Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive299

This is an archive page, last updated 30 September 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>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <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)

Debate

Hey what's this nonsense that "Conservative" keeps spouting about debating "Shockofgod"? I want to debate "Conservative"! My sophomore high school debate team debated better. Why does he think anyone would want to debate anyone but the clown who keeps poking them? I got no idea who "Shockofgod" is but I sure know who's been insulting my Church. Nate Keaton (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. C saw you request for an email?64.180.243.158 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't know who Shockofgod is? You can start by reading the article we've got about him. If you really want to (and I can't understand why anybody would bother) you can just keep arguing with Ken on the CP talk pages, until you get banned for breaking the 90/10 rule. A formal debate with him wouldn't be any different. He'd just keep asking you to answer the 15 questions and then reject your answers as "evobabble".--Spud (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite Ken's continual whingeing about atheists who won't debate with creationists/apologists he will never ever put himself in the firing line; he's the biggest coward of all. He will only "debate" where either he has control of the forum (such as CP or QE blog) or will demand ridiculous sums of money to do so ($20,000 to a religious charity of his choice) and, of course, will continue to maintain his silly, false anonymity. Генгис^mutating 11:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Ken will not debate anyone live under any circumstances whatsoever. This might be because there's a very real possibility that he isn't, well, as free to move about in the open as most people are. Most likely it's because he knows how terrible he'd be at it. He demands huge sums of money for written debates, and then gives it away for free by debating people (briefly) on CP talk pages, and since he just repeats the same thing over and over and change the subject whenever he starts to lose (which is constantly) there's no way anyone is going to spend money on having the same thing happen in a slightly more formal setting. What it comes down to is seeking to debate Ken DeMyer is only slightly more sensical than seeking to debate Chris-Chan. They're both clearly mentally challenged. DickTurpis (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sending my oldest to college is a better use of $20,000 and I don't have Richard Dawkins phone number. "Conservative" is not developmentally delayed, Dick Turpis. He's schizophrenic. If he's taking his meds it is nothing but cowardice and incompetence that keeps him from attaining any goal. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't try to diagnose Kendoll with anything specific, but I think it's pretty safe to say, in general terms, that boy ain't right. I wouldn't necessarily think schizophrenia, I mean, by his writing you'd think he's 12. That sounds like something else to me. DickTurpis (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So, Mr. Keaton, what do you hope to gain by debating somebody you think is schizophrenic? Spud (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think if that were the case he would probably have researched it and edited CPs article on it.

For the record, I'm not saying that Ken is schizophrenic or trying to analyze him. (Mentally ill or not, I think he's a hate-filled arsehole, but that's by the way). However, Nate Keaton has said that he thinks Ken is schizophrenic but wants to debte him anyway. That doesn't make any sense to me. Spud (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness seems to be America's secret shame. I don't understand why. I think you're uninformed or didn't think this through, Spud. I said I think "Conservative" is schizophrenic, not retarded. Mental illness /= mental retardation or if you want to defend yourself against your statement being interpreted that way, it's not the same thing as constant dissociation from reality. It is only the worst treated people with schizophrenia that you see out on the street ranting incoherently. What a travesty that we turn our heads away from our brothers and sisters suffering this way. They just need a little help to change so much in their lives, or to sometimes even save their lives. Someone who keeps on top of his meds and knows how to pay good attention to his triggers and warning signs can be as productive and "sane" as anyone else. "Conservative" struggles with adequate self-care whatever his mental health problems are but he's usually lucid enough to get humiliated for his ignorance and bigotry. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The only one I feel comfortable diagnosing is Flingarse: he's clinically paranoid. He honestly believes that Agenda 21 crap, birtherism, and anything else is directed at him. Personally. It'd be funny if it wasn't scary. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm inclined to agree with Dick Turpis, myself. Most of the time Ken writes like a school boy (and all the stuff about Napalming Vietnamese atheists only shows that up more). He is lucid on the rare occasions when he writes about topics that have nothing to do with religion, gays, fat people and his other hobby horses. Whether or not that indicates he's got developmental problems, schizophrenia or any other mental problem, I don't know. Still, as I've said before, mentally ill or not, he's still a dick. If you want to keep arguing with him to show up his dickishness, go right ahead.Spud (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

He's at least two people here, somehow managing to circle himself. Oh god I'm laughing so hard at this Yahoo Answers trolling. It's making my night. There are dozens of these! Hi Janet! Hi Theatheist! 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More Stuff That I Bet You Didn't Know The Bible Says

Andy added a bunch of new crap^img to the Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge Page today. (Everything shown there except for the stuff about the value of pi was by Andy.) The insights about calculus are especially... creative. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mathematicians did not discover zero until many centuries after the Bible was written. But there are hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout the Bible." -- Il Duce Andy. I am sure that it would be just part of the Hearsay Society, and not Best of the Public if someone actually asked for examples of these hundreds of references to zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think my favorite is the way that Jesus used the Banach-Tarski theorem (which involves making "cuts" of zero measure, a concept which has no physical analog to my knowledge) in order to duplicate the loaves and fishes. That's a hoot. Phiwum (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Particularly because without the Axiom of Choice you can't do these shenanigans, but Andy doesn't like the Axiom of Choice. Andy believes sock choosing is not generally possible (though it intuitively is) but is quite happy with dividing one sphere to make two identical new ones (intuitively impossible). Ordinarily I'm used to crazy people relying too heavily on intuition. e.g rejecting relativity because intuitively it seems as though absolute time exists, but Andy actually seems to rely on reverse intuition. Whatever is least likely, or even proven wrong, is certain in Andy's world. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember commenting on this before. It's more proof that Andy never reads beyond the first sentence of any article. Take the Wikipedia article, for instance. The first line mentions the duplication bit but it isn't until the third paragraph that it mentions the Axiom of Choice. Andy will never, ever comment on this of course. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All I picked up on there... The EM spectrum is conservative now? He must have pulled that one from so far up his arse it's still being eaten by stomach acid. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I think he meant that there is a law of conservation or something, but he really did link to the article on political conservatism. Golly.

Which makes one wonder. Since the theory of relativity promotes moral relativism, do conservation laws promote conservative values? Phiwum (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

He does talk about electromagnetic forces, not the spectrum, and electromagnetic forces are conservative as physicists (not right-wing bloggers) understand the term. Of course, the way he ties it to the Bible is still nonsense. ... of liberals? (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that he assigns moral relevance and political ideology to both general and special relativity and thus deemed them liberal with some mystery power that causes people to "not read the Bible"; is it really a surprise that he would deem politically conservative a fundamental force of physics such as electromagnetism? To Andy everything, and I do mean everything, is political.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If relativity => moral relativity, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that conservation => conservatism and fundamentals => fundamentalism. Remember, kids: Andy puts the "fun" in "fundamentalism", while Ken contributes the "mental". -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not much of a stretch at all, but we're merely guessing. If only some guy over at CP would ask Andy whether he really intended to call EM forces politically conservative, as his hyperlink suggests... Phiwum (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Overrated Sanchez

Well because the New York Jets (dem liberals), have Mark Sanchez as their starting quarterback over Saint Tebow, Sanchez is automatically branded as an "Overrated Sports Star" (despite the constant criticism he routinely receives in the sports media), by Il Duce Andy. So how did Sanchez do in this opening weekend in the Jets victory 48-28 over the Buffalo Bills? 19 completions in 27 passing attempts for 266 yards and 3 Touchdowns (and one interception); this gives him a quarterback rating of 123.4, which is excellent. Expect dead silence from CP until Sanchez has a bad day (which he will, they all do), and then they'll plaster his poor performance on the front page, questioning everything about his skills and accusing the media of hyping him because he isn't so Christian and Hispanic, or something.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Or until he gets injured, in which case it'll be god fucking him up so that saint Tebow can start a game. At least for now we're spared the constant fawning over Schalfly's man crush on the front page. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Peyton Manning. DickTurpis (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Manning's Stats: 19 completions in 26 passing attempts for 253 yards and 2 Touchdowns with zero interceptions; this gives him a quarterback rating of 125, again excellent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And as of tonight he's one of 3 quarterbacks with 400 touchdowns. But since he's only won one Super Bowl I guess he must suck balls. Unlike Tebow, who has 2 or 3 wins under his belt now. DickTurpis (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And Jesus had to help him out just to scrape by in the those ones. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What you're all missing is that such ratings and standards were created by the Liberal Media to bring down openly Christian athletes, since they obviously can't stand the idea of Christians being successful. Besides, winning athletic events is not important; what's important is that Tebow is spreading the word of Jesus through the nation. Unless he actually does well in a game, at which point winning athletic events will instantly become important again. «-Bfa-» 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you in denial of reality? Because I can't think of a single successful Christian athlete (not named Tim Tebow)...oh, wait... -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards?Nah, maybe not. London Grump (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was conservapedia for a second: [1]Stick Boy (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Skin Disease Failure

Another loss for Nick Skin Disease and Moron Apuzzo. I dare say Chuckarse will report this in his usual calm manner shortly. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original petition. So much effort leading to a one page denial. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand in related news, a planned BirtherFest in Arizona has been cancelled due to poor ticket sales. Maybe the birther bubble has finally burst. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite a syllogism, but: It takes much money to become President. This requires backers. If Obama is disqualified for 'being blatantly and maliciously unqualified for the office', the backers would (a) have wasted their money and (b) be turned into syllabub by lawyers (not taking due investigative precaution) and abandonment by clients (as with the News of the World) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

What would Jesus do with/say about Conservapedia? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WWJD? Matthew 7:1, probably. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

John 11:35 seems obvious. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus who? It should be clear by now that God speaks directly to Andy, imparting the tenets of the new faith of Andyanity and in particular telling him which parts of the Bible actually count and which parts are just filler. ... of liberals? (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the question without a question mark into a redirect page.

I think most of Conservapedia would mean dick all to a 1st century Jew from Palestine.Spud (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph of (village of origin) (as he would probably be known as at the time) as a young adult ws involved in the 'debate in the temple' (Luke 2:46) and so would understand the concept of Wikis (even if not the mechanisms) - but what would he make of the POV promoted by Conservapedia? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there will be people out there who would say, "Jesus was a socialist. Jesus was a hippie. Jesus told us to love each other. He'd hate Conservapedia." Others would say, "Dinosaur riding Jeeeezus would love Conservapedia for defending his all-American right to carry a frickin' sweet gun." It's all just wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned.Spud (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. ... of liberals? (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is up for debate (not a Ken 'debate')?

Ken is awfully excited^img that some nitwit, some biology teacher, discovered his Hitwin jpg. But unlike Ken, this guy is offering a proper debate. You know Ken, without hiding behind cowardice, giving a name and asking for a reasonable sum while displaying qualifications. So...Who's up? Aceⁱ⁹ 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why gold? And why should the winner keep it? If the challenger changes it to a donation to a reputable charity, I'd kick in some money. $8,000 in gold is a bit much, but a lot of money for a serious debate is better than a King's ransom for an internet argument.

I've never quite got Ken's obsession with debates. I mean, even if the Creationist actually wins a debate it doesn't make them any less wrong...Alexlizard (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's because debating them would give them a certain credibility they cannot find anywhere outside of fundie Christian circles. They could say things like: "The hotly debated topic of Creation Science"... Eh. It doesn't matter because basically all their arguements boil down to "You can't prove with 100% certainty that there is no God, and I really want there to be, therefore there must be". --Sasayaki (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that Ken's desire to debate says a lot about the underlying argument for Creationism - it can't be proved in a scientific setting, so they have to rely on hoodwinking the masses. Carlaugust (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why they can't rely on faith, and demonstrate the validity of faith by the good works it inspires them to do. Sophie^Wilder 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it says quite a bit about religion that there's an underlying concept that the one with the most believers "wins". After all, is the guy on the door step really interested in your immortal soul (I had one but it died) or is it about bums on seats. Starting from that framework debates make as much sense as they do in the presidential elections. Bad Faith (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sophie, they don't because, well, really liking something, wanting it to be true and therefore being inspired to do good things (I guess you can call that faith if you want) doesn't require religion. Faith in Jesus, Faith in Harry Potter, Faith in whatever. If it inspires you to do good, then yeah, it's definitely a positive force in your life and something you should keep. So is a religious inspiration equal to a secular one? Kind of, but the problem is that, well, religion has dogma aside from "do good things". Things like: Hate homosexuals, don't associate with heathens, worry about eternal damnation for things that aren't morally wrong, deny science because it doesn't fit with your religion, etc etc. While faith can push some people towards greatness, sometimes it can also be a great big blank cheque for "now I can be a dick to everyone not like me because God says it's okay". It doesn't take a religion to like something and be inspired by it. Creationists know this and that's why they don't take that approach.

A much shorter argument is, "Why be inspired by God (and have to do what he says) when you can be inspired by Carl Sagon and not have to do anything at all?". --Sasayaki (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Birther Terry's Latest

Terry is so excited that Israel has declared the birth certificate a forgery. Actually, it's not Israel. It's a right-wing Israeli with a web site but that's close enough. All of these nudniks claim layers or objects in the White House PDF prove some sort of tampering by nefarious but pretty stupid operatives. The fact that many scanners automatically try to create objects via OCR when scanning, to make the PDF searchable, is one of those "liberal facts" that is better ignored. Even simple demos do nothing to dampen their birther fervor.

The fact that this OCR on a real-world document is very imperfect (characters identified in wrong word, with wrong font, etc.) feeds their insanity. "Look. Expand this date 80 times and you see it's built up from different sources." What morons.

Somehow, finding new ways to expose the easily explained layers is additional evidence of fraud. I wonder if this is going to the Supreme Court? Whoover (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It helps that none of them knows what he's talking about. I love the technical detail Terry goes into. Anyhow, when I OCR PDFs from my scanner in Acrobat Pro and then open them in Illustrator, they all have a number of layers with clipping and pieces of words/images/lines/backgrounds/transparencies/etc. This is trivial. It proves nothing. I love Sheriff Joe's analysis. It's even kookier than this nutty Israeli and Terry. 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"CNAV ran those tests on its own equipment (Windows 7)." That's some high-tech shit there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine any of these nutters actually believes this crap. If they did, they'd surely pay one of the many, many forensic document examiners the US has who do trial work to take a look at the thing. At which point they wouldn't believe it any more. They're not interested in real evidence that would stand up in court, they're just interested in getting the nigger out of the white house. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You wonder how these twits manage to put their underpants on the right way round. The Israel Science and Technology site is a completely unofficial site otherwise it would have .gov.il domain. And just to show how high-power it is they're using share and freeware tools? FFS give me a break. If anyone was fabricating a document they would more than likely do it in PhotoShop and render it in a bitmap format rather than a vector. As has been pointed out above the vectors and layers are artefacts of an OCR/scanning program which people who are actually engaged in document management would use rather than a cheap scanner to PDF bitmap. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, no?

On the "do they actually believe it" question, I think some of them - Chuckarse included - have been at it so long that they really do. Very sad. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I still find it amazing that these people believe that the president of the united states can't make a forged birth certificate good enough to fool people. He's the fucking president! He could have a real one printed and visually aged by professionals, if he really wanted to do it. But no, clearly he'd instead make a shitty photoshop forgery that random internet assholes can instantly detect. X Stickman (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh. They're the same people who think Sarah Palin is a real thinker. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else wondering if Terry uses the contributions of people like Dwight Kehoe (who thinks Israel might "secure itself" by launching an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran) or Rose Insanitary (who thinks Obama observes Ramadan) to make his own work look sane by comparison?-Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 12:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Conservapedia Style

Classic Andy about the 9/11 Main page comments. Contributor questions appropriateness of the comment, Andy gives him a veiled reference to the 90/10 rule. Stay Classy... Alexlizard (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Another example of Andy not admitting the possibility that he might be wrong. And a veiled 90/10 threat. It's no surprise that Andy should be acting like a twat on the anniversary of the saddest day in his nation's recent history. It's the way he acts on all the other days in the year.--Spud (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ken does it again

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! --K. (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Most people, by now, may have learned that somebody will fact check people's assertions, so that we may move closer to the truth and thus make the Internet an honest place. Trouble is, Ken is a complete dickhead who must forget that there's a full website of dedicated fact checkers to call him out on his bullshit, even though he's got an account on here that he never uses and constantly writes condescending letters to us. He's pants on head retarded and this isn't even really noteworthy any more other than so we can laugh tragically at him. Har har harrrr. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 11:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ken is a dishonest jerk, sure. But we all knew this. I think this says more about Creation.com being a shitty site when they write entire articles based on a random comment. Carlaugust (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, idiots at CP and Creation; the number of atheists who "know there is a God" is probably around zero. Could someone call themselves an atheist and say they know there is a god? Sure. The same way I could call myself a vegan and eat hamburgers every night. Why won't these people think? Carlaugust (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A user called DerrenH (among others) was blocked over this. If I said I had a ... hunch about where that name came from, would I be close? Ruddager (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

yup.^img --K. (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lying for Jesus

So Ken. The Ninth Commandment reads: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16). Like it or not, Rationalwiki is your neighbour. The website next to yours. We share a fence, peeking over at each other. We both watch each other. You pretend you don't (which is lying, again), but you do. Obviously.
Okay, so breaking the Ninth Commandment isn't the worst thing you could do, but there are six hundred and thirty odd commandments in the Bible and you broke #9. You committed a sin that's in the top 1.43% of all sins, which is pretty bad if you ask me. Moses had to write it on freak'n stone and you still disobeyed God's direct commandment of your own free will. That's pretty bad right there.
Oh, sure, you justify it by 'lying for Jesus'. We're evil sinners so it's okay to lie to us. Nope. Bible doesn't say "don't lie to other Christians", it says neighbours. Good, bad, indifferent. Even if we let our dog shit on your lawn, we're still neighbours.
So anyway. You're making up something you believe Atheists say all the time so that other Atheists will wail, gnash their teeth, rip out their hair and pledge their immortal souls to God after seeing the madness of Atheism.
Except that's not really what's happening. Your lie is so transparently obvious that everyone can see right through you. Even if it were 100% True and Correct(tm) and a genuine Atheist blogger really said that and the quote wasn't taken out of context or anything, who cares? I don't. That would just make that guy an idiot. Richard Dawkins himself could say it.
Some people pretend to believe in God even when they don't. Some people, rarely, believe in God but actively don't want to obey an all-powerful creator who basically created man with (in his eyes) severe flaws then punished them for not obeying 630 commands with no evidence that they were divinely inspired. I mean, let's face it. That God sounds like, as Whedon's Bruce Banner might put it, 'the other guy'.
But okay. Let's assume that Atheists are totally taking in your transparent deception and the wailing and gnashing etc. Isn't God and, by association, Bible Believing Christians(tm) supposed to be examplars of moral behaviour? Aren't you supposed to be better than us?
So answer me this. Why is it okay for you to break one of the Ten Commandments, committing one of the top 1.43% of all sins, Ken? Do you pray for forgiveness for your trespasses, or is this one cool with Big J?
Is this what Jesus would do? Lie to people to get them to follow him?
If not, isn't the point of being a Christian to model yourself after the life of Christ? Why would you actively break one of his ten most important commandments, freely and without any kind of duress? Why would you spit on Jesus's name, on the Bible, on everything you claim to hold sacred (and judge others on) and judge others, when you yourself are such a deceitful, lying, immoral person?
If so, what else would Jesus lie about? Being the son of God, perhaps? --Sasayaki (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, by the ninth commandment that Moses wrote on a stone tablet, don't you mean "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God."?

Second, with regard to that obviously fake quote; I've always thought (hoped) that deep, deep down, all these religious people don't really think there is a God. They've just brainwashed themselves so hard into believing it (note the difference between the use of the words "think" and "believe" in the last two sentences). So then, they imagine that atheists must do the same thing; convince themselves of something they don't really think.

Thirdly, well said. Jesus said love thy neighbor, and that is the complete antithesis of much of the hardcore religious dogma being spouted today. Carlaugust (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the stone-tablet thing! I didn't know that. Learn something new every day. Also, totally agree on the last part. --Sasayaki (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(Nobody knows it. Because, despite how every Christian claims to read the Bible every day, they don't. It wasn't until I became an atheist that I actually read the Good Book and found that the Ten Commandment story is bullshit. But, that's the story that's told so it's cool). Great post, though - I hope someone on CP gets to read it before it gets "trimmed", and does some thinking. Carlaugust (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Conservative said: "Atheists are unstable fools who are doubleminded. They suppress the truth. Deep down, all atheists know there is a God. That is why they are so obsessed." He ended his post with the quote: "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." by Heywood Broun. I asked him if the same applies to homosexuality given the staggering amount of anti-homosexuality content he himself has created. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, Republicans, who are always going on about God, are actually atheists. Democrats, who made no reference to God at all in their platform, are apparently devout. Suddenly I have an urge to vote GOP. DickTurpis (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No no no... what Ken meant is that anything you discuss must exist. So I'm booking a flight to Westeros. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I love Ken. He's brilliant. He writes, evidently without irony:

The Apostle Paul wrote: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." (Philippians 4:8}. As you can see, obsessive atheists do not make the cut of things for Christians to dwell on. See: Atheism and morality and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness

Right! Dwell only on good things! That's what he does! This is why he writes about bestiality, mass murder and poniesChristopher Hitchens. Because he's dwellin on things worthy of praise. He's a noble one, he is. Phiwum (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The truly bizarre aspect of Ken and his ilk's campaign against atheists is the underlying assumption that Atheism is a religion and that Atheists are hell-bent on converting Christians. There is no point trying to convince them that 99% of us think that Dawkins is just as crazy as they are for giving a shit what they believe. The average atheist is not at all obsessed with Ken's belief system. (Well, we are here, but only because he's a kind of pet tarantula that we've taken a liking to.) It's the same dynamic we see in their fascination with all things gay. "The gays are out to convert our children, destroy our marriages and generally destroy our lives, so we must fight back." Whoover (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I recall a John Finnemore segment on the Radio 4 Now Show, where in a week where Richard Dawkins said that most of the Christians who ticked Christian in the census (71%) didn't know as much about Christianity as he thought they should and therefore were not Christians. Finnemore's response:

"Richard Dawkins is a very clever man who is also a bit of an idiot. The idea that Christians are only Christians if they pass a test set by Richard Dawkins seems to me to be flawed at best."

But it's true, we're not all Dawkinses in the same way all Christians aren't Terry Joneses, but it's an easy assumption to make and, in some circumstances, a fun one. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 23:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Growing up South Side Chicago Irish I literally never really knew what a fundamentalist was, let alone that there could be a person as dishonest as this "Conservative". We were taught to be honest in theological discussions and admit the weaknesses of certain arguments. It would never have occurred to me to do what this creature does with all the distraction, deflection, lies, and insults. He can't keep on topic to save his life. This latest garbage is no surprise. He has no shame. Nate Keaton (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The average atheist is not at all obsessed with Ken's belief system. (Well, we are here, but only because he's a kind of pet tarantula that we've taken a liking to.) That was too funny.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken...

Just came across this. Match made in heaven, I say. Vulpius (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Or in hell. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Poe? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but the same could also be said about Ken if we didn't know any better. Vulpius (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a flying kitty there? The Real James Brown (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I figured out Ken's "liberal riddle"

From CP (a bit old, but it's from when I was on vacation): While at Wikipedia long emotional rants with links to a myriad of diffs may be fashionable, conservatives are far less ruled by emotion. :) Conservative 18:21, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheism and obesity: 97,108 bytes

User:GregG/Formal complaint about User:Conservative: 21,272 bytes

AugustO 18:36, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Liberals have a hard time understanding the concept of employing general principles while at the same time understanding the concept of strategic and tactical flexibility. There is a reason I created the article with the precise length I chose. :) Unfortunately for liberals, they will never know the reason! :) Conservative 19:05, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

97108=Beaver, Oregon ZIP code. Very interesting. Sorry if it's old news. I searched the archives and didn't see it. --Bona fide Taylor Swift lover, according to Conservapedia admins! (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I fear I miss something, could somebody elaborate on why a town in OR is significant? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this is Ken secretly saying "I like pussy"? I'll buy that theory if you can demonstrate he's hidden the same message in different ways elsewhere on CP and on his shitty blog.Spud (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems much more plausible that Ken was just trying to be mysterious when he claimed that the exact length mattered. He didn't have anything in mind at all, I'd wager. Phiwum (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I love the smell of crankery in the morning

Salanitri left us a treat [2]--"Shut up, Brx." 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it. I am done. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 14:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lost it at "Defend America and recognize her goodness.". America is perfect! America never does anything bad in the Middle East, and NEVER apologises! America, Fuck Yeah!

For me Poe's law is in full effect in that post. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"...let’s try to take an impartial look at Mr. Obama in a more scientific way."

"Obama v. a hypothetical Muslim: side-by-side"

Does she even realize that words like "impartial" and "scientific" have definitions? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not even that. It's the entirely hypothetical Obama whom Clint Eastwood debated at the RNC vs a hypothetical Muslim. Insanitary's definition of Obama is made up of stuff she believes combined with stuff that other idiots have told her. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Would be sure oil drilling and refineries that compete with the Muslims are closed." Which Muslims would they be? Didn't see many oil wells in Huddersfield last time I went there. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as we all know, only evil Muslimists use energy supplies as a political lever. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 09:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Something I've never been able to figure out with this whole "Obama-is-a-Muslim" thing: where in the constitution does it say that the President must be Christian? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't and they aren't saying he isn't eligible for his religion, but these fucktards think that only a Christian can have morals and therefor be a human being - in others words they are religionists. --K. (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A Confusing Conspiracy

From the diseased brain of Chuckarse comes this masterpiece of black helicopter paranoia. Was the guy who made an anti-Islam film... dum dum DUH.. A secret agent for Obama? Did he make the film in order for Obama's secret shadowy ninja squad disguised as a mob of Muslim fanatics to kill the Libyan ambassador? Did he know too much? Possibly too much about birth certificates? WAS HE INVOLVED IN TEH FORGERY?!?!?!?!!?!?!!?

Well, OK, not quite that. But I can't work out what the hell Terry actually is implying happened. All I know is Terry is a very special sort of crazy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's dead easy. Since birth, Kenyan-Muslim Obama has been groomed to take the highest office in the land in the most powerful country in the world: President Of The United States. Once there, he would immediately begin to advance the Muslim agenda by claiming to not be a Muslim, but by acting worse than one (see above section). One of the key parts of this plan is to covertly fund a film, using a man who was convicted of kiting cheques in California, which gravely insult Muslims in the Middle Eat. This is so they kill three otherwise unknown US Embassy staffers. How do you not see the pieces fall together? Don't you see now? It's obvious! Obama is the antichrist! --Sasayaki (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know you could click though to the poll hosting page and read the lunatic comments there. Wow. Reading the bottom half of the internet paid off big time. These people are absolute lunatics. (Sample comment "Looks like these are the 0's secret legion. The film was most likely made by the 0's famous photo shop team.") --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If anything, this would be a conservative conspiracy. Hell, it probably is. It is at least a conspiracy. Conspiracy is the right word. The people that made this film knew what would happen. They lied to the actors making it, and they used hidden identities and other obfuscation. It seems that they wanted this to happen. Assholes.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense now. Holder's Justice Dept. compromised and blackkmailed the film maker, uploaded the film two months ago, setting up the October Surprise for the 2012 elections where Obama get's to send in the Marines as America rallies around the Commander-In-Chief . nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

http://conservapedia.com/Christopher_Stevens "It is possible that that this was a false flag operation conducted by Barack Hussein Obama to take out Stevens or to try and gain support from sheeple in the upcoming election."

Must have been written by a parodist, because they cite CNAV. Also, the content is batshit. I wonder why TH thinks Obama would want to kill Stevens.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about Stevens being sodomized. You'd think they'd be all over this since it's obviously a mainstream media coverup of news making the rounds in the Arabic press. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

AugustO...

... is still there. I like it... larron (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not just the section that you linked to, but the last 7 sections on that talk page have been created by AugustO over the past few days pointing out the glaring logical and factual errors in cp:Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems saving Andy's incompetent ass in a crisis grants one human rights. --K. (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And in that section Kenneth says, "The Concerned Women of America (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!", unfortunately for Kenneth, a search of CWA shows that only a section of the Planned Parenthood article is used. Lying again Kenneth? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am steamed

Mr. Jpatt, has not respected me at all, when I tried to have him avoid personal attacks, and not only that he has gone on to ignore it, he has used it against me. I realize this might not be the best place to rant against such impudence, but regardless.66.183.41.215 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't really a better place, although you may want to provide links to whatever happened--"Shut up, Brx." 02:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's on the wigo66.183.41.215 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and now he calls me a tool66.183.41.215 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's always been polite with me, but probably because he thinks I'm a woman. I should put a notice on my user page--"Shut up, Brx." 02:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are still people on CP who are unaware of how the sysops act? --Revolverman (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The best way to fight for an absolutist world view?

Cultural relativism, of course. Oh Ken, when is that brain going to start functioning? --K. (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the one line at the top of the talk page is not enough.

Since all the September wigo's are still not capped, either we need capturebot2 fixed real quick or we need something done so people who wrote the wigo's are reminded to take screencaps before posting. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Shock collars. It's the only way. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Crisis averted. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the first September WIGO, could I request we get some decent suggestions on

1. How to do screencaps?
2. How to upload them?

MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I use Google Chrome, so I use this extension called Awesome Screenshot. It's actually quite useful for making sure you get the relevant part of the page without showing your whole desktop (or anything outside the browser window) to the world. There should be at least one user-friendly equivalent in the extension catalogue for any other modern browser, though I don't have any recommendations myself.

From there, Help:Images will do a much better job at explaining it than my gently-cannabinated self can at this hour. Help also has an article about copyright notices, although screenshots of Conservapedia are a safe bet as far as copyright goes due to CP's license. (Right?) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded pics of the WIGO entry, but apparently some people think everyone knows how to place each goddamned image next to the link without a double ^img next to it. I took the time to take screenshots, crop the images, and upload them. I don't know how to get rid of those automated IMG tags next to the links, and seeing people bitch about it because they see red isn't encouraging. :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't. They're automatically added by the wigocp tags. Click on the red img link, and you'll be taken to a page like this: [3] The correct file name is right there: Capture 79ed9c636c3286c5ee15b0c36275b4397e3d9faf.png Uupload your file under that name, and the img link will turn blue. -- Nx / talk 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you've uploaded the image somewhere else you can just set the page at the img link to a redirect to that image. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Called It

As soon as the Jets do poorly, Andy suddenly cares again. Of course they did poorly because Tebow didn't get enough playing time and wasn't the quarterback, not because the Jets' defense couldn't keep the Steeler's offense from moving the ball or dominate the time of possesion. And why did the Jets' do poorly get kept their obvious secret weapon from winning the game for them? Cuz' Liberals.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I know I say this a lot: I don't get it. Tebow isn't a very good football player. Aren't there other mediocre fundamentalist players to celebrate? How would he handle learning that some of these "overrated" players are actually heavy duty evangelicals who just don't wear it on their sleeves? Nate Keaton (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He had a short hot streak. Thats about the only reason why as far as I can tell. --Revolverman (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of Tebow's stupid John 3:16 eye black, his statement about being a virgin, and the fact that Andy doesn't realize that, in the NFL, the Option is equivalent to the Fumblerooski; it only works because no serious team expects it, and it the team that runs it look stupid. Carlaugust (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Public displays of competence don't matter to Andy. It's public displays of fundamentalism that get his attention. He's been conditioned to it by about 4 decades of Republican get out the crazy white guy vote drives. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

His stats were better in the loss than in the win. Andy knows shit about sports. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 23:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But see according to professional football expert Il Duce Andy; Tebow should have been used because he single handedly beat those same Steelers by throwing for 316 yards last season! So of course he can do it again, because the exact same conditions exist, oh wait... But wait! The Almighty would make it so, after all nothing else is happening in the world that would require the attention of a god who wants to be active in human affairs, amiright?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's Sept 18...

...and you only have 2 wigo's??? Wtf ^{— Unsigned, by: 97.96.181.48 / talk / contribs}

It's not our fault Kendoll is the only one doing anything at CP. Go tell Andy to drum up some actual, non-troll editors so we have crazy stuff to laugh at. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So nothing from Andy or the others yet on the Romney's Unit clunking idiocy? Interesting... :Darkmind1970 (talk)

There's been some shit on Terry's site about how Romney is their Thatcherite god. Nothing particularly worth commenting on, just the usual I'm All Right, Jack. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted by Andy's mental yoga in the defense of Tim Tebow, where spotting the other team 4 touchdowns to overcome "is not all that bad as a defensive effort". I'm sure there's a long list of football coaches on Counter-Earth who'd agree, but it's still not quite WIGO-worthy. --DinsdaleP (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at Alexa and it looks like RW is inching ahead of CP. CP's Alexa ratings have dropped cause RW editors have lost interest. This is bad news for Andy, as RW has moved up to about number 44,000 while CP has dropped to about 64,000 -- at the start of the new school year. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As if students ever paid attention to CP in any relevant numbers.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As if anyone did, apart from us.--Spud (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A wild conspiracy theory appears!

They're inching ever closer. Unsanitary over at Terry's site moves the narrative just a little bit closer to "Obama had the Libyan ambassador assassinated to promote Agenda 21." It'd be kind of nice to see them neatly tie up the loose ends that way. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what method Terry uses to keep from getting Carpal Tunnel when he JAQes off so much. --Revolverman (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you how he pays for it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Terry's ex-forces. His ignorance of all things military is stunning in its depth.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad. It's been so long since I was here, I confused him with Karajou. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Did Barack Hussein Obama deliberately let the Middle East catch fire just to raise the price of oil?

Is Terry really that dense? Doesn't he realize deflation causes unemployment? He's about as ignorant of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Hayek, and the Philips Curve as a few Rationalwiki editors are. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you still here, Knob? London Grump (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

heh heh

Ken said "Checkmate, atheists." PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Whenever anyone calls the Bible "timeless" I immediately want to ask them if they won't press charges if I make them my slave as the Bible permits. Or if they support traditional marriage: polygamy. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Something something Old Testament something something Jesus something something except queers something. Carlaugust (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a single word of Kenny's rant there makes the slightest bit of comprehensible sense. He makes me want to kill my cat. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 11:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well now I know how utterly slow of a month it has been on Conservapedia, as we are giving Ken an unusual amount of attention; we must be bored.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheer up. Maybe tomorrow Ed Poor will go stark staring bonkers and replace every page's content with a photoshopped picture of Andy Schlafly taking Tim Tebow up the bum.--Spud (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, he'd make a template with Andy being Tebummed and then incompetently plaster it into a couple pages before demanding some minion to fix his broken wikicode and do the rest of the wiki for him. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Andy is trying to supply us with some ammunition....WilliamR (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Terry again

Terry is now complaining that Obama didn't proclaim the National Day of Prayer. I've given him links to the relevant proclamations for all four years of Obama's presidency, but I have a funny feeling that such inconvenient evidence is bound for the memory hole...--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 21:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Those proclamation links are useless. We need the PDFs so we can check for layers and prove they're fraudulent. Terry is probably busy printing and scanning them right now. Whoover (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tragic (yet hilarious) thing is, theres about a 60% chance you are right Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 00:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, I can no longer post comments on Terry's blog. I wonder why that is?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 16:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, spoke too soon. Apparently I just can't see my comments until he's approved them.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Horace?

Who is he/she/shim/Ken and why do they think I'm that person? Actually, I wonder if the blocks on some of my other accounts have expired again ... Ruddager (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Human, apparently, as is all of Australia. --Sasayaki (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So they think we all look the same? Bunch of racists. They must've banned me a dozen times for Horacy by now Ruddager (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Horace. And while your dozen blocks for being Horace is impressive, I have more. --Horace (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but...I'm confused; who's account made this edit^img? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the "ImNotHorace" account, but I'm not JamesWilson. Ruddager (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see Anger Bear is still out there blocking people for being me. When will you learn how to use Checkuser, you incompetent swabbie? --Horace (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lenski alert

Just saw this at Carl Zimmer's blog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old/ Kaalis (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Andy, but that's going to sting a few creationists I know. I've seen plenty of denials of the role of gene duplication in the past, but I think the game might be up... Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 22:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense; they'll have no difficulty incorporating this into their already-existing rationalizations. CitT was there already, so there was duplication and modification but no new information; probably loss of information somehow, e.g. the 'more specific' anaerobic promoter vs the 'less specific' new promoter; evidence of God intelligently preprogramming citT as a transposable element to allow adaptation to novel environments just like antibodies and nylonase; etc. Nothing here that they need to come up with new bullshit to argue against; the old bullshit will do quite nicely thank you. Anyone want to take bets on creationist responses?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont suppose Andy could be encouraged to write Lenski another letter ? Hamster (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Data? We must see the raw data. Ruddager (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus was married"

CP's take on the 'Jesus was married' story - the discovery of a papyrus which, if it's genuine, means that someone, probably in Egypt, probably in the 2nd century AD, believed that Jesus was married: The so-called Jesus papyrus is a forgery^img (in bold type, like that). Their source - that journal of record Wing Nut Daily, no less - is actually a fairly sensible story saying, in pretty much the same terms as the story on the BBC website, that scholars need to be careful that this short document is actually genuine. I'm really amazed by the gradations of stupidity among far-right extremists in the USA, with CP making WND look fairly sane and normal. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC) PS I've manually screenshotted the linked page on CP, so where do I save that file?

Upload it, changing the destination file to "Capture 5cf283df66a3ffce8fcc569adae6d66079aebcb2.png". I always like comparing the difference between their treatment of heretical and supporting evidence for their take on the gospels - anyone remember the James Ossuary? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I bet that if you examine it closely you'll not only find layers but that also in some places it has indecipherable pixels, and elsewhere vector text. We demand to see the long-form marriage certificate! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm shocked at is the lack of coverage of Wing Nut Daily's other 'major' piece at the moment. I'm absolutely staggered that Kenneth (Hi Ken, we know you read this page more than CP) hasn't started running the Obama and gay bath houses story on both MPL and MPR. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

CP doesn't engage in gossip, remember?

Wow, I managed to type that sentence without my fingers laughing themselves off my hands MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "inactive wiki" I don't think you know what it really means

Should someone point out to Kenny that EvoWiki is a member of teh IrrationalWikis Foundation, and is an archive project now?66.183.41.215 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning RationalWiki at CP is a bannable offense, isn't it? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

But if u say irrational...66.183.41.215 (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? You try it! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, JPratt! Nice of you to visit us, I think you spend more time here than at CP these days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ME?! I'm not JPatt! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not you, the BoN up there. I'm fairly sure it's JPratt. It looks a lot like his IP anyway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry. ^^; --Andy^{not Schlafly} 02:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm Randon, you derp66.183.41.215 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The aliens are coming! The aliens are coming!

This is what Kendoll has reduced CP to. It's now broken news that "some evolutionists" (really, no one at all) believe that aliens will invade earth this year as predicted by the Mayan calendar. Ken, you're making yourself look ridiculous, you're making CP look ridiculous. Don't you ever wonder where your fellow bloggers went? Don't you ever wonder why no one replies to your posts at CP, or responds to your emails? They think you're inane, and this is why. Just stop. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kenneth, which particular evolutionists? Number of this supposed group? Actual proof that they believe in evolution? If you please. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ken, you stupid fucking twat. What the fuck has the Mayan calendar got to do with the possibility of life on other planets? Yes, many well-respected figures in the scientific community believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life. How many of those scientists believe in oogie-boogie predictions that the world will end in the next three and a half months? About as many as believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus or their daily horoscope. You could count them on the fingers of one hand. You're only fooling yourself, you great berk.--Spud (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Kenny, you are literally too stupid to insult. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

--Max Sterling (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ken's logic, such as it is, would seem to be:

1. creation.com says there's no life on other planets.
2. Some evolutionists believe in life on other planets.
3. Some people think the world will end this December.
4. Some people think aliens from other planets will cause the end of the world.
5. Therefore, some evolutionists believe aliens will cause the end of the world in December!

I suppose if you define "evolutionist" as "any person who accepts the theory of evolution as true" there's a certain subset of them for whom that is true, but really... MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange how a search for UFO on the creation.com store[4] brings back a load of UFO nonsense DVDs, while the same search on the richarddawkins.net store[5] brings back zero results. Strange that. Jaxe (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's one thing that evolutionists love, and Christians hate, it's 2000 year old prophecies about the end-times. Carlaugust (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Evolutionists often posit that that if life on other planets despite their lack of evidence for a naturalistic origin of life and for evolution." - What on earth does that even mean, Ken? I'm starting to doubt that he really is a professional writer... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that you'd be swayed so easily. Генгис^unbelieving 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Moar aliens!

This is brilliant. No troll could possibly make CP look worse even if they tried. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you meant to say that Sun Tzu himself could not mount such a subtle, mysterious and devastating campaign against obese, liberal, homosexual, atheist evolutionists even if he tried. And he would try, wouldn't he? Because Sun Tzu is an honorary conservative creationist. Phiwum (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, seriously. Is this some weird conspiracy theory from the bowels of Infowars or something? I never heard the idea that somehow the government is secretly (because it certainly isn't overtly) preparing for some imminent alien invasion of America or the world. Where is he getting this? Weekly World News?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously going to be Ken's thing for a few weeks. Expect to see headlines like "Obese atheists are scared of ET", "Is Richard Dawkins afraid of Martians?" and "Shockofgod isn't frightened of Darth Vader, unlike liberal atheist evolutionists" and loads of clip art of little green men all over the Main Page. People who tell Ken that he's made a small mistake on a page they're not allowed to edit will be asked "Are you expecting an alien invasion in December 2012, like other liberal atheists?" before he spouts the usual shite about 15 questions and debating his buddy.--Spud (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Reasonable Christian Creationists" ? Now, there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Every creationist I've ever met (admittedly not many) are reasonable. It's just that the few arseholes like Kenny who have their head so far up their arses that it's actually coming out of their mouth in some kind of universe-imploding singularity give them a bad name. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 11:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to reason with a creationist? It doesn't work. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But its so crazy. Does he really believe people who accept evolution sit there in fear of alien invasion? I know there is the whole 2012 thing among the conspiracy set, but those kind of "end of the world prophecies" are far more in line with fundamentalist thought than secular thought. Fundies, including CMI, even believe in UFOs! They just think its some cross-dimensional demonic invasion thing. I can see them thinking such an event would happen in 2012 to be honest.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint Tebow's Apostles and the Memory Hole

Andy: Tebow woulda saved the day because the Jets' defense was pretty good.

User1: What? Karajou: Trim. Karajou: Die.

User2: Anyway, that defense sucks. Only 4 of 32 teams were as bad last year. Karajou: Trim. Karajou: Die.

The truth prevails. (And this is a talk page!) Whoover (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow...Karajou is nuts...Those people made valid points.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Those people made valid points Yeah, I think that was the problem. «-Bfa-» 21:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot; it IS CP. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 23:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone makes an invalid point, do they get promo... oh, yeah, Kenny. ---جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I was seriously looking forward to seeing Andy's reply to the fact that the Jets' defense was awful... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Moar KKK

I saw this^img on MPR (posted a couple of days ago & it's now about 8 items down). The source is an article in a web magazine called Human Events; from the second comment onwards, you can hear the white sheets rustling... Nasty. (So why does Andy, who claims not to be racist - and I think I believe him - allow this stuff on his blog?) The person who posted it was Karajou, by the way. Cardinal Fang 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh. Pretty much every site criticizing Obama has racist comments. The "article" (collection of photos) themselves don't appear racist, but simply try to show that some Obama supporters seem to idolize him to an unnerving degree. Some of the artwork shown there is pretty persuasive in that regard. Other photos are less so (Where did they get all the photos showing Obama with a halo-like circle behind his head? Were they intentional? Does anyone use those photos?) But, overall, the article itself is not overtly racist. I don't see anything wrong with linking to it. Phiwum (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the article. It's the way the comments by readers descend almost immediately into racism that makes me quiver. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Terry out-crazies himself

Wow, this is some straight up crazy. The best is when he says if you tilt your head and squint your eyes: HITLER! Aceⁱ⁹ 03:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Some wacked-out shit, but I thought the video of the School Children Taught to Praise Obama was pretty good. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Aw man, that was awesome! I mean...such-and-such relating to Obama is close to such-and-such which is close to such-and-such which is HITLER!!!! If I didn't know any better, I'd think that was a parody... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 04:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you vote in the Poll? Does Obama Think He's God? The Yeas have it, but by only 52%. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You see those red lines, they represent blood. Do you who bleeds? Jews. Who makes Jews bleed? Hitler! Aceⁱ⁹ 04:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

AND THERE'S A RAINBOW! There's some bible passage about a rainbow so Obama must think he's god! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 04:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lost it at "In fact Hoft compared them to the blood streaks that at least one American left on the wall of the US Consulate in Benghazi before he died there.". Yes, because Obama's marketing engine planned (months and months, possibly years in advance) a flag, based around something that happened like a few days ago. Proof Obama is a psychic Martian, a vanguard of the invading alien force coming to enslave humanity in 2012? We're not saying that he is, but we're certainly thinking it loudly, our thoughts safely protected by this thin sheet of aluminium foil around our skulls. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, proof Obama's advance marketing team were in the US Embassy in Benghazi where they left their logo and calling card. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're trying to say. That Obama's marketing teams are Marine Security Guards? It must be, because aside from run of the mill Embassy workers, the only other people there were riotous Musli-... oooh. Now I get what you're saying. Obama's "advance marketing team" are fundamentalist, RPG-toting, American-citizen-murdering Muslims, right? --Sasayaki (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously part of Obama's Muslim Agenda and Apology Tour. Murder the US Ambassador and apologize to a mob for getting them so pissed off they burnt the Embassy down. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I proceed, I just want to make your position absolutely clear: Is the above sarcastic or is this a genuinely held belief? --Sasayaki (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic on my part, a genuinely held belief if not by Terry, by his intended audience. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good. Good. Phew. Okay. Yes, you are correct, Terry probably thinks that Obama himself pulled the trigger on the RPG. Terry thinks a lot of things that would make Occam very sad. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said it a hundred times, Terry, Andy, Ken & Karajou live up to every negative stereotype the mainstream media has of conservatives and conservativism, giving the mainstream media & Democrats a degree of credibility. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In future, - he's joking more often than people seem to realise. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's no joke at all; I'm saying, When conservatives respond to bullshit charges like the War on Women or Republicans want to poison children with crap like Obama's Muslim Agenda, there is a serious imbalance of propriety that makes neutral observers say, A pox on both your houses. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole article reads like a Colbert monologue. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. "If you change 'Our stripes' to 'My struggle' it's Mein Kampf!" Actually, Colbert isn't always that good. How come liberals never say, "Romney said 'Good night,' which is very close to 'Final Solution' -- proof positive that he wants to exterminate the 47% in Mormon death camps"? Whoover (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Because even stupid liberals would be more likely to use the more obvious "Kristallnacht" connection? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeaahhh.... Terry has pretty much become the time cube guy now, albeit less pleasant. Im just trying to work out which severe mental illness he has, but i'm guessing some kind of paranoid schizophrenia given how the symptoms (anger, self importance, condescension, instantly believing anyone who doubts him is "part of the conspiracy", argumentativeness, and of course bugfuck insane paranoia) all match up. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 15:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hitler thing is brilliant. "If you take my personal interpretation of the stripes, translate it into an unrelated language and then change some words you get Nazis!" He's flipped his lid. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! Everyone's Hitler!!! --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No blood there. No struggle. Instead, it reminds me of this. Whoover (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

THE CAT IN THE HAT IS HITLER! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh gOD! I've been eating Hitler candy all my life! Vulpius (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peppermints are Hitler! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I just asked him how come stripes=HITLER!!! in Obama's logo but not in Romney's. Any bets on the answer?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The flag is title "Our Stripes..." OUR. Which is close to communism. OBAMA HAS REVEALED THAT HE IS A SOCIALIST! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In the future, everyone will be famous Hitler for fifteen minutes. Matzosphere (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Cocksucking Christ, Terry is completely of his rocker! That Mein Kampf stuff is just incredible. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Essence of the CBP

AugustO is protesting yet another one of Andy's deliberate alterations of ancient Bible text^img (which has recently been WIGO'd). "[Changing the grammatical person of narration] in a 'translation' seems to be wrong, that's something for an explanatory interpretation." You just don't get it, do you, AugustO? The magic of the Conservative Bible Project is that it's all about shoehorning your crazy interpretations into the "translations." Then there's no room for debate, since translations are factual and inerrant, whereas standalone interpretations are not. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"God so loved us" is not a clearer, more accurate translation that avoids the false environmentalist overtones, it is simply an excuse to have an "us", and where there's an "us", there must be a "them". "Them" are not like us and therefore God does not like "them". Auld Nick (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

... oh God. I have no evidence for it, but I wonder if Andy would love nothing more than to eventually move towards something like "God only loves Conservatives", or "Only Conservatives are recognised as real people under the Bible, so nobody else has any rights." Ten years later, it's Andy in a clock tower. --Sasayaki (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, some language bullshit from Andy: "John is clearly talking about "us", but the Greek style had not developed that improvement in writing style, to the point of using awkward constructs to avoid any first-person reference."^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Auld Nick and Sasayaki here. Nothing about the use of "us" requires "them" and you're going beyond Andy's text. It's bad enough that he makes stupid inferences on what the gospel writers really meant. We don't need to make similarly unsupported inferences on what Andy really means. Phiwum (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For fucks sake, Andy, the world you're mistranslating is κόσμον, which is Kosmos. Kosmos! It doesn't even take a knowledge of Greek to know that this doesn't mean "us". Carlaugust (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't explain the joke, AugustO! ^pathetic 19:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No no no you lot have got it all wrong. The lyrics to "We Are the World" clearly show that κόσμον means "us." Today I learned several things, one of them being that Andy has a tin ear when it comes to prosody. Or poetry, same difference. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh shit, I haven't had a good laugh out of CP in ages but Andy's "...as proven by the extremely popular song, "we are the world."..." gave me a good ol' belly guffaw. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Should this go to WIGO?

The song "We are the world" is a proof that in modern times 'κόσμον' means 'universal us'.

I'm not very witty. Open minded (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It keeps getting better. The reason I gave when I changed it was to avoid "false environmentalist overtones" - yes, merely as the most concise edit summary I could think of at the time. It was not my inspiration for the change, which was watching a video of Tim Tebow preaching to prisoners and imagining their puzzlement at the use of the term materialistic term "world" rather than "us".

Prisoners (they're black, right?) are too thick to understand what "God loved the world" might mean. This change is really to spare them the pain of needless cogitation, which could lead them to conclude that global warming is not a hoax. Whoover (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Andy is being thick here, but there's no reason to insinuate racism or even some us-vs.-them motivation. He's been explicitly inclusive in how he used the term "us" and no hint of racial overtones has appeared.

Why not just focus on the stupidity that is there, rather than making up stupidity that isn't there? Phiwum (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses! Did Andy just attempt^img compromise^img? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC w/ same link) Andy wants first-person, August wants third-person, so clearly it should be in second-person...right? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(1st person + 3rd person) / 2 = 2nd person. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is nuts. You can stretch κόσμον to mean "everyone" (i.e., "all the inhabitants of the world/universe/cosmos") but "us" or "you" just isn't on. Andy really should be ashamed of himself. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Point taken on outright racism, and on the superfluity of putting words in Andy's mouth -- but explicitly inclusive? Most of Andy's "us" can grok the metaphor of "God loved the world," but it would puzzle prisoners? (It's a passage that has been quoted, and understood, for a long time before the EPA made it liberal.) I think you're being a bit naive.

I don't know what's more offensive: bowdlerizing the Bible for political reasons or to reduce the required reading level. Whoover (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I love how "comprise" for Andy still involves changing what I would say is the cornerstone verse of all Christian. I can't wait for the Conservative Moby Dick Project - "Hello! My name is Ishmael." Carlaugust (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No way. Ishmael was the patriarch of the Arabs. He's got to go. "Hi! You can call me Tim." Whoover (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think August is being nitpicky with this whole word of God thing, but Andy can respond to his current criticisms. August is worried that "you" may be interpreted as singular, rather that including everyone in the world. Andy should translate the verse as

For God so loved all ya'll that he gave his only young'un.

Deep down, we all knew God was Southern anyway. Phiwum (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. God came from Yorkshire. 86.11.187.254 (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

While saying that God loved "you" certainly appeals to the same crowd of idiots individuals who believe in American teenage exceptionalism, it has some fairly Rand-ian undertones...and I'm not sure how conservatives could appreciate anything written by that dirty atheist...-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I love how "comprise" for Andy still involves changing what I would say is the cornerstone verse of all Christian. I can't wait for the Conservative Moby Dick Project Or the conservative 'A Christmas Carol' project. You know, Bill Maher once said "If 'A Christmas Carol' was performed by the Tea Party Dramatics Society it would be a cautionary tale about how the hero, Scrooge, a blameless job creator is turned into a socialist through the corrupting influence of Tiny Tim. And the play would end with a simple question from Mr. Scrooge: 'Just how much of my wealth does Mr. Tim think he's entitled to?'" [6] That was pretty funny.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

AugustO posted this morning "A four year old boy is allowed to close his eyes and cover his ears going "lalalala" to shut out all the things he doesn't like to register. He will learn over time that such a behavior is costly: he looks stupid and may ignore helpful information." I think he is finally starting to understand Conservapedia. JC (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

AugustO sounds more^img and more^img annoyed. What a pity - Conservapedia is going to loose its last decent and knowledgeable editor. larron (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue with Andy's use of "you" that AugustO keeps on getting at amuses me. Taken in context, "For God So loved you..." directly refers to Nicodemus as the subject of God's affection. It gives me all sorts of thoughts about Nicodemus leading some sort of secret life that apparently somehow earned him the affection(or deep romantic obsession, perhaps!) of the almighty himself. WilliamR (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that Aschlafly has so much fun with his creation these days - less fun than I have reading AugustO's thoughts on John 3:16 and the number zero. Conservapedia doesn't increase the number of pupils in his "home-school class" any longer, and it's more and more an embarrassment to his party. Will his family come together one day and advice him not to go on with his crap? I can imagine Conservapedia disappearing without much ado before the election.... --larron (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

MPL completely off the rails now

The last few weeks, I haven't had time to bother with Andy's little pet project, but today I checked in and HOLY SHIT WHAT IS THAT ON MPL?

• The 5 strategies to collapse Darwinism - Question Evolution
• 100 ways to grind up evolutionary belief - Question Evolution
• 13 recent grim events for Darwinism - Question Evolution
• Breaking all 7 rules of good history? - Question Evolution
• Systematically attacking Darwinism - Question Evolution
• Hysterical evolutionism vs. methodical creationism - Question Evolution
• Europe's unrest and creationism - Question Evolution
• Victorious creationists; Darwinists' defeats - Question Evolution
• Fundraising arms race - Question Evolution
• Desolating global Darwinism - Question Evolution
• Biggest blow to hit world atheism - Question Evolution
• Bill Gates, public schools and evolutionism - Question Evolution
• Creationism friendly schooling GROWING - Question Evolution

It had always been bad, of course, but THIS? --Sid (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're just afraid of how many atheist evolutionists will convert as a result of QE's stellar campaign. Phiwum (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, again that's the section headed "Featured on Conservapedia". At the top, there's Conservapedia' s article about themselves, then Andy's "American Goverment Lecture 3", then 13 links to Question Evolution. When are you going to wise up, Andy? Ken is a bloody spammer who is abusing the free platform you give him. When are you going to sort the little turd out?--Spud (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quit trying to make CP look good. OK, Andy will never read this, so it doesn't matter. Ken, I know you're reading this. I think you can fit at least half a dozen more QE plugs on MPL. Believe ne, evolutionism is at a tipping point; we're on the verge of collapse. Just one or two more posts on CP could do us in. We're hurting bad. Be a good Christian and give us our coup de grâce. DickTurpis (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Between Kendoll on MPL and Terry on MPR, it's pretty much all spam all the time now. I guess Andy has manoeuvred himself in to a position where he can't really say enough is enough, because he'll lose about half his remaining sysops and the only real thing that keeps the place ticking over. Poor guy, he really ought to see the writing on the wall and shut CP down for good, but I suppose his pride won't let him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Worst of all they don't have Rob writing MPR entries for them now, which means Obama will win. Remember, that was the difference between the '08 and '10 elections. It might not be too late though. If they beg him to return, maybe he'll relent and use the combination of his persuasive powers and Conservapedia's broad readership to swing the election towards Romney, or, if they're really lucky, Gingrich. DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ken reads this page and sees the stuff here?! Cool! But wow....Does he really think that his irrelevant blog is going to change anything? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 14:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Who can say what really is going on in his head? Certainly if he thinks his subliterate scribblings are having an effect on the world he the most delusional person on the planet. That, however, is a title Ken might have a realistic shot at. DickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not underestimate Ken's ability to convince himself of something based on scant evidence (or no evidence at all). --Sasayaki (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Question Evolution! project is picking up steam and momentum as well as passengers and will continue to do so! Upwards of three people have expressed interest in the project and a further one person has indicated they may be interested in becoming interested in the Question Evolution! project in the not too distant future! Watch out evolutionists Question Evolution! is about to go supernova in a big way and you may find yourselves in the way of the Question Evolution! train at a crossing on the road of evolution that goes nowhere! Jaxe (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Dick. The election has gone from a referendum on competency (in which Obama loses) to an ideological contest (in which conservatives lose). Good work, Ken. We can all starve to death another four years cause of your fucked up bullshit and the disgraceful way you wear the name Conservative, spewing your psychotic nonsense and abusing common sense and common courtesy. Way to go. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Another election hinges on Conservapedia. Do the pundits know the real reason the polls are as they are is due to the blog of a delusional man-child? Does Andy himself know this? DickTurpis (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Throughout the primaries Romney fought hard against being tagged as "conservative"; once it was over he inched toward the conservatives. Some would say he came out of the closet. Now, let's suppose some idiot dumbfuck, like a 2nd grader, or a mainstream news media consumer, or New Zealander for example, Google'd "conservative"; they'd get Conservapedia in the Top 10. The rest is history. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We here in New Zealand know what conservatives are about - they are fucked up and off the rails crazy. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange, because when I google 'conservative', conservapedia didn't appear in the first ten pages. In fact, I ran out of patience and still hadn't found any mention of man-child's blog by the time I did.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I lost patience after page 6. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, the dimension you live in sounds like an interesting place. I'd like to visit it sometime. Yeah, in the Republican primary Romney really did want to come across as conservative, knowing how such a label is poison in the Republican primary. Had people though he was conservative he never would have stood a chance. Jesus. And come on, even you're not stupid enough to think that Conservapedia has any effect on politics on any level, are you? I suppose next you'll be saying Conservative News and Views is on par with the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. You know, Rob, playing dumb only works if everyone doesn't already think you actually are really dumb. DickTurpis (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

even you're not stupid enough to think that Conservapedia has any effect on politics on any level, are you? It does,unfortunately it's not very positive. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you still here, Knob? London Grump (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I got a life. I come back to encourage my disillusioned brethren who've lost hope. Si se pueda! nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What primaries were you watching, nobs? The Republican primaries were all about trying to out-conservative each other in order to appeal to the wing nuts. Even though Romney wasn't too successful in this, he still tried. (See, for example, his "severely conservative" comment and all the new positions he had on social issues that conflicted with positions he held in the past.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In Rob's world, evidently, when Romney called himself "severely conservative" back in February, it was because he didn't want people to think of him as conservative. Everyone knows that Republicans run moderate in the primaries and then move right in the general, right, Rob? (Fuckin' moron.) Phiwum (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Another election hinges on Conservapedia. Do the pundits know the real reason the polls are as they are is due to the blog of a delusional man-child? You know, that reminds me of someone requesting Andy endorse someone in the Republican primaries... (I think it was the night before Super Tuesday or something) because "the fate of the country could be in [Andy's] hands." --Andy^{not Schlafly} 23:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll toot my own horn here and say I've done some pretty prime parody at CP at times, and I wish I could take credit for that. Yes, history itself is in the hands of Andrew Schlafly and Kenneth DeMyer. The sheer ridiculousness of it is all that prevents it from being terrifying. DickTurpis (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. You just know that that pairing is so incompetent that they'd end up causing exactly the opposite outcome of the one they were working towards. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney didn't come across as conservative during the primaries. He was just the only one who kept his foot out of his mouth for long enough. - Lardashe

If he didn't come across as conservative, it wasn't for a lack of trying. Phiwum (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I found it! And wow...Professor Schlafly...I felt like posting there (a while ago) saying "I'd like to congratulate Andy on his promotion!" --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Professor honorific has largely been used as way to mock Andy for his homeschool teaching. Генгис^marauding 12:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet there is no mention of how Tim Tebow's 2 rushing attempts for zero yards led the Jets to victory. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There's meaning in those numbers. Zero is the same number as the amount of doubt there is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. DickTurpis (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? God invented zero! Phiwum (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, JPratt!

Care to explain exactly why talking about the Underground Railroad is a "huge gaffe" on Obama's part? --41.132.169.123 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there's no one alive whose great-grandparents escaped slavery via the Underground Railroad, and it should have been "great-great-grandparents." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For fucks sake...you know, JPatt, if you didn't look so very hard for something to be outraged about, you wouldn't be so outraged. Carlaugust (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He's probably assuming she means "ride" literally, as if she thinks it was an elaborate subway or something. Jpatt is too stupid to understand metaphor, or anything else, really (the guy is stupid to an extent I find astounding). DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Dick. Looking at the Talk Page, it does seem like they think she thinks it's a real train. They are so stupid over there, sometimes it makes me dizzy. Carlaugust (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Karajou. Talk about "off the tracks". Carlaugust (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But see she is from Chicago! And Chicago is in the North, and well those aggressive Northerners, what do they know of true history!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And Karajou really said Michelle Obama must have made a mistake because she's from Chicago and therefore ignorant. Words fail me.

I'll say this; Andy, JPatt and Karajou have shit for brains. And if any of them were to look at this page, they'd probably think I'd made a major gaffe by claiming that there are three human beings walking around with excrement inside their skulls.--Spud (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how genuinely dumb Karajou is. I can see why he never went anywhere in the military. Ego (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons Conservapedia lacks any genuine creativity is that the fundie right is inherently literal. They lack the imagination to appreciate metaphor and rely on dictionary definitions. As for the great-grandparent part; the Underground Railroad ran for several decades and there must have been a reasonable age range of escapees as there must surely be a wide range of ages in Obama's audience. Having researched my family tree I know that my own parent's great grand-parents were alive in the 1860s, so for more recent generations we would have multiple greats, but when you're giving a speech you don't cover all the permutations otherwise it ends up like something out of The Life of Brian. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if one of our own has taken notice of this discussion WilliamR (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Christianity

Following the above, I've read a little about the U.R. One of its most prominent workers was Levi Coffin, a Quaker businessman from Indiana. Quoting from WP, 'Once questioned about why he aided slaves, Coffin said "The Bible, in bidding us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, said nothing about color, and I should try to follow out the teachings of that good book."' Would sysops on CP who think that Christianity is about virulent hatred of people who differ from yourself please take note. The Real James Brown (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Must have been a liberal. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah that can't be true. Those bits have been written out of the Conservative Bible cause they're liberal interpretations of the true Ayn Randian scripture. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain Quakers don't meet the Kendoll standard of Real, True, Biblical Christian. But then again, almost no one does. There's always 2 billion Christians in the abstract, and half a dozen in any concrete discussion of the faith. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Quakers don't pass the conservapedia test for True Christians™, what with them campaigning to allow gay people to be married, and married in religous buildings. Quakers - surprising in many ways, and not just for their oats.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A bar I spent many a evening getting shit faced drunk in was an Underground Railway stop (it's on the road, btw, to the Janesville General Motors plant Obama shut down.) nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Twat. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jpatt

I saw your post, and we're not trying to downplay what Mrs. Obama said because we're worried about the damage it might cause. We're trying to accentuate it because it highlights how stupid and hateful you are. And yes, when Mrs. Obama said "great-grandparents", I would bet you dollars to donuts that everyone knew she meant "ancestors" and not "literally my parent's parent's parents" - you just thought that because you're an idiot. Glad we could clear that up. Carlaugust (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick google search to see if anyone else on the web is stupid enough to not understand metaphors, and only got stuff from the bottom half of the internet. So even far right press is smart enough to know this is a non-starter. DickTurpis (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong, this is actually a big story that the lamestream media is once again failing to report. This is how you can tell even Fox is dominated by liberals --they won't touch this blockbuster either! Ego (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

JPatt's only higher education is in molehill engineering. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've WIGO'd it. I'm sure it can be phrased better so feel free to do that, but I'm desperate to downplay this incident because it could be the incident that destroys Obama's campaign. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The only other place on the Internet I've found that sees Michelle Obama's comment as a gaffe is something called the "God Like Productions" message board, which seems to be home to dozens of anonymous-posting racist trolls. I can't imagine anyone at CP actually decided for themselves that this was a gaffe, so one can only assume that this is where they got it from.Tacitus (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as others have said, the single "great" when describing many generations of ancestors or descendents is a well accepted practice. Coincidentally, I did exactly the same thing myself just yseterday.Tacitus (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I wish I hadn't bothered looking up that message board, Tacitus. Reminds me of reading the foxnews.com comment sections before they shut them down... for making it abundantly clear that plenty of republicans really are racists. Ego (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read that exchange on CP, and it is really wonderful. Partisanship has such thick blinders on them that they really can't figure this one out. Michelle Obama made a gaffe by extending a metaphor? What is the proof? Well, Chicago has bad schools. Really embarrassing for CP.--^talk 06:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear their take on MLK's 'I have a dream' speech where he dreamed that 'the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood'. Of course, they are all dead, but hey - metaphors are not allowed right? Worm (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy faces a terrible dilemma

Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun. User:Conservative decided to shit all over Andy's page on Biblical scientific foreknowledge, as only User:Conservative knows how. He added the elegantly named section, Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population.

The page was already chock-full of stupidity, but as silly as it was, at least it appeared to be written by a native English speaker. Nomore! Now what is Andy to do? Conservative is encroaching even more obviously on Andy's territory. Will he just cede the article, like he ceded MPL? Or is a showdown brewing?

Of course, I kid. Andy will let Conservative destroy the article. He's too busy ignoring August's request for review and GregG's request to do something about Conservative. He hasn't time to devote to this, too. Phiwum (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I love the mysterious man/woman/group/vegetable that is User:Conservative. "So if you're calling the star of Breaker! Breaker! a loony, I shall have to ask you to step outside!" Look, I know it's not nice to poke fun at the obviously deranged, but doggone it, he tickles me. Phiwum (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed this: Genesis Chapter 1 explains that God created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first. Holy shit! Is Andy really that ignorant of cosmology?! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Now Conservative proudly claims to have ten thousand aces up his sleeve. The boy has such a way with metaphors. But, perhaps, he's not so good at card games. Phiwum (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's truly pathetic. How many years now has untold web traffic and contributors been just over the horizon? I take it that Operationd Grass Roots and Flying Fortresses are just about to bear fruit? Then maybe the 100 page Question Evolution! booklet will be published! Kendoll, you're a fantasy artist. You don't do anything creative, you just continually boast about the creative things you will be doing. There's only so long you can get away with carrying on that kind of fraud, and your time was up several years back. Just stop. Get help for your mental problems. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh. I see good ol' anger bear is getting his dose of therapy over this. Keep on fighting that pointless fight, Popeye. I'm sure Jesus has a special place in his heart for mindless thugs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't get this obesity thing. What, are they arguing for increased Food and Drug Administration regulation? Are they with Mayor Bloomberg on his anti-Big Gulp measures? Whatever happened to free choice and individualism? Is Michelle Obama doing a good job taking up Andy & Ken's crusade as her pet issue? Sheesh. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Ken, your grand schemes have no influence on whether Conservapedia lives or dies; it is entirely up to Andy's whims and pride that guides whether or not he wishes to continue paying those server costs. The moment Andy honestly believes it isn't worth the monthly bill, CP is over, no matter how many grand schemes you plan out in your head; so if you really want to keep that little gravy train open, appeal to your master's pride and praise him Ken, be sure to tell Andy how brilliant and influential he is!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is brilliant! Even after all these years, Kendoll is still pretending that Operation Flying Fortresses is a real thing. Hey, Kenny! Last time we spoke you told me that it hadn't yet commenced. So presumably some time between then and now it actually started? Or is this a pre-launch upgrade? He must be doing this for our entertainment. He can't seriously believe anyone is going to take him seriously any more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Karajou sorta learned me something.

In the middle of his diatribe that Democrats ("those people") are the historic racists, he claims that Dems are "the same people who created the Ku Klux Klan; the same people who created "Jim Crow" and segregation; the same people who stood in front of Southern high schools and colleges to prevent blacks from getting in; the same people who tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act from taking place; the same people who demand higher and higher taxes from everyone; the same people who talk the race card every chance they get". I thought the bolded claim was implausible, given that LBJ famously pushed for the act, but it turns out that Republicans did vote for the act in greater percentages.

Until, that is, you look at the vote by party and region. Both Southern and Northern Democrats voted for the act in greater percentages that their Republican counterparts. It's just that there were many more Southern Democrats than Republicans, so this lowered their overall averages.

Now, I wonder whether it was really Democrats who blockaded the schools. And whether it makes sense to say that Michelle Obama is one of "those people" who have worked to set civil rights back. Phiwum (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, more Democrats than Republicans both voted for and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only because there were more Democrats than Republicans in Congress at the time. But those Democrats who voted against it were basically all southerners self described as conservative, and included that well known Democrat Strom Thurmond. So when it comes to party, the Democrats are marred by their southern wing who stood against it almost to the man. However, the southern Republicans basically didn't exist, or their opposition would have been just as extreme. In terms of ideology, which is more important, liberals supported civil rights, and conservatives opposed it. The fact that the parties have been realigned since then, particularly in the south, is something modern day conservatives like to gloss over. DickTurpis (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, all these wingnut histories of racism just magically stop at the civil rights era when Democrats kicked the racists out of their party and they defected en masse to the Republicans, where those that are still alive are still living today. One might wonder when the Republicans are going to clean house. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think only a handful actually switched parties, but the rest went gently into that good night, and the voters, who remained steadfastly conservative through and through, elected the more conservative Republicans in their stead. To oversimplify it, the racists in the south realized the Democratic party wasn't racist enough for them anymore, so they went with the Republicans, who represented conservativism even better. The South switched from Democratic to Republican not because they got more conservative, but because the Dems got too liberal. DickTurpis (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Simpson's paradox

Phiwum said: "Until, that is, you look at the vote by party and region. Both Southern and Northern Democrats voted for the act in greater percentages that their Republican counterparts. It's just that there were many more Southern Democrats than Republicans, so this lowered their overall averages." This is an excellent example of something called Simpson's Paradox.

Overall, a higher proportion of Republicans voted for this bill than Democrats. However, in both the North and the South separately, a higher proportion of Democrats voted for it. This is because of the imbalance in the numbers of Republicans and Democrats in the two regions.

I have no idea of the actual figures but suppose there are 100 Dems and 100 Reps overall with 100 members in total in the South and 100 in the North. In the South, there are 80 Dems and 20 Reps and it's the other way round in the North.

In the South, 44 of 80 Dems (55%) vote in favour while 10 of 20 Reps (50%) vote in favour. In the North, all 20 Dems vote in favour (100%) as do 60 of 80 Reps (75%). Overall, 64% of Dems vote in favour but 70% of Reps. So nationally, Reps appear to support the bill more strongly but when broken down by region, that isn't the case.

Simpson's Paradox is important in diverse areas. In pharmaceutical testing, it implies that a good trial should recruit equal numbers of men and women and that the frequency of any other factor, such as mild rather than severe symptoms or good rather than bad prognosis, should be similar in the males and females recruited. In social policy, it implies that trials of e.g. a new educational method should have balanced numbers of participants of different social backgrounds and of different performance levels within social backgrounds.

There, you learnt something today. A bit of a side-issue but I hope readers of RW enjoyed it. If anyone thinks they can translate Simpson's Paradox into simple enough language for Karajou to understand, the best of luck to you. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I knew that this was a well-studied counterintuitive phenomenon, but I didn't recall its name. The actual numbers, by the way, can be found at the Wikipedia article. Phiwum (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I played with the numbers (here). A lovely example of Simpson's Paradox which I shall use in teaching. What astounds me is the difference between South and North, even in the 1960s - far greater than I suggested in my made-up figures above. Not one single Southern Republican supported the Civil Rights Act - stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Karajou. I realise, perhaps for the first time, why the election of a black(ish) man as President has caused so much outrage among a certain type of white voter. The Real James Brown (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, definitely no southern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act; I thought that was sort of obvious. Of course, because of the Solid South there were very few southern Republicans. Trying to paint civil rights as a Democrat/Republican issue is basically pointless. It was much more of a liberal/conservative issue. For a website called "Conservapedia" to pretend they are the scions of the civil rights movement is ridiculous. DickTurpis (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't obvious - not to me and I guess not to most Brits. I imagined that most Republicans c.1964 would have been in the mould of Nixon, Eisenhower and Rockefeller. I also didn't know, before reading the WP article, that Barry Goldwater, in one of the few episodes of spinelessness in his political career, voted against the CRA on pretty spurious grounds. Republicans and conservatives in general evidently have nothing to be proud of in relation to the CRA. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But we're talking about white guys in the South. The one vote any southern senator in the South cast in favor of it I think was a Texas Democrat, and Texas has always been a little different - western as much as southern. These guys were nothing like Rockefeller, who could never win a presidential nomination, and when he was appointed VP, he was basically kicked off the ticket when the next election rolled around. I forget exactly what Goldwater's rationale was for voting against it, though he covered it in The Conscience of a Conservative. He either wanted to leave it up to the states, or he felt it should only apply to the government, not private enterprises (a la Rand Paul). Either one was better than the southern reason of "I hates me them darkies". DickTurpis (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Goldwater's reasons were, I shall remember this CRA stuff the next time a Republican gets all self-righteous about their party's record on racism. The Real James Brown (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Terry takes the concept of "Crazy," sprinkles it with glitter and wears it as a hat

Holy fucking shit, is he really implying that Russia was behind 9/11 as prophesied by Ezekiel?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See also warmed over Bircherism. It's so amusing to see their Christian wingnut obsession with Israel combined with the Bircher wingnut highly anti-semitic conspiracy theorism. It must be hard to being in the New Jersey tea party, so many idiocies competing for space in such a tiny brain. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hal Lindsey's been predicting end times about Russia invading Israel for more than 40 years now. It was funnier than shit when Russia signed on as a US ally during the 1991 Gulf War to hear Lindsey explain away a few inconsistencies. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Who signed on as an ally? According to this page, Russia was a mere middleman, not an ally. But I'm sure you know better. Phiwum (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some serious crazy from TH in those comments. Which isn't surprising, but DAMN. His linguistic contortions over "Rosh" and "Russia" are hilarious and disturbing. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And also fundamentally wrong.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go the extra step and say he's pretty deep in "not even wrong" territory. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I loved this: "once again you fall into the trap of thinking that Russians think like ordinary human beings. They do not." --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A cunning plan

I posted this to Terry's blog, under the alias of UNRurik, but I think it got caught in the spam filter, as I didn't even see "comment is awaiting moderation." If anybody else wants to try, I'd appreciate it.

--"Shut up, Brx." 15:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bit pointless trying now, seeing as Terry reads Rationalwiki.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Ken reads RW, as do Karajou and JPatt from time to time, but ASchlafly and TerryH ignore the site.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Terry reads RW. Trust me on this; I'm not guessing.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

that is fucking lame lame lame. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's as dumb as the hole in a cow's arse.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This makes me wish we had a spam filter for Brxbrx. 12:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx is the hole in the cow's arse. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's Brilliant Idea: Turn Conservapedia Into Ken and Terry's Blog More Directly!

So Kara's discovered Wikilog, and I'm sure he'll get around to implementing it in 3 or 4 months, once he learns how to use MediaWiki extensions. When he does, do you think that Ken and Terry will start running a mirror of their respective blogs on Conservapedia's servers? Do you think Andy might step in to rein in Conservative if it starts to impact his server bills? I wonder if he gets Mommy to pay for his server bills through one of her "foundations" and use it as a tax write-off for "educational purposes." Sounds like something Romney would do, actually.RachelW (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's nothing to do with Karajou. It's just another instance Kendoll using random user's talk page for his spam. This is firmly in the category of "things that are never going to happen", it's just another one of Kendoll's wild-eyed fantasies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's been ignoring this stupid idea of Kenneth's for nearly four years now. It's not going to happen Kenneth, and Andy's blog is relentlessly slipping into the night. Unless of course you can find something really dumb like a CBP or Lenski dialogue to make everyone point and laugh again. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TRIM! bwahahahahaha. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Andy spares Ken's blushes by removing an egregious typo. Whatever happened to your brilliant spell-checker, Ken? Your English-tutoring skills are slipping, again. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, once the efforts to raise the prominence of Conservapedia's abortion article commence, I am looking forward to embed a pro-life video on the Conservapedia abortion article. Andy REALLY liked that idea. I previously embedded a pro-creation video on Conservapedia so it shouldn't be that hard to embed videos on Conservapedia since it was done before. In fact, we might be able to do it now. It is just a matter of time before all my extension requests are granted. :) Conservative 21:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Still missed "immanent". -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure Ken gets to post all the "pro-creation" videos he wants, but I post one procreation video and I get the boot. «-Bfa-» 17:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was so looking forward to MPL directly becoming Ken's blog, and MPR becoming Terry's. :( --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia has lost it's way/ Have fun Andrew Schlafly/ my Parthian Shot

I have long been a member of conservapedia, one of your best and most trusted editors and contributors, but I have become dissilusioned with the project after many decent requests I have made to you (aschlafly) have been ignored, you have reverted edits that I have made that added value and correctness to the project as well as being generally willing to admit when you are wrong ! I know we all read this page and decided to spell out my intentions here. Conservapedia is becoming a joke, with some of us using the site to advertise our own blogs and our own campaigns and some users just there to be parodists. The project has run itself off of the rails of what was a decent and noble project. This wiki, which started out as a load of vandals does actually have a sense of community and objective, whilst conservapedia just seems to be wandering aimlessly in the wilderness waiting for someone to shoot it. The project has been overrun by parodists and vandals, but through your own stubbornness you have failed to stop it, yes wikipedia is barraged with vandals, but they deal with it reasonably and don't go around randomly blocking users who are making genuine contributions or block vast parts of the world from even viewing Wikipedia. No this happens on what is meant to be a christian and conservative project, however I don't call these behaviours christian at all, they are more closely related to the behavior of vile disgusting and slightly overweight homosexual atheists see Atheism and homosexuality and Homosexuality and health and Gay Bowel Syndrome and Lesbianism and Obesity and all the other worthless articles that have been written. I while not reveal who I am on conservapedia, the fun for you is to work out which of your more trusted users I am, this is also why I have created a new account on here to make the job all the more difficult. I hope you have fun tracking me down as I have decided that from now on all the edits I make to your failed attempt at what was a noble idea and is now basically a blog, fails. Godspeed Andy, Godspeed in finding out which one of your trusted friends and fellow users I am, Its not who you suspect, or is it ? Have fun finding out. Godspeed Conservapedia.

Given your unbelievably fucking shit English and the fact that it took you six edits to make this comment, you have to be Ken.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 05:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ken --Revolverman (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And you could be right however that could just be me trying to through the scent of who I really am. Then again you could be right. Have fun finding out who I am Aschlafly. Havefunschafly (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I know you read this site regularly and you have admitted to me on numerous times, although you never seem to admit it on conservapedia, then again you also admitted to me you once watched some homosexual pornography once as an educational experience to "see how the mechanics of it worked". Havefunschafly (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts Ken. --Revolverman (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

do not talk to me like that, if I had rights on this account like I did over there you'd be banned by now. Ken is nothing but a useless fat closet homosexual who is obsessed with atheism, homosexuality and Question Evolution! blog. If only Aschlafly gives him the upgrade to mediawiki he wants then the whole project will die sooner and be less of an embarrassment to the conservative movement! :) Havefunschafly (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You have invited speculation as to whom you might be, don't get pissy when people guess the International Man-child of Mystery. Be that as it may:welcome aboard Joaquín Martínez! Matzosphere (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah Joaquín Martínez haven't seen him in a while, good o'll question mark, he's one of the few genuine and honest editors left now. Maybe me, or maybe not, have fun getting to the bottom of this schlafly. Havefunschafly (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason you find it impossible to spell 'Schlafly' ? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 06:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It pisses him off, and I hope he is reading this right now (Hi Andrew Schlafly Schafly) You still enjoying Ken contacting you in the middle of the night ? --Havefunschafly (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Or because random illiterate internet troll is illiterate. This is probably the same wanker who trolls Karajou constantly. Piss off. Whoever you are, unless you're a CP sysop and can prove it, piss off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How would you like me to prove it to you ? Yes I'll admit the spelling is wrong, although it would be much easier if it was schalfy instead of schlafly, much easier to type. :) Havefunschafly (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Go to CP and tell them you're retired. Then we'll decide if we give a shit about you. Until such time as you decide you aren't an international man of mystery, I'm defaulting to believing this is a pathetic attempt at trolling us. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it better that my parting gift to them is finding out who I am. Havefunschafly (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll be deeply saddened by the loss . Bye. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Andy probably will, the rest are so out of touch with reality that they won't give a fuck Havefunschafly (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fun fact for you all, conservative has most of his links to his articles hotkey, although you probably already knew that. Havefunschafly (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, Kenny. Go post your parting shot on CP, then I'll decide if you're being sincere or not. Though I always thought sincerity was beyond you. Go scream at the Stilton some more. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious trolling is obvious. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I reckon it's Knob, still coming to terms with being treated like a bitch over there. London Grump (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Much more likely to be Marcus Cicero or even Suspected Replicant than anyone from CP. Damo^Hi 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The SuspectedReplicant account isn't being used any more. I'm using this one now. And fuck off while you're at it. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. I must try to keep up. Apologies. --Damo^Hi 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to believe

I choose to believe that this is Ken, acting like he's a master of disguise and has fooled all those foolish Atheist fools. I choose to believe this. --Sasayaki (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What proof and evidence do you have that you believe this? Plus can you answer the 15 questions for evilutionists? London Grump (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's the one that keeps blocking me for being Horace (which I'm not) so that I can get due credit for my shenanigans. Probably Ken though. Either way he's going to be laughing at this because either it's him and he'll think he's tricked us or it's not and he'll be so full of himself he'll take credit for tricking us anyway. In fact I'm sure he's laughing away right now, his face lit up by his computer as he reads this by himself, in his empty home, out loud ... yep I'll bet he can't wait to tell his ... um, log on and write a blog for ... um, about this one. Don't worry Kenzo we'll read it, then we can laugh too :) Ruddager (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NO evolutionist can answer those 15 Questions Satisfactorily, This is why Question Evolution! Will succeed, although not because of anything that Krapservative is doing, You guys don't have to put up with the texts and phonecalls at 4 in the morning from him.

I can.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If but there were some way to track the IP. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 14:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm using a proxy liberal atheistic foolscum, something you are more than aware of with your countless sock puppets (Horace can you just stop).

Not entirely sure what you mean about sock puppets, Kenny boy/troll doing an impression of Kenny. I mean, I've got this one account on here and it's not like I'm ever going to be making an account on CP. I considered it once but firstly it's not worth it based on the fact that the moment I make a valid point I'd get kicked out forever, or until I made another account, and secondly I don't especially want to because, let's face it, any one of your posts is carcinogenic. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 07:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)