Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive294

This is an archive page, last updated 24 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>, <293>, <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)

Do you know where I would love to visit?

New Orlean.^img I could drop in on Tyranni, hear some jaz, eat some gumb...it would be really nice. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 21:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In New Orlean people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing his habit of redirecting all of his various misspellings to the correct page.^img There should be a list, I'm sure it would be amusing. «-Bfa-» 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a typo for "new, or lean, Saints". Perhaps a reference to skinny Mormons? DickTurpis (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Proper spelling is New Awlins. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Tiger Asians will fuck you up!

Yep.^img Seriously, read that shit out loud. I sincerely hope Conservapedia never dies. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Ken pandering to Andy with this mention of worst college majors?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Anyways. Well, you know, (Tiger?) Asians are definitely known for their work ethic. Which is totally Protestant Christian. So, you suck! Take that, liberals! PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is a bit of a jab at Andy, who is nominally Catholic. He didn't say Christian work ethic, but rather Protestant work ethic. Good spot, Pacoperro. Also, on a slight tangent, "Tiger" and "Asian" relate somewhat to Tiger Woods, who is the Most Overrated Sports Star. Hmm...--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The article states 59% are not Christian at all. The only respectable religion left is Jewish. It's great to see our Judeo-Christian heritage continued by these Chinese. Doesn't it bother Ken that this article was written by a professor? Whoover (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tiger" and "Asian" relate somewhat to Tiger Woods No, they don't. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Failures

Apparently, Conservative triumphs don't include spelling^img. At least when Terry blogspams he at least tries to make them superficially coherent. Kendoll can't even get that right, yet he claims people pay him for his writing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Vermont: 4.6, New Hampshire: 5.0

Other side: Mississippi: 8.7, Georgia: 8.9, South Carolina: 9.1

Research done by Ken: 0h 0min 0sec --K. (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed ups the creepy.

Here.^img Here.^img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that, even with the fight with August going on, Ed still finds time to act creepy. Sorry, did I say good? I meant alarming. Vulpius (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with flowing milk? Is Ed lactophobic? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And Ed continues to^img memoryhole^img everything^img...--Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but next to Ed, Ken's anti-user tactics look downright subtle. --Sid (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed's ego is very fragile these days. One of the funniest things on CP in ages. StarFish (talk)

Has he been slapped down on wikipedia recently or something? The sheer level of spite in this entire episode is alarming, frankly. This is not how an adult should behave. X Stickman (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like the fact that he's deleting comments directed at User:Conservative. He looks like he's desperate to make Conservative a friend. Phiwum (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay stuff? Nipples and vulva? Just when you think you have squeezed the last humour out of CP and RWians start saying "You know, we should close up WiGOCP" all of a sudden - Surprise muthafuckers, Ed Poor! Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:-)

The Ken is strong^img in this one. --Sid (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Was underlining you are a bad editor an intentional jab or just unfortunate idiocy on his part?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If Ed really does consider those to be "personal remarks" that are inappropriate for Conservapedia discussion, he is being even more sensitive than usual. A "delicate flower," if you will. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If he really thinks those are personal remarks, I'm curious what he thinks of Ken regularly attacking other users' religion, lack of religion, weight, sexuality, perceived level of machismo, education, etc. Oh, wait, never mind, Ken's a sysop, so it's okay. --Sid (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed's still on a bender burning^img the evidence.^img The butthurt - and douchebucketry - is strong in this one. All this because somebody pointed out he's being an ass over a place name? Sounds like somebody has "issues." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy Ignore

Well, the one prediction in the whole Ed vs August showdown was that Andy didn't give a (public) shit about what happened and his only response to Ed's behaviour was to quietly remove August's blocking rights, which means August is basically beaten. When his two day is up, he either completely capitulates to every part of Ed's demands, submits a writing plan and gives a public apology for ever proving an administrator wrong, or he swiftly earns himself a lifetime (and anyone who supports August will likewise go down).

People are born, people die, the Earth turns and Andy's mismanagement further fucks up whatever's left of CP. It's just odd that Andy would pick Ed over August, since August contributed and improved the wiki and Ed arguably... contributed a whole lot less and bought with him a lot of problems (vindictive bullying, creepy articles, creepiness in general, technological ineptitude, general ineptitude, ego baggage, ties to the hated Wikipedia, etc).

The only reason I can suspect Andy went down this path was he thought that someone who was helpful, polite, considerate, logical, sane and a good contributor must have been a deep cover parodist. Honestly, if the AugustO thing proved anything to me it proved that CP is utterly future-less. Genuine contributors either get driven away, or suspected of being parodists because they're not power crazed, inept lunatics held barely in check by threat of the King chopping off their heads (or MAD from another admin).

Edit: "TL;DR = Conservapedia evolutionarily selects for crazy."

--Sasayaki (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy probably didn't do anything because he doesn't know Ed is a massive liability. Like Conservative and Karajou, he thinks Ed's a big conservative feather in his cap, and whatever he thinks of AugustO is immaterial. I'm also pretty sure Andy is the biggest stick in the mud in the world, and couldn't bring himself to do something about one of his oldest contributors. He just loathes "change" in general (unless it's bullshit geometric word patterns). --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

August never fooled anyone about being a parodist. Andy routinely hands out blocking rights to parodists to help clean up the mess. This episode shows Andy really wants flame wars over controversial issues, cause a parodist cannot avoid controversy by creating non-controversial articles. (A parodist could possibly survive for a while if he mimicked Karajou's cut n' paste plagiarism). This incident shows CP doesn't even want original content from parodists on non-controversial topics. Content on CP these days in meaningless -- it's nothing more than a power game of personal grudges and vindictiveness. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Christ, does CP just attract people with reality warping levels of paranoia or does it hammer it into otherwise sane people? --Revolverman (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think its that surprising Andy came down on Ed's side of this conflict, even if he did it by bayoneting the wounded. August is just an editor and in his mind those are a dime a dozen. Ed is User 188 at Wikipedia. In much the same way a concert promoter forms a Beatles tribute band and hires Pete Best just so they can legally put "Featuring Original Beatles Member" on the marquee, Andy keeps Ed around for the boasting rights. So what if Ed is creepy, spiteful, a Mooney and hasn't done anything of real substance on Wikipedia? He was there when it started and is now on Conservapedia. That obviously proves Conservapedia is the superior wiki, QED.

As for August turning out to be a deep cover parodist, again that wouldn't surprise me either. Take aside Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by even the Conservative movement and the antics of its Admins are a poorly kept secret by this point, I doubt any legit editor on any open source project would put up with the crap he has for this long if there weren't some another agenda. In the end I hope he at least gets to fire off a decent parting shot.

For me though the real gold in all this might be the setting up of an Ed vs. Conservative showdown. The squash matches have been fun to watch and we've had a few good bouts with mid-carders like Rob and Jinx, but its time for the main eventers to get in the ring. --Tygrehart

Ed is User 188 at Wikipedia.. Um, yeah, but I'm user #100 and Ed was regarded as a wingnut by the WP crowd even back then. He has milked his early involvement at WP as some sort of badge of honour, but he was pretty much WP's first troll. VOX^HUMANA 02:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed says he was WP's first elected bureaucrat; must've been a popular and trusted fellow back then. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, and it was less about "respect" and more to do with the fact that no-one else wanted to do it. The role of "admin" and "bureaucrat" held none of the significance that they seem to have acquired since those days. The first Arbcom was the same, Jimbo handselected the committee and he had to make a second request because not enough hands went up the first time around. VOX^HUMANA 03:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting link; clearly he was trusted and influential early on. As in the Larry-Sanger-was-not-a-co-founder episode, and other examples, WP has tried to whitewash some of its history. Arbcom was Ed's idea, according to Ed. An idea Ed probably lived to regret. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom was invented by James Forrester - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well my name (Manning) is on that page to a great extent as well, so I've feel I've got some right to comment. It's correct that Ed did take it upon himself to "vet" a lot of people. What's missing is that many people (particularly Angela and Mav) regarded this conduct as irritating. Arbcom may well have been Ed's idea, I can't remember. Regardless Ed was NOT a major influence, no matter how he attempts to paint it, he was always regarded as a crank. I'll also note that the list of "Notable wikipedians" leaves out some of the most important, such as Mav, as well as Brion Vimmer and Lee Daniel Crocker. They were all WAY more important than Ed Poor, so I can't help but feel that page was written by people wanting to push their own agenda. VOX^HUMANA 03:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it's got you speaking in the first person, "I was here a day or two before JHK... I thought it was earlier than September, but maybe not," but it looks like Manning never edited the page. Who knows where any of this stuff come from? (I love the historical method, and feel it is important to apply it in creating a clean record fr the early internet age). nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree on the part of AugustO being a parodist. While his goal is clearly to make a point, he is not doing so by means of parody. INstead, he's doing so by testing the waters of a system that is practically (intelligently) designed to fail. His goal isn't to undermine the quality of the articles, but allow the administrators to prove to the public that they themselves are undermining the site.75.76.196.182 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservaleaks only goes up to Feb 2011; he was ID'd in June of 2011.

user:AugustO

from:[redacted] 6/23/11

to Karajou, aschlafly, Conservative, Temlakos, me, DMorris, Ed

He is a time waster and likely ratwikian. He has been booted at least twice but has managed to return.

from: Rob Smith 6/23/11

to John, Karajou, aschlafly, Conservative, Temlakos, DMorris, Ed

A. Don't boot him, he is a known quantity and we can keep an eye on him and eliminate stumbliung in the dark and the guessing game.
B. If he uses socks, block his socks and give him a warning & 24 hour time out;
C. Demand citations for each and every inclusion, anywhere.

Yeah, if you're going to redact Jpatt from the sender bit, maybe you should remove him from your reply too. Jpatt seeing a RWian around every corner is nothing new. He's as bad as TK when it comes to driving off decent editors. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ed is too much of a coward to take Ken on. He'll just do the same thing he does whenever he's challenged on Wikipedia and sulk off. Vulpius (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy "sided" with Ed because Ed is a sysop, and any implication that a sysop might not be correct or good at their job is an implication that Andy was wrong, and we all know that's flat-out impossible (source: Conservapedia Proven Right). «-Bfa-» 20:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Most long-time CP watchers (myself included) called this correctly. Andy converses with Ed in the Cone of Silence and there was never any question that anyone outside the Goon Club could ever win against a sysop, unless they were personally known to Andy. At the end of the day, CP means a lot more to Ken than it does to Ed. For Ken, it's his raison d'être; for Ed, it's a corral of captive scapegoats. Ken will win any confrontation with Ed because he brings in the pageviews - even the clickbots were attracted by Ken. Ed will back off and like any humiliated small-time bully, he will take out his impotent rage on some defenceless editor. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Should then the clickbots be turned onto Ed's stubs?

If Ed's articles were to get whole bunches of hits then mightn't User:C's stock go down, leveling the playing field and give Ed the chance to fight the good fight and provide us with many of the lulz we so desire?!!!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs}

Not really, they would probably get the delete and recreate treatment - well half of it anyway. - π 07:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, nobody gives a shit about Ed's stubs - not even Ed himself. If their pageviews were inflated, they'd just be nuked. The fun of pushing Ken's drivel is that they're such sacred cows to him that he rarely brings himself to resetting their precious pageview counters by deleting them. --Sid (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama v Reagan

Even though its not launchbooty, this still a laugh riot. Couple things left out, like reagan raising taxes, while Obama has cut them (but that might hurt their belief in "TAX CUTS ONLY"). Also, apparently Obama has surrendered our national sovereignty, and reagan didn't "raid our treasury". Man, if these people ever actually LOOK at reagans legacy, they will be SOOOOOOO bummed out.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted a reply a few hours back that listed a few select hard numbers behind the Reagan years, basically showing that he tripled government spending and put it all on the national debt to get the economy going again. And the comment got erased, which is unusual for CNaV, but I think I'm about to get banned there anyway. --DinsdaleP (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

ooh, I think you've touched a nerve: "And you dare accuse me of inconsistency? GOD DAMN YOU! You will apologize to me. FORTH. WITH." What a prick. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That baby is definitely worth keeping. I don't think "prick" goes far enough, Psy. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also posted, showing how taxes and government spending increased under Reagan. I doubt it'll appear - mostly because I told Terry that he should stop calling himself a journalist. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, these machismo heavy conservative types sure are big on throwing bitchy little tantrums whenever challenged on their idiocy, but then again I guess impotency does that to a guy. Lets keep poking this teddy bear and see if he goes on a rampage Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And the very next morning there's an essay by Terry's partner RoseAnn, where she asks the question "Where are the men and women of God who are supposed to be preaching love instead of hate? Healing instead of crucifixion?". Maybe you should read that part to Terry "GOD DAMN YOU!" Hurlbut again, RoseAnn. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If the subject is comparing government debt and borrowing by Reagan and Obama to stimulate job growth and the economy, you guys still are making an apples to oranges argument. In theory, the increased government spending to stimulate the economy is supposed to put people back to work and increase the national savings rate which produces a pool of capital to hire more people. Something like this theory had limited success under Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. But FDR & Reagan borrowed from Wall Street (domestic investors), not foreign investors. When FDR & Reagan's debt payments were made, they were made to domestic investors, keeping both the principal borrowed and interest payments within the United States to serve as a pool of capital for further job growth. Not so with the Obama (and GW Bush) stimulus. The debt was borrowed from foreigners, primarily Chinese, which must be repaid both principal and interest to foreigners. If national savings are to appear as a result of this stimulus, the gains must be exported to China, and not remain in the US as a capital pool to create new jobs with. The scheme was doomed to failure from the onset. It didn't create jackshit worth of jobs -- not even enough to keep pace with population growth. Yet a $5.5 trillion principle debt must be repaid whether it ever creates jobs or not, and this from a economy with about only $14 trillion annual output. No comparison to the wisdom of FDR's & Reagan's debt vs Obama and Bush. And Obama has proven himself GW Bush on steroids. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Foreign debt is exaggerated. In reality, only about 10% of our national debt is owed to foreign countries. Most of it is in the hands of the Treasury and Fed. Also, don't even try to make the argument that Reaganomics was stimulative in any way. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit:Alright I should have looked at your source about foreign debt, but your source only counts raw debt, not as a percentage of GDP. Unless you find a chart that does so, we can't make conclusions. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't really need a chart, it would be expressed as a fraction of 5/14.6 = x% (foreign debt/current GDP estimates = x%). The source link goes to all the current data used by the Federal Reserve Board. Now, rather than argue over FDR vs Reagan vs Bush vs Obama, I suggest we examine the current problems, use past efforts (successes and failures) to determine what's been gleaned, and analyze current efforts and proposals to see what may be likely solutions. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really rocket science. If current GDP growth is 1%, economic growth, or the capital produced by stimulus spending to create jobs with, is $146 billion. Expressed as $14,600 billion x 1% = $146 billion. That means the US government borrowed $5000 to earn $146 bucks last year, while interest rate on continued borrowing (i.e., waiting for the stimulus to kick in) is rising. This means the cost of re-financing the principal on the foreign debt increases, with zero to negative gains to help repay the debt or meet interest payments. Zero to negative, because job growth is not keeping pace with population growth.

Sure, the Obama camp argues, "x amount of jobs have been created....blah blah...", but those jobs created are not keeping pace with population growth let alone reduce existing unemployment. So the debt burden with rising interest rates only becomes greater on those who are still employed. And the national saving rate, or the pool of capital necessary to create jobs, dries up to zero. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not about Obama vs "what should be the case", this is about Obama vs Reagan. As a percentage of the GDP (and in real dollar amounts if you don't count the 2009 Bush budget) Obama has lowered the deficit (and yes, this is counting the stimulus). It would be ideal to have the debt as a percentage of the GDP lowered significantly, but many of the President's proposals have been blocked in Congress (the House refuses to even pass his budgets). The current increase in debt is largely due to the recession, which has lowered revenue and even shrunk the GDP in 2009. Reagan, on the other hand, increased both the debt and the deficit, undoing decades of fiscal responsibility.

As for job creation, it would help if the Republican Congress actually listened to Obama's proposals. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

All those numbers are meaningless unless they point to the object of these economic discussions: employment and living standards. By any standard of measurement, (a) employment as a percent of the population has dropped under Obama; (b) living standards have dropped under Obama; (c) the ability to reverse these trends that started before Obama has diminished; (c) Obama's economic programs have not been helpful to increase employment and living standards; (d) Obama does not propose anything to help reverse these trends.

Now, someone may argue Obamacare raises living standards (although this is doubtful for anyone other than persons with per-existing conditions); but we've yet to see and feel the economic impact of lowering discretionary income for consumer spending as a consequence of the healthcare mandates. Some say it means adding another 2 million to the already 12 million unemployed. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Fuck the Obama v Regan, Terry's rant at Dinsdale was 100% pure gold. I was going to wade in, but real life interrupted... The CP manchildren really are delivering the goods at the moment. Terry's fantasy politics over Israel is worth following too, though I've given up on debating it for the time being, his screeds are not even wrong. -- 23:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like several of us (myself included) posted replies, but he hasn't published any of them, nor comments on any of his other rants from anyone except Unsanitary and Rasta Dickell. Looks like yet another conservative has gone back into its intellectual bunnyhole. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is horribly written. He doesn't seem convinced himself that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. It's all "Some people say blah blah blah". And this, "During the Jimmy Carter years (1977-1981), the country experience (sic) another financial crisis brought on by mismanagement of government. By June of 1980, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, which was supposedly held in check by prime interest rates that topped 20%..." This makes little sense. Mismanagement of government, or mismanagement by government? Remember, he chooses his words carefully like a nuclear weaponist loads plutonium. Or "unemployment...held in check by prime interest rates..." (A) What the hell does that mean? (B) What is the significance of it? He needs to stick to pathology cause his ability to analyze economic data is like a nuclear weaponist with an unsteady hand. nobs^{An armed society is a polite society} 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

With the only commentary allowed so far being a bunch of "attaboys" from Pastor Bickel, CNaV has just become another echo chamber with all the dynamic interplay of a rock garden. Terry recently commented that he liked to post contrarian views so we'd demonstrate to the readers how ridiculous we are and how correct he is, but I guess he's decided that it's just easier to appear correct by removing any trace of disagreement. Quite the show of confidence on his part. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not confident enough to say point blank, "the New Deal prolonged the Depression", which is the scholarly consensus today. He disclaims it. Then he uses the Public School/Marxist narrative that the Depression began with the Stock Market Crash. No, the Crash of '29 did not cause the Depression. Rather, the Crash was only symptomatic of underlying problems that had been at work for years. nobs^{An armed society is a polite society} 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Smeg Ed a college drop-out?

We who are college-educated need not show off our vocabularies but ought to write at the high school reading level.^img Or kindergarten level if your name is Ed Poor. However, I seem to recall Ed saying somewhere that he'd dropped out of some or other college course. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He had some some college education before he dropped out then. - π 12:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's like saying "I went to Cambridge" when all I did was walk around the campus. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed would. - π 13:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed did. -larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

From the Goon Show:

Eccles: I'm practicing, you know.

Greenslade: Don't tell me you're applying for the post of announcer?

Eccles: Yeah. And I'll get it too, you'll see. I'm wearing a Cambridge tie.

Greenslade: You? You were at Cambridge?

Eccles: Yeah!

Greenslade: What were you doing there?

Eccles: Buying a tie.

rpeh •T•C•E• 19:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism at its finest. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please use easier words. "Dumbing-down at its finest." You are welcome. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FTFY: "Double unsmarting at its goodest." -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Any ideas why Conservapedia's spam filter doesn't allow editors to add the word "puerile" to articles? I'd love to think that they've got a filter that prevents people from adding "clever words" but somehow I doubt it.--Spud (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is our Ed... Vulpius (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should try to convince Andy to add all non-Conservative words to the spam filter. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, snap.

I wonder to whom this is directed?^img I like this August character more and more. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused by the prospect that giving certain rights to rule over a rotating-door of half-interested editors on a little-known wiki/internet laughingstock is considered "power". -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The smallest amount of power can becomes the bee's knees for whoever has it. Forum moderators come to mind... so many times have I seen it go to their head and turn them into insufferable despots. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's surprising how such a small amount of power can go to some people's head. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basketball

Will the outspoken Christian star Kevin Durant be able to overcome expected lackluster performances by Overrated Sports Star Lebron James? You know, the guy who beat him in the NBA finals? If they win, Durant gets the credit, if they lose, Lebron gets the blame. Give andy credit for always covering his bases.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yah. Andy's good at that--if the US wins gold medals, it's because they're beating countries that are atheistic/impose gay marriage/whatever. If the US doesn't win gold medals, it's because Title IX and the feminists have gutted American sports. For a hateful little man like Andy Schlafly, it's win-win, no matter what happens on the field. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you aren't thinking of OSS James Lebron?^img--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Snap. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He's nothing if not consistent. Whoover (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy knows there's more than one player on a basketball team, right? It's not exactly a duel... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Best Of The Public™ should go out there and face these professional athletes at their sports. Also, surely if conservatism is so good for one's athletic abilities Andy & User:Conservative can go 2 on 2 with the overrated LeBron James James LeBron and Kobe Bryant. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait until Andy hears that Jeremy Lin might be traded by the Knicks. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not traded, but not re-signed. I guess there is only room for one "Conservative All Star" in New York. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed the Conservative Bible

and Andy's translations^img which equate to "screw the actual meaning, I want it to say this." --PsyGremlinParla! 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait... they're still actually editing the CBP? I thought that was over and done with.

Seeing they're still editing the CBP... that's like when you hear about some aged celebrity passing away and you think, "wow, they weren't dead already?" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought Ernest Borgnine had died a few years ago...I don't know what gave me that impression. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised Andy Griffith was still alive when I heard he died last week. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh, but if you did miss the Conservative Bible... practice your aim. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait...

We all know soccer is a socialist sport, but now Andy's down on rowing because it's "obviously a rich-man's sport"^img and seeming to be up on soccer because it's the greatest team sport. Keeping up with this man is hard work. Also because it's rich atheistic UK has an advantage... which is why East Germany, the USA and then GB have the most medals. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But how are there so many rich people in the socialistic, atheistic UK? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I love this quote from that post: "rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot". Really now, I'd say almost every sport which isn't a team sport is purely about some kind of physical feat, making the contestants "act like a robot". Oh right, it's just Andy being Andy.. --GTac (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck is soccer a "rich man's sport?" It's what all the kids play in third-world countries with beat up soccer balls. It's every boy's dream to rise from poverty and become a football star. I'm tempted to pop in and call him out on this, but I'll get 90/10'ed by Uncle Creeper--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As far as rowing being a rich man's sport goes... okay, yeah, in the United States, rowing is a sport that's only really popular at elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. Is that true in the rest of the world? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well down here, most of the high schools have rowing teams, both public and private schools. (If the Brits are confused, our public schools are government schools.) And we don't have Ivy league universities. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My high school had a rowing team as did several others in the area. Mine was a grammar school but several state schools had teams too. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy says this stuff just to screw with you guys. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean he intentionally practices deceit? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy loves a food fight. It's not such a big deal to poke British RW users with a stick like he is here, it's the sadistic pleasure CP sysops get in blocking people when they fight back that's I have a problem with. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait...we must log into Conservapedia to get an answer from Andy. The ballz are in your court.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about, you strange little man? Don't have to run along and protect the Great Grand Wizard of All That is Conservative from being accidentally exposed to the truth. PS, I love how your censorship leaves Andy talking to thin air. Beautiful! --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should ask him about equestrian events like Dressage. Considering Romney's got a horse slated to be in the Olymipcs, it'll be interesting to see Andy's spin, especially if he places. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's got a horse in the Olympics, Obama signs horse slaughter legislation. [1] That should help embarrass Romney.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What in FSM's name are you talking about? Cow...Hammer^time! 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that made no sense, so I'm guessing it's JPatt? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that cricket? What is Andy's take on the Offside Rule? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Freudian Slip?

Andy: "I rowed for a bit myself. It... does not use the brain."^img MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the only sport that doesn't not use the brain. THE ONLY ONE. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this also applies to all track and field events. You don't need a brain to run/jump/swim/cycle/row. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So how do muscles work without the brain? Direct application of electricity? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to Andy, I've yet to see him do anything that involves using his brain. PsyGremlinRunāt! 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

AugustO's apology

OK, I really can't tell, is he having a go at Ed with that "senior admin does not imply adult" thing or is he actually submitting here? If he is indeed having a go, I will send him a blank cheque with my signature and a single 1 on it. He can write down as many 0s as he likes and cash it. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He is most certainly having a go.^img AugustO complained numerous times, that Eds talk page was locked. On Eds page is the creep picture every one loves. I think even JPratt got it. Start writing that cheque ;-)--Th. Bernhard (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor^img didn't like it - and drives AugustO's point home... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Conservative seems to be taking a hatchet to a lot of his work.

1^img ; 2^img;3^img;4^img;5^img; 6^img. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think being called out on the Wired article unsettled him, maybe? Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Moar: Here^img; Here.^img Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So what does this explanatory power explain? (I can't believe you've spent all this time over years reading this shit). nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

When I saw Rob had commenting on RC I was sure I was about to read some bullshit about how it was his intervention, through an email with Andy, that helped conservative see the light and at any second Rob will be received at CP with open arms. Ahhhh well. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And I can't believe you spent all these years writing this shit. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's a classic.

@Ace: No, I think it's pretty pitiful. Andy is troll baiting you guys with rowers have no brains, and Ken see's the light about over-the-top criticism of atheists. But until they both stop blocking people for the momentary sadistic glee they have in shit-canning a liberal, Ed & Karajou are still gonna follow the leaders. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy is trolling us by making himself, quite publicly and in his own family name, sound like an idiot? Keep it up Andy! Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In other news, the Daily Mail is actually just trolling the fuck out of the Merseyside Skeptics Society. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 05:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Socially Challenged Ken

Ken, realising his claim his bullshit starts deleting^img the^img evidence^img. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm smiling a lot right now. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Ken's recent edits are closer to "intellectual" honesty than I expected. I thought he'd cling to the "socially challenged men" non-quote rather more than he has. Instead, he seems to have decided that since it was not sourced, he should drop references to it as well as some related claims. Phiwum (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. A systematic burning of the evidence is the closest Ken ever gets to a public acknowledgement of being wrong. Other sysops would either double-down in an ever-spiralling descent of lying or ignore all complaints and block anyone who mentions it (usually after the double-down has already been deployed). ^{ONE / TALK} 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting lots of citations that Dawkins is a jerk. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And has Aspergers! LOLOLLOL Ken! Prosh! 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Never have I ever stopped reading an article because of the very first word.

Until now. Literally one word in, and I realised it was bullshit. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got done reading that myself. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of the article was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like this is news? I can't ever remember a US President with Red curtains in the Oval Office. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm are you sure Rob? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, run along and let the grown-ups talk. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob! HEY ROB!. You're an idiot! Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But what's missing? All that cover the windows now is the Rote Fahne. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, "Rote Fahne" was a newspaper, Why not English? --K. (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, those curtains are burgundy. Two idiots, Rob was joking--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, his health care reform bill copied a Soviet health care plan. - We did it, we found the stupidest thing ever written. Seriously, Hitler failed less hard. --K. (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't red the colour of the republicans? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Drive them out! Back into the sea!

So now Karajou turns his ire upon others for questioning the impunity of Conservative's mental capacity. His responses, predictably, are "I don't give a fuck about the rules", and "Get the fuck out". We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.[2] Rules are for sissies, right Karajou? Gotta keep that status quo! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I love Karajerk's impotent rages - "I'm ordering you to leave this wiki." Don't ask me difficult questions! Also, Kara when you say shit like "we have topics within it which makes the liberal left howl" you left out the words "with laughter." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He must've taken a course at some point, or been told by someone in the navy, that talking like that is a good way to command respect/obedience. Since he is effectively his own feedback loop ("I told this person to do X, he didn't, so I banned him, so I was right"), it's like this idea is permanently ingrained in his head. I'd love to see this guy at a restaurant. "YOU WILL GIVE ME THE STEAK AND IT WILL BE MEDIUM RARE." X Stickman (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At some point in Kara's "illustrious" military career (for which we still have no rank) he was an MP. Now I know from my own experience that there is no more an officious, jumped-up, small-minded, petty, vacuous, small-man-syndrome position in the military than that of MP. What amazes me is that he's sucking on the government teat, apparently doing a anthropology and archeology course at LSU. I'd love to see him in class when the lecturer says something like "Now, these ruins are 20,000 years old" and Kara leaping out of his desk, frothing at the mouth, "NO! Stop your liberal lies and professor values! They're 6,000 years old!! 6,000 YEARS DO YOU HEAR ME?! You WILL leave this lecture hall! Oh and you're FAT too!" Of course, there's another theory that says Kara is just a mean drunk, who never leaves his trailer in the bayou. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know what SharonW tried to do on "the other site" (I'm assuming it's Ameriwiki)? Sounds like an interesting and unexpected drama from SharonW. --Th. Bernhard (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor is such a sensitive soul

More of those nasty personal comments^img removed. What a pussy. Phiwum (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Doomed to Failure

Seriously, guys, It's not^img even worth trying^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But yes it is! This is the very best kind of Poking Conservapedia. Unlike parodists, these are reasonable people using reasonable methods to attempt to improve CP, with the express intent and expectation of highlighting how utterly, irreparably broken the whole CP system is. CP had its age of the parodists, and now it's having its age of the reasonables (who can only "make a living" over there because the parodists - who tried their hardest to drive off reasonable people - have since departed) ^{ONE / TALK} 09:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well they were reverted^img and blocked^img so I dunno what long-term effect it'll have had. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No surprise there and yes, ultimately it won't help CP change at all, but it's funny for those who care (i.e. us) to see somebody going "This wiki is dysfunctional and broken" and then for the people running the place to come along and show just how dysfunctional and broken it really is. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've suddenly got a new found respect for those well-meaning (but misguided) self-described "liberals" and "moderate conservatives" who are trying to turn Conservapedia into a real encyclopedia. They won't achieve that goal but there will at least be more people who'll see that you can't polish that turd.--Spud (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any of them left. Not any that I can see anyway. All those who are there pretending to look out for the interests of CP are just trying to stir the pot. You are 2 years too late Spud. Titus Atticus (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. It's called Poe's Paradox for a reason, buddy. 13:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not like I didn't already hate the Olympics....

But add "faith based achievement^img" to an anti-Palestinian screed to the homophobia and the weird fixation with atheism and I may need to take a CP break or risk a stupidity-induced stroke.... ^{— Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs}

Are we on the verge of another Conservapedia Law?: Olympic success is inversely proportional to the first derivative of athiesm. Note that it's "increasingly atheistic" countries that are listed for prediction of failure. Countries, like China, that have already maxed out on atheism don't count. Whoover (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, why did you need to add that point in bold text in italics? Shouldn't the wisdom of your words alone not need that kind of cheap trick to draw attention to them?--Spud (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I love the way the third reference in that article has fuck all to do with anything. Vulpius (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the third "reference." Notice how no source is cited, and this footnote will soon become outdated and incorrect. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Will Terry Admit He Was Wrong?

The latest bug up Terry's butt is that Iran is going to close the Strait of Hormuz.

In the comments, he brings up that the US fired on a small boat in the Persian Gulf.

With no evidence whatsoever (and in fact, evidence to the contrary), he insists the boat was Iranian.

The latest news is that the boat was Indian.

Will he admit he was wrong? Will this be like Andy insisting Castro is dead? And... what about Naomi? For these and other burning questions, tune in tomorrow... MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll descend further into his paranoid delusion and claim the crew was merely trained to pretend to be Indian or that they may be ethnically Indian but were recruited at an early age by Iranian security forces, or that the whole report is a lie by the liberal media. Once you're as paranoid as Terry, anything that proves you wrong can only be the work of your enemies.

I've basically given up with CNAV. It was entertaining for a while but the man's insufferable. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course he won't - he's already claiming the Iranians use other means to wage their wars. It might be Indian, but the Iranians were behind it. You must remmeber, Terry really, really, really wants a Middle east War, because a) he thinks it will be the end of Obama and b) if Israel gets invloved, it'll bring about Armageddon. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The piece above argues that Obama wants a war with Iran, to improve his chances of winning in October.

Of course, you know damn well that Terry would have been yanking off to the thought or a war with Iran four years ago. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Now every time I hear of Iran on the news, I imagine a person in a darkened room (lit by only the flicker of the TV) furiously masturbating with piles of kleenex ready, a strained grimace on his face while he's whispering, "Jesus is coming! Jesus is coming!" My sickly images are now your sickly images! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How dare you put that curse in my mind! But that's probably exactly what Terry would do, if he wasn't an impotent man-child. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yup. How do you know that the Iranians didn’t bribe (the captain)? More typical Chuckarse paranoia. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry Fails Reading Comprehension Forever

I pointed out to him that the latest news is that the boat was Indian.

Terry responded, "We’ll see what the Navy says."

The article I cited says "U.S. officials said the small boat wasn’t Iranian." MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry didn't even read the link and will ignore everything, until somebody like Alex Jones says "It's Iranian!" then Terry will be all, "See! I told you it's Iranian!" Don't even bother trying to talk sense to the idiot, he's worse than Andy when it comes to hearing only what he wants to hear. And twice as insane. And like CP, I'd say we're his only audience. Nobody else comments on his blog, except Bickel. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know. Arguing with Terry or Andy is like pounding your head on a brick wall... it feels so good when you stop. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't read any links you give him, or perhaps nothing more than the headline. On more than one occasion he'd reply to me giving him a link by making some idiotic claim that was refuted by the link in question. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he'll accept this, with a statement from the US Embassy, and one from the Indian Foreign Minister, plus a photo of an injured Indian sailor? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the embassy is probably full of Democrats, who are all Muslim sympathizers. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless - if you don't nail him with something indisputable, he'll just hold out until you do, and when you do, he'll prevent the comment from being published. RoseAnn's even worse - the woman's skin is so thin it must be transparent. --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite funny - I've been Googling RoseAnn for some research and the general reaction of the New Jersey conservative movement towards her (and Terry and their pet candidate Bader Quamout) is a collective "WTF??" --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious if Andy has ever met Terry or any of the other members of the CNAV crew. They're all New Jersey residents, and it's not a large state physically. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Terry was at that Conservapedia dinner held at that fire station a few years ago. Kettleklik described him as "creepy" He also went with Andy to the Colbert show. Terry's a bit like the Clyde to Andy's J. Edgar. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And now I'm picturing Andy in drag. I'll have nightmares for a month. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That conservativenewjersey guy really doesn't like RoseAnn. It's quite funny. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He's very quick to take offense at anything, and very bitter. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I agree with something Rob said! The end times are upon us! PsyGremlinPrata! 06:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry was very involved with Andy in the "Recall Senator Menendez" fiasco a while back, which was the source of the "Washington's heartfelt letter counts as much as the actual Constitution" defense. I believe RoseAnn was a part of the advocacy group behind the court actions as well. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's all Greek to me

AugustO still hasn't figured out that the worst offense at Conservapedia is to show that your betters^img have made a mistake^img. This way he will never regain his blocking rights! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He made the mistake of pointing out that different languages use different structures. Which is wrong! Doesn't he know that all languages use the exact same sentence structure and formatting, they just change the words to different spellings and shapes? X Stickman (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's how I thought languages worked when I was 6. Maybe public schools have steered us away from that obvious truth. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's also how different languages work in Terry Goodkind's objectivist fantasy novels. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 18:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, pulling accusative plural fu on Andy's ass will come to no good. Whoover (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that him doing so in the CBP won't hurt him too much. He's done it many times and Andy usually just ignores it. I'd be surprised if Andy reacts to this at all other than just reverting his change when he makes it. Ayzmo (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing other human languages and writing systems with a substitution cipher also results in those ridiculous tattoos which appear to be gibberish in a foreign writing system (often Chinese for Westerners). Like this. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the sailor who pointed to the symbols in the window of a Hong Kong tattoo parlour and said, "I want that" and went around with the Chinese for "Half price for locals" on his arm thereafter. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that Russian is just English written in funny letters. Vulpius (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Relocating comments about CNAV...

I know Terry's relevant on WIGO:CP given his sysop status, but most of the comments about him over the past few months have been about his antics at CNaV, with the only connection to Conservapedia being his linkspamming. I know more people read WIGO:CP that WIGO:Clogs, but shouldn't we be discussing CNaV over there? --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help encourage people to spread to the other WIGO's. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

People keep saying that, but CNAV is the only thing that keeps WIGO: CP interesting, don't expect it to change any time soon. (Also, GOD DAMN YOU! WE WON'T MOVE WIGO: CNAV UNTIL YOU APOLOGISE!) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Touche, Jeeves :-) You know, every time I think of Terry's post, I picture Charlton Heston in the original Planet of the Apes. At first it was the ending, but the image that really captures the essence of Terry is this scene. The lone Christian Conservative trapped in a world of liberal atheist evolutionists, cornering him at every turn with their damn facts, logic and reasoning... TAKE YOUR STINKIN' PAWS OFF MY BLOG YOU DAMN DIRTY LIBERAL! --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WIGO:CP has been brilliant even without Chuckarse lately. All the sysops have made efforts to gain our attention and it's been a brief return to the golden era. WIGO:CNAV wouldn't work. As has been remarked upon before, Terry et al are simple stereotypes: Obama is a treasonous communist Muslim; the UN is either a toothless waste of money or a ravening beast that threatens to take our rights; Israel can do no wrong... etc, etc. He makes the occasional amusing post (the GOD DAMN YOU one was a beaut) but beyond that he flies well under the radar. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed 'Go fuck yourself AugustO' Poor sez...

Don't be so dramatic^img Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 01:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget about personalities and just edit! Wow. Phiwum (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama's forged BC

Now that Sheriff Joke is making positive claims that Obama somehow forged his birth certificate (first they had anecdotes from the mailman, now it's a 95 year old woman), will someone start making the appropriate changes on CP? That it's proven and settled: the BC was proven faked, Obama is proven ineligible, the lamestream media ignores it, etc. I get the feeling that Andy, JPatt and Karajou wouldn't exactly do it themselves, but I don't think they would revert. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll come from Launchbooty first through a blurb on the mainpage followed by some link-whoring to CNAV.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I eagerly checked out CNAV this morning in hopes of finding something about Saint Joe's "news conference". I was disappointed to see that nothing had been writ. Maybe Mr. Hurlbutt haz sworn off the Birther thing?

NAH!

C®ackeЯ

Bah, that's just MPR. I'm talking the BHO article. It needs to state the facts as Joe found them. The birth certificate is a proven forgery, Obama is proven ineligible, etc. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Terry was preoccupied with getting his "One Ring Tea Party to Rule Them All" announcement out, but I'm sure the sun will not set in NJ before he gets to Sheriff Joe. When I read the story, my first thought is that when the 95-year-old source dies of old age, she'll be the next named pinned up on the board of people-who-knew-too-much-that-were-killed-by-Obama. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me of trying to use logic and reason here, since I know birthers will have none of that, but there's a fatal flaw in their arguments. If this 95-year-old woman who ostensibly signed Obama's birth certificate was in America at the time, wouldn't that wrap up Obama's citizenship right then and there? There clearly was a birth certificate, since they're trotting out a source that claims to have physically handled it. Does this woman not remember where she lived and worked during her time handling birth records? But she remembers fine details about how birth certificate forms work? Why not just ask her where she lived and worked? It's like they're ideology-driven racists or something. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How would it help to know where the people who signed the birth certificate lived and worked? Are you assuming that US states don't issue certificates for foreign countries? Everybody knows 14% of Kenyans are issued a Hawaiian birth certificate in case they want to fraudulently become US president as an adult. Likewise Ohio issues birth certificates to the French, New York to any country with "New" in the name like Papua New Guinea or New Zealand. As a Brit I was entitled to certificates from Texas or Washington but my parents figured I'm white so probably no-one would even check. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And right on schedule, here comes Chuckarse, ignoring the fact that all the latest "evidence" came pre-rebutted. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I love the whining about how the poor mean press made fun of them. There's the reason for that... MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Arpaio, the victim of an Obama-Holder witchhunt, is simply presenting the evidence of the Obama administration's conflict of interest and motivations for a persecution and vendetta of an elected official with a voting constituency. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cow...Hammer^time! 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can add numbers to the list of things Kendoll doesn't understand.

Kendoll is obsessed with those stupid web metrics sites that invent bullshit out of thin air, but now he's demonstrated he doesn't even understand^img the numbers he reads on them. Here's a hint, Kendoll. Being in the top 900,000 websites according to Alexa's bullshit figures is better than being in the top 1.75 million, just like finishing in the top 10 is better than finishing in the top 20. Richard Dawkins' site is allegedly more heavily trafficked than yours. I'm looking forward to the post where you claim Google with it's traffic rank of a measly one gets less traffic than your blog.

But, hell, what do atheists know with their stupid ability to know which number is larger than another. I'm sure Jesus will be handing out remedial education when you get to heaven. (capping before the inevitable burning of the evidence^img) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That is just fucking beautiful. It's not too often you get a fail this crisp and this embarrassing. Great catch, sir--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unbe-fucking-lievable. Even by Ken's

standards, that is golden. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quote from a Woody Allen essay: "it was logic like that which enabled the great rabbi {something or other} to hit the Daily Double three days running at Aqueduct and still end up on relief." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bigger numbers doesn't always mean better, Kenny! Dawkin's website is what, almost twice as much traffic? Much more if you consider the percentage of visitors to the QE! blog only come to laugh. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If the dude gets so much as 100 hits a month that aren't from RW I'd be astonished. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Conservative...a lot of people are having a cheap laugh at your expense. Please take it down now. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get this, Ken has been using Alexa in arguments for years. He knows exactly how it works, he even shows the decrease in alexa rank on that blog entry as proof of Dawkins demise. This looks more like deliberate lying. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think he knows how it works. He can interpret the graphs, kind of, ("LINE LOWER! SLOPE GOING DOWN! BAD!") but he really has no deeper understanding than that. He's never shown any real understanding of what the scales on the graphs mean, or what the differences between the individual things Alexa claims of meter are. He basically thinks as a child. Witness his rehearsal of his catch all fix for economic woes: lazy Europeans should work harder, except the industrious Germans who are basically fine. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is Ken's dyslexic mental processes. His 1.75 million ranking translates into 1.75 million hits vs Dawkins 900,000. So Ken get's a hard-on and in his excitement rushes to tell his 1.75 million readers all about. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gods, I hope he explains this away by accusing us of not understanding GENERALIZED LINEAR REGRESSION!! Carlaugust (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is how he explains the numbers to anyone dumb enough to fall for his so-called "SEO expertise". Page views are down but your ranking is up! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that, while not a classic, the Main Page^img is looking pretty good at the moment. Nice work Ken, but where are the bull-fighting pictures? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also needs MOAR HITLER. Do you think Joaquin will ever come back from his vacation? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe he hasn't taken it down yet. It's not like he doesn't read this page.... Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously aren't familiarly with his sleeping schedule, which can be easily deduced from looking at his contributions. He went to bed at about 7am local time, and just woke up (its down now). --174.229.64.239 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kendoll, you missed your useless twitter when you were burning the evidence. You're welcome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RW needs the "And it's Gone" image from South Park as a macro. Guess I should investigate how to write macros. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt - The Scum Also Rises

The IOC has rejected the moment of silence or any mention of the tragic event so as not to upset Muslim countries!^img
Wow, that sounds bad. Lets look at the source for this outrage...
Hey wait a second.... Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, they didn't have a minutes silence at Beijing either! Or at Athens, Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona, Seoul, Los Angeles, Moscow. But they DID have a minutes silence at Montreal - so um, Canadians are anti-Palestine. But many Palestinians are christian, so ... ohmigod Canada is ANTI-CHRISTIAN!~!!!!! VOX^HUMANA 06:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Aw Nogodsdamn it. We got found out!--Revolverman (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Moose poopies. There's only one solution. *gets all fucked up on hockey* Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new - Karajou shoots himself in the foot.

So a vandal makes a dumb edit^img, and angry sailor predictably blocks him. But, it's the block message that tickles me. Obviously, Bob, your spelling indicates your intelligence...what little you have.^img So, what kind of spelling mistake did Conservativebob make in his single edit? !tihsesroh si sihT, or This is horseshit! spelled backwards, obviously. Well, not too obvious, since Karajou missed that completely. Wasn't there a fallacy or law that showed pointing out a spelling mistake or insulting the intelligence of someone will most likely come back to bite you in the ass? This would be one example. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be Muphry's law. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that would be Skitt's Law. JumboWhales (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The poor Swabbie! Had he stuck with the first part, he would've been witty, as in: "Obviously, Bob, your spelling indicates your intelligence," since the user wandalised sdrawkcab the comment would have been taken as having the opposite meaning. Tacking on the part after the ellipse though ruint it all. 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I love Andy's grasp of team sports!

Because this team includes two Overrated Sports Stars, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, it will need a superhuman effort by outspoken Christian Kevin Durant to win the gold medal.^img (As usual, CP is right regardless of what happens.) I love the idea the two "overrated" stars are such a liability that Durant has to work harder than normal to win. Phiwum (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am curious how these two NBA Champions are exactly overrated, especially LeBron.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, per "overrated sports stars", he's overrated because he's not as good as Kevin Durant and he has a funny name. He was added by a guy who's probably a parodist, but Andy's just rolling with it. --江斯顿^{What is it now?} 06:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And how did our stars do in the recent game against Brazil? Kevin Durant had a "superhuman" 11 points, while Lebron James had an "overrated" 30 points. Thank God for Kevin Durant! Jared (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, James Naismith was a liberal atheist (a redundant term) when he devised the scoring system in basketball. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just face it - every time the USA wins, it's because of a) the awesome Christians in the side or b) the atheism of the opposition. And every time the USA loses, it's because of Title IX. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course Lebron scored a lot. He's a ball-hog. Durant contributed real success by passing the ball, like a good, selfless, outspoken Christian. (Has anyone else notice that Andy can no longer say "Christian" without prepending "outspoken"? It's like "Britain" and "atheistic".) Phiwum (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Outspoken Christian...I always wondered how Christians reconciled this verse with athletes praying after scoring, or worse, *shudder* Tebowing. Carlaugust (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a good part of Matthew 6 could be summarized as "don't make a show of your faith; God sees it no matter what, but thinks you're a git if you're doing it to impress people, not God." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Outspoken Christian? For some reason this just makes me wonder if he's having a crisis about his own religious omnicommunity (way to lump all denominations into one category, Andy) and seeing people who claim to be christian yet aren't crusading about it or throwing the same fits he is as Faith Traitors or something. Like, he's been flailing around by himself (CP is hardly made up of people who agree with him, no matter what he says) for so long he needs some extra defense against the thoughts of, 'why does nobody care but me?' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 15:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy IS a 'Faith traitor'. He's a catholic who thinks the Pope is wrong, and does nothing while Conservative lays into the RC churchAMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that goes without saying. I guess that in order to cast himself as a heroic crusader, everybody else has to be scum to him. When he manages to care. Villainize others to be the one with the Only True Way of God, and all that. Normal religious schism stuff.±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy's probably one of those that goes jumping around the church during the build-up to the pastor taking their money, or the first to break out in tongues. He feels that such public displays of faith, coupled with his efforts on CP, more than make up for his own doubts in his faith and weakness in spirit. These normally happen while he's masturbating in front of his TV. It's a sort of gimme - the people who go out of their way to appear pious and religious, usually aren't behind the scenes. Just look at any number of fundie preachers. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't buy the view of Andy jumping around the church or speaking in tongues. That would make him a Pentecostalist ("holy roller" is the derogatory term). They generally take great joy in their faith. Andy is more of a dour Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God type, a Christian only because eternal damnation is the other option. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Marriage-er?

For fuck's sake. WND is about as reliable as CP, but Andy just eats this shit up. Of all the fucking insane conspiracy theories, this one has become my new favorite. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that he's also the bastard offspring of Frank Marshall. I'm surprised WND haven't picked up on the "Obama went to Mars" story. PsyGremlinTal! 05:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely Andy would have noticed a wedding ring during the time they were at college together? rpeh •T•C•E• 05:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, they're claiming Obama's a bigamist? Oh, come on! His other wife would have sold her story to the tabloids years ago, long before he even ran for president. Or are we supposed to believe that she was bumped off to prevent that from happening?

Or are they claiming that Obama's a polygamist, like the good Muslim that he is?--Spud (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is something a read in a Stephen King novel once, and I only use it in moments that are the most jaw-dropping: "Jesus H. Christ on a mother-fucking sidecar." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Sr was a bigamist, you know, the one Barry whitewashed in his dreams when he found out. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Barry White; he was cool. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd trust Infowars as a source before I trusted the Daily Fail. And David Icke before both of those. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe it's one of these, and Obama's has an even bigger secret than we thought! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The good news is that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. The bad news is that he wasn't even born on Earth. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true of twelve Senators. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The absolute best thing about this shameless JAQing off is that Andy most likely has first hand knowledge that the conspiracy is false. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful!

I see Johnny Sedition is running CP's Twitter feed these days. If Ken is making CP look like douchebag central on the main page, Jpratt's doing a sterling job on Twitter:

• Need another reason to vote out B. Hussein Obama? Ann Romney will make a wonderful First Lady. Get rid of that ugly First Grifter Mooch.
• one is conservative, one is from a liberal source. Do my sources have to agree with you to be reliable? forgetaboutit
• yes, I am so not envious. I'll write a letter to Stephen Harper tell him his conservative policies are a success.
• Don't you wish McCain was the candidate still? Yeah, Mitt's taxes and Bain Capital. Good luck with that.
• Michele Bachmann is pure. The mud slingers don't matter. America 1st is Michele. Read the letter that earned wrath http://www.scribd.com/doc/100244266/Bachmann-Letter-Responding-to-Ellison …
• There goes the lefties again with their #offthecliff. Socialist sheep follow their MSNBC host. The election of Romney will change that talk.
• Keith Ellison is a jerk. That is all.

Keep up the good work! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

'I'll write a letter to Stephen Harper tell him his conservative policies are a success.'

<spews drink over monitor> If by success you mean try and turn Canada into an inferior clone of the US and a sad little lapdog of American industry, he's sure trying. Just be sure to address the current government as "The Harper Government™®" or else the letter won't be read. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I never understand why JPratt is on twitter. He doesn't seem to have any friends on there, it's just like his crazy 140 character blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I love Twitter more than I do CP. Will it reflect bad on CP? I don't think it's possible. Follow me for the daily face palm, I don't block unless you spam my account. Just Lurking

I believe that we've got our own version of Ken. If we analyse him here, it might give us some insight into Mr Demyer's state of mind.

Karajou, SamCoulter, and Ameriwiki

Someone fill me and others in - what happened betwixt these entities?? Or maybe Sam can come here and tell us himself? Something about stealing a domain and transcripts of deception? I would usually not care one bit, but when Karajou said this block comment, I'm very interested all the sudden. I'd love to see it happen. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Karajou said something about how he'd been talking to the Ameriwiki owner for months and had given them all their scripts and TOU stuff. He was probably called out on being a liar and is now hiding the evidence. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing beats this post from Kara^img. He really does have fantasies about going to court doesn't he? Damo^Hi 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He is going to surprised when he gets served next week. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

O_o you know summink we don't? --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going over to his house and I am going to break one funky dance on him. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pics, or it didn't happen. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I too would love to know the back story of this fascinating wiki-intrigue. I suppose I could go over and ask unless someone else beats me to it. I kind of lost interest in Conservapedia's weird spin-offs after aSoK crashed and burned. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think SharonW might be able to sum it up best, but I think it was that a bunch of people were acting like fools, including the guy who founded the website (George Fitzgerald). So the people left voted to ban him and took over. Or something. As far as I can tell, it's a dispute between all of like 5 people over a wiki around 6 people know about. Strange that Karajou even knows about it. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Gem?

"[B]ear in mind that leftists divide lump all their enemies together." I'm guessing this is supposed to be "bear in mind that leftists lump all their enemies together", which is pretty funny. Ed is reaching new levels of self-unawarenessOccasionaluse (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Link^img, in case you're interested. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Give Christianity a chance, you can be rich!

This is basically the message Andy is promoting^img by strongly hinting the reason Jeremy Lin received his $25 million dollar contract to play for the NBA Houston Rockets is because of his religion (or God, take your pick), and not because of his basketball skills. Also like how Andy says Lin went "from 0 to $25 million in just a few months" as if he was playing for the New York Knicks for free this past year.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's like saying "the sandwich I ate today went from 0 dollars at 10AM to $7.50 at 11:30!!!!" Cow...Hammer^time! 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is probably not the best place where one should boast about Christian success stories.

• The Harvard lawyer who claims to have disproven relativity with Quantum Jesus!
• The old guy who thinks that the UN is trying to take over the world and that life on Mars is a result of The Flood!
• The manchild who tries to defeat atheism, evolution and homosexuality with blog posts, stock images, and Hitler!
• The guy who regularly gets his ass handed to him on Wikipedia because he can't stick to the rules despite being a member since the beginning of time!
• The sailor whose sole purpose in life is to harass others and copypaste stubs!
• The guy who promotes Twitter and Facebook on a site that postulates that using social media leads to divorce and failure!

"What will Christianity do for others ... who give it a chance?" - What indeed? --Sid (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly sid, your using examples from a clouded liberal mindset. You can't understand how they are succeeding unless you are already also succeeding. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The story is that Andy told this story as a positive about Lin's heaven-sent fortune, and not about New York libruls exiling him so as not to cost Obama the state in November. Or something. Whoover (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a cunning plan on how to become rich. I'm going to take up rowing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE let this somehow mutate into Andy and other CPers convincing themselves that all this bullshit is actually viable, possibly with Bible passages to "support" it. It would make my decade. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What is even more fascinating is that these men will simultaneously insist, "God helps those who help themselves". TheLateGatsby (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Andy is on the verge of reinventing the prosperity gospel. It's just a shame he's too lazy to do the Peter Popoff thing, bilking desperate people out of the last scraps of cash they have. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the part where he'd need to have any charisma. Ayzmo (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahahaha! Quantum Jesus. And about Ken, I can't believe you forget Stalin.... --Andy Frankinson (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which are you!

I know CNAV stuff isn't CP, but this does seem to be where CNAV stories are deposited, and it was link-whored on CP by Launchbooty. Anyway, the latest commentary on CNAV has all American adults divided into four categories: The Birthers, who know teh TRUTH^tm; the Wimps, who secretly know the Birthers are right but are just afraid to say so because of... The Obots! Who worship the Big O and call racist all who oppose him; and lastly the Traitors (or "Constitutional criminals") who betray our nation to the Muslim atheist black (hi JPatt!) Manchurian candidate by refusing to accept the Holy Truth of the Birthers. Which are youuuuuuuz!!?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a soft libertarian who doesn't particularly like Obama, but accepts multiple forms of state issued documents as proof of birth...so...um...Traitor I guess? Carlaugust (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general aside, I remember back before Obama released his LFBC; someone asked him why he wouldn't do it, and his response basically was "Crazy people are going to believe crazy shit, no how hard you try to shove proof into their brains. (paraphrasing)" Turns out he was right. Carlaugust (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, Muslim atheist half-black--99.108.68.168 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamic evoluationaryismist half-balck. Carlaugust (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I always figured he wouldn't release the form for the longest time because of one of two reasons: 1)He felt they would never believe him no matter what he brought forth as evidence because their minds were already made up, so why give them the attention and air of legitimacy? 2)Because he wanted to politically use the Birther issue as a weapon against conservative opponents by saying to moderates and liberals "look how truly crazy these people really are!". These days Sheriff Joe Arpaio is going with the call of "show us the microfilm!", but you know if that happens, they'll just move the goal posts back another ten yards. Not that it matters, because even if they could no longer deny he was born in Hawaii, they'll always have their fallback position of "not a natural born citizen" crap. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, every piece of evidence Obama has ever provided has only served to inflame the crazies who are determined to believe he's a Nigerian Muslim come to steal their country. Release the birth certificate! Oh you have? We now want the long form birth certificate! Oh, you've released that too? It's a fraud! I can tell by the pixels! Release the.... er... release the kraken! The only consolation is that all these people are ancient. Did you see that New Jersey Tea Party Congress photo? Not a single person under the age of 50. We can comfortably expect them all to be dead within 30 years, or at least too frail to vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here comes launchbooty and sheriff joe. Do not click unless you have a spare keyboard, as headdesking is inevitable.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the quote from Nick Purplepants, "I cannot understand why Congress will not investigate this matter". The answer, Nicky-boy, is that the vast majority of congressmen and women are grown-ups. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email to Purpura suggesting that he send the Arpaio findings on to his VP endorsement, Allen West, and he's all over it. Should be interesting to see which happens:

Most likely - A statement from West ducking the issue by saying there are other things to focus on.

Less likely - No response at all.

Least likely - A dismissal of Arpaio's posse and their nonsense.

Not gonna happen - He'll take them up and press the issue in Congress.

So we'll have to see what Purpura, Terry and the rest do when their VP endorsement becomes a "wimp" or "traitor" according to their definition. --DinsdaleP (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All the reporter questions are basically "WTF are you serious?"; but none of the theories in that press conference is nearly as insane as this.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There goes another keyboard. Thank science I got a dozen of these in the shed.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 00:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of idle curiosity, are the frequent commentators taking a break, or is Slingkeister just not approving any comments? Since the Hormuz article, he's managed to have everything clear of dissenting comments, aside from one he probably let through so he could add his own pontificating to Salanitri's. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely blocking comments. Terry gets that way when he's proven wrong once to often. Plus RoseAnn probably had a fit at all the WTF comments on her Reagan vs Obama post and demanded something be done to preserve Her One True Truth. RoseAnn and Terry are big on opinion, but thin of skin. Not a good combination. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the last comment I made was censored, even though it wasn't offensive, and I gave up on the site then. The fact is that the only people who ever posted were RW members, other CNAV commenters and Rasta Thickel. Yeah, there was that Tonto guy but he was a Poe. I'll keep reading because CNAV is a valuable source of quotes to post to FSTDT and similar sites, but with that "GOD. DAMN. YOU." post, PitchArse broke the wingnut barrier. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but...

Andrew Layton Schlafly, go fuck youself. With a ten foot wrought iron white hot curare tipped pole. And no lubricant.

A dozen people are dead, many more are injured, and you're pushing your agenda with no evidence at all. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there some cool German word for capitalizing on a tragedy for political/monetary gain? I bet there is. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite schadenfreude -- that's joy in another's misfortune. Andy may be a bastard about this, but I don't think he's taking joy in this. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily joy, but he's got a smug sense of satisfaction because he's sure he's right about the whole "video games are tying to kill you" paranoia. Seriously, how much of a fucking asshole can he be? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as "did the gunman play violent video games?" goes... yes, he probably did. Just like he probably drank sodas, ate pickles, watched television, and surfed the internet, because it's something practically every young person that age has done. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the gunman wanted to protest against Hollywood Values? At the moment, all is mere speculation, and the spinning is disgusting. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he saw that George Clooney batman movie and still bears a grudge. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy is such a worthless fucking human being. As soon as I heard about this tragedy, I knew he'd pull this sort of shit. GayGator (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy - You are a waste of human life. I really wish your mom was pro-abortion - The guy combing his Facebook feed to see if his friends have been killed. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, man, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope the news you get is good. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy is so tore up about this that he's going deep into the archives to spew even further. What a horrible man. And Chuck--peace. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's times like this that I hope the killer is some right-wing fundie, just to watch Andy spin his way out of it. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I had reached the point where I viewed Andy with pity. This makes me loathe him. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Psy, why spin when you can simply deny? Phiwum (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow... just wow. The man really is a cunt. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I've always had issues with anyone exploiting these things for political points, and I have had a special hatred of Andy for taking such a cavalier attitude to the deaths of others just to drive home his "If people were forced to be Christian and read the bible, this wouldn't happen," But if finally hit home exactly what it feels like. When my out of state family is calling in the middle of the night to see if I'm alive, when I immediately jump to Facebook to see if my best friends (who lives in Aurora, and is practically obsessed with Batman) is still alive and when I'm speaking online with people I went to school with who were in that movie theater, I finally understand how horrible a person has to be to take such glee in reporting the deaths of others because it fits his political agenda. This is supposed to be the fucking Uber-Christian and what does he post? A prayer? Maybe a psalm? NO. We get nothing but "He probably played video games. Liberals." From the bottom of my heart Andrew Schlafly: FUCK. YOU. If I ever see you in person, I may have to be physically restrained. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Chuck, I think you've hit on the best response for this: where is the expression of concern for the victims on Andy's part?

More importantly, though, Chuck -- have you reached all your friends yet? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't update. Well, my closest friends are all safe and (mostly sound) A few former students (I went to work at my high school after I graduated) were in the two theaters that had the shootings and a few friends were in the building but in separate locations. I haven't heard anything horrible yet, but I'm still waiting for a full list. A little worried about the mental state of a few friends (one is already showing horrible PTSD warning flags) but otherwise all is fairly well. Thanks for your concern. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. May the news you hear continue to be good. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd throw my 50p in, but whenever stuff like this happens, I just don't know what to say. There's stuff I want to say, but I don't know how to put it. But what I can't see is how anyone, even Andy, can be so inhuman as to not see it as a tragedy - there are twelve people who are dead now who weren't dead yesterday, people who shouldn't be dead, along with at least fifty who shouldn't be injured but are anyway. It's not just people, it's lives, that's what I see. Not a bag of carbon, a history. I might be making it up and pulling it out of my arse, but I think what they've done. They used to be a kid, having their fun at school, revising hard for their qualifications later on. Loving family, boyfriends and girlfriends. They might be engaged, have their wedding and honeymoon planned. Even smaller details. Like the peace lily one of them keeps on their windowsill, or their cat. That's what the gunman's ended. Not just a life, he's ended a person. Their history, their story. The reaction to killing a child is one thing, different to the reaction to the killing of an adult. But all of those people used to be kids too, so I don't see why it's so fucking different.

And if all Andy sees it as is another point for his ridiculous worldview, then... I don't know what I'd do to him if I ever met him. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Any idea if this is accurate?

The only source I have for this is a comment on CNN coverage of this story.

“”This has been disproven with research. They took these gamers, and handed them real guns at a practice range. They sucked at it, the noise scared them, one of them cried because it hurt his shoulder. None of them were interested in real guns at all. It is also a statistical fact that people who play violent video games are the least likely to own a real firearm. It has been proven that video games have become an outlet for violence, drastically reducing violent crime in the united states by more than 85%.

Anyone know if that's true? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I found one that says gamers are too busy to commit crimes. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No no no. That's why gamers don't get laid.

For what it's worth, I have played video games since Space Invaders, and I have never once wanted a gun.

I wanted a sword. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there an incident involving 'RL someone' stealing 'RL someone else's game-sword? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an anecdotal counterexample to that comment: When my son was ten or so, we played Space Quest and Leisure Suit Larry (in the Land of the Lounge Lizards) on an amber monochrome screen with Hercules graphics. There was a .357 revolver in the house then, and I wanted to inoculate him against accidents, so we went out to the sandpit where I let him bust a couple of caps. The first kick surprised the hell out of him, but his second shot shattered the clay pigeon laying up on the berm five paces away. He has since grown up into a responsible marksman, and is making a nice career for himself as a game programmer. So. There.

Actually it isnt robust disproof. He is more into multiplayer role-playing, not so much into gory first person virtual shooting. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All I know is when I was PvPing a lot in WoW I was definitely Pyroblasting people on the street a LOT less. 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there is research showing that playing violent and/or aggressive (something that doesn't involve overt violence but still involves aggressive competition, like a racing game that encourages you to knock other cars out of the way) games does increase aggressive feelings and attitudes, but only in the short term. That is, play a violent game for a bit and in the hour or so after finishing you'll be feeling slightly more aggressive than someone who didn't. To which I say, "no shit". I'm willing to bet you'd find similar results with any genre of movie, the same way someone who had just watched a horror movie is probably feeling more paranoid/scared than someone who hasn't watched a horror movie. It's an enormous (and unprofessional, frankly) stretch to then claim that this effect lasts forever and causes people to go out and commit violent acts. X Stickman (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The incident I referred to may be the one at [3].

And - does playing such games/watching such filmes/reading the books 'in the longer term' reduce violent activity in RL (because the train of thought has found a suitable outlet)? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I personally find video games to be a good outlet for stress (and a good producer, too, at times...) I love love love the Civilization series, and I find it can be very relaxing to open a can of whoop-ass on a smaller, weaker civilization after a tough day at work. I've been known to tell, 'take that, Mister Passive Resistance" upon nuking Gandhi. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy has moved on. It wasn't video games. It was liberal education^img. Whoover (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he even getting it wrong? I may be mistaken, but Andy lists him as a PhD student. I've seen him listed as a medical student. They don't get PhD's, they get MD's. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was mistaken. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I daresay that seeing Andy's "indoctrination camp" edit caused more aggression in me than over two decades of playing video games. Vulpius (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Amen and ditto, brotha. --K. (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy

You are a piece of shit. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In my office we had a lot of time to follow this story because we're moving to a new location and almost nobody could do any work. Several people, including myself, were following Twitter and US news feeds to find out more about what was happening - at first we thought it was a publicity stunt. Despite several clashing ideologies, nobody at any point made a comment other than something along the lines of "This is fucking awful". It speaks volumes about Schlafly that his first instinct is to use the deaths of over a dozen people and the wounding of dozens more to push his spiteful political agenda. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a little bit of Devil's advocacy here -- it's human nature, when you hear of a tragedy like this, to try to seek some explanation of it, and your attempts at explanation will conform to your own biases, at least initially. I'll admit, I wondered if some nutcase took Rush Limbaugh's comments about the movie being anti-Romney too seriously. But I also thought, "my God, the tragedy", especially when I heard just how many people were killed and wounded. Andy, though, is nasty about it, and seems to have no goal other than his agenda. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's my explanation of it: he had a gun. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's falling into the Schlafly trap of using a tragedy to push an agenda. Lots of people have guns and don't do this shit. YES, a reduction in guns will lead to a reduction in violence, but you'll always have psychopaths. In Japan there are almost zero guns in public ownership, so when a psycho decided to go psycho he used gas instead. Just mourn the dead, hope for the wounded, and press for law changes. That's enough. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's Show We Have More Class Than CP

I'm not sure if I have the rights do it, and I'm not sure how to do it if even if I do, but can we add a site message of some kind expressing our sympathies to the victims and their families? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's. I'm contacting people from my Star Trek RPG who might be there. So far so good. --Sasayaki (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are looking for some way to help, consider donating blood. While in this case, all the immediate needs had been met, it does mean a drain on the supply. And besides, it's always a way to share your life with someone. 15 minutes and a slightly sore arm can save up to 4 people. GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy is not alone

Excerpts from a friend of a friend's FB comments: "Guns are not the problem - things like this didn't happen 20+ years ago. Our death loving culture of violent movies and even more violent video games teaches us that it's perfectly fine to kill people. Gun control is not the answer, violent behavior prevention is." Reply: "It's not an accident that this happened at a movie that glorifies violence. We are finding out now, he was claiming to be "the Joker". What people need is to read the word of God and let JESUS be in their hearts. He teaches loving your neighbor and he's our savior to save us from hell." I hate the world a little bit more today. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I almost feel bad for not giving a fuck. 12 people or 1,200. It's such an odd thing to hype and obsess over. And I'm so glad I'm not on facebook anymore. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure there is some kind of subscript running in these people. My beliefs = good. Bad thing happens != good. So they think that if their beliefs were in play, the bad thing would not have happened. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, tonights probably a primo night to go see the movie. The theaters will be nearly empty and talkative kids will think twice about that homicidal look in my eyes... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A diversion caused by the fact that Rob Smith has poor reading comprehension skills

• ...let JESUS be in their hearts. He teaches loving your neighbor...

Is Andy referring to the love feast and communion table that is Conservapedia? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That quote isn't from Andy, dummy. Learn to read, dummy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, you wrote it. You didn't provide a link. You headlined it with Andy's name. You labeled the quote "Reply" to FB. You're writing makes about as much sense as Ken. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I clearly wrote it was from a friend's FB page, dummy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Then why didn't you provide a link? or put Andy's name in the subhead? Your reporting is starting to look as good as Brian Ross's. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A) It would have revealed this fb friends real name. B) The assumption that people can read. --K. (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, dummy. I would have thought that a grown up who can read would have figured out what was going on, dummy. I forgot you were online, though, dummy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So how does User:K know what you fumble for words for if you didn't provide a link? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, that doesn't even make sense, dummy. Nobody else but you got it wrong dummy. Just you, dummy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 3:30 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Bull. You headlined Andy is not alone. You referred to a friend of a friends comments, not page. You implied a friend of friends comments were reply to Andy not being alone. What's next? Burning the page down like Ken to cover your screw up? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dummy, find me one other person here who read it the way you did. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cow...Hammer^time! 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious by now that Rob is illiterate. He sees a few familiar words like 'Andy' and 'Jesus' and just imagines the rest. That's why talking to him is like trying to have a conversation with a particularly dim bot. Vulpius (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it was damn obvious from the very first read that he wasn't talking about Andy and was referring to a friend of a friends FB. Just admit it Rob, you read it wrong or jumped to conclusions. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No. ToP said, "a friend's FB comments", not "a friend's FB page", as ToP clearly lied about later. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you still here, dummy? Do you notice how nobody agrees with you? You're embarrassing yourself, dummy. Stop it. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you're making yourself look even dumber, which is quite a feat for you. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if you just admitted it was an error it wouldn't have been a big deal. The fact that you're trying defend your error makes you look really dumb and quite insecure. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is bad even for Rob. Sharpen up and learn when to back down buddy. Damo^Hi 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion, resumed.

And it's not just right-wingers either. Good Morning America found someone with the same name as the shooter was in the Colorado Tea Party, and reported that the shooter was in the Tea Party (later retracting the story). A friend of mine was almost happy to hear that. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It appears George Stepanopolous & Brian Ross were quick blame Rush Limbaugh for claiming the villain in the Batman movie, Bane, was an attack on Romney. So they concocted a story that the shooter was a Tea Partier who listened to Limbaugh. In otherwords, a replay of media handling of Timothy McVeigh and the Gabby Giffords incidents. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the part about them retracting the story, dummy? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure did. What did Brian Ross do? immediately after the shooting looked up the Tea Party roster in Colorado and made a match with a common name, and ABC broadcast it. Why the fuck would the ABC look first at a Tea Party roster? why not ACORN? or the DNC? or Obama for America? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More likely he googled the gunman's name along with Colorado and found a Tea Party roster. It's still shoddy journalism, though. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More crazy people with guns. --K. (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? You don't think ACORN members, DNC voters & activists, or Obama for America volunteers don't have guns? you're fooling yourself. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"More crazy people with guns." (emphasis added) --K. (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else think Andy's attitude is very Westboro? He knows there's a backlash coming, just like the WBC does when they protest funerals and such. But they know they are in the right, so they soldier on. You've got to believe you're right pretty hard to do that. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There had been an edit conflict earlier, but the short version is that Andy's glee at being "proven right" in these cases puts him out of the simple conspiracy theorist camp, and squarely into the Fred Phelps camp of jerks that don't understand how to be civil people. -Lardashe

The White House Press Office denies it's terrorism, but Obama used the word "terrorized". Go figure. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please wait while user is figuring… Rob is a fucking moron. --K. (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

lol, I bet Rob has a special litmus test for terrorism. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

God knows I do not agree with the Tea Party or Rob on a majority of things but to just say, they issued a retraction, is a copout. It was shoddy, let's get to the finish line first bullshit journalism, pure and simple. This bullshit and all the other "lets lay blame before the corpses are cold" speculations are what piss me off more than anything else besides the actual tragedy itself. I do not think that the problem with the media is that it is liberal, the problem is that it is sensationalistic and puts anything up just to have something to talk about. Andy is a such a near sided douchebag his response doesn't really surprise me, but to simply do a google search for a name and just put whatever shows up on air, while even saying that we do not know whether this is the actual guy, that is just beyond the pale. End rant. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

^ This. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, did Limbaugh issue a retraction? I'd say a shoddy attempt at journalism with a sensationalistic bias is is better than not attempting at all with a political bias. They're both bad, but not all crimes are equal. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's review the history: in the Gabby Giffords case, the shooter was first tagged as a Tea Partier. When it was discovered he was a registered Democrat, he was deemed mentally ill. A plausible explanation. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now, you're just as bad as Andy for referring to other tragedies to blame the liberal conspiracy hype. Congratulations.

Currently, I have one relative in Aurora who was a batman fanatic type. Haven't heard from her yet, though. I can't quite understand the mindset CP has, and it's as if I'm making phone-calls and emails asking "OH MY GOD WAS VIDEO GAMES INVOLVED? oh and are you okay?" Conservapedia is so far out there, the best way for them to pay for their apathy is to give them publicity. I'd love to see it mentioned on the Colbert Report as a "Tip of the Hat" mention. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's it. Rage at Andy and CP rather than the shooter. Why, the shooter was just another victim of these hard economic times, couldn't find a job because of the greedy rich who refuse to pay more taxes. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not normally one to be a censor, but, Rob, with the minimum respect I can muster, you just need to shut up about this for a day or two. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, last I read, this was the talkpage for WIGO:CP. You're not raging at the shooter, either. Instead, you're just trolling a tragedy. Congrats. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I was about to trolltop this away, but actually no, let's let Rob show himself up as vile, hateful little shit. Keep digging, nobhead. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the left...

A guy named Ahmed Bedier from Florida, a Muslim news personality, is circulating a picture on facebook which reads, against the killers face, : I Shot 71 people, killed 12 of them. If I were Muslim they would call me a terrorist. I don't know about you but that is also a political capitalisation on a tragedy - which my lefty friends are circulating and which kinda fucking horrifies me. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are sick people in the world. They are rare, they are "loners" (in the sense of conspiracy, not necessarily in their personal lives) and this shit happens and will happen. It is unpredictable, and really "uncaused" in any true sense of "blame games, gays, Muslims, failing schools, etc". The guns he had were legal, the bombs he made in his apt, apparently "easy" to make if you are smart enough to know how to look for info. I don't know any solution, but blaming anyone is not the point. (neither is banning costumes at movies, but that's a different matter). Let people grieve. I watched this town collapse for days when Columbine happened, and it's going back to those feelings tonite. It is what it is. a sad, tragic, largely unavoidable event that probably has no traceable cause. so shut up, and go back to telling people obama is "the man" or Romeny is god's gift.GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point Ace, but so does he. I'm not Muslim, but that was one of the thoughts that popped into my mind when I heard about this. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No he doesn't have a fucking point. There is no justification for taking an hours old tragedy and using it to score points. Fucking revolting. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 03:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes he does, whether you agree with how he presents it or not. When else will anyone pay attention? Senator Harrison (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy presents a school shooting on the mainpage of CP in order to make a political point. I argue that scoring political points is revolting. Senator Harrison responds the Andy does have a point whether you agree with how he presents it or not. Yes/no? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Andy and your friend are in poor taste to harness a tragedy like this before the bodies are cold. Andy does not have a point, because Andy is an idiot. Reactions to the Fort Hood shooting backs up your friend's assertion, maybe, so your friend might have a point. One he could've made in a better and more respectful manner, in a week or so. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 05:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah maybe he has a point. But that isn't my point. My point is to use this to make an ideological point a mere day after the event is awful. Some crazy fucker shoots up a movie theater and the first response from some people is use said shooting to bolster their opinion. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What, then, is the correct time to make a point? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Bedier circulates a picture of the killer, using the tragedy to highlight an ideological and political point. His point may or may not be correct depending on your political bent. I personally agree (partially) with the point he is trying to make but making it in this way is no better than Andy Schlafly trumpeting it on the main page as a consequence of atheism. Both Ahmed Bedier and Schlafly are using a horrible tragedy by a crazy person, without knowing why they did it, to bolster their particular stance on an issue. Step outside of you own biases and see it for what it is. 70 people were hit, 12 (15?) were killed. My reaction was "That's awful". It would appear Ahmed Bedier's reaction was "If it were a muslim it'd classed as terrorism - I better point that out". Can you not see what is wrong with that? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 10:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather divided on this. I agree it was too soon, and hate playing the race card, but it's not untrue. When word of this incident first got out (something happened; no details), a colleague turned to me and said 'Bet it's your people.' I initially laughed. Thought it was a joke. It wasn't. That would've been okay with me if he didn't go on about it ("my people") for another 5 minutes. No one else (5 of us at the table, I was the only Muslim kid) seemed to disagree. I'm indifferent towards his 'argument'; repulsed by his claim. Was surprised by it too. Had to exercise a lot of self-control as he continued to rant. Tragedies are tragedies: period. It's a shame politics becomes an issue. It's even more of a shame that some of it is not invalid. No tragedy should be used to politicize an agenda. But fighting intolerance is a worthy cause. No persecution complex intended.

Personally, I don'tsee anything necessarily wrong with using a tragedy such this to make a point, if you have a valid point and you make it with some tact. What I think is wrong is making your point when all the facts aren't in. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. Andy is a moron and his points are PRATTS. The guy you're talking about should have waited for sure, but I'm not too offended by it. The Fort Hood shooting was designated as terrorism because the shooter did it for ideological reasons. This guy might have just been insane, we don't know yet. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A question for Ace

I am the editor of a major daily newspaper with a national readership. On my desk is a well-written editorial by a major public figure taking a strong position on the issue of gun control. Do I run it today or not? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes because there is nothing speculative about the fact that he got so many weapons seemingly so easily without raising any flags. Speculating on what it would have been like if he was a Muslim is not only just that, speculative, but completely irrelevant. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)