Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive293

This is an archive page, last updated 16 July 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>, <291>, <292>, <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)

Obama's Social Security Number

Birtherism on MPR via WND... again. Debunked... again. ^{— Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs}

So WND is reporting a month-old email hoax, leaving out even all the bits on Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890 - perhaps to add them in another exclusive article. And Conservapedia falls for it. Figures. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Much older than that. The mad dentist has been flogging this dead horse for several months. These idiots just don't know when to stop. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For instance, here's a brief article on it from April 2011. As long as they keep spending their money on frivolous law suits like this, I'm happy. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WND usually begs for contributions for these lawsuits, right? I wonder if their books are open to the public, and how much of the money actually goes to the lawsuits, and how much goes to Joseph Farah. MDB (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits at Conservapedia and RationalWiki, Classified by Namespace

CP

RW

• The scale of the y-axes is the same for both graphs
• In June 2012, we had more edits in namespace "main" than Conservapedia
• Rest assured, the numbers of edits in the namespaces "Conservapedia" and "Conservapedia Talk" are decreasing from month to month. Nevertheless there is still substantial traffic in these namespaces, whether you like it or not.

(The numbers of edits cover only those comments which can be freely accessed in both databases, i.e., deleted edits are generally excluded - there are exceptions due to my method of gathering the data, but those aren't important. Therefore, the real numbers of edits in "CP Talk" and "CP" has been significantly larger than displayed. OTOH, for Conservapedia ca. 900 edits made in June 2012 are not on display, as they were quickly - and sometimes even rightfully - deleted.)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but RationalWiki doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. So...atheists, same-sex-marriage, something something something. Machismo! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget that CP's Main namespace is the catchall for everything except Conservapedia site topics, whereas we have proper Essay and Debate namespaces. CP's Essays are all in Main namespace as are Andy's homeschooling lectures and even student homework. The man has no idea how to organise a wiki. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the much-ballyhooed expansion of the "RW community" that the aspie fascists have claimed means we need more rules now? The site is only marginally more active today than it was five years ago. Add back the deleted CP space stuff and it may well be less active. ^{— Unsigned, by: 216.155.153.104 / talk / contribs}

Que? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work again, larron. CP mainspace edits nearterm peak occurs with the termination of the reform movement. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Que?

I try to answer the questions of 216.155.153.104 - perhaps this would be more fitting for the bar, as Conservapedia is used only as folio...

The site is only marginally more active today than it was five years ago.

active editors at RW	When we look at the number of active editors here at RationalWiki, the impression we get is one of stability: until mid-2011, there was quite a bit of fluctuation, and peeks where often created by exceptionally stupid actions (and publicity stunts) at Conservapedia. For a year now, our numbers are quite stable and seem to be more independent from Conservapedia's (non)-actions.	active editors at CP
editors at RW in June 2012 arranged by account creation	Again, when we look at those RationalWikians who edited in June 2012, we see them evenly spread in this table, though not surprisingly the youngest member of our flock tend to be the more active. But that's quite natural for a wiki. The impression of stability comes from the fact, that not only newbies and the old guard are editing, but members of all wiki-ages.	editors at CP in June 2012 arranged by account creation
monthly edits at RW classified by account creation	(How to read the chart: e.g., in June 2012 a little more than 1000 edits were made by RationalWikians who have created their accounts in 2007, while a little less than 2000 were made by those who created their accounts in 2012) The overall stability is a result of the dynamics of our population: editors come and stay, though they generally grow less productive over time. Uur demographics are always changing, and no wiki age-range is dominating.	monthly edits at CP classified by account creation
monthly edits at RW classified by account creation	(How to read the chart: e.g., in June 2012 ≈ 9% edits were made by RationalWikians who have created their accounts in 2007, while ≈ 15% were made by those who created their accounts in 2012) That's even more obvious if we look at the percentages of edits.	monthly edits at CP classified by account creation

Where's the much-ballyhooed expansion of the "RW community" that the aspie fascists have claimed means we need more rules now?

IMO, it's not so much the much-ballyhooed expansion, but the constant change of our demographics which makes a skeleton of rules necessary: We are not dominated by an old guard which keeps up its idea of rules (as we see so fashionably at Conservapedia), we have to keep the original ideas alive by codifying them.

And the change of demographics will naturally change our priorities - it's just something which is going to happen (but shouldn't be enforced).

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I added the graphs for Conservapedia - they exemplify how a wiki shoudln't work...

Interesting. In the normalized CP graph it is apparent that the 2008 and 2008 cohorts hung in there for 18 months or so before their contributions dwindled. The 2010 cohort looks like a mere flash in the pan, bareley sustaining a significant presence for an entire year. The 2011 bunch looks like it is shaping into a similar pattern to the '08 and '09 groups. Too early to tell for the 2012 bunch.

We still see a significant plurality of edits from contributors who joined in the first year or so. I will guess that it looks like a cadre of original participants followed by teeming scads of transients, with the newbies being vocal for about a year before losing interest. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you know your CP history then you will know that TK was in the wilderness throughout 2008. I think that counts towards a significant retention of editors during that period. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Ken

"FYI^img"*I should have know that you are drawn to colorful pictures.

• BTW - is it a lack of machismo of your side that you don't allow me back there (as cp:User:RonLar or cp:User:DiEb): I haven't seen many new records with regard to the number of unique visitors lately, I'd like to ask Andy about it...
• yes, I only make quantitative analysis - but it often reflects the quality. For example, if you made an edit with an M factor of 100,000, it would most probably go viral on the net and attract many visitors to Conservapedia. As this doesn't happen, I've assume the your M factor is much smaller (whatever a M factor is...)
• have a look at File:Table-Conservapedia-2012-6-20120701.png. You find Conservapedia to be dominated by the old guard and a couple of newbies. But you don't keep your new editors, they dwindle away (aka get blocked)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Whats an M? --Revolverman (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine Andy would be too happy about him using "aspie." He must just be having his moment of fun mischief and planning on deleting it before Andy gets back from talking on that radio show.--Moose (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken's M training again? $1000.00 for him to teach you how to create blogs and then link to them as if it supports your point? I'd rather buy liquor and bang some hispanic ladies. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the link, M is for Macheeezmo. -- 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And poof! there goes the pageRandonGeneration (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Try not to use the "poof" word when talking about Ken. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, who pissed on Andy's fireworks?

There is petty, and then there is banning Ericd95^img for not creating his name with his real first name and last initial. Then again, I'd probably also be petty if my name was Aschlafl Y. --Sid (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's pretty inconsistent. I remember reading in the Sysop group discussions (conservaleaks) that he told the Sysops not to be too quick to block on this type of name as they could be legitimate contributors, and he's let much stranger names edit than this fairly innocuous one. Refugee^{talk page} 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts its stress. Obama is really picking up steam with the passing of the health care bill, and the Republicans are looking worse and worse each day, add that with the complaint about Conservative, AugustO and Ed Poor in near open Wiki-warfare, and having no life besides CP leads to much stress. --Revolverman (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine the poor slob sobbing into his crappy cookout hot dog. "I don't want America to have another birthday!" ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of a sad worldview, really. Everything he believes is based around the fact that america is going down the shitter because the wrong people are in charge, so he has to actively deny that anything good could ever happen, because to say 'x thing is good' is to admit that maybe Obama/the liberal media/liberal hollywood/the gays aren't really all that bad, which he can never do. It really must be quite stressful in numerous ways. X Stickman (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just America, it's the whole world. We're getting stupider, not living as long and our only hope is an event in which everybody dies. Cheery thoughts. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Andy should take a leaf out of Ken's book. If Andy could live in Ken's world, he'd see that he's on the winning side, his side is growing and the enemy are shrinking every day and all Christians are Chuck Norris.--Spud (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average. MDB (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to view the site this morning only to get a 404 error and for one brief excited moment thought Andy had gotten tired of CP and had decided to dump the entire site. Refugee^{talk page} 01:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy being arbitrary? Can't be!

SophieCohen7 and BrandonSvi created accounts at the same time. Andy blocked the latter before he made any edits, while leaving the former alone. Is he that desperate for editors with female names? Or am I missing something sinister about Brandon? Phiwum (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What comes after Independence Day 4th of July?

Apparently Lets Hate and Bash Europe Day. Mr. Schizophrenic is in.^img And Andy^img raises him.^img Any connection to this^img possibly? --K. (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Commoners". Oh Andy, you are a gem. --Sasayaki (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't he go the whole hog and say "only the peasants use the NHS"?

And surely some "true Scotsmen" will be offended by the main page bit about Andy Murray just saying that he is "not from England" with no reference to Scotland at all. How would Andy like it if someone were to write about him "Andy Schlafly is not from Mexico" with no further reference to his nationality besides that?--Spud (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He's also not from Swaziland, Lebanon or Svalbard. I say, we are narrowing this down, aren't we? -- 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

CP's NHS article was surprisingly good before Aschlafly curled out that little turd on it. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The others, fine, but I don't know about Swaziland. He's never said he's not from Swaziland, and I've never seen his birth certificate. Nobody has. Surely being a natural born citizen is a requirement to head all-American Conservapedia? What's Andrew hiding? Where's the birth certificate? Why will Andy not answer accusations he's from Swaziland and why does he keep avoiding presenting his birth certificate? Does he have the long form version? If not, why not? You heard it here first: Andrew Schlafly is not the legitimate ruler of Conservapedia. --Sasayaki (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For a small contribution, to cover costs (while I write my book on how the birth certificate is fake), I'm prepared to put together a posse that will demand that Swazi officials hand over a copy of the long-form birth certificate. If they refuse, or deny any knowledge thereof, it's just a sign of a massive cover up, funded by Phyllis... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. MDB (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, he has yet to prove he is not a Muslim. Make sure I get credit in your books for that tidbit. MDB (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What a contemptible little racist turd, Ken is. Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama(x2), Barrack Hussein Obama. We really must emphasise how foreign sounding his name is. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In which Rob reminds us that he is a profoundly stupid little man

Really? You probably don't recall how Nixon was routinely called Milhouse on network television by Hollywood Screen Writers. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Middle name is synonymous with some dead tyrant across the other side of the world. Pettiness like that shows how weak their position is. You don't see them calling Romney "Willard" (his actual first name), because it has no impact. Fuck, if Mitt's first name were Adolf, the censorship would be rampant there, right Kenny? Or maybe he's just a little butthurt facing the fact that there may be a large amount of god particles existing up his ass. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-christ, as hisname clearly indicated (666). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a belief in the anti-Christ was very common among Reagan's leftist critics. MDB (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just the other day I was wondering where Rob went. Now I wish he'd stayed there. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think you'd like the answer, don't ask the question. MDB (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit younger than Rob. On which shows was Nixon routinely called Milhouse? (As Norseman points out, calling someone by a dorky middle name isn't quite the same as calling him Hussein in order to insinuate that he's a muslim and/or tyrant, but let's hear just how common "Milhouse" was.) Phiwum (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

[ec ]"One ringy dingy... two ringy dingy... Mister Milhous, I see you have been at your present address for one year... we do like to keep better track of our transient customers." --Lily Tomlin, as Ernestine the phone operator

That's all I got. It was not a routine thing, FFS (For False-equivalency's Sake). Millhouse van Houten, the bespectacled blue-headed kid on the Simpsons, didn't show up until about fifteen years after Nixon had left office in flaming disgrace, preemptively pardoned (I think he remained unindicted) by his erstwhile veep. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a running gag for years on NBC's top rated Laugh In, back in the day when only three networks existed and routinely enjoyed audiences of 40 million. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This has always pissed me off beyond belief.
<rant> The only reason it gets used if as a racist dog-whistle. And whenever it gets brought up, the other side say "Well, that's his name, we're just using it!" And that makes me double pissed, because they are implying that maybe I'm thinking of the other Barack Obama.
But that's not the part that makes me the most angry. It's the idea that somehow his name implies something bad about them, and that there's no need to think any harder. That's the most utterly terrible thing I can think of; it's not something he's done, or said, or believed, or even thought. It's just a way to point to him and say "Hey look, that guy's not like us, he doesn't come from high/proper enough birth." I'd vote for Fidel Pol-Pot bin Hitler if I agreed with his politics. </rant> Carlaugust (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuckin' Fidel Pol-Pot bin Hitler lover. Phiwum (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen conservatives say he should have changed his name. To which my response is always, "you know damn well that if he had changed it to something more 'American', you'd be insisting he was hiding something." MDB (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

B-b-b-b-ut Liberals do it, too! Hippies used to protest people named Johnson all the time!!!!11!!one! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If "Hussein" is racist, take it up with mommy & daddy Obama. And if Obama looses, it is precisely this -- overplaying the race card and the unspoken resentment against it. Not all critics of Obama are racists, and there is massive resentment against this type of intimidation and stifling of public debate which runs contrary to everything Americans believe in. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the name "Hussein", it's the emphasis. If nothing else, the mere effort to type it gives it away. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. King Hussein was an intimate friend of the United States, as his Americanized and educated son is. The wp:Heshemite dynasty are the true heirs of Caliphate of Mecca, until it was hijacked by the Saudi's with British aid and duplicity. The implication is Americans are ignorant of history. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly haven't any idea what your point is. Are you suggesting that User:Conservative (say) is using Obama's middle name because he respects the Heshemites? Or do you agree that the reason Conservative uses the middle name is because he thinks it reflects negatively on Obama? Phiwum (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he uses his full name because it is his full name, like Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Bullshit. It is loaded language, pretty much a dog whistle, and you know it, as shown by your cute choice of examples. Today's US electorate, in bulk, thinks of a dead deposed Iraqi despot when they hear the name Hussein, not a former Jordanian monarch who was painted in the media as a nice man who spoke English on his ham radio. Yes, most Americans could not point out the Red Sea on a blank map, much less the Gulf of Aqaba. What is the point of that "ignorant of history" implication? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you defending Conservative Rob? --Revolverman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the condescension toward yanks? and if they can't find the Red Sea on a map, maybe it's the public schools fault. And if they are stupid & ignorant, does that explain how Obama got elected? or George W. Bush? nobs^{The Butthurt Grows Bigger from Ace's Rep} 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting of the 69 million who voted for Obama, 5 million plus voters are going to wake up some November morning, ignore 8% unemployed, the Dodd-Frank disaster, piled on debt, an all around economic failure, and say, "Hey, this guys middle name is Hussein. If I had realized that four years ago, I never would have voted for him." You're pissing in the wind, my friend. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Any condescension is a product of your own imagination. I've mingled here and there, and been shot at while wearing US green, so fuck you.

Keep on starving that beast, Rob. Schools have been suffering for a long time, thanks to right-wing privateering. Your simple-minded take on the economic situation and the effect of a single meme (OMG his name is Hussein) is aahh, inaccurate. Huxley put it pretty well with the metaphor of drops of sealing wax, each one not amounting to much, but all part of a bigger picture.

I've watched grassroots mid-east diplomacy up close and personal, and with all their unelected lackeys in tow, neither His Fraudulence, W. Bush nor W. Mittington Romullard would stand a chance in that arena. Obama, on the other hand, is a class act for that kind of discourse.

What did you mean by that "The implication is Americans are ignorant of history." crack? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that the Heshamites, or House of Hussein, are a respected and beloved ruling family until Whabbite Saud's wrested control with the machinations of the British Empire. So much beloved, that people to this day name their children after them as a sort of protest to the illegitimacy of the House of Saud as Sherif of Mecca. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My question to Rob - if saying Hussein isn't veiled racism (or at least, xenophobia), why use it? Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, heard "Barack Obama" and thought "Hm...was he the bass player for INXS?" Hell no. You do it because you think it wins you points. Because you're pricks. (I apologize for my use of the generalized "you") Carlaugust (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's ample precedent. J. Danforth Quayle was often used by his critics. I had this same discussion during the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

One word for you: disingenuous. You are defending racism and xenophobia, and history will not forgive you for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Rob, because Jefferson has such negative historical connotations. Apples to apples. Carlaugust (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you are a liar, plain and simple. You know fuckin' well why certain people insist on using Obama's middle name, and you know that it isn't comparable to "William Jefferson Clinton". Phiwum (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The main issue here is the potential confusion. If I said "I saw Barack at the shopping centre yesterday", there's approximately 0% chance you'd mistake who I was thinking about. Same as if I said "Obama". "Barack Obama" is just polite, so we use it. "George H.W. Bush" and "George W. Bush" are in common usage because it clears ambiguity. Nobody says "Barack Obama" to be met with the question, "Which one?" --Sasayaki (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To be sure, there are other reasons to use one's middle name, chief among them that the person uses it himself. I know only one "Stevie Vaughn", but he went by "Stevie Ray Vaughn" even so. Far as I know, Obama does not use his middle name all that much. Phiwum (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Harry Truman didn't even have a middle name, yet he himself went by Harry S. Truman simply cause he felt he needed to create the illusion he had a middle name in order to be successful in politics. Bottom line: this is nothing more than over playing the race card. For more than four years nw, this has been the track record of (not Obama himself) Obama diehard worshipers. This has created a massive, silent, backlash among moderates and independents -- the fact that criticism of the President must be handled with kid gloves so as to avoid the baseless charge of racism. Millions upon millions have kept their mouths shut, witnessed this intimidation, and will quietly register their discontent at this abuse of their God given free speech rights in the voting booth (although this is not the driving factor). The net result is only to make it more difficult for a future minority candidate, being we've seen what's in store for anyone who dares to voice opposition. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 13:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why that scrawney, straw-haired succubus Coulter always refers to him as B. Hussein Obama. Nice try Rob, but by defending racists, you're as disgusting as they are. probably more so. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob is remarkably incapable of actually making a point. What the fuck has Harry Truman to do with whatever he's trying to say? Not a goddamned thing.

Rob, you're not only a liar by pretending that racism has nothing to do with insistence on using Obama's middle name. You're also just plain, fucking stupid because you are incapable of making an argument. Phiwum (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Play on, play on. Over playing the race card will bite you in the ass. Guaranteed. And it only makes it more difficult for future black candidates cause people sure as fuck don't want to go through this shit again. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your concern trolling is noted. This is about conservatives being douchebags. Take your tu quoque and other obfuscations with you when you go away. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it has been firmly established James Earl Carter in fact is no relation to wp:James Earl Ray. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Either Rob just attempted a humorous deflection, or he has been day drinking. Either way, that's a big old non sequitur. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring Rob's trolling for a sec, AugustO points out that Saint Reagan used 'Fourth of July'^img. Andy's reponse: Maybe he wouldn't have if Conservapedia's entry existed back then!^img

Fuckin' brilliant! Thanks for that gem! Phiwum (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this again, is it fair to say that Rob is overplaying the race card card? If you think you gain points solely and completely by pointing out something you don't like of someone's race or birth, you are, by the exact definition of the word, being racist. We're not "playing the race card". And Science help me if you bring up Truman, or Clinton, or Reagan... Carlaugust (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's that old debil wp:silent majority again. You know, the same group that gave Nixon the second largest victory in American history (behind George Washington's unanimous victory). nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I too love talking about silent majorities when nearly half the country's eligible voters don't even bother. Q0 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia still right when it's not even wrong?

Man, I hate to defend CP, but the WIGO on "Conservapedia STILL not wrong" is just, well, wrong. As the WIGO shows, GregG wrote: "The Court rejected the liberal attempts to justify the constitutionality of the mandate under the Commerce Clause." This is true. The majority opinion is that the mandate would not be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but since it amounts to a tax (and Congress has the right to levy taxes) it don't make no never mind nohow. GregG's edit is factually correct and RW looks stoopid. (With due respect), Phiwum (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia had originally predicted that the mandate would be found unconstitutional. It was not. The WIGO is highlighting what could be considered a goalpost move. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, but the fact that the entry was not removed, just explained and mitigated, shows that Andy appears to admit CP was kinda wrong about at least part of their prediction. That is the best you'll ever get form him. He's not shy about removing entries if he can weasel his way out of being wrong, and when he doesn't it is kind of telling. DickTurpis (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bill Gates nearly ruined the computer industry"

Gates donated some amount of money to something related to homosexuality^img, therefor becoming against marriage, but, what on earth is andy talking about with computers?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bill Gates started Microsoft which makes Windows. Windows are transparent and break easily therefore lacking the machismo that would make them conservative. Ayzmo (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to take bets that Andy's using a Windows OS? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(while admitting he stole most ideas) how do you ruin an industry that you virtually created single handedly? and that is still running strong?--GodotStop the damn screeds! 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Ed have a problem with IE a while back? Maybe that's all Schlafly knows about this and he just assumed Ed was repeating common sentiment. X Stickman (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The original whatever of IE as from another company, so in no shape or form has microsoft worked on IE or is it even theres. That one got me a writing plan. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone who has the original conservaleaks file handy go look at what user agent the arsefly's mailer sends? I bet he's a windows user despite the bitching. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. OSX is idiot proof. That and Bill Gates is an ungodly atheist while Steve Jobs got more conservative towards the end of his life. I could see him jumping on the Apple bandwagon. Ayzmo (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Andy is a Mac user. He has always sung the praises of Firefox for its spell-checker and I suspect that he uses it on a Windows machine instead of IE, rather than as a replacement for Safari. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Andy uses during his day-to-day activities (if I had to bet, I'd say Windows, though), but he did install PJR's Guard Dog, which was Windows-only. (See here for reference) --Sid (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's not about "stealing" ideas. In fact the industry would probably like Bill more if he had "stolen" more ideas. According to most of the testimony I've seen Bill was a good boss, cared about his employees, was interested in the big picture and the minutiae of what they were doing, and had the insight to have a useful opinion about it. But for him ownership was a big deal. Bill was ranting at "pirates" back in the early-to-mid-1980s when many businesses and almost all families still didn't even have a computer. Bill wanted to change the world, but he was damn sure going to get rich doing it. Because owning things was so important to Bill, Microsoft often chose to do things that were arbitrarily incompatible with the standards, norms or traditions in order that it could "own" the resulting ecosystem rather than just joining an existing open system and sharing the benefits. That hurt everybody including Microsoft in the short term, because of the network effect, but they gambled on conquering the market by basically throwing more cash at the problem than all their competitors combined. Most famously in the case of the Internet it didn't work, fortunately for everybody except a handful of rich old shareholders who don't own computers. If you owned a computer and were interested in connecting with other people in the mid-1990s, you'd have seen things like AOL, and the Microsoft Network. Back then they weren't just a service on the Internet, instead they were an alternative, heavily marketed as "superior" to the Internet, in the same sense that a subscription to the Disney channel would be "superior" to giving your kids access to a public library and letting them play with other children in the park.

None of this has anything to do with what Bill has been doing since his retirement, which was a long damn time ago now. He's finished with the "get rich" part and now, following his fathers footsteps he is pouring most of those riches into trying to make the world a better place on the theory that kids (Bill has three) don't benefit from being handed everything on a plate and should have independence not just sit around waiting to inherit. Fighting prejudice and bigotry sounds like making the world a better place to me. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks ago I asked jokingly if Andy would call Apple computers liberal and insist the liberal media was trying to destroy conservative Microsoft? Looks like I just got it reversed. With his insistence that Steve Jobs was conservative, someone might actually be able to troll him into explicitly saying it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse steps up the crazy.

Seriously, what a fucking idiot. He maintains, regarding searching for microbes on Mars, "after consulting with one whose opinions I respect (Who? Andy?), that a large amount of water, mud and rock escaped into space on the occasion of the Global Flood. Some of it splattered onto Mars. That the mud held microbes is not a stretch." Wow!

There's also this gem, "Oh, and that anti-God pill? Do you really doubt that that sort of pill has been around? It goes by the trade name of Ritalin." The fuck? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The "cosmic bukkake" hypothesis comes from that idiot Walt Brown's demented hydroplate "theory," of which Terry is a big fan. Needless to say Brown won't submit it for peer review.--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.} 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cosmic bukkake". I applaud that description. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Brown (and by extension Terry) believe that all the craters on the moon and all NEO's, comets, etc. were from ejected material during the "cosmic bukkake" event, but I wonder if he includes the asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud, etc. If so, just how massive does he think the Earth was before the Flood, anyway? --Kels (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on the Lunar bukkake hypothesis. If Hurlbut is including Mars (how about Venus, Europa, Ganymed, etc.?), it makes me wonder: what exactly was Earth's pre-Flood diet? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Years ago there was a subforum on christianforums.com (or .net, or something similar to that) that was about science vs religion. The "debates" there were actually fairly well carried out. The moderators didn't pick any one side to censor or anything, and people were pretty well behaved for the most part. There was one guy there who had tens of thousands of posts and he had some fairly insane theories. It was the first time I encountered the lunar bukakke theory, for example, and he also had some slightly odder theories like saying that the moon is effectively a service station for souls on their way to heaven (they'd stop off there to rest and get directions. This was his explanation of why there's a moon in the first place). And that the inner core of Earth is literally hell. He claimed that when we use equipment to scan the earth deeper than we can dig (some kind of sonic equipment? I honestly can't remember), we see something that scientists claim is molten rock, but it's actually the souls of the damned. Which on a sonarscope (whatever it was) just happen to look exactly like molten rock. And how could we know until we dig down there with a drill and see for ourselves which can never happen therefore I win, it's hell. I think that guy was the sole reason the subforum was closed; he was making the religious side look bad by association.

Anyway, I used to think that guy was a troll or something, but since I've found CP I seriously wonder if he was Terry or Conservative. X Stickman (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Had to be one hell of a planetary orgasm since this kinda stuff likely exists in other solar systems. --Revolverman (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't water that reached escape velocity become steam as it passed through the atmosphere? so sterilizing it?

With the amount of energy needed to do half the shit global flood followers claim, the water would have likely broke down nuclear wise before even leaving the atmosphere. --Revolverman (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It amuses me how the likes of Brown and Chucky try to use science to prove their crackpot beliefs but then use God's superpowers to achieve the impossible. I once asked Terry why he didn't just credit the whole flood thing down to a God without bothering with scientific explanations and he responded about God being "economic with his miracles". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It cant have been that violent an event, it killed copulating turtles without even separating them...

Demons.

User:Conservative believes in demons^img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 17:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob Smith on Conservative:

“”It would be a mistake to say he's ideologically blinded, cause to have an ideology you would be able to discuss and defend it, and he can't do that. He's demonic. Even the demons believe in God, tremble, as the bible says. [Emphasis added]

--Night Jaguar (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember Bradley over at aSK bought into that whole aliens == demons thing too. But hey, if you believe in talking snakes, bushes, etc., you'll believe pretty much any damn fool thing. --Kels (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the mainstream idea that "alien sightings"/"abductions" and such are caused by the same phenomenon as "demon sightings" and the like were back in the day? Nightmares, sleep paralysis, hallucinations, altered memories etc... and the only reason they were "demons" back then and "aliens" now is because of cultural expectations? X Stickman (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but slightly different from "both were done by real demons". --Kels (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a series of sci-fi novels wherein the aliens were called 'demons' by superstitious persons. It's not an uncommon trope. This is off topic, but the books, incidentally, would also cause Andy's blood pressure to rise because the predominant powers were the PRC (75% of the 'heroes' including the protagonist are Chinese), Iran, the EU and Australia. Also most characters are atheists or (occasionally) Muslims aside from the pilots loaned from Israel, and almost everyone is non-white and there are no Americans at all (so far). I imagine that presenting my books to Andy would be like presenting a cross to a vampire in every single way, shape and form. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissonance

Roger Federer is hardly an underdog^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

British guy loses because atheistic Brits didn't pray?

I give up, Andy's really^img spinning^img out of control... --Sid (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Murray the underdog? I thought atheists didn't support the underdog, only Christians did. That means Murray was receiving more prayers than Federer, and should have won, by Andy's logic. DickTurpis (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But he was also a over-hyped atheistic liberal whatever. Therefor, god actually redirected the prayers to the true conservative star!--il'Dictator Mikal 18:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And this is significant enough for a "proven right"? Mystery time! How does Mad Andy exactly know that Britain didn't collectively pray for Tennis Andy and it just didn't work? -- 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because prayer always works, therefor, they did not pray. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Man, he really is a fucking asshole, isn't he? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Most Brits don't wear their religion on their sleeve and Murray has kept quiet about his own beliefs, but apparently he is jewish. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this "Andy Murray is Jewish" thing isn't just an random internet meme? The Real James Brown (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As usual the whole thing is one massive red herring. Why, in ANY reasonable setup, would God give a flying crap about who wins a tennis match, football match, election, Oscar, tiddly-winks contest or a lottery? It's totally insane to link everything to religion. I know this is Andy, but it's just instance eleventy-billion of 'all religion, all the time'. Grow up. </rant>Worm (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that atheistic England's Jonathan Marray (born in Liverpool) - and aided by a Dane - won the men's doubles. I guess God was watching that game, and not the singles. Also, if the Brits wanted Murray to win, wouldn't they be rooting for the underdog... and atheists hate doing that. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that most Brits were praying constantly in the third and fourth sets: "Dear God, when's he going to get another fucking point???" rpeh •T•C•E• 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't praying for a sporting victory sortof frowned upon by most religious folks as rather a profane subject for prayer, or is that only in atheistic Britain? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Down South, pre-game prayers by the team members in high school are pretty common, and they are usually prayers for victory. But I think, outside of the teams themselves, most Christians would think praying for a team to win would be vulgar. You might pray for a safe, injury free game, fair officiating, good weather, that type of thing, and ou might make an exception for, say, the dying kid who wants to see Tennessee beat Florida one last time, though. MDB (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How bout: British guy loses because - Federer!" Just saying, is all....GodotStop the damn screeds! 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll smarter than Chuckarse?

Burn.^img When even a drooling simpleton sees the gaping flaw in your lunatic world view, then perhaps it's time to reconsider your beliefs. Then again, I don't suppose Terry actually believes any of this stuff he actually says. It just sounds a bit better than the "GET THAT NIGGER OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!" he's longing to shout. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have navel lint more intelligent than Terry. Mind you even if they chipped in together they still wouldn't have an original idea between them. - π 11:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservative's rebuttal is less insightful than you think. Most Birthers accept that Obama is a citizen (since his mother is a citizen), and hence capable of treason. They reject that he is a "natural-born" citizen, however, and so claim that he is ineligible for the presidency. Phiwum (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw Ken's post earlier and assumed it was a joke: maybe I was wrong. The post above his makes a good point too - about how Tossbooty's continual framing of everything Obama does as "treason" is causing the effect of the word to be diluted. The first time I saw an article claiming that Obama was being treasonous I read it carefully to see if there might be a case. Now, whenever I see it used on some wingnut blog I take "treason" to mean "something conservatives don't agree with". rpeh •T•C•E• 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I called CNAV out on the fact the the Constitution does have a very specific definition of treason, and that it's "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" or "waging war on the United States". Terry response was essentially, "well, if Obama does do what our wild interpretation of this treaty says he will, it will be war on the United States citizens!" Which basically does boil down to "something conservatives don't agree with".MDB (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Signing anything with the UN is considered treason by Terry, as he thinks that any treaty or resolution is magically unbound from any restrictions (including restrictions from its own text) and will only oppress American sovereignty. --User:Brxbrx/sig 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's standard right-wing paranoia about the UN (despite the fact that they will insist, in nearly the same breath) that the UN is a powerless, toothless, meaningless body.) MDB (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This argument by arm chair Constitutional scholars always freaked me out. Have they ever read the damn thing, particularly Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States (e.g., the United Nations Charter), shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That is very interesting, and I wonder how Terry will try to wriggle out of it if confronted--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is the first time I've ever seen Rob say anything at all and him not be met by a torrent of abuse. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not coincidentally, it's the first time he's ever said something at least vaguely on topic. I think most of us still wish he'd piss off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, this is RationalWiki. If you're being rational and staying on topic, anyone can contribute. Rob's contribution is on topic, relevant, and even a little insightful. Hence, accepted. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

All well and good to worry about the adherence to treaties, but this treaty specifically states (lacking link currently) that it CANNOT override the individual constitutions of member nations. Sooooo not so worried about the guberment stealing my guns. Jared (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

<terry>But it's going to anyway! Because Obama wants to take away our guns!</terry> MDB (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know which Obama ur talking about. Do you mean B. Hussein Obama? Jared (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean B. HUSSEIN Obama, of course. MDB (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the treaty didn't include that provision, treaties can't override the Constitution. And treaties not signed/ratified/confirmed/whatever by the Senate can't trump conflicting federal law. So I'm pretty sure our guns are safe for now. jdd (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A powerless, toothless, meaningless body that is going to put us all into forced labor apartments! Gods, it must be tiring to live in a world where literally every single organization/person in power is trying to opress you and take away your guns. Carlaugust (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked, Andy.

It's because^img, in case it escaped your notice, that Mittens isn't in fact governor of anywhere at this moment. There's no tradition to style former governors as "governor" which in any case would not be the correct form of address even if he held the office, and in fact the only reason the GOP has chosen to do so for Romney is to disguise the fact he hasn't held elective office in years. In fact, to disguise that Romney is a professional candidate who would probably lose handily even if he poured his millions in to being elected Mayor of Wasilla. That is why the NYT does not style him governor, Andy. Now you know. (Incidentally, nice work on deleting more of Joaquin's "unclear on the concept" work. You'll drive that persistent bugger away yet.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, former governors tend to be referred to as, "Governor" after leaving office. What makes Andy a disingenuous assclown, is the fact that the NYT ALWAYS refers to a person as Mr. or Ms. once they've used their full name. Including "Mr. Obama" in the very same article. Why isn't Andy pissed off about that? Because he's a self-righteous, deceitful, racist, xenophobic, jingoistic, Grade-A pussy. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. If former governors merit an honorific at all, it is "The Honourable." Only sitting governors of states that don't have other titles merit the honorific "Governor." In Massachusetts, the correct honorific is "His Excellency." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly could be wrong on that, but I have often heard former Governors and Presidents referred to as such. But we're getting away from the point, which is Andy once again is trying to play the conservative-victim.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Styling former US presidents as "Mr. President" (or I suppose Madam President in theory) is also technically wrong, though they seem to be increasingly expecting it. It's a modern invention, and is utterly nonsensical. After all, they aren't the president. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, it's an ego-stroke and nothing more. I probably used "traditionally" incorrectly, but my point was simply that it's very common.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's annoyingly common. Even here in Britain where you'd think the press would be more alive to nuances of title, Channel 4 did it with both Bush the Younger and Clinton. I hope because their respective press handlers insisted, and not because their anchors are ignorant shits. If I ever see the BBC do it, I'll give up all hope for humanity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a pretty uniquely American phenomenon. But that's because of the Bible. Britain doesn't do it because of atheism. So therefore, you should pray more or something. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I though the idea that in the United States "President" was a title you kept for life went way back. But I could be wrong. MDB (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's an episode of The Office in which it's revealed that Creed, the office old crazy guy, had approached one of the tech savvy younger folks to set him up with a blog. Wanting to spare the world the ramblings of this nutcase, the tech guy instead opened a Mircosoft Word file and told him it was a blog, so Creed typed his screeds into this Word file, thinking it was online and people were reading it. It's nice to know that, with all of CP's credibility, Andy also might as well be typing into a Microsoft Word file on his home computer. it helps me sleep at night. DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This site has a lot of detail on this topic. It boils down to the uniqueness of the titles involved. Mittens was Mr Romney, became Governor Romney upon election, then reverted to Mr. Romney afterwards - he's not still called Governor because there's only one governor of MA and it's not him. A member of SCOTUS can still be referred to as "Justice" after their term because there's more than one. As an extra, former presidents are allowed "The Honorable" as a prefix. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding with regards to former presidents is that the style "Mr. President" is only for sitting presidents, it is still appropriate to use the title "President" e.g. President Bush, President Clinton. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The site rpeh links to above points out that part of the problem is the media often messes it up, though the problem generally seems to be them being overly polite. MDB (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse on Doctors

I'm not going to link to it - you know where it is if you want to read it. Essentially he's basing an article around a poll result. All you need to know about the poll is here. I thought I'd link you all up as a public service. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was from Andy's answer to the AMA. (Remember, Andy Schlafly is the AAPS's general counsel.) Thanks for clearing that up. MDB (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If all those AAPS fuckheads who said they'd quit would, the standard of US healthcare would go up. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) So someone who goes through, what, seven years of medical schools and, several more years of internship is abruptly going to chuck it all away and become a plumber or professional blogger? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have heard some discussion from more reputable sources about doctors who are for various reasons dissatisfied with the current climate for medicine in the US. Their usual options are retire somewhat early or leave private practice to affiliate with a hospital. I suppose going into medical research as opposed to providing direct care to patients is also an option. MDB (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I know some are also considering one of those programs where they treat expats. Then they work under the laws of whatever country they're in at the time. Ayzmo (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So, they'll move to countries where medicine is even more socialized? I'm not getting the logic. As Ricky would say to Lucy, "please 'splain." MDB (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

“”The Koch Brothers never paid me a red cent. I never heard of them until people like you started ranting and raving about them. They have nothing to do with the Tea Party movement.

Oh Terry. What's the weather like on your planet? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cloudy with a 80% chance of the UN seizing your guns. But no global warming. MDB (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Attention New Jersey Residents

Andy will be speaking at a public event.

With free dinner! MDB (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WARNING AAPS page generally crashes Safari on my iPad. C®ackeЯ

Application of the AAPS ap for Apple should fix that. DickTurpis (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just get Chrome for the iPad. MDB (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at Andy's mugshot on that page. Look at it. The other mugshots are decent, flattering photos, and then there's Andy's scrawny red-faced visage up against a bare wall. And why did they pick that one? Because it's the one Andy himself uses as his online portrait. If autumn foliage proves God, what is that photo supposed to prove? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That Satan enjoys vomiting in the kettle of the US while Mammon farts in it's face and Beelzebub shits on it's head. The other four Hell princes watch and laugh, film it and put it on YouTube. That's what that photo proves. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind that it's hideous, it's also getting old. He's been using the same photo for at least as long as CP has existed, hasn't he? Vulpius (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone please videotape this and put it up on Youtube. Hearing Andy speak can be very entertaining (assuming he doesn't laugh)--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

JPatt is an ass.

Hey, Johnny Sedition--where's your article on G. Walker Bush^img? Oh, I forget, G. Walker Bush was the right color and had a nice easy-to-pronounce-and-spell Anglo name, so no need for that kind of bullshit. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob, get in here and defend this ass. Here, I'll get you started - "Well, I once heard a liberal call a conservative 'dumb', so I can tell that dirty fucking n***er to get the hell out of the WHITE house before he gets himselfed lynched." Carlaugust (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh. That's taking it too far. I'm sure there's lingering resentment that a black guy got to be president, but I think it's overridden by the fact that he's a Commie Pinko Democrat (remember, Gingrich -- who is arguably blacker than Obama -- was favoured for some time). And yes, back when Dubya was in charge his detractors used names like "Walker Texas Ranger", and Santorum has copped his fair share of name-abuse. But there is a pronounced difference between making fun of a name because its owner's policies are silly, and deliberately trying to appeal directly to racism. "Walker Texas Ranger" made fun of George's famously low intellect by comparing him to a goofy show, Santorum's innuendo was created because his policies were shit (tee hee hee), but Barrack HUSSEIN Obama merely says "Look at how foreign and non-white he is!". If someone came up with a play on his name (such as "NObama") then it wouldn't attract this kind of criticism. His policies are not perfect and he should be called on that, but to simply try to froth up resentment simply because of his race or foreign sounding name is just... well, yeah. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, probably too far, I agree. But I get angry when we can all agree that the reason it's done is "Look at how non-white he is"; that's the exact definition of racism. At least most people try to cover up their racism. I'm almost more angry at the assumed stupidity of the audience. Carlaugust (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There is now a pattern by leftists to use Barack's middle name and last name. [12] Are they racist or do they support Islam? ^{— Unsigned, by: 204.45.133.74 / talk / contribs}

That's an interesting point, but the truth is probably neither of those things... whereas it's painfully transparent why JPatt (et. al) are doing it. Besides, are those accounts set up by "leftists"? How can you tell? I took a brief glance at some of them and a fair number seemed to be parody accounts. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just keep screaming, "Racist!", it only hurts your cause.

Oh, and hey, why didn't we hearing anyone bitch about the commie lib journalists promoted him as Bearik (like an Army barrack) for years until the 2008 primary season when John Edwards failing to keep his pecker in his pants finally made Obama look like a serious contender? Were they racist scum, too? And what's his name gonna be next week, since it seems whatever name he goes by is always just a passing fad. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between using it to show you don't care what it is, and what Jpatt is doing, and you know it. Jpatt isn't doing it with the thought "It's just a names, guys! Let's judge him on his merits." It's like how the LGBT community took back "queer". It wasn't done because they hate gays. Carlaugust (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing new - after all, it would be beyond Jpratt to come up with something new. That scrawny bitch Coulter's been calling him that since the inauguration. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, I'm not too comfortable with you calling Coulter a "scrawny bitch" in the same thread in which we're discussing over bigotry. Just a thought. Phiwum (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a hate-filled harridan would be more appropriate? Besides she is scrawny and she is a bitch, so it's not like we're making shit up about her. It's not like I'm saying she blows drug addicts for kicks. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I like "hate-filled harridan", because it sounds a little like something the Adam West Batman would have called Catwoman. (when he wasn't showing he had the hots for her.) MDB (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked that you hate gay supporter Ann Coulter. Next, you'll tell me you're not voting for Obama because he is too Christian.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I confess that if you made any point at all, I missed it. Phiwum (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what we're observing here is a first attempt at sarcasm. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What Johnny Sedition was saying was much the same as "I am shocked that you hate dog lover Adolf Hitler." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I like "meretricious troll" as an accurate description. I dislike watching her tight-lipped misrepresentations, but I did happen to catch her rolling her eyes at the very thought that Larry "Wide Stance" Craig's toe-tapping in an airport bathroom was a bid for casual sex. FFS, that cottaging signal has been no secret since at least as far back as the 1950s. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing at all sexist or otherwise bigoted in your suggestion. And I agree that she's a deceitful, little attention weasel. (In fact, in other contexts, I might even agree that she's a scrawny bitch, but that rather seems to undercut our point regarding bigotry here.) Phiwum (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Please consider my fondness for circumlocution, and the Latin root of "meretricious" before you absolve me of sexism. (Kindly note that I got nothing against wymmin; my best friend forever is a broad.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I had to look up the meaning of "meretricious" when I read your post. There's a limit to my education. But when I did so, I suppose I read too charitably in skipping over the sexist bits. Okay, so there we are: you're a sexist pig, I'm an overly sensitive shemale and I'm also easily hoodwinked. Did I miss any conclusions here? Phiwum (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To address your point, I see no need to make nice about a scrawny bitch with a prominent cricoid cartilage. That's just giving in to a balance fallacy. She is not standing for the highest office in the land, but is in fact only a deceitful shill who has no problem bullshitting, playing on Islamophobia to aid and comfort a faction whose avowed aim is to damage the well-being of the nation for political gain. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you and I have any disagreements regarding Coulter's worth as a human being, much less as a contributor to the intellectual discourse. The world would literally be no poorer if she simply died. I merely thought that sexist terminology wasn't quite the best way to contribute to this particular thread (even if I wouldn't blink at exactly the same terms in another context). Make sense to you? Phiwum (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Vast swathes of agreement is what you get from me here. That said, in my biased view, tossing any sort of unflattering language at Coulter does not sink to the racist depths of black propaganda that is Patty's parroting of "B. Hussein Obama." Not even close to equivalent.

I suppose we can't know how many hearts and minds Psy's little outburst might sway, and which way, without we go through a raft of focus groups using demographics related to the usual fence-sitting suspects. At worst, I see it as an opportunity for a concern troll to come in and be all shocked, shocked, that we call ourselves rational, yet still say such things. For that, we need to be ready with something like, "It isn't at all the same thing, because SHUT UP!!!"

Be well and prosper, and may your bilge always run dry, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, SJC, you really know how to smooth talk a grl! 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

That's what the old lady keeps telling me. I think she likes it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not a chick. Also, thanks for the bilge comment, Sprocket. I am leaving town for a couple of weeks and forgot to check that my bilge is dry(ish). Phiwum (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed's Reaction to August

I guess we're starting to see that asshole's reaction to the whole Dutch fiasco. He's systematically redirecting all of the Dutch towns to the Netherlands entry, claiming that they're all too short for a standalone article. What a fucking dick he is. Outside of the Moonies shit, has he even created an article with more than one or two quoted lines? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention bullying^img other users. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

...and he just blocked August. I bet he came when he did it. He's been wanting to do that for a long time. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor can tell AugustO to "Drop the innocent act" all he wants, it won't change the fact that he is unmistakably the problem here. When correcting an administrator's factual errors is considered to be a violation of the rules on a wiki, you have problems. I also like how Ed Poor is blocking AugustO over something that Aschlafly was complicit in. This just goes to show that the best way to "troll" Ed Poor(if you can call it that) is to be a normal, reasonable human being.75.76.196.182 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Now the question is whether or not August's two free blocks are still good for being redeemed? Ayzmo (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a one day block. He doesn't need any such "free blocks." Ed Poor cannot logistically permablock AugustO at this point.. All AugustO needs to do to demonstrate Ed's status as a detriment to the project is to continue finding situations where Aschlafly sides with him over Ed. 75.76.196.182 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Agent Poor: Tell me, Mr. AugustO... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?" --Sasayaki (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And the first salvo is fired. Wonder if Andy is just going to bury his head, let Ed run rampant, or stick up for AugustO. I Really don't know why I care so much mind you, but I really hope Andy does SOMETHING positive this time, if not just for the sake of fairness. --Revolverman (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you even have to wonder what course Andy will take you're either a moron or a n00b. DickTurpis (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ed's completely right here, man. Who needs entries of a few sentences or so? Especially about Dutch towns. You don't see Ed creating useless, short articles, do you? Do you? (Anyway, I'm glad to see that Nijmegen has made the cut so far, even though Arnhem, Utrecht and Eindhoven haven't. And Den Bosch would be gone too, except that even Ed recognizes how transparent that would be.) Phiwum (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed has risen to a whole new level of assholery here. It's the wiki equivalent of a petulant child kicking over the board when he's lost a game. I can only assume there's been some communication in whatever supah seekrit discussion group they use these days - it's difficult to imagine Ed having the courage to act like this without some kind of vague endorsement from his Andiness. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's why Auggie got a one day block, Ed's testing the waters...if St. Androox doesn't revert, Ed'll know it's okay to do the permaban once they cast lots betwixt himself and Karajou to see whose jism gets on the banhammer. 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Love the way Ed's bombing of AugustO is taking out the whole of Holland as collateral damage.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to check, Ed does remember that Andy sort of sided with AugustO on this one last week, right? See, if AugustO has any sense, and I do think he does, he'll go back to Andy and remind him, state what happened. Can't trust Andy to do the rational thing and carry on siding with AugustO (whether or not he was aware of the epic battle), but if he does Ed is going to be in a very sticky situation - he'll either have to back down or continue looking like an enormous arse. From what I've seen, the arse looks like a safe bet.

Wouldn't it get on Ed's moobs if Andy blocked him? I want to see that happen. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing Ed carry on like this makes me feel sorry for the kids he allegedly teaches. This kind of petulant petty thuggery, taking it out on others when he doesn't get his way. Not to mention his seeming unawareness of his own shortcomings, when it comes to short articles. Although I'm guessing that he rationalises that by thinking, "Hey, I'm user188. If I create a dumb stub, somebody is bound to come along and fix it for me." Which has happened never on CP. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss it here or in the WIGO, or are we missing the best one? That, of course, is the deletion of the distracting aphostrophe-S^img. Whoover (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And user188's justification: "I have removed most attempts to teach Americans the Dutch version of various names. If anyone wants to create a Glossary of Dutch terms as a separate article, that would be great. One thing you could do is explain why some geographical names start with "'s" and why that is so important for us English speakers to know." Because why should an encyclopaedia have damn foreign names in it? The man makes my brain ache. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it's Ken...

...but does he seriously think Rebecca was being serious here?^img --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tough call. Given his fondness for quote-mining, I'd say it's more likely he knows he's pulling the quote out of context. On the other hand, he has the literary abilities of a stunned chimpanzee so might not realise it's sarcastic. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

wow^img --K. (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

At first I was going to say that I doubt they care enough over at CP to actively follow the debate. Then the huge number of atheism articles in the See Also section of that page made me think twice about that. Q0 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather like Ken hee-hawing at "factions in atheism" when there are apparently 33,820 different Christian denominations (according to the World Christian Encyclopaedia)... each of which would happily massacre the others in order to have their brand of Xianity imposed as the New World Religion. --PsyGremlin講話 08:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of denominations, but... no they wouldn't. Round near me, they organise coffee mornings together.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: It is true that there are a lot of Christian denominations -- if I denied that, I'd lose all credibility. However, I have looked at that list, and a lot of them could be described as "sub-denominations" -- groups that have essentially the same philosophy, but are loyal to different governing bodies. The split is really only location based. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are these idiots so hard of thinking?

I mean really, this shit^img is so stupid it pains me. Democrat staffers have.... dun duh DUH! Pensions. And some of those pension funds invest in... DUN DUN DUH! foreign companies! Popeye, even someone as bright as you must realise having a pension fund isn't the same thing as having shell companies in a tax haven for the purposes of avoiding paying tax. You must realise you're being sold a lie, or you're so terminally stupid you shouldn't be allowed to vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the comparison made is stretched too thin, but you can usually choose either an entire pension fund, or a mode within that fund which restricts investments to your country, especially if that country is as large as the US. The most obvious reason to do this is to avoid effects from exchange rates swamping the investment appreciation but it can also make sense if it's especially important (as it is unfortunately for political figures) to appear patriotic. Of the three funds I'm a member of, one is a big old-school institutional last-man-standing fund that has ethical restrictions (e.g. it can't invest in arms companies) imposed by union negotiators, but the other two let the individual choose to invest internationally, nationally, or in ultra-low-risk instruments like government bonds roughly equivalent to putting the money in the bank. I'm sure if a major political party asked for the "international" option to be removed for its members they'd be glad to do that customisation for a small lump sum. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Popeye, if you're really so stupid that you don't understand the difference between investments and off-share tax shelters...well...I have nothing to say. Carlaugust (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was even dumber: "Eric Holder has to give a speech in Houston denouncing recent state trends towards enacting voter I.D. laws, a speech where it was mandatory that all journalists show an I.D. to get in."^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you thought that was dumb, check out his explanation on the talk page. Apparently everyone has the right to see holder speak, it's freedom of assembly! Woo, party at Popeye's house! Freedom of assembly, man! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he really does say that. Capping for future generations to giggle at^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's almost as if they see us calling Ed or Jpatt stupid and get jealous, and jump and down, going, "No! No! Look at me! I'm the dumberest of all." But if Karajerk thinks investing in a foreign bank and hiding your stash in the tax-free Caymans is the same thing, then I can only assume he's switched his breakfast drink from Mad Dog 20/20 to Thunderbird. Also, we can add "accreditation" to the list of things he doesn't understand. --PsyGremlinHable! 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been a golden few weeks. For a while, we'd only had Ken's

dribbling plus the occasional gem from Andy, but Ed's done us proud and now with Popeye and Sedition joining in, it's almost like the old days. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I say we should prove Karajou right and enjoy our first amendment rights and assemble in his living room one night next week. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I play this stupid reasoning game, too? "Republicans claim to be pro-Second Amendment, but anyone brandishing a weapon with a hundred feet of Mitt Romney is detained by the Secret Service." That was fun! --Reichhol (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 UTC

"Republicans claim to hate taxes, yet some of them still pay 'em. Hypocrisy!!!" "Republicans think corporations are people, but most wouldn't allow their daughter to date one!" "Republicans claim to love small government, but they don't support proposals to turn all government buildings to the size of doll houses and require all government officials to be midgets." --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Global Cooling!

Kara: What global warming? The world has been in a cooling trend since Roman times, and we have the trees to prove it!^img

Actual article: German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century. (emphasis mine)

Kara thinks that climatologists were not aware about the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, as well as the cooling during the Germanic migrations and the "Little Ice Age" until now. Instead this tree rings simply further confirm what scientists already knew about the climate trends of the last two millennia, including the spike in the last century, which is even shown on the graph on that very cited article. I love it when CP editors just read the title of an article and never what is inside.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's Kara. Firstly, he's stupid, secondly, he's a lying scumbag, secondly, the list of things he doesn't understand would crash the server if written out. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the headline has 23 words in it, and he probably needed a break after getting to the end of it. I'm sure he'll be back to fix his mistake later. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed vs August Round 3

August asks Andy "When is an article too small for a standalone article?^img

Gee... I wonder what he has in mind? --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Paging Admiral Ackbar, it's a trap. If Andy declares the articles too short, then it's open season on every article Ed has ever written, if he declares them to be fine then Ed gets his swinging e-penis chopped off. Of course, Andy knows how to handle this situation. Engage perpetual ignore mode. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My need to high-five AugustO increases on a daily basis these days. --K. (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely going over a senior admin's head is a blockable offense? I have a feeling it's about to be. DickTurpis (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Registering an account is a blockable offense. It's just that sometimes it takes a bit longer to catch up to the user in question. «-Bfa-» 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I kinda suspect Andy will side with AugustO, since he can point to times when him being around has been invaluable to CP, and Ed... well can't. --Revolverman (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bah. You know Andy won't make a decision. He doesn't know the meaning of the word leadership. He'll ignore the question entirely. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, August doesn't get full diplomatic immunity until Andy promotes him to sysop. Andy will ignore things as much as possible but if it came to an EP v AO death match he'd side with his established acolyte, right or wrong. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No way does Andy get involved. Look what happen with GregG's recent complaint. I would link to it but there's nothing to link to. Andy ignored it. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Michael Jordan

What's with dipshit's newfound love for MJ? Why would Kobe's statement, which I'll agree is false, be liberal claptrap? And why does he seem to think Michael Jordan, who says he cried when Obama was elected is the conservative standard bearer for basketball players. He's the greatest of all time, but not conservative in any way. Also, does Andy realize that Magic "it's fine for everyone to get HIV" Johnson was the captain of a Dream Team?

I guess the big questithousand,why am I trying figure out what Andy's thinking? But the Jordan thing just pisses me off. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The short version: Everything that is "wrong" (unprovable in this instance) is liberal, everything that is "right" is conservative, switch around when Andy thinks differently. Also there's an "even" before "Micheal Jordan". --K. (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's easy to imagine this as being another case of "I read the headline and not the article," and he thought Jordan was crying out of sorrow instead of joy, lol--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. CPs page on Michael Jordan is surprisingly pleasnt, and it hasn't been updated since August of '09. He is also in the Gallery of American Heroes.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 22:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it just boils down to, "Andy's a fucking idiot". I wonder though, is he going to be rooting against the USA basketball team just he can further his insane point about Kobe? "Conservapedia proven right! I'm an asshole!".Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, all you socially challenged quarrelsome men

Ken loves quoting that Wired Magazine said atheists tend to be socially challenged quarrelsome men.

Oddly enough, Ken never actually links to that. Does anyone have an actual link? MDB (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I just love that a guy who spends all of his time arguing on the internet picks on socially challenged quarrelsome men. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 15:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Googling "socially challenged quarrelsome men" uncovers a lot of Ken

's socks! rpeh •T•C•E• 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken has more socks than a dryer vent at a laundromat. MDB (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Honeymunchkins?" Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just threw up in my mouth a little. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hah. That search flags the handle Itellthetruth93, which on a second search brings up some interesting links that I dare not click on at work. Seems to be a lot of content about circumcision. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just asked Ken over at the Question Evolution blog to post the link or, failing that, the issue and page number. We'll se what happens. MDB (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think Itellthetruth93 is a Ken sock, more likely some fellow fan of Vox. The writing style is vastly different for one, and Ken prefers real-sounding names for his socks mostly. He's also not likely to use overtly racist comments like some of this guy's. --Kels (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I might quibble with that statement. Ken also uses highly original socks/account names like Conservative at Conservapedia, Creationist at CreationWiki, American at Ameriwiki, Question at Question Evolution. He is also known to use accounts like Freedom777 at CP and Creation333777 for his SEO "business". At RichardDawkins.net he registered as Ingersoll which I now (belatedly) realise is an attempt at humour - using a brand of watch at the site of someone who wrote The Blind Watchmaker. Kendroll indeed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have included the quotes in my post. Try this lot. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to track this down before, and as far as I can tell, it stems from this Vox Day blog post, which has no references whatsoever. I dug deeper and found what I think is the article he's referring to, which says nothing about atheists being quarrelsome or socially challenged unless you squint your eyes and tilt your head just right. Ken has picked this up as a direct quote and has been using it ever since. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but only if 'socially challenged' is code for 'challenging me instead of politely saying All Beliefs are Special,' quarrelsome is code for 'keeps telling me that I am wrong and it makes me feel bad' and men is code for 'of course no women could ever do this, they're too busy being pretty and not-argumentative.'±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 18:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I've seen Conservative admit minor errors, but ain't no way that he can admit Wired never said what he has repeatedly claimed they said. Think of how many articles contain this "quote". Phiwum (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

They are also saying that fitting into society is more important than being highly intelligent (and with that, being probably right about things). Orwellian • religion = Conservapedia --K. (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Before I say this, don't assume I'm defending Ken. I'm responding to several people in this topic independently of the original post.

But being highly intelligent doesn't mean being a dick to someone just because they're religious, and deliberately antagonizing theists for their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) is definitely quarrelsome.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By the very nature of the issue, the annoying atheists are the most noticable atheists. The folks who see no need to convince others of the errors of their beliefs don't get a lot of attention. Phiwum (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the handful of (nominal) theists on here, my philosophy is this: it is no more fair to base your opinion of atheists on Richard Dawkins then it is fair to base your opinion of Christians on Jerry Falwell. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Though, I wonder what you feel Dawkins has done to put him on Falwell's level. Q0 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. It was more a game of "name an obnoxious theist; name an obnoxious atheist." My initial thought was "Fred Phelps", but Dawkins certainly didn't deserve that. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's a whole tangle of different approaches in-between 'I'm an atheist but I don't say anything to people I know because I don't want to offend them' and 'I'm an atheist and RELIGION IS WRONG LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT IT.' A lot of the community online, for all its obnoxiousness is self-congradulatory rather than assertive; just go to r/atheism and note that most of the image macros posted are posted as a 'lol, I know right?' to entertain other atheists. I personally don't really like religion too much myself but I also think that telling people stuff is not the way to make people think, because most people already have a yes/no response to statements they agree or disagree with. Instead, providing material that encourages actual thought and self-reflection to me is more important. But nope, I guess I'm a Socially Challenged Quarrelsome Man. :| ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 13:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The most ludicrous part of Kenneth's assertions regarding atheism is just how many of them apply to him. I mean, it's possible that behind the scenes he's a charismatic, fit and tanned life of the party who never argues with anyone -- but let's face it. Ken probably hasn't spoken to anyone not from his church in years and if his 24 hour editing sprees are anything to go by "socially challenged" doesn't even begin to describe him. Then again, he probably thinks he's not being quarrelsome because he ends his posts with :) --Sasayaki (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken replies

Unsurprisingly, he can't pull out an exact citation.

Here's my quarrelsome socially challenged response. We'll see if he posts it.

In other words, you can't cite it.

Well, I darn well have searched for it, and this is what I found: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

You know what? The phrase "socially challenged quarrelsome men" NEVER APPEARS IN THE ARTICLE. You'll find someone who would fit that description on the second page, but it's not a major point of the article.

You got the phrase from Vox Day (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html) and have used it unquestioningly ever since.

MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well whaddaya know? Looks like all the comments have been deleted. Who saw that coming? DickTurpis (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire blog post is now gone. Anyone have a screen capture or anything of it with Ken's comments? DickTurpis (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn damn damn. I wish I had thought to save Ken's reply.

Ken, if you're reading this: You. Are. A. Fucking. Coward. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And Ken wins yet another debate. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the Asperger's Test Vox Day links to. I scored a 15. Then again, I thought the test was stupid, and really needed a neutral choice, which I would have selected several times. Any other of you awkward, socially challenged men (or, I guess, *sigh* women) take it? DickTurpis (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I did yesterday. I got in the upper twenties or so -- it compared me with a "math contest winner". (Which I was, back in high school.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No natural choice, and if you crack open the Javascript, no difference between slightly and defiantly agree/disagree. If you get a score of 50+ simply by a slight agree/disagree, then it's not a good test. Even so... I resorted to guessing some of the questions (which raises my score), and still got a somewhat average result. There's also no comment on if scoring 0-12 is a good thing. --Sigma 7 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As best I can remember

Ken's reply (now deleted by the coward) made the following point:

• Your profile says you're a software engineer. Look it up yourself.
• If you google socially challenged quarrelsome men, you'll get lots of hits.
• Richard Dawkins has acted like a jerk at times.

I responded with my quote above. Ken apparently decided to delete all three comments (two of mine and one of his), and then the entire blog post. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Google cache is your friend. Sadly it's from 4/7, so no comments on it. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What next?

There's no doubt that someone will raise the same question on CP. If it's a new user, then of course it will all disappear quietly, along with the user. But there are some fairly well-established users who seem to take leads from this page, and likely one will eventually ask Conservative for a source. What the heck will happen then? A banhammer and disappearing ink, regardless of one's history? Phiwum (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a search and the quote appears in 50, count 'em, 50 articles. It'd be amusing if he were forced to go round amending them all. And probably most of them consist of just that quote and a "funny" picture, such is Kendoll's idea of satire. But then again, Kendoll has the power of the banhammer and oversight to avoid having to admit he ever made a mistake. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And they're off!^img MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Pah! Slaves of the hearsay society, all of them. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No response from Ken yet. I wonder if he's hiding in an intellectual bunny hole. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

He's responded

Without responding.^img MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And now he's responded again^img, in a thoughtful, coherent manner. His account must have been hacked. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooooo, he got the information from "a certain website."

Hi, Ken!

Loves, "a certain website" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Karajou goes apeshit

Karajou: The scandal in Penn State happend because it is a public university.^img

Hey dipshit, eh Karajou, how about you Americans adopt the European system? Just don't have publicly funded amateur sports teams? Think about it: All that tax payer money going into the throw some kind of ball around some kind of field is just a total waste? And what with all the sports teams? They have to buy young players just because there old ones are getting, well, old. Let's just force the 40 year old to play another 20 years! If you don't agree with me you are a liberal atheist commie! --K. (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong on that. In America, sports teams make money for the school, rather than costing it tax dollars. Especially large, well-known sports teams, which draw multitudes of fans into the stadium to throw their money at the school. At the University of Florida, for example, the athletic department makes a tremendous amount of cash for the rest of the school. Granted, this does cause other problems, such as the commercialization of education, and feels a bit like whoring out your school by turning it into a corporate mascot. 70.171.14.182 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And YOU are wrong on that, at least in the case that I am most familiar with, the University of Michigan, where the Athletics Depar ment is a completely separate entity from the academic wing of the school and makes exactly nothing for libraries, research, etc, except in terms of drawing publicity and potential donors to the school itself--but the money Athletics makes stays with Athletics. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right. The big bucks go right back out in big salaries for coaches, trainers, recruiters, promoters, etc. A college coach can typically makes more than a university president. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong. There are very few athletics programs that make any money. Most of the athletics programs in the US end up costing colleges money in the end. All athletics programs that receive Title IX funding must publish their revenue and income. In the SEC There are schools which make a lot of money off football but there are schools which also lose millions on their football teams. These are outdated stats but you get the idea. Ayzmo (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

His statement is essentially "because liberals!" With a little dash of "because secularists/atheists!" Of course we all know such horrendous scandals such as sex abuse of young boys and institutional cover up would only happen at secular, leftist institutions where football couches are elevated to sainthood and never ever at conservative, religious, international organizations where the leaders hold the threat of damnation over the followers and at the head is a man who is deemed infallible; well that would be unprecedented in human history!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservative, religious schools do not have football programs, per se (unless I am forgetting one). Schools like Oral Roberts focus on basketball and may have an intermural football program, but no Division I football. And "football couches" made me laugh and think of West Virginia University (see here). Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Uuuummmm.... Notre Dame? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, you got me there. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about Brigham Young University? How can you forget the whitest team in college football? Ayzmo (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Easily. When I thought of religious and conservative, I thought of Liberty and Oral Roberts. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I meant the Catholic church and all its sex-abuse scandals and cover up; but people are right there is Notre Dame, BYU, Baylor (which is Baptist), and even Liberty University has a football team in the NCAA Division I Football Championships Subdivision (FCS).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Southern Methodist used to have a spectacular team, until the NCAA shut down their football program for a year due to massive recruiting violations. They never recovered. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's also tragic how libruls overwhelmed all the goodness of the program. For example, Paterno spoke at the 1988 Republican Convention, extolling G.H.W. Bush. Sandusky was part of Bush's Thousand Points of Light and was honored several times by his friend, Rick Santorum. But these upstanding conservatives were tainted by breathing the noxious miasma of liberal institution. That's the real tragedy here. Whoover (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose for a moment that an eight year old kid raped by Sandusky becomes emotionally fucked up and pursues a gay lifstyle as an adult. Does the argument that the kid was born gay still apply? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Eat a bag of Vaginas Rob. --Revolverman (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

You have that wrong. Rob needs to eat a bag of shit from an eight year old boy. Rob, you fucking prick, don't you dare try to make this an anti-gay sentiment. What if one of those victims rapes an eight year old girl? Will you breath a sigh of relief because, thank god, at least he's not gay. Fuck you Rob. I hope you're sterile. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose for a moment I punch you really hard in the jaw and as a result you start growing huge hairy tits on your back. What the hell does being raped have to do with an individual's sexual orientation? No, wait, don't answer that. I have no interest in trying to learn more about how you think. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Being sexually molested does not change an individual's sexual orientation though it can cause how an individual expresses their sexuality to change. This is why victims of sexual molestation often act out sexually including sometimes acting out their rape. Ayzmo (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, Rob. Wrote a huge post but just deleted it... instead, I'll just echo what Ayzmo said. Also, eat a dick and turn into the biggest campiest queer ever. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So, it is a scientific fact all gays are born gay, and none become gay because of a confused sexual identity as the result of being victim of sexual abuse as a child. Good, that may in keeping with RW's Mission Statement to refute junk science. Likewise, one can imagine there is no relationship whatsoever between female sexual abuse as a child and becoming a prostitute in later life. Thank God for the wonders of modern science, otherwise we'd still be living in the dark ages of superstition. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're being an asshole Rob. Molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation. You know that, but you're trying to prove some sort of asinine point. Fuck off. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, my question to you is, do you think anything could turn you gay? If I bombarded your userpage with dicks, would you be tempted to go out and suck one? It's a serious question for anyone who thinks sexuality isn't essentially set chemically at birth. Could YOUR sexuality be changed by having a dude hump you? Edit: Also, work as a prostitute is literally fucking people you don't want to fuck. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with it, although hookers do have the right to refuse clients they very rarely do this for reasons of 'he's not hot enough'. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) Bzzzzt. Wrong. The question is not, Does childhood sexual abuse impact sexual orientation, it is, Can childhood sexual abuse impact sexual identity. And the notion all gays are born gay should be treated as junk science.

@Sasayaki, Ace tried that. Didn't work. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Rob is right about this. It's just like when an shooting victim gets shot in the leg, and then can't walk. That totally disproves that people are born with deformed legs. QED Carlaugust (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

CSA affects attachment style and contributes to personality disorders, both of which can lead to questioning sexuality and gender identities. And if I'm wrong I expect to be excoriated with obscenities. 15:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you're thinking about it black and white as though people are either all born gay or none are. That is of course a fallicy as you must know. The brain is incredibly powerful and we can act against our natures. You won't be happy doing it but you can do it. The "Ex-Gays" out there are "straight" but not. The idea that someone can turn gay because of sexual abuse is pretty absurd. Victims of sexual abuse, even if their assailant is same-sex overwhelmingly identify as straight. There are cases where individuals act out sexually with members of the same sex after their trauma but go on to identify as straight because that is their orientation. You really should go read through the literature. Ayzmo (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's really no disagreement here. You've nailed it, not all practicing gays are born gay (I'll reserve comment on the science that claims people are allegedly born gay). And you'd probably agree that some childhood abuse victims with a later identity crisis may never find their born heterosexual identity. Likewise, someone earlier alluded to a notion people do not choose to become gay later life, which is patently untrue and one form of what in times past was called as a mid-life crisis. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore Rob, because I honestly have no idea what the hell he's saying. So back to Kara. I'm going to change a couple of words in his post; tell me if it's not just as true.

Your typical, priest-infested Church, where freedom of speech is outlawed, freedom of religion is banned for non-Christians, where the free-flow of ideas is stifled if they don't agree with it, and in the case of Catholic Church, where officials had covered up the sexual assaults by many men because it might get them "bad publicity"

Carlaugust (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What Rob said is offensive, but not because he claims that homosexuality can be a product of environment rather than genetics. I have no idea what causes one's sexual orientation, and environment and experience (even abuse) might have something to do with it as far as I know. What is disturbing is that he's fantasizing about how to use victims of childhood sexual abuse in order to score some sort of "political" points. These are real children who've suffered real harm, Rob. The way that you treat them as imaginary playthings for making some sort of point or other is truly disgusting. Phiwum (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed is going ballistic on August right now.

Don't mess with Uncle Ed

I gotta run, but "Uncle" Ed is on a tear aright now over at CP. Maybe somebody can get some diffs for us? Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Aww man, I got to go to work soon! Damn new Job, something I might add, Ed lacks. --Revolverman (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying but getting 500 errors. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Ed just take the Nuclear option? --Revolverman (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally called it. DickTurpis (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

[1]^img; [2]^img; [3]^img; [4]^img;[5]^img; [6]^img; [7]^img; [8]^img; [9]^img; [10]^img; [11]^img. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a screengrab in the meantime. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow.^img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Ed have the power to turn editing off? 'Cause as soon as he started, CP was in Nite Moad. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Man Andy, you must be sooooooo happy with your choices for Admins. --Revolverman (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To narrate a bit, Ed goes ballistic and blocks August^img, reverts his complaint/trap to the Arsefly^img (presumably even that village idiot Poor is smart enough to realise his hypocrisy in describing anyone else's articles as too short) and even decides to do some petty editing to just rub in how much of a douche he is^img. He then goes on to revert some of August's edits as "edits of a blocked user" for no good reason, just pure spite. I especially liked this one^img. Leaving the diff with "You're embarrassing yourself, Mr. Poor" at the top neatly sums up the whole episode. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What a child, it is quite unbelievable to see that from a grown man. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed is undoubtedly my favorite CP admin. He's a hoot! Phiwum (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Would love to have a beer with him. What do you think he'd do in real life if you disagreed with him? Go all red in the face, stamp his feet and wet his pants? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's things like this that really remind us why we voted him Conservapedia's biggest idiot emeritus. He deserves that honour and more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The scariest thing is retarded manchild still edits Wikipedia. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And what will Andy do? Ignore this extremely public meltdown. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Absofuckinglutely. DickTurpis (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. He'll wait a couple of days and quietly remove August's rights and than that'll be the end of him. His messenger of god status is defence against the concentrated idiocy at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"one of the greatest and most influential Conservapedia sysops" - Anonymous. Mr. Anonymous is right! And it's mighty insightful of Ed to preserve this wisdom on his user page. Right above where he talks about the virtues of correcting one's mistakes. Phiwum (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor isn't even pretending to be anything other than a bully at this point. His response to AugustO's complaint on Andy's page: "I am an admin. It does not matter whether I am right or wrong. You must submit to me." I guess the unification church really instilled an obsession with the righteousness of people in positions of authority.He's "Uncle Ed" not because you can trust him, but because he has more clout in the family than you do, and you must listen to him. Frightful.75.76.196.182 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought he was "Uncle Ed" because he's the creepy one who turns up on rare occasions and proceeds to molest you. Metaphorically of course. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It can't be both? --Sasayaki (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You must follow my instructions!^img Out of curiosity, what instructions has August not followed? He's a pretty careful, by the book guy. (I know, I know, Ed's making shit up.) Phiwum (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

JPatt's making an editorial comment!^img (Just kidding. He's a chickenshit and the edit is mere coincidence.) Phiwum (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is a battle that Ed Poor can't win, in spite of common knowledge about Conservapedia, it's quickly starting to appear as if AugustO is untouchable (and, unlike the NES adaptation, time will never run out for him.) Take a look at AugustO's edit record. Outside of his disagreement with Ed Poor (in which , judging by AugustO's vague reference to an encouraging E-Mail , Aschlafly holds sympathy to AugustO over) AugustO mainly edied on the CBP. The "abuse of block rights" thing that Ed Poor referredd to? It was entirely for vandal fighting. As long as AugustO keeps this up, Ed Poor is just going to spiral further and further off the chain 75.76.196.182 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Because CP is so Americo-centric, much of this trouble is lost on Andy & the sysops. I've meaning to write a memo on this for the private CP mailing list: CP Sysops have taken the bait for years from non-Americans who (a) have a different understanding of the terms liberal and conservative from what is commonly used in the United States, and (b) don't know jackshit about American politics or the American political system. This incident only highlighs that problem, but ultimately, no one there gives a shit, in this case, Ed too. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This actually makes me long for the blithe hopefulness of Conservative. At least he believes (in his bizarre, insane way) that Conservapedia will be reaching out to a global audience and converting people to their ideology (or at least , somehow, sterilizing the atheists among the audience through the toxic cocktail that is the Question Evolution Campaign). Ed Poor, on the other hand, seems committed to making Conservapedia something on a lesser scale than Wikipedia. It's baffling75.76.196.182 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet Mr. IP address a quarter that one month from now, Ed is still an admin and August is gone. Phiwum (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia suffers from the Dead Sea problem. There's a common misconception that the Dead Sea is too salty to support life; this is true for most of the year, but every winter rainwater comes in from Jordon and the surrounding area, and the sea level rises and salinity drops (it is possible to drown in the Dead Sea at certain times of the year). However, as the heat turns up in the summer months, the fresh water evaporates drop by drop leaving behind only the salt. Conservapedia has legitimate users sign up occasionally (or deep cover parodists who adopt well-meaning personas, which are functionally identical initially) but they evaporate under the heat (heat provided by unrestrained mods with severe insecurities, persecution complexes and a desire for power over others) and only the poisonous salt remains. Life is extinguished and the sea returns to its empty, dead state. The TL;DR is: If August stays and Ed goes, I will eat my non-existent hat. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What's sad about this whole sordid affair is (a) Ed never got the memo that sysops no longer have absolute power; (b) Andy & other don't care to enforce the provisions that sysops don't have absolute power and must treat lowly editors as they themselves wish to be treated; and (c) Ed's shown himself as a TK or Karajouesque type stalker of editors even on non-controversial, non-political, and non-ideological pages (even Ken doesn't do that). But there is a common thread of sacrificing the project for self satisfying vindictiveness. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, what's sad here is that Rob thinks there is a memo that sysops no longer have absolute power and sysops don't have absolute power and must treat lowly editors as they themselves wish to be treated. It is also sad that Rob thinks anyone would enforce the provisions. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It's right here. And that's why I quit the project - lack of accountability.

And Ace, when did you get a job? Congratulations! Even the most handicapped and dysfunctional can succeed if they persevere. You need a PR strategy for your upcoming conference? You could tape posters to light polls adverting your upcoming comic book convention. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been unemployed for any other reason apart from choice in 12 years. Did I say my conference? No, I said a conference.

that's why I quit the project You mean you didn't get your rights stripped, blocked and ass fucked by Ken? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Conservative punched Rob in the head, cleared out his desk and threw his bloodied body out on the street as Andy watched from the top floor office. Rob beat his fists on the door, begging to get back in, pleading with Andy high up in his glass office to no avail. Finally, Rob -- tear streaked and raw about the backside region -- shuffled off to the bar, where he got blind drunk and raved about how unfair it was and how Conservapedia was doomed without him. He tried to sneak back in a few times but security threw him out. Six months later he showed up at the bar again, this time his story was "Oh yeah, I walked away from Conservapedia on principle because of the sysop abuse, the same sysop abuse I totally did not do when I had Andy's favour." --Sasayaki (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(a) You've been unemployed for 12 years? Well you gotta start somewhere, and working for someone else is nothing to be ashamed of. (b) Ken needs a dick to do ass-fucking. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been unemployed for 12 years? Nope. In fact, I'd wager I'm more successful than you dispite being somewhat younger. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well son, when you grow up and employ people, we'll talk. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 05:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, big man! Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 06:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken needs a dick to do ass-fucking. Yeah, not bitter at all. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, being dickless means you lack machismo. Nothing wrong with that. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 05:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any time in recent memory where a sysop took on anyone that wasn't Andy about anything and got told "No, don't be a dick.". To be a sysop is to have total and unrestrained power, unless you directly cross Andy's interests at which point you're immediately executed. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

CP is a lawless society, while RW slowly takes on a degree of bureaucratization. How things change! nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't understand your point. Can you attempt to articulate it without trying to be funny? Or... whatever that was? --Sasayaki (talk)

CP has always been lawless. Andy's grasp of the nature of laws is as bad as his grasp of the laws of nature, and any time he tries to deal with either he gets spanked badly.

Does anyone else think that Ed must be dealing with problems at home to have gotten his tiny dick tied into so many knots? --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This gem is worth preserving. :"Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on rules, just as the United States is. The democratic forces are properly restrained by the good rules. Likewise here. Thanks. Over time, rule-based democracies (i.e., constitutional republics) are more successful than direct democracies.--Aschlafly", or, "Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy." And RW, founded as a mobocracy, has moved away from the mob and becoming a "rule based democracy". CP has NO RULES. If the rules don't apply to the cops (sysops), they don't apply to anyone. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 05:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia isn't anarchy, it is a totalitarian oligarchy infused with some good old fashioned feudalism. Andy is Il Duce and his sysops are his loyal lieutenants, charged with maintaining ideological purity. As long as they do this job and not cross Lord Andy, Prophet of God, they are given unlimited power to rule their petty fiefdoms as they deem fit, and that of course means oppressing the masses while paying lip service to concepts like meritocracy and fairness. What happened to you Rob is you displeased your Lord Andy and Sir Kennth the Macho was sent to dispatch you. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

LMAO @ Rob leaving CP on principle. Why lie about events many of here remember and that are screencapped. Andy booted your ass^img after spending weeks of ignoring you and Ken going at each others' throats his very fuckin' user page. Karajou pissed on your dead body^img and then preceded to skull-fuck your corpse^img<capture>. Andy's definitely going to ignore Ed beating down <capture>God's IT guy^img (heh, even when Andy is thanking someone he's really creepy). --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight: Andy through his sock Jcw took sides after Karajou and Ken got butthurt when I called Kara a worthless cocksucker & Ken demonic. In violation of #16 here, Andy desysoped me. But nowhere can anyone present evidence I ever said anything disparaging of Andy r his sock Jcw, as alleged here. So I can only conclude Andy didn't know what the fuck was going on, but legitimately deserves criticism for violating rules he himself penned to kiss Kara & Ken's ass. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shit just got real.

FrederickT3^img blocks Ed Poor, unblocks AugustO^img. Edit: And it looks like I have no idea how to do a cap of the actual block, it looks like the cap tags there used an old cached version, but just check the block log.--Moose (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *2 It gets even more interesting! FrederickT3 blocks Ed (for Intimidating behaviour/harassment; initially indefinitely, later reduced to 3 months), unblocks August and posts this^img on Andy's talk page. NOW what will Andy do? rpeh •T•C•E• 05:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Karajerk unblocks Ed with the reason "only Aschlafly can block an admin". rpeh •T•C•E• 05:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't he block 'Frederick' though? Strange... Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 06:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it isn't as if the admins actually like each other.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Karajou knows that Ed was completely wrong. Though if he catches on to us noticing him doing something decent (by not blocking FT3) he might reverse his decision. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 07:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of all the sysops, Karajou is the only one who ever shows any signs of actually wanting to improve the site - remember all those civil war and bird articles he created. With that background, I think Opcn is dead right - he can see that August was genuinely trying to help and that Ed's attitude amounts to nothing more than "I'm an admin, you aren't therefore I'm right and you're wrong". Of course, I could be dead wrong and Karajou just forgot. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "civil war and bird articles he created" you mean "half-arsed copy/pastes from the Parks Department and a 1,000 pages, empty save for a totally useless template" then yes, he does want to improve the wiki. That said, his only contribution these days is reverting edits, blocking editors and posting lies and shit he doesn't understand on the main page. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, yes they weren't great but compared to EdStubs^tm, KenDribbles^tm, AndyInsights^tm and JPatt he was operating way, way above the others. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Popeye long since gave up on CP. He just comes round for the admin abuse every so often. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And now August reacts by undoing^img most^img of^img Ed's^img deletions^img and posting^img another set of remarks on Andy's talk page. Somebody pass me the popcorn. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What should we call these last few frantic, entertaining days? "The August of our Discontent"? "Poor Behaviour"? "AvP"? Or should wait to see what the final outcome is before going so far? --Sasayaki (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "The July of August"?--Spud (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

s-Hertogenboschgate? Just rolls off the tongue. Augustus Oops? August vs. Caesar? Poor's house? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And now Ken undoes Ed's move!^img. It's not looking good for User 188. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A Ken vs. Poor fight would be awesome. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be feud of Goering/Bormann proportions. DickTurpis (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

More like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Forbush Man vs. 'Mazing Man. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say how unspeakably happy I am that somebody else remembers 'Mazing Man? --Kels (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let us not forget the unsung casualties, GTac remains blocked, and MarkGall put the gun to his temple instead of going out with a bang. Oh and thank you Karajou, for unblocking Ed and letting the world definitively know that sysops have nigh impunity. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservative has also removed Ed's "job growth" "article". Open minded (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I bet the wires are humming the Conservapedia Group. How long until we see Ken posting that "4 other sysops think Ed Poor should lose his rights?" --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And there goes August's block rights... "pending further review of the disagreement." Countdown to Smeg Ed dropping the hammer in 3... 2... 1... --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Yup - certain block from Ed coming up, plus another for Frederick for undoing his original block. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We should have kept a list of all the reviews the Arsefly is currently conducting. Did the "Is Jinx trustworthy" commission ever report? Isn't Rob's sysop rights review still hanging fire? He must be a busy beaver with all the fact finding he does. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I always knew Ed was kind of an asshole but I never really accepted just how much of a childish asshole he is. It's pretty amazing he has any authority anywhere, frankly. Also I hope if AugustO goes, Ed and Ken end up having some kind of showdown. X Stickman (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And right on schedule, here's Ed. 2 days for August and 1 for FrederickT3. You predictable shit. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed may have kicked August square in the nuts, but it's nothing personal^img. Sure Ed, we believe you. It's not because he caught you in a mistake and you then spent about a week trying to get petty revenge. Just keep telling yourself that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If Unca "I correct my mistakes" Ed weren't such a pussy, he would revert User:Conservative's move of Hertogenbosch. I'd like to see that. Come on, Ed, what happened to your "principles"? Phiwum (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not over yet. Ed will get his pound of flesh from August. This is probably the most childish Ed has yet been on CP. Did he get his wrist slapped on WP or something at the same time? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's personal. It's the principle of the matter. CP Admins ought, by right, to have the power to rename Dutch towns. Why not? Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much will come of a Ken-Ed smackdown, unless it can be proven one or the other has cordial relationships with liberals who want to destroy the site. And Karajou an agent of change on CP? on what planet? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 17:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Rob, does everything have to be about you? Cow...Hammer^time! 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

M-M-M-M-Multi-kill! Blocking a user for incivility, while Conservative runs rampant in the same talk section. Way to go, Ed "Fairness" Poor! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, "run along and play while the adults talk" is pushing the limits of irony too far! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rarely used the phrase "irony meter" before

But given Ed's deletion of masses of text from August^img it fits... Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed is the most self-unaware person who ever breathed. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which... Now you see it, now you don't!^img --Sid (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad - Ed wasn't done yet!^img Also, some wiping on the other battleground.^img --Sid (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed goes after one of Andy's favourite tropes

George Orwell, not a conservative^img. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That article always makes me gag...a complete misinterpretation of the work's meaning. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And it's gone again

After blocking August for 2 days, Ed deletes 's Hertogenbosch again. What a pathetic little man. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's pathetic, but the article is still there, interestingly. Note the hyphen--Ed deleted a different version of the page. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the deletion summary, Ed appears to have recognised Ken's renaming (yes, it's OK if another sysop does it), but if he actually knew anything about wikis he would have left that as a redirect. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After merging the cities in Netherlands because they are too short, Ed creates a single sentence article^img. Wow. Open minded (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

JeffreyB attempts sarcasm, a very brave stunt^img, unfortunately, he will need a year's rest. Open minded (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Turn it into a template"? Ed, you are a complete moron. It's even against the rules for junior editors to create templates. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, all this over the name of a Dutch town? Ed Poor, you're pathetic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Over an argument he can't win. So in the TK/User:Conservative tradition, burn the evidence. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)