC "source" is just some guy living in DC, maybe a low ranking Federal employee, just shooting off his mouth about those awful black people that are just waiting to riot.

Oh, and speaking of political riots… who carried out the the last political riot in the US? White Republicans, during the Florida recount mess in 2000. — Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs

I'm pretty certain that his D.C. "sources" are just some fellow birther nuts from there who he corresponds with, providing a convenient echo chamber. --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
That was pretty much my idea -- his source is "some guy I know in DC". MDB (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The author of that article is actually Nick Purpura, the crank who is trying to sue to take Obama off the ballot. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
His (well RoseAnn's) new post is loads of fun. "I had the best candidate! I was on a mission from God! Surely God would have mercy on my State. Oh... my candidate lost. It's Christie's fault! And God moves in mysterious ways." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I can't wait to see how Terry's going to respond to MatthewJ's demolition job [2] ;but I suspect I may be waiting a while....Mick McT (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Good old Terry - always manages to get some creepy in his comments:

God did not create robots. He chose not to, as a general case. (But He did choose out some people whom He would steer to the right choices. Hmmmm…maybe you’re not one of them? That thought ought to scare you, considering what’s to become of those who are wrong.)

--PsyGremlinHable! 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the resident theists here, that's pretty horrific theology. It borders on the Calvinist idea of election, which isn't taught much anymore. MDB (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Except by traditional Calvinists and the many many many churches, fundie and otherwise - even charismatic Catholics are getting in on the action, that are adopting various of the 5 points. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
With Calvinists, one does not have to Accept Jesus Into One's Heart as One's Lord and Personal Saviour®; they believe that Jesus just barges in without so much as knocking.
There are Catholics adopting TULIP? I am surprised someone does not excommunicate them. The Inquisition must be sleeping on the job. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberal cacoons[edit]

Tell me Mr. University Writing Tutor, is a cacoon a hybrid between a cat and a raccoon? Or did you switch off your spelling-checker? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't you know? Conservapedia isn't part of the hearsay society any more, they don't need to rely on hearsay from those stupid liberal spellcheckers and communist dictionaries now. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
But Ken wrote it. He never claimed to be a university writing tutor. You can't blame Andy for Ken's spelling mistakes.
I would like to see a racco-kitty, though!--Spud (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in defence of his crap style Ken once claimed to have tutored writing at university level. Links anyone? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it turns out a "cacoon" (which is how Ken spelled it) is a large, flat bean from an African shrub. I never knew that. I certainly never knew there were large, flat, liberal beans from African shrubs. rpeh •TCE 14:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
My bad, too small a font in Firefox. Fixed now. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of cats and Ken, I thought of the manchild when I saw this disturbing flying kitty. A guy turned his dead pet cat into a kitty-copter. It's quite a feat to out-WTF? Ken.— Unsigned, by: Night Jaguar / talk / contribs
Speaking of speaking of which...I hadn't noticed the video though. It's kinda spooky. (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to the capture of Ken claiming to be a writing tutor Jared (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. So Andy be teachings writing and Ken did be did be teachings writing. He must have written that comment back when he was definitely one person, before he morphed into a him/her/them of indeterminate nationality.--Spud (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory "Ed is back" section[edit]

I won't even bother with the man's main space edits - quick look told me that he's created a few articles and then immediately moved them around to templates and essays.

But among his talk space edits (usually to discussions that took place a good while ago), there are a few gems:

Before I get to the "AHAHAHAHAHA!" part, let's warm up with a surprising admission:

It's been a while since Ed has confirmed that the rules only apply to lesser beings, but it's always refreshing.

Exampleimg of the same thing happening withimg Kenimg, along with two of his trademark :) faces (also, as you'll notice, his claimed "second reason" was the famous "lack of machismo") MPrem (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But hey! You know how CP is a pro-YEC, anti-evolution site? Well, you're wrong. Here, allow Ed to set the record straight:

Boy, do I feel silly now! Thank you for pointing out this error in judgment, Ed! ;) --Sid (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Man, that's hilarious. Ed should really consider taking this act out on the road. --transResident Transfanform! 18:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I love his comments in the SDG whenever we make fun of him here, along the lines that if RW don't like what he's saying then he must be achieving something. The funny thing is though that personally I love it when he posts. I think his "insights" and tenuous grasp on reality are utterly hilarious and his brief posting flurries are genuine high points for me. Keep it up Ed! StarFish (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you expect; he is in a cult after all.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken admits defeat over copyright issue raised, uses trademark :)[edit]

A user pointed out that one of the images Ken routinely steals was not in the public domain.img Ken, with all his machismo, challenges the userimg, trims his own challenge twenty minutes laterimg, and then realizes he's wrongimg MPrem (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Credit to Ken that he realises his error and takes down the picture in question. Now, if Joaquin would only follow his example... Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 17:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, quietly in the background...[edit]

Aschlafly deletes and then recreates most of Ken's magnum opus. Is this just good housekeeping or something else? 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Scrub the publically viewable page views? Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
except it doesn't seem to affect that. C®ackeЯ
Is he restoring as many revisions as he deletes? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It's because all Kendoll's homosex articles were appearing in the top 10 most popular pages on CP. It makes them look kind of obsessed. Which of course they are. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Was Homosexual Deceit not one of Ken's then? Because, let's face it Andy, they're ALL silly. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I've not checked CP's "Popular" Pages for a while but Cracker's right, the page view counts do not seem to have been affected. However, rapid refresh of the popular pages shows that some massive clickbotting is going on, so they probably were reset but have been quickly pumped up again. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Homosexual Deceit was a troll/parody article, though it did sound like something that Ken or Andy would say. Something along the lines of "Homosexuals who hide their homosexuality from their friends or family are horrible, deceitful people." --Sid (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, while most of the top 50 got a barely a handful of pageviews over the last 30 minutes:
1. Main Page +91
2. Homosexual Agenda +332
13. Homosexuality and the United Kingdom +647
14. Homosexual lifestyle +972
15. Homosexuality and the United States +1,320
16. National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality +1,658
17. Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness +1,959
18. Homosexual Men +2,287
19. Homosexuality Research +2,641
So someone is keeping up the good work. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I do wonder if Andy is painfully aware of the clickbotting, but is denying it just so he can claim that visit numbers are growing at a record rate. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 08:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh Andy is well aware. When clickbotting first started in 2007 he made a comment in the SDG about a sudden increase in traffic from an IP in the Netherlands. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 09:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Reading that "article", they sure do like to make a LOT of accusations in two sentences without any citations....Stick Boy (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, generally these deletions are to advance another article. See for example when Gay bowl syndrome got bumped in favor of getting Sarah Palin in the the Top 10. Palin, Bush, Gore, and Harry Potter all figure much higher than Romney. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Rob, I can assure you that even those articles you mentioned were heavily inflated (for reasons that have now been lost in the mists of time). Clickbot (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Terry won't post this one, either[edit]

Terry posts, I reply:

Y’know, Terry, you conserva-loons never cease to amaze me with your ability to hold utterly contradictory views at the same time.

You repeatedly insist the UN is a toothless, meaningless, powerless body, but at the same time, you promote wild conspiracy theories about how UN resolutions are going to lead every American to become slaves of the global... whatever. I remember right wing paranoia about UNESCO World Heritage sites which proved to be... nothing.

Tell me, Terry, name one time, just one time, when the US has done anything -- anything -- of consequence against our national will or interest. We don’t even pay our dues to them, and you think they’re going to force every American to live in urban apartment towers?

You make make want to buy stock in ALCOA. You must go through several thousand dollars worth of tin foil a week to keep you in hats. MDB (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you stuck to the argument rather than using terms like "conservaloons'" he might have allowed the post. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 17:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've tried being polite. He doesn't post that, either. MDB (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I find terms like 'libtard', 'republiCON', or 'odumba' (or outside the political arena, terms like 'micro$oft' or 'internet exploder') basically make it impossible for me to take someone seriously in a discussion. Terry might certainly be beyond reason, but there's no sense in getting into bad habits. Ego (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
For all his faults I've always found Terry to be pretty good about posting dissenting comments. He believes in a lot of crazy shit but censorship doesn't appear to be among it. --Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
He's probably afraid you won't come back. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This is true; I probably account for the lion's share of his pay-per-click cash flow. On the other hand I also have email discussions with him offline and while it would be very wrong to say we agree about much he's pleasingly civil about it. He'll also admit to being wrong on occasions, I suspect where doing so doesn't clash with his loyalty to people like Walter Mitty Brown or the Salanitri hag.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Did Terry really just write an article on how competition is much better than government at creating safety regulations, and use stories from a novel and a screenplay as examples? Or I have just been trapped in a hallucination-inducing desert without food or water for a week? -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservative losing[edit]

Is this how Conservative feels when he sees yet another atheist troll at Conservapedia with arguments he can’t refute? I'm not Jesus (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Every time I think of Ken sitting at a PC, I'm reminded of this. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
When I see this, I'm reminded of this. (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like another case of Ken stealing ignoring copyright when it suits him. I can never understand why these so-called conservatives bitch and moan about property rights but then feel it's OK to appropriate someone else's intellectual property. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 13:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Rules are for other people to follow. Deny this and lose all credibility. ... of liberals? (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How CP rots your brain[edit]

Since I'm on an IT support team at my current job, I get e-mails listing the URL's our security team blocks.

I just got one that mentioned And it made me think of Ken's old "olé! olé!" usage. Sigh. MDB (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Sports[edit]

Is it just me, or has Andy really started to get weirdly obsessive with the liberal/conservative battle (in his head anyway) in sports? First football, then hockey, now fucking TENNIS of all things? What's next? Angry over how "PC" it is that the Iroquois nation gets its own team in the Lacrosse World Championships? -- (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wait for the olympics! I think it has to do with Andy being essentially unemployed and completely insane. He has tons of time on his hands, and apparently, he is spending more and more of that time watching sports. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, how liberal is that? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I love how according to Andy soccer is a stupid "socialist" sport which Britain sucks at because they're atheisticimg. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You could equally say that as Spain has got much less religious, its footie team has got much better. This disproving AndyPants' footie-atheism hypothesis......... The Real James Brown (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but Spain is more religious than atheistic Britain who won the world cup once in 1966 and all the years since we failed to win because of atheism. The years we failed to win before that aren't because of atheism. No sir. That's some other, unexplained cause. Maybe god was angry about the NHS. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe we're just shit. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So what now?[edit]

CP, while not quite as dead as aSoK, has ceased to provide any real entertainment. It feels more like WIGO CNAV now, and I don't think CP is ever going to get back on its feet. Is it time to draw a line under WIGO: CP? It's better to burn out than to fade away and all that... --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an idea. I mean, even over the, what, nine months I've been hanging around here it's gotten much less upbeat (Who am I kidding, it's gone from sickeningly healthy to comatose). I assume it'd kind of be merged with WIGO: Clogosphere? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, and we could have some sort of farewell to CP event. A wake of sorts just to remember the good times when CP had real editors. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
And their finer moments, maybe. Lenski, the cake thing, some of their funnier attempts to save face when they're turned into a laughing stock. If this happens, though, would CPspace stay intact? There's a lot of fine bollocks on there that needs to stay intact. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
[EC] You guys are just going to ignore the fact that CP is SHATTERING UNIQUE VISITOR TRAFFIC RECORDS left and right? And the fact that a resurgence in the CP community is inevitable as people turn away from liberal Facebook? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
And TV, and the papers, and books, and vidya games... what else was Conservapedia explicitly replacing?il'Dictator Mikal 23:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC!) More like the facts that CP is RW's most popular pastime, has these slumps frequently, and has these "okay it's time to kill WIGO:CP" threads constantly... (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
A slump implies a better period, this is a long sliding decline from CPil'Dictator Mikal 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, it was just as stupid back when RW members were still arguing with Andy (or Rob, or Ken), not to mention the bullshit suppression TK pulled in his time. Meanwhile, Andy's still prattling on now like he did last year, and the year before that. (Though I kinda miss Karajou and Jpatt being more active.) (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"Well x and y are still doing action a and B" obviously isnt keeping our interest given how dead this page is compared to other parts of the wiki.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If you mean WIGO:CP itself, then yeah, nothing's happened for a whole week or so. This talk page, on the other hand, is at like 120 edits this week, despite having "died" about as many times. (That said, I can appreciate people getting sick of CP, which isn't at all the same issue...) (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
My feelings on this issue are expressed in the last entries on Conservapedia:Timeline.--ADtalkModerator 03:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth waiting around until the US election, come to think of it. Just to see Schlafbot's reaction, which in any event will be condescendingly and inappropriately superior. If Romney wins, the Republicans win, therefore he wins, despite everything he's said about Romney being a RINO. If Obama wins, he'll pull out some shit supporting Gingrich or Santorum from years before and bitch about it, and therefore he wins, despite that he seems to be moving towards the Romney wagon now. In any event, it could just about be worth the wait. Then again, it could just be the same as we've been seeing for ages.
The other editors' updates are going around in a bit of a cycle too. Kenny, if he doesn't get his precious coverage here he'll make up some new essay/picture gallery comparing atheism or homosexuality with something I'm pretty sure he knows is irrelevant, or a stupid edit or two, but he's upping the stupid because, despite his incessant bollocks, I have to credit him with some intelligence here because I think he's actually realised that we are probably most of their audience. Terry uses it to whore his own blog out, and Ed does...whatever it is that Ed does, I'm not entirely sure.
There's nothing new and exciting coming up on CP any more, that's the problem. Or, at least, not nearly as often. It's the same equation with different numbers over and over again, and it's not even being repeated as often any more. I used to log on and get three or four fresh doses of mad a day, now I'm lucky to see that over a fortnight. That's why it might be a decent idea to just move on, and leave them to their madness. CP's the kind of thing that's going to inevitably die, honestly believing it's own infallibility and immortality or some shit like that, and if it ever does come to terms with it's imminent demise it'll go batshit insane and die the sort of clawing-the-ground, chewing-the-grass-angrily type of death that's reserved for mad kings who get gutstabbed in single combat. (Credit for that analogy to the late David Eddings, by the way)
Bloody hell, I've rambled a bit. Anyway, you guys are by far the experts here and I've probably (knowing my luck) picked up the wrong end of enough sticks to make the wrong end of a rainforest, but that is what it looks like to me. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Good post!--il'Dictator Mikal 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favour of keeping WIGO CP around until conservapedia itself is switched off, even if it ends up just being a monthly update of "Month #8: still no activity at conservapedia" until Andy gives up paying for it. It feels appropriate, somehow, to doggedly follow CP's complete and utter slide into non-existence rather than (relatively) arbitrarily draw a line under a certain date and declare CP dead. I mean, we know it basically is, for all intents and purposes, but I don't think this wigo should be deleted/merged until CP is actually dead, as in the site is a 404. It just feels... right, somehow. I'm no wiki wizard but I can't see how it messes RW up to just keep this page ticking over, even if only one or two people ever actually visit it. X Stickman (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what the end of CP would mean for Ken? AceModerator 02:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
More time to work on the end of Atheism on the Internet!
Anyway, CP/CNAV shouldn't be moved into clogs: the difference between them and the clogs is that people follow them much more than they do the individual blogposts put on that wigo. But some other combination - combining CP/CNAV with the CZ and ASoK wigos, maybe - might work. But I don't see the problem, at least not yet. Peter Blessed are the cheesemakers 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Theres always the "move Terry to Clogs" idea; in the same vein as moving him to mainspaceil'Dictator Mikal 02:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I can just see the inevitable MPR headline if/when WIGO CP is put out to rest: "Liberals Gave it up: Conservapedia proven right again!" Mick McT (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
re:I wonder what the end of CP would mean for Ken?

perhaps not much; he's already started his own blog after all. Lets face it Ken has created most of the popular content on CP, he's largely responsible what success its had, but he doesn't get the credit. He should do like Hurlbut and invest the effort in his own site.

But Ken's content was only successful because it was attached to Andy's name. No one cares about a fuck face from nowhere, but when objectively crazy, inane, hilariously idiotic, codswallop flows from the bully pulpit of the dynasty that saw ERA off to the grave, well that my friends is a story. Vox Day has a similar level of pathetic to Ken, but no one ever gave a fuck about him except through his association with the Schalfly's. Conservapedia was trading on Andy's name from the start, and so were the peons who used it as their own microphone. Hurlbutt might have reached escape velocity with the Teabaggers, but Ken has no following of his own except for us. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If we are the assembled hordes of Kenny's following... OK, that's either really good or really bad, but I'm not sure which. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 08:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There are still occasional gems thrown our way. Such as Karajerk totally failing to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Good God, Kara's badly failing basic reading comprehension when he reads "the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant" as Earth being a closed system ("Now it's back to being a closed system?"). And people want to discuss non-trivial physics with this man?
More on-topic, I'd say Keep Calm And WIGO On. Why regulate when you can just leave it be? If CP generates too little lulz over a long time, interest will fade naturally and people will move on. And if something exciting happens, they will come back. No need to forcibly pull the plug, in my opinion. I of course agree that we are currently in a phase with few Schlafly Insights, but I mostly blame the double vandal waves (spam bots and the "HERP-A-DERP HEY KEN AND SAILOR BOY PAY ATTENTION TO ME I'M SO WITTY LOLOLOL" morons) for that. The more time the admins have to spend on reverting vandals, the less time they have to be crazy. Stop distracting them, and everything else will fall into place. --Sid (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be time to remove a direct link to CP WIGO from the main page. Maybe instead there could be a link to a "Whacky Wikis WIGO" which would then link to the WIGOs for ASoK and CZ as well as CP. However, I'm also of the opinion that this page should be around until CP isn't around anymore, which I predict will be with a whimper not a bang, just suddenly not being there one day.
When CP does disappear, Ken will probably start his own wiki on Wikia, which will contain every article he ever wrote for CP (or a rough approximation of each of them) and they will all be locked so that nobody else can edit them.
I don't know what Karajou will do without CP, though. He'll probably look out for kids scrawling on walls and then try to "block" those vandals.--Spud (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
By and large the CP sysops are hangers on, tiny turds on a hairy arsehole. Apart from TerryH they are intellectual parasites and they need a larger host to accommodate them. Even the QE campaign is something that Ken latched onto; Ken couldn't sustain his own wiki because his scope is too narrow. Karajou is the perpetual junior officer or neighbourhood watch vigilante and like the obedient guard dog that he is, he will find a new master to protect -that's his role in life. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 13:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a long time CP-watcher, having read this page almost religiously for something like 4 years now (even if I contribute little). It's the only thing I 'use' RW for, and indeed the only thing I ever thought RW was any good for (sorry to be a downer, but I'm skeptical (ha) of RWs greater ambitions) and even I think it's time to put CP to bed and merge all the relevant pages with CLOGS etc. So there's my vote, whatever little it means. ONE / TALK 17:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Bah! Ed Poor's pathetic authoritarian streakimg is reason enough to have this WIGO. It is totally August's fault that 's Hertogenbosch begins with an apostrophe and that another user moved the article to the appropriate title. What the hell is not to like here?
August, if you're reading this, please stop trying to reason with Ed - it only draws attention. The winning strategy is to just forget to respond to him. He will soon lose interest.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Take note that in Assfly's parallel universe CP is a massive success, well on the way to replacing books, magazines, news papers and television as people's primary source of knowledge. Andy will never switch off CP. Its one of the few things that gives him something to do and feel important. He failed at everything else because he had to interact with reality (which apparently has an inbuilt liberal bias). CP shields him from reality. He can be as successful as his fantasy wishes him to be. Auld Nick (talk)

11:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Whenever we talk about CP's end, Andy comes out with some totally whacky stuff which attracts a lot of attention on the internet. Letter to Lemski, conservabible and the likes comes to mind. I think this is just a lull before something grossly stuuupid makes its appearance.--Buscombe (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

French Open=Liberal Conspiracy[edit]

I know CP has been somewhat boring lately, but this type of shit is still pretty funny to me. Andy truly believes everything is a liberal conspiracy, even the French Open. Seriously, what a twat. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what makes Andy think Djokovic is a conservative, Nadal is a liberal, and that heavy rain isn't a good reason to halt a game on a clay court. Also, I'm frankly amazed he's even paying attention to the French Open, come to that. I've done a quick experiment and found that to find anything on either Nadal's or Djokovic's political views, Andy would have had to do some serious digging around, but their religious views are easy to get at. Has it occurred to Andy that it is entirely possible to be an Orthodox Christian and still be relatively liberal? I know such people personally. Also possible: conservative agnostics, so Nadal isn't necessarily liberal. Conclusion: Andy's throwing his weight behind the one more likely to win and making proclamations about him without checking first. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 07:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, even by Andy's standards that's pretty out there. I know he sees everything as conservative or liberal, but rain? Surely that comes from God? I wonder what he'll make of the fact there's 100% rain forecast for Paris today. He really is a strange little man. PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaand Nadal comes from behind to win. So much for a fifth set being highly likely. rpeh •TCE 12:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
So much for the conservative sportsman winning. I'm guessing that's the last we'll of this on CP. Unless he lost because liberals. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
He lost in the French open. Of course it's because liberals. MDB (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Stand by for a new Mystery: Why did the umpire stop the final? "The claim that rain was involved lacks all credibility". rpeh •TCE 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The man's a buffoon, I can only imagine that it is because Nadal is agnostic while Djokovic is Serbian Orthodox. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 13:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, should an Orthodox Christian start discussing his beliefs with Andy, he would scoff and call them heretics or something. --User:Brxbrx/sig 13:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In Andy's world, every time a Christian wins it's because God made it happen and every time an open atheist/agnostic wins it's because of a liberal conspiracy. It really is that simple.--Spud (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Djokovic's losing is Tebow all over again.img The man is well nutty. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"It looks like Tess of d'Urbervilles all over again." MDB (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
He DOES know that the isn't any kind of equivalent for trading or home cites in Tennis like there is in Football. I mean he has to, right? -- (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was Nicolae Paulescu denied the Nobel Prize?[edit]

Ken asksimg this burning question. (For the uninformed, Paulescu demonstrated that an extract of pancreas cured diabetes in dogs. For some reason, the Nobel committee gave the prize to another group that cured diabetes in people at the same time.)

But there must be another reason. Is it that Paulescu was Christian? Or rabidly anti-semitic? In another of his scientific works, Degeneration of the Jewish Race, Paulescu proves that Jews have smaller brains than people, leading to their degenerate condition. I thought Nazis were liberal. Whoover (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Which strong-arm tactics is he talking about that evolutionists use? Do creationists not use strong-arm tactics, ever? And if evolutionists who are atheists lack machismo, then technically don't they have small, weak arms? Ken? Ken? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Who cares about humans? THINK OF THE ICKLE PUPPIES!! HOW ELSE WILL KENNY MAKE HIS PICTURE GALLERIES NOW? Oh, fuck you, I'm cynophobic. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Since Paulescu died in 1931, I can see how bringing him up totally makes sense. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RW vs CP Alexa rankings[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

Hi all, I'm a lurker/occasional contributor here, but here's a little bit of info that might be of interest:

June 2012 Alexa Rankings:

I'd really like to see that change in the near future. Cheers Voxhumana (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not likely. RW's audience is RWians. CP's audience is RWians plus the crippled remnants of Schlafly's project. Raw statistics gives them an inbuilt advantage, but the simple truth is that most of CP's visitors only go there to laugh at the wreckage.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 00:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably going to say this should be moved to CP talk given its about, you know, CP.--il'Dictator Mikal 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, CP has gotten a ton of media coverage. Schlafly himself has been a guest on The Colbert Report. I myself only found RW after a Louis Black segment on CP on The Daily Show in 2007. RW can't hope to match that anytime soon. I'd wager we'll eventually overcome them, but only in several years and by virtue of CP's shrinking activity levels. Blue (is useful) 00:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, id like to see the rankings if they were only done for visitors, not all people (users, watchers in CP's case and visitors), and what CP looks like if you took out the watchers. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I disagree that RW's audience is RWians, as I know quite a few people who come solely here to read, indeed 90% of my visits are solely to browse. I'd personally like to see RW grow into a useful resource for rational thought. I was one of the founding editors of Wikipedia, and in the very early days there was a strong movement to impose "SPOV" - the scientific point of view. This lost out to the NPOV (and later the RPOV, the "referenced POV").

I'd also be disappointed if this got moved to a CP Talk page as its not about CP, its about encouraging people to raise the awareness of RW - or at least that was my intent. Cheers Voxhumana (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Raising awareness of RW is good, but it should have nothing to do with trying to rival CP in terms of page views or anything else. We have no reason whatsoever to envy CP. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I was unaware of just how far CP has fallen, even if the eyes of those most likely to endorse it. Regardless, I'd like to see RW comfortably ahead of CP just on the principle that any site about rational thinking should have more traffic than a loopy "Jesus loved his guns" website. Voxhumana (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that nobody would disagree with the sentiment that we'd like RW to be even more popular than it is. We never set out to "compete" with CP in terms of pageviews though I must say that I'm surprised to see how close the two sites are now. (Having said that, I'm not sure how reliable Alexa is.) Anyway, if you have any suggestions for improving RW's profile I'm sure they would be more than welcome. :-) --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 08:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the trick is to figure out what we are good at and keep doing more of that, better. For example, pop in "rationalwiki" into google and have it search groups/discussions. These are indexed forums/usenet/comment threads etc. This is the lifeblood of the internet zeitgeist in web 2.0. Look for what I call "passive" links which are links in the middle of conversations that are designed to be akin to "for more information on this topic look here." Where we thrive and where people use us tend to be for terminology and concepts popular in the kinds of discussions you would expect (creationism, conspiracies, some politics, etc). We are usually in the top couple search returns, often up against wikipedia, but where we do best is when wikipedia has to have some long convoluted piece to meet npov, rpov standards and we can just come out and say it straight up in a relevant way.

A good example is a page we have recently started getting a lot of hits on: Dunning-Kruger effect.

Wikipedia opens with: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

Rationalwiki opens with: "The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid."

Someone in a discussion about homeopaths or creationist wanting to link to this concept is going to probably prefer our more direct and more relevant to the context article.

This same pattern is repeated for many other articles. One area we are really becoming strong in is logical fallacies. Not to say this doesn't need a lot of work. But logical fallacies come up a lot in these type of discussion and we rank high for many of them. But where wikipedia is a good source for the latin derivations of the words, the history and maybe even the formal structure, it often misses the mark for when you want to hit a high point in a debate. RationalWiki doesn't need to do all the background stuff wikipedia does, instead when we focus on how the logical fallacy is bad, common examples in the world of pseudoscience and woo, where you see it and how to combat it, thats where we are providing a better and more relevant result than wikipedia for the kinds of things we want to be a reference for. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How to raise awareness of RW[edit]

The way to raise awareness of RW is simple. One of the regulars here needs to commit some infamous crime. Then, the Fox News info-babes can excitedly report "the alleged murderer of seventy three little old ladies, twelve puppies and a haddock regularly posted at rational wiki, a web site for non-Americans, liberal and atheists. Coming up: are the non-Americans at Rational Wiki plotting to enter the United States illegally?" Plus, that would probably lead to Andy getting an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor to talk about how horrible RW is, and that would be great for lulz. MDB (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

All we have to do is bait Karajou into reporting us to the FBI for some planned liberal terrorist plot. He's probably already doing it thanks to your post. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Like they'd come within a couple hundred kilometers of the FBI after their last lie reporting of liberal wandals, resulting in a nationwide crackdown on liberals everywhere and the successful landslide election of John McCain.
I haven't been to the Andyverse, but I imagine it's something like that. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly. In the AndyVerse, McCain was elected, but shortly after the inauguration, realized his RINO status made him wholly incapable of governing, resigned, and left the nation in the capable hands of Saint Sarah of Wasilla. Afterwards abortion was banned, July and August are not too hot, taxes were eliminated, there's a legal limit to the snow, everyone owns a gun, the winter is forbidden till December and exits March the second on the dot, wikipedia faded to insigificance as users flocked to conservapedia, summer lingered till September, and Andy himself was named Chief Justice. And it was known as Conservalot. MDB (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You win, sir. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One more try to engage Terry[edit]

Okay, let's see if Terry will respond to my comments on his latest love letter to Ayn Rand...

First, I always find your adoration of Ayn Rand to be extraordinary, considering she was a vociferous atheist.

That aside, you’re arguing for homeowners’ associations to take on some of the government’s current role with streets and roads? The same groups that tell people "you can’t widen your driveway/paint your house that color/put up a satellite dish/have a birdfeeder"? (Yes, I did actually see a condo owner’s association prohibit birdfeeders once. Someone didn’t like hearing chirping birds.)

Seriously, how is an HOA different from a government? I suppose you could argue that it’s voluntary, but really, how “voluntary” are most of them? If you buy an existing house, and it’s in an area with an HOA, your contracts and deed and such probably requires membership. It collects taxes in the form of dues. It’s got officials in the form of the busybodies who write you a citation if the grass is too high or whatever. Etc etc etc.

HOA’s often end up being petty little dictatorships indistinguishable from any form of government. How can that be a libertarian point of view? MDB (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not even voluntary in Terry's scenario. If everyone else on the street has agreed to let company x/HOA look after the road how can you argue? You need contiguous pieces of road for it to work. Also what happens if the people that own the roads on either end refuse to service your street? This seems rip for parody. Pi 3:14 (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Terry lives in some strange fantasy world were the moment people don't have to pay taxes, they'll utilise that money towards paying for the free enterprise version of the service. I'm also trying to see where exactly his "regulation bad!" mindset fits in with family planning clinics being shut down. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In Terry's defense (FSM help me), even the most absolutely hard-core libertarian allows the need for some laws and regulations. I don't think anyone would argue that the government shouldn't prohibit, say, murder and leave it up to the free market punish the murderer by refusing to do business with him. MDB (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, according to the more extreme anarcho-caps, the free market is supposed to provide you with a private security company instead of police, and perhaps even a private/local court. See Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, though it's a satire.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I went to a science fiction con once, and attended a panel on libertarian themes in SC. I asked the panel (one of which was Eric Raymond incidentally) if there were any dystopian libertarian science fiction works, since so many of them seemed to be utopian. Raymond remarked (laughingly as I recall) that such a thing wasn't possible. I'd think Snow Crash qualifies, and I'd think Raymond would know about, considering I think he loves Stephenson's work. MDB (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Bioshock would definitely count. Cow...Hammertime! 19:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Bioshock didn't exist when the con occurred, Snow Crash did. MDB (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
1984, A Brave New World, A Handmaid's Tale, Planet of the Apes are all dystopian. Ok, arguably, all but the last are speculative future fiction, rather than science fiction perse. CS Miller (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Are any of those libertarian dystopias? The question wasn't about dystopian SF in general, it was about libertarian dystopias in SF. MDB (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You're going to run into a definitional problem. The difference between a utopia and a dystopia is a matter of opinion. Looking at Utopia itself it's not even clear which aspects are intended to reflect TM's personal opinions about how things "should" be, some believe the work is intended as a satire or is outright Dystopian.
I can definitely imagine libertarians reading Snow Crash and nodding along. The portrayal of the remainder of the US Federal government with it's hugely inflated currency and top-heavy bureaucracy will no doubt have been very satisfying for them. Why shouldn't the Mafia control pizza delivery? The idea of creating an independent nation by lashing together a bunch of boats in the open ocean is so popular with libertarians that there are dozens of rusting hulks around the world bought for that purpose and lying unused while investors argue about who is responsible for over-promising and under-delivering. And sure, here's a crazy guy trying to kill everybody, but that's the nature of fiction right? Nobody wants to read about how Yours Truly helped a guy deliver some pizza and then went on to have a perfectly normal and uneventful life. They don't see the misery and squalor, or at least, they don't see it as a part of their utopia. (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wow, Terry allowed and replied to my first comment. Let's see if he replies to this new one:

As far as your arguments about fuel taxes and tolls… okay, consider my commute to and from work. (I’m going to simplify it some for these purposes.)

I start out in a residential area, so we’d assume that, in your world, I’m paying for that road via my HOA dues. (Actually, I don’t have an HOA. I suppose I’m lucky. But in your world, I probably would.)

I turn onto what’s currently some state roads. Perhaps in your world, they’d be maintained by the businesses alongside it, in hopes of attracting customers. But the stretch of the road I take is largely light industry (a sewage treatment plant and a UPS depot, for instance), not anything I’d directly patronize. They have no incentive to let me on there for free. So, do I stop to pay them a toll? Or do I have to find an alternate route?

After that comes a long stretch that’s mostly residential.(Incidentally, most of my trip is through Montgomery County, MD. Generally pretty liberal politically — and a darn nice place to live.) In your world, does my HOA have some kind of reciprocity agreement with those HOA’s so I get to drive through there for “free”? Of course, there’s the delay at the gates as the toll official verifies that my HOA has the agreement with there’s. Yeah, that probably takes just a few seconds for them to look at my sticker or whatever… but then you have to wait in the line at rush hour. And unless you’ve got some kind of mega-HOA, I have to pass through a number of different neighborhoods, and repeat the process each time.

I’m getting close to my office now. I stop off at Panera for my morning bagel. I have to turn onto their street. Okay, that’s a street with direct to consumer businesses. They’ve got reason to allow me to use their street for free. But do I have to prove I’m going to use a business on that street? How do they know I’m not using it just to take a shortcut to a restaurant on another street?

Okay, I’ve got my bagel and I’m heading to the office now. Into an office park. I work there, so presumably my company is paying the building owner for us to drive on their streets — but again, how do they know I’m not just taking a shortcut? Perhaps I flash my company ID to the road officials — see the same commentary I made about residential roads above.

The above scenario strikes me as insane. Instead, we pay for most roads via fuel taxes, under the assumption that the more fuel you use, the more you drive, and thus you’re paying somewhat proportionally to your usage of the roads. Yeah, there’s “outliers” — for instance, when I drive to Tennessee to visit my parents, I usually buy a tank of gas in Virginia. I’m probably paying way more in Virginia taxes than I am gaining in benefit from using their roads, but we just assume it balances out by, say, a Virginian who buys a tank of gas in Maryland on the way to Hershey Park in Pennsylvania or something.

You see, that’s one of the reasons we have governments. Some things work more efficiently when they’re at the scale only something as large as a government can carry out. MDB (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Given how hard it can be to get condo owners to agree on needed work, how does he expect a HOA to fix a road? A 4x4 owner can put up with a lot more potholes than a low-suspension sports car owner can. CS Miller (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I mean, I guess I understand the theory behind what he's saying, but I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to think it would actually work on a large scale. Is Terry an anarchist, also? Anarchy works wonders on small scales, but I imagine Terry has a wisdom of repugnance concerning it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. Now "A.M." is conservative[edit]

Andy really searched high and low to achieve the latest "perfect" doublingimg. I guess I'm a little unclear on how "A.M." is conservative and "P.M." isn't, but I lack Andy's insight. Phiwum (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an easy one: CE and BCE are liberal because they deny the dates based on Christ, BC and AD are conservative, AD is Latin for Anno Domini meaning in the year of our lord, AM is also Latin, AM is conservative. Easy, fucking insane, but easy if you understand Andy's thought process. AceModerator 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey now, I'm a liberal!--ADtalkModerator 01:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohhhh. Am I the only one who thought Andy was talking about amplitude modulation? His news-o-blog post isn't really clear. (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
He IS aware that A.M. is not a word, right? -- (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, Ace? You are aware that PM is also latin and hence conservative, right? And, hence, it should be on the list, too, as a "great" conservative word (unless afternoon is somehow liberal). And thus, the "perfect doubling" is ruined! Oh dear! Phiwum (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but adding it as you say would ruin the doubling so now it is liberal....I guess....AceModerator 02:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
ISn't his list about *new* words, showing things getting more conservative or something. AM is not exactly new. But while we are on latin words, per diem - that must be conservative, cause liberals would pre pay employees. and let's see, ad nausum is clearly conservative, cause (isn't it obvious?), ad infinatum is latin so therefore conservative cause these guys can write without end....Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 03:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... Stecorum pro cerebro habes must also be conservative. Makes sense. Voxhumana (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Damno vos, damno vos, damno vos! I googled that and it led me to a list of Latin quotes and I'm going to be lost all day in that. That's like sending me to tvtropes! MDB (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Caesar during the disco era: VICI, VENI, V.D. Voxhumana (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AM is conservative because it's when people go to work. Liberal scroungers don't get out of bed until afternoon. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 06:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"adopted for the hour of day based on Latin much as "A.D." was adopted to count years" WTF?? AD - anno domini, AM - ante meridian. I can understand "in the year of our Lord" being conservative, but "before the meridian?" Utterly bizarre. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And Andy explains why: "While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M." So it's a best new conservative words based solely on what Andy thinks happened back in the 1700s. Beautiful. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That really is Andy at his finest. When he first posted A.M. my reaction was that he didn't realise that the "a" stood for "ante" as opposed to "anno". That bullshit justification goes a long way towards proving it, I think. rpeh •TCE 09:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he thought that "A.M." meant "after midnight" and "A.D." meant "after the death (of Jesus)". Of course, he'll never admit the error now. Phiwum (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's classic Andy Pants though. "AM" is conservative because it's similar to "AD" and became popular hundreds of years after "AD". But wouldn't that make "AD" conservative in his view? Why isn't that on the list? Because liberals? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
nah, Andy's cut off point (and another example of how he massages the data) is the time around when the KJV was published. Because that's when English became awesome, according to him. AD was in use before then. Well... anno domini was, I dunno about AD. Yup, seems that was around in 1570. So it doesn't count. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy delivering insights P.A., that's per anum if you weren't sure. Sphincter (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with something very basic here. AM is "popular?" It has become part of our modern language, somewhat recently? I dont quite... i mean... 1700 years it's been used.... And in non 24 hour countries, it's the only way to distinguish morning from night in time notations. that's like saying the word "oz" is popular cause all the bottles use it to say how much liquid they have. I think my brain is crashing............Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 16:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what other things were inspired by "A.D." without us realising?
  • The A6 - a popular trunk road in the UK?
  • A-hole - a popular epithet often used of conservatives?
  • Aardvark - the double "a" must surely be a sign of conservatism?
  • AC/DC - another "a", and the name is reminiscent of AD/BC
Obviously Andy is on to something here. Or possibly just on something here.
rpeh •TCE 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Man's a buffoon. The only reason A.M. is now conservative is that it makes up the numbers for his presuppositional geometric rate. As I said, a buffoon. A total failure. Perhaps somebody could suggest to him that A.M. must be conservative because them communist Europeans use the 24 hour clock. I mean, the poor sod needs all the help he can get. Just don't mention that P.M. should also be included! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.img Phiwum (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
My God in heaven. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Even after Larron handed Andy's ass to him he still believes this crap. Incredible. rpeh •TCE 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "A.D.""img. What a joke that man is. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Schlafly's in-sigh(t)s of appreviations is strongly abbreciated by the open minded.... Fortunately he do teaching righting. -- (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone alert Andy that the 12 hour clock was invented by the evil Babylonians? They were heathen and pagan, and probably liberal as well, judging by their "big government" philosophies (the temple state took a cut of all revenue, and extensive taxes had to be paid). As a result I can't see how 'A.M' (or P.M.) can be considered conservative, given it's heathen origins. Voxhumana (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, that so-called "communist" 24 hour clock was first used by the Canadian railways and then by the American military. Hence Europe copied the USA on this one, with Catholic Italy being the first off the line. Voxhumana (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone notices that the military uses 24-hour time convention? It would be an interesting insight that andy does not support at least one aspect of the troops. Speaking of Which, AM can also mean amplitude modulation, something Andy should know from his EE background. It would also be an interesting insight if he can pull off an explanation that why FM isn't conservative while AM is. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy. AM Radio is the home of right wing talk radio. FM is used by rock music stations and NPR. MDB (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy moves onto basketball now[edit]

My knowledge of basketball is limited to:

  1. It's a game mostly played by tall men who throw a ball through a hoop with a net attached
  2. My sister was very good at it in high school

So, someone with more knowledge of the sport than I do should WIGO this.img MDB (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say your knowledge is as extensive as Andy's when it comes to the actual game; Well, except Il Duce Andy knows there are no Christians whatsoever on the Miami Heat team, not True Believerstm anyway.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Oklahoma City is in the midst of the Bible Belt, whereas Miami is a den of retirees heathens. And Andy has had Kevin Durant on the GCSS list for a while now. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Would it be of any value (hahahahahahahahahahhah) to point out to the man that OK has at least 4 icky scary muslims? and fuck all if I want "christianity" represented by OK. what about Tim Teebo. that's Denver. Denver is God's country. sighs....--Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the Los Angeles (L.A.) Kings who just won the Stanley Cup on CP's front page. I guess there are no particularly religious people on the squad and they are from California; better for Andy to pretend that particular championship in sports doesn't matter this year as it doesn't fit well with the Ministry of Information's goals.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
He also doesn't seem to know what a 7 game series is if he thinks losing game one is a "routing" -- (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Annnnd Miami won game 2, so yeah... God was on vacation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reality is better than Atheism![edit]

Why this declaration from the Man of Mystery? Because of an anecdotal story on CMI where the author claimed his son's critical ear infection was cured overnight after receiving just penicillin thanks to the fact he and his wife also prayed; in addition his son claimed he saw Jesus (which has surely nothing to do with the stories from a picture Bible the author has admitted to reading to his son beforehand). Do to this indisputable miracle, naturalism has been contradicted! Thus the supernatural is real and naturalism, purely natural science, and by extension, atheism, are all false! After all who can argue with proof like that! Don't worry, he goes to elaborate with more irrefutable evidence including other occurrences of anecdotal stories of miracles he heard. No surprise he follows all of this up with the history of the Bible as evidence for the reality of the supernatural, and stop me if you heard this one before, also because the Bible claims creation is true, oh and that absolute objective morality is certain, just because it has to be. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ever notice when people see Jesus, who if he was a real man, would have looked like a typical middle eastern jew, always look liek the Jesus in their white bible study book? just saying....Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 18:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw jesus once when I mixed vodka and nyquil. He helped me beat Mister Freeze in "Batman: Arkham City".--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The kid probably saw Jesus because of anaphylactic shock due to penicillin allergy. It doesn't stop the penicillin from working. Whoover (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Is there a reason the flag file is Kljghlkjkhimg?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the letters used, whoever uploaded it just randomly hit keys (IE: asdkl;h;fkslh ) for the file name. -- (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Fun fact: That's also the sound Ken makes when his medication wears off. Vulpius (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia and THIS Video Game[edit]

I saw this on the Playstation Network Store. Given their stance on video games, I wonder how they would react to a game where you are GOD, laying the smack down on the tower of bable. I admit, I thought the game was going to suck, but smiting looks fun.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 00:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CP relevant article[edit]

Not explicitly about CP, but entirely relevant.

Andy loves to describe CP as being a meritocracy. This article is about the inevitability of meritocracies turning into oligarchies. You can see a lot of it already has happened, very quickly. -Lardashe

True for RationalWiki too. It wasn't long before our pseudo-anarchy turned into a oligarchy of those use to getting their way. Pi 3:14 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Good article, though it seems to me (oversimplifying a bit) that CP started of as oligarchy, then went through a de facto TK dictatorship with Schlafly as a puppet emperor, and finally a feudal sate with each sysop lord ruling over their own domain and swearing allegiance to King Schlafly. At no point was it anything approaching a meritocracy in anything other than name. The other constant was the ruling elite being made up of mostly well-off-to-rich old, white (grumpy) males. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, I dunno about the whole 'well-off-to-rich' thing. This is all conjecture, but... Andy is a Harvard educated lawyer, true, but he hasn't done any prominent cases to the best of my knowledge and based on his specialization could well be not making much money at all. At the bar you don't do cases, you don't get paid. I suspect his income comes primarily from trust funds and money given to him from his mother, an occasional small case for someone at his church, and his wife probably ends up helping out a bit too. Ed Poor isn't the kind of guy who strikes me as being particularly well paid; I suggest he works a kind of 'better than minimum wage' job but not quite the kind of income that someone with a college degree might have. Something like IT helpdesk level two, or a government worker in the DMV or something. The same goes for Terry. Karajou lives on navy retirement pension which is hardly luxury, Ken almost certainly lives on unemployment/SSID for his mental disability or money from family (it's clear he's unemployed), and nobody else really matters these days. They're not oil barons or CEOs or $200 an hour consultants and I bet most of them drive second hand cars with quite a few miles on them. They're not 'well off to rich', and if they are, it's not money they earned themselves... which I'm sure causes them some cognitive dissidence with their whole everyone-who-is-rich-did-so-through-hard-work-and-good-ole'-American-spirit hardcore Republican line. I make nearly six figures in my day job which is a'right money, and I'm about to become financially independent through my book royalties which is a separate thing, but I acknowledge I came from a well off family, studied hard in school but not really as hard as I could have, used my family as a safety net more than once, couldn't have been where I am without basically being born into the life that I have, and life is really not fair. Even in hyper-egalitarian, tall-poppy-syndrome Australia, financial independence will depend largely on your upbringing and who your parents were. I suggest that a lot of the hatred and dogmatic fundamentalism over at CP is caused by a need to blame others (gays, liberals, trolls, vandals, the media, the RINOs, the immigrants, the illuminati, FEMA, etc) for personal failings, coupled with an unhealthy scoop of denial about said failings. Andy probably tells himself regularly that he could be making $250,000 a year if it wasn't for those damn Liberals. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember an article stating Andy lived in huge home. His kids are going to Ivy League schools. He seems doing okay (financially that is) even if he hasn't lived up to the full potential of his degrees. The others, yeah not so much. Maybe it should be amended to middle-class-to-upper-class? What you said about them blaming others (especially liberals) for their personal failures seem spot on. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Andy lives in a large house in the country in NJ, west of New York City. I remember he listed his home address on the recall Menendez case, I looked it up out of curiosity. Nice neighbourhood, has a gated community close by. As to his income, his father was a wealthy man and a lawyer to boot, so I'll bet "trust fund" plays a role in the household finances. --JC (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Andy also gets retainers for being counsel to the likes of AAPS. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure his wife is an MD. If she's practicing, I'm sure she earns plenty of money. However, I once looked on-line for doctors named Schlafly in New Jersey, and couldn't find an obviously female one. It is, of course, possible she has her practice in another state or (horror of horrors!) uses her maiden name. MDB (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
She does have a linkedin profile, listed as a "Medical Practice Professional" in New York. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So, in other words, the son of Phyllis Schlafly is living primarily off his wife's income.
Let me say that again: the son of Phyllis Schlafly is living primarily off his wife's income.
Sometimes, you don't need to make a joke. MDB (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I'd bet Andy gets good money from mommy the Eagle forum for some bullshit. Doesn't the Eagle Forum pay for CP? I bet he gets paid to run it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I like that about feudalism, Night Jaguar. Andy has of course praised feudalism on several occasions, but I hadn't realised until now that CP actually is feudal itself. But it pretty much is.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You could describe CP as feudal, if it wasn't for the fact that it doesn't seem to have an entire underclass of peasants to maintain the system. Instead there just seem to be a few landowners who have shouted 'stay off my land' for so long their land is now empty and barren.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 10:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
True. It's like feudalism post-plague, trying to cling on despite the odds, after the peasantry it once relied on have all been killed off. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 09:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

horserider article[edit]

has anyone got a copy of the Conservapedia Horserider article? It seems to have been deleted from here RW. I'm only after it for nostalgic reasons - I wrote a chunk of it (including the McGonnagall Poetry...)

Please feel free to move this out of here to elsewhere if it's in the way; Cheers. WoD 14 June 2012.

Make an account and I'll make you a sysop so you can access the article and copy it as you like. Just don't undelete it; consensus was in favor of deletion. DickTurpis (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved it here for you. AceModerator 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many people still get all the Horserider in-jokes in this article? (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not me anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - now set up an account. I've been watching this site and the lunacy elsewhere for - well since it started - but just a little late getting around to registering here. oh well. WoD (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can rewrite the Bible...[edit]

... why not redefine physical laws!

Andy redefines the Second Law of Thermodynamicsimg as everything becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention.

Actually, that explains Conservapedia going to crap -- obviously, there's no intelligent intervention going on there. MDB (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any correlation between Andy changing the world to suit himself, and the fact that his home schooling classes seem to have dried up? Maybe enough parents finally noticed the drivel their children were spouting? --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Intelligence overturns natural laws! Intelligence is magic! Phiwum (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That article is full of choice quotes such as this wonderful tidbit: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the atheistic Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity." Bet all you physicists, chemists, and biologists didn't know that! Aren't you glad to have some lawyer show you the error of your ways by simply stating it to be so? No surprise this folowing statement has no citations to back it up: "It has become common in recent years for environmentalists to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to economic growth." I never heard thermodynamics used as a reason to justify or explain environmentalism, but maybe I just lack the pure insight of just pulling stuff out of my ass and proclaiming them as Teh Truthtm.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought Friendship was Magic. :( ... also, um. It's late over here and I have stupids, but isn't... "With no outside interference, hot things heat nearby cold things, till eventually they're both a consistent temperature"... basically the opposite of... "With no outside interference, everything becomes more disordered over time"? I mean, "consistent" is not a perfect antonym of "disordered", but it's pretty damn close. I'd imagine three objects "ordered" heat-wise when they're all the same, and "disordered" when they're all different. Andy is 100% wrong. Will he ever admit it? No! Will consistent become a New Conservative Word, being an antonym of disordered? Probably not, but much more likely! --Sasayaki (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Friendship cannot be magic! That would first off run against the Objectivist philosophy that is so appealing to the CP leadership, and second unicorns use divination and thus are abominations to their war god of the sky, so how can such horned creatures be trusted!?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
See, this is why Celestianity is the best religion. But anyway, an even distribution of heat is "disordered" because it represents the maximum randomness of distribution of kinetic energy among particles. If you have a temperature gradient, it means that particles over here have different kinetic energy than particles over there, and that difference can be used (at least in principle) to power a task. During the extraction of energy from the temperature gradient, the gradient gets smaller, and if you want to continue to use it to power things, there needs to be a power source to "order" the distribution of energy to maintain the gradient. (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"The 2ndLOTD disproves evolution" is pretty standard creationist BS. Andy adding that it disproves relativity is his own particular brand of crazy. As for environmentalists thinking it implies limits to economic growth, I've never heard this: Andy thinks that just because he pulls facts out of his ass, everybody must do the same. Godspeed (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
A little googling reveals some works conflating economics and the second law. I don't think it's a commonly held belief, but I don't get the idea it's considered especially radical either. It's probably just an idea a few have used as an analogy. MDB (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer's taking the piss, right?[edit]

"the fact that a user could think, in all good faith, that "true and verifiable" is synonymous with "corroborated by an external reference" just shows how insidious and far-reaching the hearsay society's (and Wikipedia's) influence is."img --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking the piss right out of Andy, yes. He's getting pretty crafty, and fooling Andy into endorsing some pretty ridiculous ideas. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


Analysis from atheistic England is ok, if it agrees with Andy?img Also, doesn't that count as hearsay? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hearsay are citations and sources that disagree with Andy; you know he is the one true bearer of the sacred divine Truth, God's chosen. Why question something so logical and self-evident?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A new low for Ed?[edit]

Not the bizarre persecution (and eventual blocking) of AugustO, but this gemimg of an "article". But it's not the pointless stubbiness or the fact that he doesn't think it needs improvement that makes my jaw hang open with disbelief, it's his follow-up commentimg on the talk page. I swear, it's beyond being so stupid that he forgets to breath, I'm wondering how he doesn't forget to tell his heart to keep pumping. --Kels (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is actually amazing work for Ed--he gave the title of the book, its author,a link to its Amazon page, and a brief synopsis as to what it's actually about. Typically, there would only be a random quote from the book and nothing else. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I could well imagine TerryH doing it but does the Amazon link have a referral from Ed's account? Oh, and hi Kels, nice to see you around again.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the "ref" tag is generic and the URL doesn't have enough info to identify an account. Nice to see Ed talking to his invisible coworkers, at any rate. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor vs. AugustO, let the battle commence![edit]

August questions Ed's probation, Andy stands there with mouth wide-open and gives the usual "they do no wrong" reply. August's talkpage shows Ed trying to do exactly what he told August, trying to change MoS and evading rules to impose this "probation" on him, while making "strikes". Of course, Ed's talkpage has been protected since December 2011 (read first link), and the whole thing that may have set Ed off was on this talkpage. Probably worth a WIGO, but I can't find the right words to make it cooler. Watch, discuss, fap, then cry. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I bet Andy got to Ed behind the scenes and told him he couldn't ban him. That or Ed is just dragging it out in the name of sadism. Ed is so fucking stupid I love it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole thing started when Ed Poor created the article cp:Seligman-dissent (which was moved to cp:Template:Seligman-dissent). AugustO criticized him for "being sloppy". I suppose that Ed didn't like this at all and looked for an opportunity for pay-back... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm worried for Ed Poor's health. Many of his recent edits ( for example) involve him making non-statements, speaking nonsensically, asking ordinary communications to be dumbed down to his level. What gives? How is a person who is apparently capable of producing propaganda this...impaired? (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The Den Bosch talk page is instructive because it's a rare example of a talk page actually being used to discuss a pertinent academic question to do with the article, ie which of the city's names should be the page title. The kind of discussion that would happen all the time on a functioning wiki. On CP, when it actually does happen, it quickly ploughs into the Swamp of Ed Poor, getting mired in stupidity, misunderstanding and overbearing touchiness. CP really is feeble.
The best bit is where Ed says "LOL, touche", which can only be taken to mean that he admits he is wrong, but then continues to not change the article and to persecute August.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy: "Ed Poor a longtime, very reasonable Admin". That is epic. What it really means is Andy won't go to bat for AugustO despite how much Andy owes him; at least not publicly. August, Ed attacks you not for ideological reason like Ken routinely does, Ed bullies you simply for the fact that he can, and it makes him feel good.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Starting a name with an apostrophe is something only Europeans would condone. Jesus never did it and that's good enough for CP. Advocating that this anti-American slur on letters propagate to an article title should be grounds for banning. The fact that Ed took a month to arrive at the Solomonic solution of inventing Probation shows how very reasonable he is. BTW, might Ed be a drinker? Whoover (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If Ed's a drinker, he's only drinking pure meth. No, Ed is just very, very stupid. Colossally, toweringly stupid. So stupid it makes you wonder how he remembers to breathe. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What really amazes me is what on earth AugustO thinks he's really doing there. He's seen how things work there close up - the ignorance, the bullying and the craziness - and yet he still takes it quite seriously and earnestly. Is he a masochist or something?--JC (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Ed's mental health is fine, he's just incredibly stupid and ridiculously lazy. Asking people to dumb things down is just an evasion. His nonsensical statements are simply half-baked. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
He seems a little touchy now, any refusal of his requests - BAN. Is he alright, or did something close to him get affected?05:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, something is bothering him on a personal level, so he takes it out on the poor editors. --JC (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Often times it involves getting his ass kicked at Wikipedia. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed vs PenelopeP[edit]

Back in May, PenelopeP copied the content of Den Bosch to 's Hertogenbosch and made Den_Bosch a redirect page (in accord with normal Dutch usage). Ed doesn't like it one little bit. Such a nice man. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Concealing article history". Cute. I can see where that violates the CP spirit and none of the admins would ever do something to conceal the article history like, oh, say deleting and recreating the page. But it is also bloody obvious that Penelope simply fixed a stupid edit. The city's name is 's Hertogenbosch, not den Bosch. So Ed's reason for blocking is doubly stupid: he blocked because a user used a common tactic of admins, and the user didn't actually use that tactic at all! Phiwum (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Three strikes, you're out...for an inning[edit]

It seems as if, on Conservapedia, respectfully telling someone that he is wrong is uncivil, but deleting someone's userpage, censoring his arguments on talk pages, protecting your own talk page to avoid dissent ,tauntingly daring someone to talk to the leader of the wiki (who you happen to personally have influence over) and threatening someone for debating with you is not. I like how in the very block message, he implies that AugustO is a ne'erdowell who is incapable of following the rules (that in and of itself is an insult). How did Ed Poor last longer than a week on wikipedia without a permaban, exactly? (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed is the most unsettling of the sysops at CP. He presents a veneer of reasonableness and modesty but is actually one of the biggest, sanctimonious,self-important, pompous, vindictive hypocrites I have ever come across - and that's on top of him being a total idiot. I wouldn't trust him to give me the right time of day. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
August was doomed the minute Creepy Uncle Ed focused his beady eyes on him. The worst part is that Ed genuinely belives he's been accomodating and rational in his behaviour and will be telling the other sysops thus in the chat room. He is, after all, user188 and set up many conflict resolution mechanisms on WP. They will, of course, all nod and say yes. I wouldn't say Ed is evil, but there's a dull maliciousness about the man that is unnerving. Maybe it comes from being brainwashed at the Moonies. He was probably the kid who pulled the legs off spiders then got mad because they wouldn't walk. PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the workings of Ed's (and Andy's mind) - basically they go along with the following laws:

  1. I'm never wrong.
  2. If I'm wrong, I won't admit it.
  3. If I'm forced to admit it, I won't do so publicly.

The third law is nicely demonstrated in this leak from the Zeuglodon Blues:

"Philip Rayment" <>, Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:21:13 +1000: I'll accept that that's what you /meant/, but it's certainly not what you /said/, which was that "You need to keep an archive". And it was when he questioned this "need" that you threatened to block him if he didn't provide a writing plan.

How about you delete the Writing Plan page then write to TomMoore and invite him back?

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <>, Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:47:58 -0700 (PDT): Philip, I agree with your suggestion but feel too embarrassed to do it myself. How about you do that on my behalf with your usual suave comment about "as discussed with sysop"?

Ed Poor

Is it possible to be more pathetic? larronsicut fur in nocte 08:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Embarrassed"? What a joke. He's an utter arsehole. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes.img — Ed Poor, on the day he first moved 's Hertogenbosch to Den Bosch. Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
By correcting my mistakes he probably means getting rid of witnesses... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed vs. AndyFrankinson[edit]

Ed threatened AugustO by telling himimg:

I just banned someone for a personal mark like that. If you disagree with someone, give your reason. Strike two.

The someone was cp:User:AndyFrankinson, and the reason for his blockimg is:

Incivility: saying another user "doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass"

AugustO didn't let this stay: he asked Andyimg about the incivility:

Aschlafly, how insulted were you by cp:User:AndyFrankinsons's comment at cp:Talk:E=mc²#Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? from Apr 27, 2012? [...]

Surprisingly enough, Andy reactsimg:

Unblocked as you requested. Thanks for mentioning this

Uncle Ed must be furious! larronsicut fur in nocte 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. I'd been banned on CP and I didn't even notice. (That was me.) What's amazing is that he (Ed poor) banned me for a comment that was over a month old....Idiot... 10:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed vs... Andy![edit]

Andy unblocks August because the block is "not needed any longer" and, apparently, emails August with a supportive message. August wastes no time by immediately prodding Stumblin' Ed. This may go all ten rounds. rpeh •TCE 07:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is good. Either he has to explain himself to August, or turn against Andy and rage-block August again, while trying to remove his rights and deleting his userpages (and hoping Andy does his usual "ignore they ever existed" apathy). Or, I guess he can do what he does on Wikipedia, and just disappear for a while like the usual coward. Then there's the fourth option, act like a tough guy still and calling August "lucky" so he feels big. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a new "Atheists And..." Article[edit]

Ken has created a new gem, cp:Atheist leaders and immoral relationships.

He closes by pointing out the Richard Dawkins has been divorced twice and married three times.

So has Newt Gingrich. And Rush Limbaugh can up both of those counts by one. MDB (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As usual, the CMI article is better than Ken's Classics Illustrated cartoon version. It's the same crap but presented with an attempt at rationcination. Sophistry is beyond Ken's ken. Anyway, the CMI article painstakingly proves that people who believe in evolution are less likely to believe that God doesn't want them to enjoy sex. This is the one thing that our fundies and Al Qaeda's fundies vehemently agree on. Whoover (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's hilarious that ken uses, as his source for this new article, "an article published by an advocate of the Question evolution! campaign" when that article appears to have been written by Ken himself. He really thinks people are that stupid? AceModerator 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Especially that he claims that several atheist leaders practice polyamory, but the original article simply states that the author's acquaintances are into this and names no one specifically. So what evidence that prominent atheist "leaders" are into this? Absolutely none of course.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to click that link for fear of my brain cells committing mass suicide, but as a thought, does it mention anywhere in that essay the immoral relationships of theist leaders? Also, leaders of what? Congregations? If that's the case, there's a rather large immoral relationship I can think of offhand. Then there's JFK the playboy who was President in his spare time, Clinton (although, of course, they're not real Christians because they're Democrats), the "log cabin Republicans", so forth? Anything along those lines?
It would probably help me to remember Kenny's an idiot before I start asking these things that run a risk of slightly bending definitions and reality... --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
"Pedophile priests." --Sasayaki (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But I'm a theist and I think polyamory is A-OK. (((Zack Martin))) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Without wishing to get personal, you're an idiot and nobody gives a toss. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Same to you then. (((Zack Martin))) 21:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The difference being that I hide my idiocy under a bushel rather than broadcasting it to the world. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think this trumps the all-time classic, Atheism and bestiality --TheEgyptiansig001.png 11:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor history[edit]

After stumbling across Ed on an early wiki and seeing the "usenet refugee" comment there... (and going WTF is ed doing there?) it made me wonder. Google groups has an archive of his posts. Such beautiful things as attacking former moonies in, and a thread (ultimately renamed to "What is a troll") that was cross posted between, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.unification. If one pokes at things he didn't write, you can find people complaining about him complaining about Sailor Moon and soft core porn. Enjoy. --Shagie (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's going to be my new private moniker for poor Mr Poor, Stumblin' Ed. 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I browsed through some of that. I'm not that fucking old, and I never fully grasped the concept of usenet. The web was crazy back then. Post something off-topic and some oldfag reports you to the ISP? Is that how shit used to work? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene Spafford, 1992
Usenet wasn't the web and predated it significantly. It was built in the days when you didn't have real time connections to other machines. A usenet feed was instead more like an RSS feed where you copy all the articles to your local server. Someone habitually making problems didn't put a 1kb file out there for other people to look at - but rather put 1kb of text out there that every server with a feed copied. Junk was hundreds of megabytes when you started counting the number of servers that had this little bit of text...
And then you had cross posting. Ed (and others) would post a message to several different groups simultaneously. Everyone who replied to the message in any group (unless they were on to it) would also post the message to the other groups - where they would be off topic there. This is in part where trolling had its golden days - say you post to "alt.skeptics", "comp.lang.perl", "", and "" with the message of "I'm skeptical that pearl is all that great" and then watch people post messages on what they thought was their group and have it show up in others where it was off topic... and the noise and confusion from that... remember that 1kb file copied to thousands of servers. Well, now a few hundred 1kb blocks of text where copied. It made a big mess. The goal of the post to, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.religion.unification - to disrupt the tolkien groups as they had to deal with Ed.
While you are browsing usenet, here is another fun search or two. --Shagie (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's fucking weird... Andy used to come off as a pretty normal guy, at least from the five minutes of browsing I just did. He really did go crazy, didn't he? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
False alarm. He was still fucking nuts. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Atheists in India[edit]

Perhaps Ken would like to have a look at the following from an on-line petition currently being cirulated by The Rationalist Association (UK)?

"Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, has for decades been a tireless campaigner for science and against superstition. He is widely known for his exposure of the tricks used by self-professed ‘God-Men’ and gurus and has often been on Indian television explaining the everyday science behind supposed miracles.

After one such exposure – he pointed out that "miraculous" water dripping from a statue of Christ at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan Kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai in fact originated from a leaky pipe – Mr Edamaruku was widely condemned by the Catholic authorities in Mumbai, with the Auxiliary Bishop of Bombay, Agnelo Rufino Gracias calling on him to apologise for "hurting" the Catholic community. Formal complaints about Mr Edamaruku were then made to the Mumbai police by three local Catholic groups, the Catholic Secular Forum, the Association of Concerned Catholics and the Maharashtra Christian Youth Forum.

He stands accused of “deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community”, an offence under Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code. No arrest warrant has been issued but the case is "cognisable" meaning the police can arrest without warrant at any time. He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody. If he is arrested he will therefore most likely be detained in jail until court proceedings are concluded, which could take several years. Fearing arrest, he dares not stay long at home or work."

Further details, including links to the petition, here: Rationalist International Mick McT (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn. I always had a faint hope that the Indian government was more sensible than this. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 08:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
India has laws against butthurt? Crazy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before in the Saloon Bar and ask everyone here to sign the petition if they care anything about a rationalism. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator
I live in a country that gets a lot of criticism for its supposedly excessive protection for freedom of speech. Now you can see why I'd rather err on the side of too much freedom of speech than too little. ... of liberals? (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which country is that? DickTurpis (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No wonder Andy am teaching writing[edit]

User: 'best new conservative words' should be moved to 'best new conservative words and phrases.'

Andy: "Phrases" would suggest more words than most of the entries have.img

Reality: Phrase = a phrase is a group of words (or sometimes a single word) that form a constituent and so function as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence.

No wonder his homescholars seem to have vanished. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the best thing to call that list of his would be Best Conservative Memes, but he'd sooner cut off his dick than use such "liberal" terminology--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"Terms" would be my vote, but that makes far too much sense for CP. X Stickman (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Some words that for no reason at all Andy has decided are Conservative to prove something no one can remember". But Andy doesn't do accuracy very often. (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Incoming Andy Insight![edit]

Stay tuned, "[t]his weekend we look to add another insight to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge."img

Betting pool is open - what new Insight will join the list? --Sid (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Is he asking for people to come up with one for him? --Kels (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC) 20 USD says it's something to do with this nonsense,img especially the bit about "intelligence" reducing "disorder". Should be fun, whatever it is. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
He's got to feel this argument is running out of steam. I wish someone would just ask him and Karabou if there's an increase in "order" or "complexity" going from a one-cell zygote to a full-grown elephant. They're dancing around this question. Never mind that evolution isn't about increasing complexity. There are fish and plants with 40 times the genome of humans. But however they measure it, how do they deny that egg-to-adult doesn't violate their warped Second Law as much as evolution? Whoover (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he decided to abuse the notions of cardinality, infinitiesimg and set theoryimg! I like this gem:

But the Bible contains many hints in support of set theory, as in the "last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

Jesus is not using an allegory to say that Gentiles who come late but accept his gospel will receive greater rewards than Jews who have worshiped God for so long. Nope, he's talking about set theory here.

I guess you can stretch it by saying Jesus is talking about a well-ordering (with a greatest element), but then you can say that about any ancient text that that mentioned a 'first' and a 'last'. The only connection I can see between the Bible and set theory is that Cantor decided to use the Hebrew letter for the symbol of infinite cardinals.

Bonus: Cantor considered the Well-Ordering theorem (equivalent to the Axiom of Choice) to be a "fundamental principle of thought". It plays an important role in infinite cardinals. Andy rejects the Axiom of Choice. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More fun: as the last link above notes, Andy rejects the Axiom of Choice because it leads to "many strange behaviors in mathematics". Yet, he rejects proof by contraction. One of these "strange behaviors" is the Banach-Tarski paradox (not really a paradox in the sense of a contraction, just in the sense of giving a counter-intuitive result). However, Andy gives Jesus dividing the loaves and fishes as an example of the Bible foretelling the Banach-Tarski paradoximg. It seems like Andy's real gripe is with the law of non-contradiction. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Andy is easily dim enough to not understand that Jerry Bona's famous remark:
The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?
is a joke because the three are mathematically equivalent, even though our intuitions about them are very different. Still, there are mathematicians who reject the Axiom of Choice, or at least choose to avoid it at considerable cost in their work. It's conceivable that choosing pairs of socks really isn't possible in the general sense despite our intuition that it would be. (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any mathematician who rejects AoC and then go on to praise the Bible for foretelling the results of AoC. :S --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I am truly mystified as to what the fuck the "last shall be first" quote has to do with anything, aside from the fact that sets can be ordered in arbitrarily many arbitrary ways. But to note that an order's opposite is also an order has very little to do with set theory. I think Jesus was teaching lattice theory. Phiwum (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd always interpreted "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" as cp:Biblical sports foreknowledge predicting the NFL draft. Random surfer (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Water, Wine, and Quantum Mechanics[edit]

And the insight is...img surprisingly mundane in its insanity (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that Andy's idea of "Respected modern translations..." includes Conservapedia Bible Project... You have to give the guy some credit for persistence, even if not intelligence. The Real James Brown (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


[1]img Was Obama using a teleprompter for this particular speech anyways?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Obama and every president since Johnson has used a teleprompter when they talk. Fox's, and now the right in general's, facination with Obama's use of it is biazzare to say the least. It is typical of the Obama has done something unprecedented besides all the times it has happened before syndrome that permeated early Obama critisim. Now that he has actually done stuff his polictial opponents can critises that now. - π 07:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Follow the logic. Its not OK to use a telaprompter, but its OK to interupt the president of the united states durring a press conference. Conservatives are weird.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 12:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Selective standards. For somebody they agree with to be Good, they have to just keep doing things they agree with. For somebody they don't agree with to be Good, they have to be better than anybody they ever agreed with, ever. Anything seen as a flaw is taken as proof of their not-goodness; they have an extra responsibility to be perfect that a home-teamer doesn't have. But then, they will NEVER get the 'Good' status because they aren't the same faction/don't agree and that is always points against them, so it's futile anyway. Obama, I think, tripped up in the first portions of his presidency trying to please everyone and it ended up pleasing no one, so he fell prey to this unfortunate phenomenon. I wonder if it has a name, or it's just the 'the-other-guy-has-to-be-perfect' problem? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it's kinda unique to American politics, since most countries have some kind of parlament system that seems to put in a slight majority of people who agree with the Leader, rather than what we've had here in the US for the larger part of 20 years - president AGAINST congress. Obama tries to "compromise" but it's never enough, and the other side says "you aren't compromising with us". As Knight says, eventually you can't please anyone, cause you are bent over so far trying to "compromise" (which really means - do what I say). I suspect, and pray, that the second term will be more or less "kick ass and take names".--Green mowse.pngGodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It's part of the Obama-is-dumb meme. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
One of the Republican presidential also-rans (I can't remember which one) actually announced teleprompters would be banned from its White House. It read the speech off an iPad. MDB (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't that Bachmann? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. MDB (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of information, Terry.[edit]

I never would have known, otherwise

. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed captioned for the seeing-impaired. How else could he set the mood for his blind readers? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
He seems to have failed to mention the laptop/notebook thing. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
and the desk, and the chalkboard in the background.--Spud (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The pencil is probably just a figment of my imagination since no one is mentioning it. Vulpius (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What about the poor wall? Why does she never get mentioned? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in Launchbooty's defense, the article was written by the equally nasty Roseann Unsanitary. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to see from her. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurlbooty's blog embraces diversity...[edit]

For some reason, when browsing the main page in CNAV I'm getting adverts for African-American dating sites (and, less surprisingly, forex scams).... weird. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Terry probably doesn't know how to control the ads that appear on his site, nor does he really care. Ads are generated, in part, by your browsing history. ... so yeah. Once you go black, you never go back. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
On a more serious note, who sees ads anymore? Nihilist 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Adblock Plus and NoScript are your friends. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I would get tons of ads for Rick Santorum on Savage Love.
I made a montage of it
--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I use AdMuncher on my laptop, but there isn't any real ad-blocking software for Atari, so then I get to see all the worst dregs of the internet profiteering. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 21:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Own up[edit]

Come on, who did it? Kenneth trumpets the latest 'argument'img from an 'atheist' on MPL. The comment in question is taken from Ken's blogimg from a poster called TK...

I realise that it's highly amusing to get around the prohibition on vandalising/inserting parody on CP by making Ken do it for you, but at least put some effort into it and try not to be so obvious. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't me. I couldn't beat Ken posting Kotomi's 'testimony' to the QE campaign page. PsyGremlin講話 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd bet my new hard top that it was ken. After the yahoo fiasco, hes trying to be less obvious. Invisible unicorn SOUNDS like a ken doll argument.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 21:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hard to believe it was Ken himself that wrote that when previous attempts at pretending to be an atheist that could have been written by Ken consisted of saying "Atheism is failing. Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist anymore. I'm so unhappy." The blog post by "T.K." was a fairly well written piece about lack of evidence, nothing very special, nothing we haven't seen dozens of times before and it's certainly not going to change any creationists' minds, but I don't think it was written by an obvious Christian parodist pretending to be an atheist.--Spud (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

August blocks Ken Doll[edit]

This should be interesting.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Cap tags 2) theres nothing there 3) Ken Doll? really?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It was a procedural move to communicate with him. Nothing hostile. Whoover (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Needless to say, it didn't work. Conservative just took an hour's break and then went back to dementedly editing the Dawkins article. Me? Help? Get out!--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

cowardly atheists[edit]

It's not like there are any atheistic magicians performing dangerous survivalist stunts out in the worldimg--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also in a more direct comparison, here is James Randi escaping from a straight jacket while hanging upside down over the niagra falls. X Stickman (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd make a comment about how User:Conservative probably hasn't done such a stunt either, but it's hard to imagine how an amorphous group with numerous people of indeterminate size, weight, and gender would even fit on a tightrope all at once. «-Bfa-» 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You know you are a part of a privileged group in America when you openly complain that a blog covering the highlights of the event don't mention Wallenda's repeated praising of Jesus despite the fact everyone who watched the live event heard and saw (through closed captioning) every praise uncensored live on television, oh noes, persecution!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Basically, the "Christian Persecution" thing is laughable. American-style Fundamentalist Christianity sees the privileges granted to minorities and wants in on that gig. The problem is, minority groups usually (usually) advocate equality and basically being left alone (so-called reverse-racism and whatever crap aside, racism is racism) while the Fundies will basically settle for nothing less than 100% of the population completely agreeing with them in all matters all the time. For God gave us free will; the free will to choose to be a Fundamentalist Christian or burn in hell, of course. It's difficult to take seriously the claim that approximately 80% of the population of the US, which includes all members of the US government including all members of congress, the senate, the president, large numbers of the US military, many influential celebrities including outright religious figures such as the pope, almost all world leaders, etc, are all being persecuted by... ... anyone. TL;DR is "No mandated prayer in schools" = "PERSECUTION". --Sasayaki (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As Samuel Johnson said, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ken lives in Buffalo, I bet that couldn't even escape from his house to go and watch it in person. What a coward! Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind escape, I doubt whether Ken is allowed out in public unsupervised. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The thing I like about Ken is that as a Christian, he believes that every thing Christians do applies to him. He doesn't give to charity, for instance, but that's okay because Christians give to charity and he's a Christian, so he gets credit. He doesn't do a high wire act over Niagara falls, but a Christian did, so therefore, as a Christian, Ken must be just as brave. It must be nice to live by proxy through other people's accomplishments. DickTurpis (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, we laugh about him not being allowed outside and such, but there is evidence Ken actually is institutionalized. DickTurpis (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the evidence points to "was" and he is now living on his own - which explains some of his recent loopiness as nobody is checking his meds. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We discourage serious discussion of Andy's sanity -- as in speculating as to what mental illnesses he may or may not have. Should the same apply as to discussing whether Ken is institutionalized? MDB (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We do? First I've heard of it. I think Andy's sanity is a perfectly fine topic of discussion, though we have to be aware that our ability to actually diagnose him over the internet is limited, to say the very least. And the illusion of trying to respect Ken's privacy went out the window 5 years ago when his name was ascertained and spread all over the site. DickTurpis (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We do. MDB (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Speculating about Conservative's mental health is far worse, since it's obvious he does have some sort of serious problem. Whatever Andy's delusions and eccentricities (and like anyone, they get magnified by the lens of the internet), he has a functioning family life and almost certainly doesn't "need help".--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Schrodinger's Rodney King[edit]

At Conservapedia, Rodney King is simultaneously alive and dead.

From the intro: King passed away at the age of 47, apparently from an accidental drowning, in June 2012.

And from the closing section: King is currently featured on a reality television show spotlighting celebrities recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

MDB (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

When you've got no injuns to update the minutiae it's no surprise that a lot of stuff is now out of date and therefore contradictory. But hey, evolution is being destroyed, atheism is withering and Conservapedia is growing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
On the bright side, their article on him is surprisingly inoffensive--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering the usual right-wing response is "he deserved it" (see also: Trayvon Martin), yeah, I was impressed. MDB (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, think about that. They're so low that the fact they didn't malign a victim of police brutality who just passed away is noteworthy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me[edit]

Perhaps that while "AM" is now a conservative word, "PM" is not because it share a prefix with post-modernism and post-colonialism.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because of its association with 'pre-menstrual'. As is well known, women are the cause of all evil (falldidit), they even care about strangers (LIBERAL!). Nasty evil womenses. VOXHUMANA 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I dunno. "Question Evolution" sounds like postmodernism to me. Q0 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia not safe[edit]

Goat-fiddling, sweary, blasphemous ratwiki, though, is perfectly safe for kids. Toffeeman (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are also better with privacy, more reliable, and more trustworthy. So yeah.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 23:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on. The editors most likely to spew non kid friendly stuff( Conservative, Jpatt )are so hyperactive that their obscenities are lost in the static and typically AWOL, respectively. and I don't think that anyone will seriously be surprised by or attracted to Ed Poor's lurid stubs. Much of the hatred /brutality on CP is something that even kids should be able to understand. The most vicious of the Admins is now gone from the site, anyway. In all likelihood, the result of the rating is the massive influx of vandals scrawling obscenities everywhere.
The lack of reliability, privacy, and trus(t)worthiness is legitimately the administration's fault, though. (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I would think that the abundance of articles like these would have more to do with it. (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Look what was pulled from the liberal tool bag, I'm not talking about your tiny wieners. You should be so lucky to find the not safe for children ranking. Banzai -- (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Even RW trolls ban people for "moronic vandalism," and you should know that Karajou has said things far more legitimately hateful than this troll ever has. Just as one cannot rationally assume that all conservatives are like bigots such as Jpatt and TerryH, one cannot rationally assume that all liberals are as moronic as any of those vandals. (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the link exposed the WHOIS info, does Andru live or work at 521 Fifth Ave. 17th Floor or is it something else entirely? I would love to write to him. Jimaginator (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy lives in New Jersey. That's probably the address of the server or the hosting service. MDB (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh drat. I was thinking a rational letter to him would do some good. Silly me on the letter, and the address. Thanks. Jimaginator (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that it would help. He wouldn't read it. Of course, right about now, Karajou is having an orgasm, because he thinks that he'll be able to get you in court for sending intimidating messages via the postal system, or something. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to ask him to please not corrupt the brains of our nations youth. I worry about the kids in his charge, especially the warping of their ability to think. The last thing I would want to do is try to intimidate him, we know that doesn't work. Whatever he wants to believe, fine. But the kids. The kids matter. Jimaginator (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick bit of research shows that Andy maintains an office at CP's registered address as it also shows up for his AAPS and Eagle Forum depositions. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


I hope I didn't violate protocol, netiquette or other measure of propriety, but I added to (someone else's) open-mindedness WIGO. Andy's notion is that being open to both possiblities -- the accepted science (the earth's orbit has been stable for a long time) and the YEC made-up crap (the earth's unstable orbit proves the universe is 6,000 years old) -- is a sign of close-mindedness. Open-minded means knowing the accepted theory is wrong and refusing to allow for any other possibilty. Actually, it's not surprising that Andy thinks this. It's a bit surprising that logician, lawyerly Andy doesn't see that labeling a purity test "open-mindedness" is counter-productive. Whoover (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This "test" is probably the best example yet of Andy's definition of "open-minded": "agree with me 100%, or you're closed minded." How he can even begin to see himself as open-minded, boggles the mind. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Andy's mind is closed to boggling. ONE / TALK 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This bit old quote illustrates open-mindness very well: "No other explanation is plausible ... at least not to an open mind." Open minded (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Friggin' brilliant! Phiwum (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Do the nice people at FSTDT know that one? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, Ken...[edit]

...I know you have... issues, but I'd expect even somebody of your reduced intelligence to understand what "beta" means.img --PsyGremlin講話 14:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, someone with a sock challenge him on that... MDB (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with Kendoll in this case. The perpetual "beta" is the 21st century's equivalent of the 20th's perpetual "under construction" gif. Fuck people who call their website beta. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
August & Sharon take up the challengeimg --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an Alpha company like Microsoft release beta software? CS Miller (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tsk tsk tsk. Sharon quoted wikipedia, which is completely untrustworthy and filled with liberal bias. Obviously, it covers up the true meaning of beta in order to hide atheists lack of machismo! Olé! MDB (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ken responded. It's only semi-coherent, but, disappointinglysurprisingly, it's not up to his usual level of insanity. MDB (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Apart from Ken not knowing what a pun is, you mean? --PsyGremlin講話 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The pun is, of course, the lowest form of humor. Appropriately, CP is the lowest form of website. MDB (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It might have been a joke, but unfortunately, Sharon asked him if it was a joke, which allows for sliding out of the problem by saying "Yup, it's a joke". I submit we will never know his intent. I have found at my work that when my idiot boss is about to lose face from a total mistake, the last thing you should do is suggest alternatives to help him out of it. It's better to just keep quiet, because I know he doesn't have the brains to come up with an alternative explanation. He might say "it was a joke" on his own, but he will be hard pressed to explain how it's funny. Jimaginator (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There's a notable lack of clown pictures, which usually accompany Ken's attempts at humour, so I'm not entirely convinced that he was joking. Vulpius (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ken could indeed be serious for another reason -Conservapedia's conflation of moral relativism and special relativity. It's entirely possible Ken only knows of one definition of "beta".--TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On the entry itself, I think it's a massive fail anyway. I say this because the second articleimg at the question evolution blog about Dawkins' announcement seems to think that there's a website called '' that belongs to Dawkins, which is already failing miserably. Actually, if you go to, you can see there that this website is a 'cloud application platform', and, if you use it to host something, you get a subsite that goes [insert name here] So, actually, '' doesn't really exist, and has nothing to do with Dawkins, unless he's hosting something through, in which case, it won't be hosted at simply '', but '[something]'. (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

He is really an idiot, especially in his fields of expertise. larronsicut fur in nocte 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Andy steps in: Remove ken's complete bullshit restore most visited entries to topimg. AceModerator 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
At AugustO's requestimg, no less. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
And Ken deletes the incriminating file. What a coward: he must have watched the RC, but didn't start correcting his mistakes until Andy stepped in. larronsicut fur in nocte 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Will Ken admit error or burn the talkpage? AceModerator 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh the ol' "didn't get enough sleep"img. Sure Ken, sure. AceModerator 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's all part of his being to busy to discuss and implement the agreed upon block reforms for the next several years. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, knowing Ken, "not enough sleep" is completely plausible...Senator Harrison (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
At least we know his medication causes drowsiness now. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kennybaby, please sleep for a minimum of 7 days straight to recharge your brain, it's kinda poorly...Jimaginator (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)