Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive300
Lenski's Student has Fun with Andy[edit]
Lenski's grad student, Zachary Blount, posted video of his PhD defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnXZ9XlxQ8I&feature=plcp). It talks about the stuff in the 2008 paper and in the new one, but the best part is where he mentions that should anyone demand all their genome data, the printout would weigh as much as naval cruiser! Good to see they have fun with Andy, too. Kaalis (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bangarang, motherfucker. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 21:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Good for Blount! We should add this to the talk page for the Lenski Affair. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, I know it's not nice to poke fun at the literally ill folks, but....[edit]
I like Ken's new addition to MPL, comparing Question Evolution and Creation.com to the Dream Team. I liked it enough to check what he's going on about at his li'l blog. Creation.com apparently now ranks as "somewhat above average" in terms of web traffic. Just like the Dream Team was somewhat about average. The similarity really is uncanny. (He posted a couple weeks back when the site's rating was 102 and now the site has broken their new goal of 105! What next? Dare I say: 108?) Phiwum (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- See, this is how boring and spammy CP has gotten lately; some people are even reduced to talk about Ken's weird irrelevant comparisons that he makes anytime one of his favorite sites has a small uptick in page hits.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I didn't know better, I'd think I was insulted. I've always been a bit tickled by Ken's bizarre analogies and the fact that he is compelled to come up with a new analogy for every post. But I'm man enough to admit I have a problem. Phiwum (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure evolutionist Monopoly players will soon be bankrupted by the creationist hotel on Mayfair, and the creationist gatekeeper will soon be sending all evolutionists to the black hole. The saddest part of this post is how transparently phony it all is. He didn't set a goal in advance, he had nothing to do with reaching that level of traffic and of course the comparison with other sites is entirely spurious. Everything about his question evolution blog is such obvious bunk that every post just makes me feel more sorry for him. Why does he keep pretending? It must be over a year now since this shit started, and still they've achieved nothing. Everyone has left the "group", and he's still there every day making believe. It boggles the mind. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Mayfair"? What the hell version of Monopoly are you playing? What the fuck is wrong with Boardwalk and Park Place? JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The British version. No need to be offended. ONE / TALK 08:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- More specifically, the London version. There are different versions for Edinburgh, Liverpool and several other cities. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I bought mine there only was a single British version. I remember once playing a game of Monopoly in Pakistan, when we opened the box there wasn't enough money to go round four people at the start.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I bought mine there only was a single British version. I remember once playing a game of Monopoly in Pakistan, when we opened the box there wasn't enough money to go round four people at the start.
- More specifically, the London version. There are different versions for Edinburgh, Liverpool and several other cities. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The British version. No need to be offended. ONE / TALK 08:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Mayfair"? What the hell version of Monopoly are you playing? What the fuck is wrong with Boardwalk and Park Place? JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure evolutionist Monopoly players will soon be bankrupted by the creationist hotel on Mayfair, and the creationist gatekeeper will soon be sending all evolutionists to the black hole. The saddest part of this post is how transparently phony it all is. He didn't set a goal in advance, he had nothing to do with reaching that level of traffic and of course the comparison with other sites is entirely spurious. Everything about his question evolution blog is such obvious bunk that every post just makes me feel more sorry for him. Why does he keep pretending? It must be over a year now since this shit started, and still they've achieved nothing. Everyone has left the "group", and he's still there every day making believe. It boggles the mind. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably already purchased by the Richard Dawkins foundation?66.183.41.215 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I didn't know better, I'd think I was insulted. I've always been a bit tickled by Ken's bizarre analogies and the fact that he is compelled to come up with a new analogy for every post. But I'm man enough to admit I have a problem. Phiwum (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again; you Brits are weird. I'm glad America kicked you out of our empire. Carlaugust (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Give the Brits a break. First, there are plenty of local American versions of Monopoly (every damned one of them pointless) and, second, they've since kicked Mayfair off the board, as I understand it. In favor of, I don't know, Fairypingsleyton Station or something. Anyway, my point is that we should give respect to other cultures, no matter how gay they are. Phiwum (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I literally LOL'd at that. I am going to name my first born Phiwum in your honor (which is going to be weird, since my first born is 8 years old) Carlaugust (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some day, he/she/they/it'll thank you for the name change. Just let him/her/them/those know that the name derives from "The International and Eternal Order of Palsy-Walsies (est. last Tuesday)". Anyway, thanks for the compliment. Phiwum (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No surprise here[edit]
Andy: "By the time someone completes 12-20 years of formal schooling, it often becomes difficult for him to realize that perhaps 50% or more of what he learned in school was false. It was difficult for me to accept this, but it's a wonderful revelation when the mind is opened to it."
Generally I'd be against blindly accepting what you're told in school, but Andy would have probably been better off if he did that. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, he's right about the 50%. The only problem is that he's discarded the wrong 50%. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 10:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's almost Zen-like. Andy sees Ken as having achieved this perfect state of mind, free of all of the preconceptions that keep the rest of us having true knowledge. JubalHarshaw (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Logic is powerful and if we would only open our minds, we would see that Ken is right. Geez, Louise. You know, I have a PhD in Logic. Andy's use of the term makes me want to chew my own foot off. (To be sure, the technical understanding of logic is different than the informal, but still....) Phiwum (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Andy: "But logic is powerful, and there is nothing illogical about that observation or many of User:Conservative's other remarks. Whether or not such logic may temporarily alienate some people, logic does eventually prevail."
- Andy's logic does not resemble our earth logic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Andy also says, "Some of User:Conservative's statements, like the view that the world was created only 6,000 ago, are very difficult for many to open their minds to. There was a time when I was not even aware that anyone held such beliefs." As a longtime close observer of these disputes, this appears to be a disclaimer on Andy's part of holding YEC sentiments. He's a lawyer-advocate, and like the ACLU advocating for Fred Phelps, you don't have to agree with your client's views. Blaming Andy for all the YEC crap on CP is like blaming Johnny Cochran for O.J. Simpson's wife's murder. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course Ken is responsible for a great deal of the YEC crap on CP, but Andy goes much farther than just being a "lawyer advocate". He started the Counterexamples to Evolution page on CP, has claimed no one denies a global flood occurredimg, wrote "things were in good shape at least initially" after The Flood killed almost all of humanityimg, and said The Great Flood was the only explanation for finding shrimp on dry land. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Andy also says, "Some of User:Conservative's statements, like the view that the world was created only 6,000 ago, are very difficult for many to open their minds to. There was a time when I was not even aware that anyone held such beliefs." As a longtime close observer of these disputes, this appears to be a disclaimer on Andy's part of holding YEC sentiments. He's a lawyer-advocate, and like the ACLU advocating for Fred Phelps, you don't have to agree with your client's views. Blaming Andy for all the YEC crap on CP is like blaming Johnny Cochran for O.J. Simpson's wife's murder. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Logic is powerful and if we would only open our minds, we would see that Ken is right. Geez, Louise. You know, I have a PhD in Logic. Andy's use of the term makes me want to chew my own foot off. (To be sure, the technical understanding of logic is different than the informal, but still....) Phiwum (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's almost Zen-like. Andy sees Ken as having achieved this perfect state of mind, free of all of the preconceptions that keep the rest of us having true knowledge. JubalHarshaw (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This is actually the most genuinely Christian thing I've seen Andy write. It would have been so easy for him to throw an obviously deranged person who craps all over his website under the bus years ago--but he hasn't. JubalHarshaw (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As a longtime close observer of these disputes, this appears to be a disclaimer on Andy's part of holding YEC sentiments. *LOL* His cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth are certainly a sign of his Old-Earth believes - as his cp:Counterexamples to Relativity show his devotion to modern physics. larron (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yahbutt you saw the same argumentation in the New Jersey Supreme Court case. Schlafly didn't have to believe the (however lame) arguments he put forward, his job was to make the arguments as an advocate before the Court. Having worked with him closely in CP sysop discussions and elsewhere, his basic argument is, conservativism gets no respect in media, academia, etc. So he considers himself an advocate for conservatism, (witness the domain name, Conservapedia, as an alternate to "liberal dominated" Wikipedia), however whacked out the species or variety of those who self-identify as conservative, or the media & publicly-funded educational system brand as conservative. His basic argument is to take the "liberal" catch phrase, "conservatives are closed minded", spin in on its head and claim critics of conservative views (conservative views of whatever stripe), that "liberal" critics of conservatism are closed-minded. This causes him to "advocate" for views he himself may not necessarily fully adhere to. This is one of the jobs of a lawyer-advocate. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- So he has spent literally thousands of hours over the past 6-7 years publicly advocating a fringe viewpoint that he doesn't necessarily subscribe to, committing heresy against his church, all pro bono, making himself a public laughing stock in the process, just to make a point? JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's one (however unkind) way to phrase it. I have loads of cites to back this up. The immoral Democrat Grover Cleveland is conservative, whereas the Senior Republican Senator Alan Simpson is a liberal. Add to my above statement an absolute loathing for anything remotely resembling "liberal" (in Andydom, "liberal" is more to be reviled than Stalinist or commie), pepper in a few like-minded sysops, and the result is Conservapedia. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob, have you ever considered becoming a lawyer? I would pay good money to see you argue in court. "And to further prove my client's innocence, here's some information related to case in no way whatsoever..." DickTurpis (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's one (however unkind) way to phrase it. I have loads of cites to back this up. The immoral Democrat Grover Cleveland is conservative, whereas the Senior Republican Senator Alan Simpson is a liberal. Add to my above statement an absolute loathing for anything remotely resembling "liberal" (in Andydom, "liberal" is more to be reviled than Stalinist or commie), pepper in a few like-minded sysops, and the result is Conservapedia. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- So he has spent literally thousands of hours over the past 6-7 years publicly advocating a fringe viewpoint that he doesn't necessarily subscribe to, committing heresy against his church, all pro bono, making himself a public laughing stock in the process, just to make a point? JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Lookee here, from the Miller Center at the University of Virginia,
Republicans charged Cleveland with fathering an illegitimate child by a woman whom he had then sent to an insane asylum, Cleveland immediately admitted the possibility of his paternity. Like hungry animals scenting blood, the Republican press charged Cleveland with debauchery and immorality. These publications argued that a choice between Cleveland and Blaine was a choice between "the brothel and the family, between indecency and decency, between lust and law."
not really a family-friendly role model. But that doesn't stop Andy from personally putting Cleveland in the Conservative Hall of Fame. You'd think of the 18 Republican Presidents since the Civil War, Andy could come up with more than only 3 conservatives. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Price of fish? If you're trying to show us that Andy is inconsistent, sure, we knew that already. Where is the evidence that Andy is not a young Earth creationist? He's pretty clearly established he is. DickTurpis (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Price of fish? Here it is: You'd think Abraham Lincoln, universally acclaimed nationally and internationally, by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives as the greatest President ever, Andy would claim as a conservative. But no. Probably because he (a) imposed an income tax, and (b) was the first President to expand Executive power beyond the States and Constitutionally Legislative powers. Lincoln is a "gimme", but because liberals like him too, there must be something wrong. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Price of fish? If you're trying to show us that Andy is inconsistent, sure, we knew that already. Where is the evidence that Andy is not a young Earth creationist? He's pretty clearly established he is. DickTurpis (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
| No one proposed an old earth until the time of Darwin, when Darwinists found
it useful to advocate an old earth in order to sell evolution. Personally, I'm completely open-minded about the evidence. But I see many things inconsistent with an old earth. For example, the well in my yard and the massive Great Lake (in both cases, the concentration of fresh water dissipates over time). Then there is little dust on the Moon, and Moon itself is receding faster than old earth would indicate. I don't really care either way, but the earth looks young to me. In Christ, Andy |
From http://cp.noym.net/2ea6941889ab8955 --larron (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That nails it. It's all about advocacy, and he doesn't care one way or the other. But as a conservative, he is "open-minded" toward views of other conservatives, unlike liberals, who are "close-minded". nobsCorporations are people, too 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't actually believe any of that, do you? DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's plenty of evidence for this. Above, "There was a time when I was not even aware that anyone (including himself) held such beliefs." Not until he came into contact with religious dissenters in the homeschooling movement. His original interest in homeschooling he inherited from his mother's anti-New Deal big government anti-"liberalism", which had more to do with protecting children from multicultrualism & political correctness, than indoctrinating children with fringe religious convictions. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let's look at the parts of that quote that are 100% bullshit. I'm completely open-minded about the evidence. Andy has proved time after time that he is the least open minded person ever. Instead of embracing it and arguing that close mindedness is good, he has somehow decided that open mindedness is the way to go, and he must therefore be open minded. He isn't. This is just his way of making it seems like he's right: "Well, unlike old earth believers, I'm completely impartial, but I think the Earth is young based on evidence. Old earthers base their views on close minded dogma. Who are you going to believe?" The complete opposite is true. I don't really care either way. Andy completely cares. He cares enough to have written long diatribes of bullshit supporting YEC beliefs. He's again trying to make him seem like a disinterested party in order to make himself seem more credible. Your dearth of critical thinking skills is showing again, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Lookit context. He's speaking in a private discussion group (probably to TK, who told the LA Times he was OEC, and me, who didn't really care cause I never participated in any of those discussions, public or private). But he saying he's "open-minded" to Ken & Phillip Rayment's views, and willing to advocate their views to counter the advocates of Darwinism. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let's look at the parts of that quote that are 100% bullshit. I'm completely open-minded about the evidence. Andy has proved time after time that he is the least open minded person ever. Instead of embracing it and arguing that close mindedness is good, he has somehow decided that open mindedness is the way to go, and he must therefore be open minded. He isn't. This is just his way of making it seems like he's right: "Well, unlike old earth believers, I'm completely impartial, but I think the Earth is young based on evidence. Old earthers base their views on close minded dogma. Who are you going to believe?" The complete opposite is true. I don't really care either way. Andy completely cares. He cares enough to have written long diatribes of bullshit supporting YEC beliefs. He's again trying to make him seem like a disinterested party in order to make himself seem more credible. Your dearth of critical thinking skills is showing again, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's plenty of evidence for this. Above, "There was a time when I was not even aware that anyone (including himself) held such beliefs." Not until he came into contact with religious dissenters in the homeschooling movement. His original interest in homeschooling he inherited from his mother's anti-New Deal big government anti-"liberalism", which had more to do with protecting children from multicultrualism & political correctness, than indoctrinating children with fringe religious convictions. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't actually believe any of that, do you? DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Not until he came into contact with religious dissenters in the homeschooling movement... That might explain how he got there, but it doesn't shed any light on the sincerity of the beliefs. I still have a hard time believing that a man would spend thousands of hours defending a point of view that he doesn't hold, completely undermining his reputation in the process, for free. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- To answer that, you'd have to psycho-analyize his relationship with his mother (literally). Both are advocates (trained lawyers) and both advocate each other's positions, despite differences. But that's another subject. You got all the evidence you need here, in these two cites. The Conservaleaks link is prefaced, "Personally...I don't care"; the more recent link creating this subsection reads, "there is nothing illogical about ...many of User:Conservative's...remarks", not Andy's personal beliefs or remarks. Andy is advocating for openmindedness toward User:Conservative's remarks. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see a lot more evidence for the contrary--that he has bought into YEC and is willing to risk public ridicule and lost income to defend it. After all, who is "Conservative" to him to warrant going that far out on a limb and put that much effort into defending his beliefs--I mean, to the point of creating alternate sciences about relativity and evolution, stuff that even established YECs don't get into. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a man who defends the idea of a young earth tooth and nail, even to the point where he relentlessly stands by spurious ideas such as the great lakes still existing as proof (because lakes would never form after the Earth did), and debunked concepts such as there should be more dust on the Moon, (an argument so stupid, that it is listed as #1 on AiG's "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" page). The only thing more obvious from Andy's rigid stand on believe the earth is young is his own pride in never admitting his is wrong no matter how debunked his arguments are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- [EC] To Andy, "open minded" quite literally means "believing what I believe." To think differently than he does is his definition of close mindedness. And when you mention he's talking to TK, who was OEC, its just shows that he's pretending to give some credence to the concept because he can't alienate his accolades. That's why he's been tolerant of Mormons and Moonies. Not because he doesn't think they're bullshit, but because he couldn't offend Dean or Ed. This is more of the same. He thinks OEC its bullshit, but can't alienate the editors who believe it. When he advocates open mindedness about Ken's ideas, it's because Ken's ideas and Andy's are basically 100% the same; Andy is just slightly less retarded in the way he presents them. "Be open minded to Conservative's views" means "believe in what Conservative and I believe or you're close minded." Your efforts to pretend Andy doesn't hold the views he does is pretty hackneyed. DickTurpis (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, putting his anti-"liberalism" he inherited from his mother who developed such unpopular and minority views in the dark days of the New Deal on hold for a moment, and addressing the loss of income, the homeschooling business must be either financially worthwhile or ethically and morally rewarding enough to tailor his brand of "conservativism" to a captive and ready market. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Talk about a conversation getting off track. Let's ignore all your irrelevancies and get back to what we were discussing and see if we made any progress. Do you think Andy believes the Earth is about 6000 years old? Bear in mind all the YEC advocating he's done all over CP, and the statement above in which he says "the earth looks young to me." DickTurpis (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Were there not discussions at usenet where Andy defended "evidence" for a Young Earth? Can't find a link at the moment... larron (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know Andy as long as any of you, nor have I ever talked to him personally (I wouldn't really want to anyway), I don't think Andy actually cares whether the Earth is young or old. What I do think is that he cares about proving those damn libruls wrong, and as libruls want science to be taught in school, science is evolution and evolution is supported by most libruls, he really wants the Earth to be young, but not because he really thinks it is, but because it would support his viewpoint slightly more than the other option. Like so many people, Andy doesn't care whether he get's it right, but about being right. That, at least, is my opinion. --K. (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe Andy believes it. I think Andy knows enough about the wp:Ussher chronology to realize there's enough Protestant fundamentalist conservative voters, political donors, and homeschoolers out there that he can Advocate for. Andy's view is perfectly inkeeping with Catholic doctrine, "From the Catholic point of view, Bishop Ussher spoke only for himself, not for the Church; his feat was one of arithmetic, not theology. Of course, Catholics *may* share many of these fundamentalist beliefs as their personal opinions. The point is they are not *required* to. With the exception of the few matters mentioned above, Catholics may hold whatever scientific positions seem reasonable and intellectually convincing." The best can be said is, as an Advocate for a fundamentalist Protestant position, Andy attempts to make it intellectually convincing. Of course, this requires "open-mindedness" on the part of atheists and evolutionists. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Given the abundance of evidence Andy believes in a young Earth, including his own words, what makes you think he doesn't? I understand why you think he might pretend to believe it, but that's not evidence that he doesn't. Is it that believing in a young Earth is such a stupid and untenable position that you couldn't think a person with Andy's level of education could possibly believe such a thing? That's almost a convincing argument, but Andy has proven his stupidity on a daily basis. Believing in a young Earth fits his mentality perfectly. DickTurpis (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- For a non-believer, Andy sure spent a lot of time on usenet telling people he did. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Show me a link, public or private, where Andy says, "Personally, I believe YEC...", or words to those effect. All I have to base my views on is his words, "Personally....I don't really care either way...". That is different from, "Personally I am inclined to believe...". I take it to mean, "Personally, I don't give a shit, but libruls feel so strongly about this stuff, I can tweak them with what appears to me as intellectually sound arguments and build a political coalition among religious conservatives (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) through Advocacy." If you can show me a convincing link, I'll move toward your position. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's called Conservapedia--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- For Christ's sakes, this is dumb even for you, Rob. Andy....
- * started the Counterexamples to Evolution page on CP
- * started the Counterexamples to Old Earth on CP
- * has claimed no one denies a global flood occurredimg
- * wrote "things were in good shape at least initially" after The Flood killed almost all of humanityimg
- * said The Great Flood was the only explanation for finding shrimp on dry land
- * argued that pretty leaves disprove evolution
- * claimed people are getting stupider therefore the Earth cannot be old.
- This is someone who doesn't believe in creationism? Creationism fits well with all his other monumentally stupid beliefs. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's called Conservapedia--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Show me a link, public or private, where Andy says, "Personally, I believe YEC...", or words to those effect. All I have to base my views on is his words, "Personally....I don't really care either way...". That is different from, "Personally I am inclined to believe...". I take it to mean, "Personally, I don't give a shit, but libruls feel so strongly about this stuff, I can tweak them with what appears to me as intellectually sound arguments and build a political coalition among religious conservatives (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc) through Advocacy." If you can show me a convincing link, I'll move toward your position. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe Andy believes it. I think Andy knows enough about the wp:Ussher chronology to realize there's enough Protestant fundamentalist conservative voters, political donors, and homeschoolers out there that he can Advocate for. Andy's view is perfectly inkeeping with Catholic doctrine, "From the Catholic point of view, Bishop Ussher spoke only for himself, not for the Church; his feat was one of arithmetic, not theology. Of course, Catholics *may* share many of these fundamentalist beliefs as their personal opinions. The point is they are not *required* to. With the exception of the few matters mentioned above, Catholics may hold whatever scientific positions seem reasonable and intellectually convincing." The best can be said is, as an Advocate for a fundamentalist Protestant position, Andy attempts to make it intellectually convincing. Of course, this requires "open-mindedness" on the part of atheists and evolutionists. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know Andy as long as any of you, nor have I ever talked to him personally (I wouldn't really want to anyway), I don't think Andy actually cares whether the Earth is young or old. What I do think is that he cares about proving those damn libruls wrong, and as libruls want science to be taught in school, science is evolution and evolution is supported by most libruls, he really wants the Earth to be young, but not because he really thinks it is, but because it would support his viewpoint slightly more than the other option. Like so many people, Andy doesn't care whether he get's it right, but about being right. That, at least, is my opinion. --K. (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Were there not discussions at usenet where Andy defended "evidence" for a Young Earth? Can't find a link at the moment... larron (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Talk about a conversation getting off track. Let's ignore all your irrelevancies and get back to what we were discussing and see if we made any progress. Do you think Andy believes the Earth is about 6000 years old? Bear in mind all the YEC advocating he's done all over CP, and the statement above in which he says "the earth looks young to me." DickTurpis (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, putting his anti-"liberalism" he inherited from his mother who developed such unpopular and minority views in the dark days of the New Deal on hold for a moment, and addressing the loss of income, the homeschooling business must be either financially worthwhile or ethically and morally rewarding enough to tailor his brand of "conservativism" to a captive and ready market. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see a lot more evidence for the contrary--that he has bought into YEC and is willing to risk public ridicule and lost income to defend it. After all, who is "Conservative" to him to warrant going that far out on a limb and put that much effort into defending his beliefs--I mean, to the point of creating alternate sciences about relativity and evolution, stuff that even established YECs don't get into. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not my forte, but I'll attempt to delve into this subject matter for the first time. In virtually all the examples you've cited, Schlafly is using logical postulates as the basis for advocacy, "As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule" (insert subject matter examples). Just show me in a private or public discussion where Andy says, "This is my personal belief." nobsCorporations are people, too 02:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't have to state that he "personally believes" it when he repeatedly claims that it is a matter of logic that the universe is young and spends hours and hours providing carefully-worked out arguments to buttress that claim. He "knows" it--as well as you can "know" something that's false, anyways. Show me where I have clearly stated that I believe that 2+2=4 or that I believe that gravity works. People don't make "belief" - type statements about those things that they "know" are true--because those things aren't questions of belief. JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob, you really don't apply that standard to anyone else. When talking about Obama you're ready to hang him from his words and actions. The fact that he never said "I believe X" doesn't stop you from accusing him of pushing X. So, to be consistent you can't call Obama a socialist until he says "I am a socialist".--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't think a lawyer ever argued a capital murder case for client he didn't believe was innocent? All it takes is a reasonable doubt. Andy, as an advocate for "conservative views", is attempting to put a reasonable doubt in "liberals" minds that to be conservative is to be closed minded. He does this by showing how open-minded he is in considering the logic of Ken's most absurd bullshit, and prove it is "liberals" who are closed minded by being dogmatic.
- As to Obama, the "share the wealth" phrase was prefaced by, "I believe"; but you are correct, it is an argmentative extrapolation. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Lawyers argue cases for money. No money in CP. And CP is not the specific context of a courtroom. I still maintain that Andy doesn't have to say he "believes" this stuff, because any reasonable person would look at the sum total of what Andy has written and see that this isn't about what Andy might or might not believe--it's him laying out a fundamental worldview that shapes his whole conception of reality. JubalHarshaw (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- What better describes Conservapedia: a courtroom or a blog? What better describes Andy at Conservapedia: a lawyer arguing a case for a client or an idiot spouting his ignorant views? Also, Obama and Andy both went to Harvard Law School. Therefore, anything Obama says is just a lawyer arguing a case he doesn't necessary believe. I'll remind you about this in the future. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even in courtrooms, scientific experts are called upon regularly to give testimony. What these experts present as indisputable scientific facts are rarely agreed upon by disputing parties, let alone members of their own scientific avocation. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Obama has successfully argued for many things he doesn't believe, extending the Bush tax cuts, more importantly Obamacare itself. Obama much preferred single payer, but successfully argued the conservative position of individual mandates and responsibility. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even in courtrooms, scientific experts are called upon regularly to give testimony. What these experts present as indisputable scientific facts are rarely agreed upon by disputing parties, let alone members of their own scientific avocation. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- What better describes Conservapedia: a courtroom or a blog? What better describes Andy at Conservapedia: a lawyer arguing a case for a client or an idiot spouting his ignorant views? Also, Obama and Andy both went to Harvard Law School. Therefore, anything Obama says is just a lawyer arguing a case he doesn't necessary believe. I'll remind you about this in the future. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Lawyers argue cases for money. No money in CP. And CP is not the specific context of a courtroom. I still maintain that Andy doesn't have to say he "believes" this stuff, because any reasonable person would look at the sum total of what Andy has written and see that this isn't about what Andy might or might not believe--it's him laying out a fundamental worldview that shapes his whole conception of reality. JubalHarshaw (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob, you really don't apply that standard to anyone else. When talking about Obama you're ready to hang him from his words and actions. The fact that he never said "I believe X" doesn't stop you from accusing him of pushing X. So, to be consistent you can't call Obama a socialist until he says "I am a socialist".--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Help a newbie out here, Rob--would it be more accurate to say that you--like Schlafly--are the kind of guy who can't back down once you've made an argument that's been totally undone, or is it more that you're a troll who gets off on people screaming themselves hoarse so you say deliberately provocative things and try to derail intelligent conversations in order to make them about you? What am I dealing with here? JubalHarshaw (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- A pound of earthquake cake won't work in a Perpetual Motion Machine because Katie Holmes has a couple of grey hairs. In summation, young earth. Open your fucking mind. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- He was the former when he originally joined rationalwiki Jubal, however, he has increasingly become the latter because there are people here who find it extremely hard not to rise to the bait. Ignore him, or alternatively enjoy how he provokes the ire of others, not as skillfully as MC or as bombastically as Suspected Replicant, but still effectively. Tielec01 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to provoke, I'm trying to illuminate the deepseated mysteries. For years users come to this page saying, "Why? Why? Why?" "How can they believe that bullshit?" I'm giving my first-hand impression and experience working with those guys. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I believe what I say based upon experience, until convinced or proven otherwise. Why doesn't someone with a good, bonafide raport w/Andy go ask him,
- "Sir, I'm trying to open my mind to your arguments. Confidentially, will you admit to me that you do not necessarily subscribe to all YEC arguments of other noted sysops in CP, but feel those arguments are not treated fairly in the media & schools (and Nobel Committee) so a platform like CP should exist if only to display the logic of YEC positions, although you yourself may not necessarily personally believe them?"
- If he takes the bait and says, "Yes, I believe", then I personally will believe him to be untruthful (or maybe a wacko, like you guys do, but probably less than honest/borderline deceitful. He is a lawyers, after all). nobsCorporations are people, too 04:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're giving Andy a little too much credit, Rob. It's touching that you still have faith in humanity after all those years as a Conservapedia sysop, but there are far more reasons to believe he is, in fact, sincere, than believing he isn't.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- GregK would be the guy to do it, and Greg's already got Andy to admit as much: "logic is powerful, and there is nothing illogical about that observation or many of User:Conservative's other remarks. Whether or not such logic may temporarily alienate some people, logic does eventually prevail." All Andy is doing is asking "some people" to look at the logic of Ken's remarks. Whether Ken's remarks are logical shouldn't be debated, cause that's taking the bait from Andy, then. Just agree, "I have looked at Ken's, and yes, they are logical arguments. My question is, Do you Andy agree with Ken's positions, or do you have personal reservations about accepting all of them?" nobsCorporations are people, too 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus, even when you stay on topic you're fucking annoying. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck ya then. Keep pissing in the wind and barking up the wrong tree. If you think Andy actually believes that crap, he's made you look like a fool. nobsCorporations are people, too 06:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus, even when you stay on topic you're fucking annoying. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- GregK would be the guy to do it, and Greg's already got Andy to admit as much: "logic is powerful, and there is nothing illogical about that observation or many of User:Conservative's other remarks. Whether or not such logic may temporarily alienate some people, logic does eventually prevail." All Andy is doing is asking "some people" to look at the logic of Ken's remarks. Whether Ken's remarks are logical shouldn't be debated, cause that's taking the bait from Andy, then. Just agree, "I have looked at Ken's, and yes, they are logical arguments. My question is, Do you Andy agree with Ken's positions, or do you have personal reservations about accepting all of them?" nobsCorporations are people, too 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're giving Andy a little too much credit, Rob. It's touching that you still have faith in humanity after all those years as a Conservapedia sysop, but there are far more reasons to believe he is, in fact, sincere, than believing he isn't.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to provoke, I'm trying to illuminate the deepseated mysteries. For years users come to this page saying, "Why? Why? Why?" "How can they believe that bullshit?" I'm giving my first-hand impression and experience working with those guys. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I believe what I say based upon experience, until convinced or proven otherwise. Why doesn't someone with a good, bonafide raport w/Andy go ask him,
- He was the former when he originally joined rationalwiki Jubal, however, he has increasingly become the latter because there are people here who find it extremely hard not to rise to the bait. Ignore him, or alternatively enjoy how he provokes the ire of others, not as skillfully as MC or as bombastically as Suspected Replicant, but still effectively. Tielec01 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This thread is one hell of a Robrail. 
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit Break[edit]
- I have some sympathy with Rob's view here, about Aschlafly advocating YEC rather than actually believing it. It's the "useful idiots" thing. Aschlafly sees himself as part of the conservative elite and is only advocating YEC because it is (as he sees it) a useful tool in the culture wars against liberalism and atheism. Same could be said for his birtherism advocacy, "professor values" and myriad other stuff he champions on CP. Unfortuantely, at least in the case of YEC, Aschlafly has demonstrated in some detail over many many years on CP and before on other forums that he is not just advocating YEC. This is quite clear from his days on Usenet and Talk-Origins before CP. And then you have very very specific instances on CP like the Lenski affair (actually anti-evolution but that's a means to discredit an old earth) as well as supporting Ken's nonsense and PJR's very detailed YEC articles. Sorry Rob, but I think you're wrong on this one. Besides, I'm not sure what would be worse. An educated man (some might say educated beyond his intelligence) believing in YEC or deliberately teaching falsehoods to children because it's useful for his political and religious goals. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think your Summary hits dead center. Don't forget the CPB; Andy himself said violating the innerrancy of scripture and risking eternal damnation (which Ken & Karajou both have warned him) is worth it to build a coalition of religious conservatives. nobsCorporations are people, too 12:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- AJKGordon summarized: "Sorry Rob, but I think you're wrong on this one." Rob's reply: "I think your Summary hits dead center." Alright then, matter solved. Rob's wrong. Rob agrees he's wrong. Time to move on. JubalHarshaw (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob's basically said that Andy can't believe in a young Earth because there's no way he's that stupid. Since it's obvious to everyone except him that Andy does believe it, Rob has basically just called Andy an idiot. Welcome to the club, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, looking at Andy's works, I have trouble wracking my brain as to how he came to his "insights." Andy has this ability to tap into unadulterated madness that boggles the mind. I mean, things like his "Jesus advises his followers to cast their nets over the right side of the boat=Jesus is endorsing modern Conservatism" argument can't just arise by pure chance....WilliamR (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of us have been following Andy's philosophical slapstick for over five years now, and have been continually amazed at how a man with degrees from both Harvard and Princeton can come up with such a monumental succession of balderdash. I can only assume that it is his education that actually permits him to operate at such a high level as an imbecile, rather than being consigned to the nether reaches of hs mother's basement and editing CP wearing only his underpants. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- The CBP proposal rips the lid off the YEC fraud. If he's willing to toss overboard biblical literalism, why stop at YEC? He only got involved in homeschooling because of his mother's criticism of US schools. Homeschooling brought him into contact with Protestant fundamentalists and creationists. Philip Rayment and Ken DeMyer supplied the materials he "was not even aware that anyone held such beliefs." Rayment quit when he discovered Andy wasn't much a protestant christian fundamentalist at all. All of this has always been to carve out his niche as an Advocate for a sliver of unrespectedI and disrespected groups in the wider conservative movement. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I will concede is that Andy is conservative before he's Christian and that he moulds his religion to conform to his politics. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob, stop pretending you know what the fuck motivates Andy. He got into homeschooling for whatever reason he got into it. You don't know a motherfuckin' thing about his relationship with his mama, and neither do we. And your lameass attempts at psychoanalysis are disrespectful. It's pretty hard to disrespect a man who's earned so little respect as Andy, but you're doin' a pretty good job. Cut it the fuck out and take the man at his word, rather than building up this ridiculous fantasy. Phiwum (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- As usual, Nobbykins, you have no idea what you're talking about. Andy was a YEC well versed in all the usual creationist apologetics long before he started Conservapedia and long before he met Kendoll or PJR. If he told you otherwise, he was lying. You only need to look at his usenet posting history to see that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Show some links, then. Review Rayment's comments on Andy (one creationist to another). Here Rayment says, "It gives Christians, creationists, and conservatives a bad name by operating in ways that do not match Christian and conservative values. " (this was even before the CPB, I think). If Andy is true blue YEC, it sure is not based upon any religious convictions. Rayment's private letter and Andy's response should be read: "Conservapedia is about presenting the facts without liberal bias, and with an open mind....I've changed many of my views that I held for most of my life after reexamining logic and facts with an open mind." His alleged creationist views, and anti-relativity views are based on the logical proposition of presenting counter-examples which allegedly disprove other's sacred beliefs. His counter-examples are appeals to view, with an open mind, the logic of other arguments, no matter how illogical the arguments maybe. He's an advocate for logic and an open-mind, and not christianity or creationism. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- The author of the article in your first link clearly and unequivocally says that Andy is a YEC ("...two of his own Administrators, both also young-Earth creationists...). So I guess he's a YEC. End of story. JubalHarshaw (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nowhere, nowhere does Rayment state Andy Schlafly is a creationist. The entire essay is motivated by, and gives example of, Andy having fooled Rayment into believing Andy was a creationist. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Somewhere, somewhere where Rayment states that Andy is a creationist: When Andy raised the idea of writing to sciencist Richard Lenski asking him to release the data backing his claims of E.Coli bacteria "evolving" a new function, two of his own Administrators, both also young-Earth creationists (CPAdmin1 and me), advised him not to. This statement clearly tells the reader that Andy is a creationist, and that Rayment and CPAdmin 1 are "also" creationists. If you want to argue that Rayment was fooled, you'll need better evididence than what you have here. JubalHarshaw (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if what you're saying is true, which it isn't, why do you care that one fundamentalist idiot fails another fundamentalist idiot's purity test? According to Kendoll, neither Andy nor JPratt are Real, True, Biblical Christians. Do you seriously believe that failing that lunatic's purity test makes them Not Christian(TM)? PJR is a compete nutter. Nobody believes TEC harder than he does, not even the frauds at AiG and CMI who peddle this stuff to them in return for their money. Or, perhaps rather especially not them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jubal, ok, good observation. Got it. So it's pretty clear you understand the context. Rayment basically is arguing Andy is disobedient to God, probably even a Satanist or non-believer as well, and certainly not doing the work of a Christian, a conservative, or promoting creationism. In fact, Rayment argues, Andy's doing harm to those movements. This begs the question, since a YEC believer who rejects biblical literalism and the innerancy of scripture, doesn't follow his professed Catholic doctrine, what difference does it make if a kangaroo jumped the Ark and swam to Australia? and how does that affect, influence, or change his most precious, fundamental beliefs? and why should it? nobsCorporations are people, too 01:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if what you're saying is true, which it isn't, why do you care that one fundamentalist idiot fails another fundamentalist idiot's purity test? According to Kendoll, neither Andy nor JPratt are Real, True, Biblical Christians. Do you seriously believe that failing that lunatic's purity test makes them Not Christian(TM)? PJR is a compete nutter. Nobody believes TEC harder than he does, not even the frauds at AiG and CMI who peddle this stuff to them in return for their money. Or, perhaps rather especially not them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Somewhere, somewhere where Rayment states that Andy is a creationist: When Andy raised the idea of writing to sciencist Richard Lenski asking him to release the data backing his claims of E.Coli bacteria "evolving" a new function, two of his own Administrators, both also young-Earth creationists (CPAdmin1 and me), advised him not to. This statement clearly tells the reader that Andy is a creationist, and that Rayment and CPAdmin 1 are "also" creationists. If you want to argue that Rayment was fooled, you'll need better evididence than what you have here. JubalHarshaw (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nowhere, nowhere does Rayment state Andy Schlafly is a creationist. The entire essay is motivated by, and gives example of, Andy having fooled Rayment into believing Andy was a creationist. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- The author of the article in your first link clearly and unequivocally says that Andy is a YEC ("...two of his own Administrators, both also young-Earth creationists...). So I guess he's a YEC. End of story. JubalHarshaw (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Show some links, then. Review Rayment's comments on Andy (one creationist to another). Here Rayment says, "It gives Christians, creationists, and conservatives a bad name by operating in ways that do not match Christian and conservative values. " (this was even before the CPB, I think). If Andy is true blue YEC, it sure is not based upon any religious convictions. Rayment's private letter and Andy's response should be read: "Conservapedia is about presenting the facts without liberal bias, and with an open mind....I've changed many of my views that I held for most of my life after reexamining logic and facts with an open mind." His alleged creationist views, and anti-relativity views are based on the logical proposition of presenting counter-examples which allegedly disprove other's sacred beliefs. His counter-examples are appeals to view, with an open mind, the logic of other arguments, no matter how illogical the arguments maybe. He's an advocate for logic and an open-mind, and not christianity or creationism. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- As usual, Nobbykins, you have no idea what you're talking about. Andy was a YEC well versed in all the usual creationist apologetics long before he started Conservapedia and long before he met Kendoll or PJR. If he told you otherwise, he was lying. You only need to look at his usenet posting history to see that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob, stop pretending you know what the fuck motivates Andy. He got into homeschooling for whatever reason he got into it. You don't know a motherfuckin' thing about his relationship with his mama, and neither do we. And your lameass attempts at psychoanalysis are disrespectful. It's pretty hard to disrespect a man who's earned so little respect as Andy, but you're doin' a pretty good job. Cut it the fuck out and take the man at his word, rather than building up this ridiculous fantasy. Phiwum (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I will concede is that Andy is conservative before he's Christian and that he moulds his religion to conform to his politics.
- The CBP proposal rips the lid off the YEC fraud. If he's willing to toss overboard biblical literalism, why stop at YEC? He only got involved in homeschooling because of his mother's criticism of US schools. Homeschooling brought him into contact with Protestant fundamentalists and creationists. Philip Rayment and Ken DeMyer supplied the materials he "was not even aware that anyone held such beliefs." Rayment quit when he discovered Andy wasn't much a protestant christian fundamentalist at all. All of this has always been to carve out his niche as an Advocate for a sliver of unrespectedI and disrespected groups in the wider conservative movement. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of us have been following Andy's philosophical slapstick for over five years now, and have been continually amazed at how a man with degrees from both Harvard and Princeton can come up with such a monumental succession of balderdash. I can only assume that it is his education that actually permits him to operate at such a high level as an imbecile, rather than being consigned to the nether reaches of hs mother's basement and editing CP wearing only his underpants.
- The thing is, looking at Andy's works, I have trouble wracking my brain as to how he came to his "insights." Andy has this ability to tap into unadulterated madness that boggles the mind. I mean, things like his "Jesus advises his followers to cast their nets over the right side of the boat=Jesus is endorsing modern Conservatism" argument can't just arise by pure chance....WilliamR (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rob's basically said that Andy can't believe in a young Earth because there's no way he's that stupid. Since it's obvious to everyone except him that Andy does believe it, Rob has basically just called Andy an idiot. Welcome to the club, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- AJKGordon summarized: "Sorry Rob, but I think you're wrong on this one." Rob's reply: "I think your Summary hits dead center." Alright then, matter solved. Rob's wrong. Rob agrees he's wrong. Time to move on. JubalHarshaw (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think your Summary hits dead center. Don't forget the CPB; Andy himself said violating the innerrancy of scripture and risking eternal damnation (which Ken & Karajou both have warned him) is worth it to build a coalition of religious conservatives. nobsCorporations are people, too 12:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You know what Rob? I'm going to let you have the last word on this, and the last word on this is you saying something completely stupid and incomprehensible. JubalHarshaw (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why would someone who does not take literally the Bible as the Word of God believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Having rejected the Bible, what basis in logic or science is there for being a Young Earth Creationist? nobsCorporations are people, too 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Horace...[edit]
Or whoever is pretending to be horace (International Man of Mystery?), You know I cannot unblock you, not without Karajou breathing down my neck. Also, I am unlikely to unblock you, given your many, many, many sockpuppets, and deliberate, (although not unentertaining), attempts to goad Karajou. Therefore, if you are a a real contributor, please, feel free to create another account, and turn over a new leaf; leaving behind trolling, sockpuppetering horace behind, and bringing in a quality contributor. Thank you, Brenden.66.183.41.215 05:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you mean me. I'm not pretending to be Horace, Karajou just thinks I am him. It's ok though, it's kind of entertaining. I'm sure he likes playing detective. As it turns out I am also a contributor of some quality so yeah, not too fussed. Hey, has anyone met Peter? Ruddager (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Typical lying athiest liberal Atheism and deception,Liberal deceit, you are Horace and You are not welcome on the project again. Ever !!! Havefunschlafly (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, BoN there is CP's Brenden and he is talking to me. To explain: Brenden recently extended my then current five year block by inadvertently unblocking me and, when he realised his error, blocking me again for the original five years. Unfortunately for me I had already done three of those five years so he effectively extended my block for three years (for no apparent reason). I had to create several socks to point this out and suggest that he remedy his error. I needed several, of course, because each time I post something I am, naturally, blocked and the post is removed as a matter of course and regardless of its content. The upshot is that Angry Bear has now blocked me for infinity and declared that the only way I can come back to CP is if Andy personally gives his blessing to my return. The humorous aspect of that, of course, is that I have no way of asking Andy if I can come back due to the fact that there is no more CP email and, as an unperson, my posts are removed as soon as I make them and my accounts are blocked. I may give it a try anyway - it somehow amuses me to watch the merry-go-round of caprice and spite. It confirms my view of the character of these people.
- Typical lying athiest liberal Atheism and deception,Liberal deceit, you are Horace and You are not welcome on the project again. Ever !!! Havefunschlafly (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I should address some of Brenden's allegations also. I have never sought to harm CP. I have never vandalised it, nor have I ever "inserted false information". I have no need or inclination to turn over a new leaf. The problem that CP has with me is that I have made a habit of pointing out the failures in logic and knowledge of a number of editors. Most particularly Ken and Andy. In my view that is not something that hinders or hurts the project. On the contrary, it makes it better. However, I understand that if one is Ken or Andy criticism is entirely unwanted and is regarded as a blockable offence. I should also point out (again) that Anger Bear has wrongly blocked a number of accounts for being Horace. I don't know why he is incapable of using checkuser. I am sure he has all my IPs by now. --Horace (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Criticism of an ideology is considered a personal insult. And only liberals make personal insults, therefore you must be an atheist, communist, islamic brotherhood sympathizer, and
OECbig banger, too. Pointing out to someone, "Hey, your ideology is leaking" to me is like saying, "Hey, your car is leaking oil." You'd think fixing the leak would be priority before it gets all over the driveway, but they tend to get personally offended and dump six more quarts just to tweak you. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)- Speaking of "Big Bangers," tell your wife I'm running a little late, but I should be there soon. JubalHarshaw (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Criticism of an ideology is considered a personal insult. And only liberals make personal insults, therefore you must be an atheist, communist, islamic brotherhood sympathizer, and
- I should address some of Brenden's allegations also. I have never sought to harm CP. I have never vandalised it, nor have I ever "inserted false information". I have no need or inclination to turn over a new leaf. The problem that CP has with me is that I have made a habit of pointing out the failures in logic and knowledge of a number of editors. Most particularly Ken and Andy. In my view that is not something that hinders or hurts the project. On the contrary, it makes it better. However, I understand that if one is Ken or Andy criticism is entirely unwanted and is regarded as a blockable offence. I should also point out (again) that Anger Bear has wrongly blocked a number of accounts for being Horace. I don't know why he is incapable of using checkuser. I am sure he has all my IPs by now. --Horace (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- There was never anything wrong with criticism, although Karajou may disagree. What was wrong was that you were coming back as Horace, which you knew was an unperson, and thus, the politicians at CP demand you leave. You can come back as a non-Horace account, if you must.66.183.41.215 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really? Well, let's put that to the test (as soon as my most recent IP block wears out). --Horace (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well Brenden, that lasted about as long as expected. No edits and blocked for trolling. You appear to have been mistaken about my going back as "a non-Horace account". --Horace (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really? Well, let's put that to the test (as soon as my most recent IP block wears out). --Horace (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can haz tor?66.183.41.215 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can't with Karajou all over it like a bad rash66.183.41.215 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocking Board Framework[edit]
... and it is gone (blocking board framework) but not forgotten:
| Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.
Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011. Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting: 1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable. 2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above. 3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board. I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. |
larron (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Knowing what you're talking about is for the so-called "experts"...[edit]
but BotP Andy knows that actually examining what occurred and finding "explanations" is unnecessary. Second Law! Bible! Young Earth! DONE!!11! Science is easy. Never let being a chronicly underachieving lawyer stop you from living your dreams of scientific greatness. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- There he goes again, taking one for the team and advocating for a position that he doesn't really believe in by making himself a public laughing-stock. JubalHarshaw (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- He must have some ulterior motive, though. I think it's probably Mommy issues. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- My mind went "yibble" at the bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics making world-wide earthquakes inevitable. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Somebody forgot the capture; now we'll never know what knowing what you're talking about is about. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's still there, at the top of MPR. It just looks like Kendoll wrote it, because he oversighted this:
- Somebody forgot the capture; now we'll never know what knowing what you're talking about is about. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- My mind went "yibble" at the bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics making world-wide earthquakes inevitable. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- He must have some ulterior motive, though. I think it's probably Mommy issues. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
“”The apparent owner of EvC Forum admits he doesn't sound intelligent. Percy, declines a creation vs. evolution debate offer.
Of course, spouting evolutionary quackery does put one at a distinct disadvantage in terms of sounding intelligent.
|
- and deleted the post it referred to. I guess he chickened out of the debate and ran back to his intellectual bunny hole. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would have been better if he'd oversighted his sentence starting "Does you use the concept". Генгисpillaging 08:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dance for us little men, Dance! ГенгисGum disease 20:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dance for us little men, Dance!
- I call this the "First Law of the Second Law", which can be roughly paraphrased as "any reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics by someone other than a physical scientist must be assumed to be wrong until proven otherwise." Doctor Dark (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would have been better if he'd oversighted his sentence starting "Does you use the concept".
- and deleted the post it referred to. I guess he chickened out of the debate and ran back to his intellectual bunny hole. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The link they're crowing about...[edit]
I read the link that was posted where they were glad that the cops were "answering to the Muslim stoning of Christians". Just to make sure I'm clear about what went down, it appears as though there's a thing in the US called the Arab International Festival, which obviously had a lot of Muslims in attendance. A bunch of hardcore Christians showed up, uninvited, and chanted anti-Muslim slogans, had a pig's head on a stick, wore shirts, carried signs, billboards, all that jazz. They told them the Muslims to go home, asked if they spoke English, etc.
Okay. All of this doesn't excuse the reaction of the Muslims who threw stuff at them, assaulted them, etc. Violence is not the answer to this kind of thing. But I mean... let's be clear about one thing. This isn't an example of Christians peacefully preaching their religion and then having an Angry Muslim Mob(tm) descend upon them and assault them, this is a bunch of Christians deliberately going to a place where they knew they would not be welcome, deliberately acting like complete douchebags and spoiling for a fight, hoping to get a negative reaction and getting one.
If I showed up at a Crucifiction re-enactment with a megaphone (as they did) with a crowd of my friends wearing anti-Theist T-shirts ("There's no God" etc), shouted stuff during the procession through the megaphone, had a picture of Satan urinating on Jesus Christ on the Cross while Jesus happily drank it and Pontius Pilate fellated him, and we chanted that "Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings" while waving a sign that had a picture of the Cross of Jesus smashing into the burning World Trade Centre buildings, this would be protected speech and it would be wrong of them to attack me for practising my constitution rights (not really, I'm Australian, lol).
It would also make me a complete douchebag and only the victim in a technical, legal sense. If you deliberately try to provoke as much rage in people as possible to goad them into breaking the law so you can punish them using the legal framework, this makes you a total dickhead. --Sasayaki (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- What the crowd did is wrong; the police inaction in protecting the protestors is even more egregious, and they need to be made accountable. That all being said, you are right, they went in there with the explicit intent to provoke the crowd; they weren't there to preach, they were there to incite. One may ask why? Well fundamentalists have a persecution complex, but as Christians they are the majority and typically privilege. So how to show one is persecuted when living a privileged lifestyle? Well deliberately push people to the edge by purposely enraging them, then when some strike out in anger, scream and rant how "real" Christians are persecuted by society.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's right. We can and should disagree with the ideology behind their statements, but in saying that they are "acceptable victims," we would be taking the stance that many southern governors and police chiefs adopted in response to the violence against the civil rights protesters in the 60s: "You just can't guarantee the safety of a fool and that's what these folks are, just fools." Even if we are to choose to view them as foolish, there's no reason for them not to have the same protections that the man on the street would have. WilliamR (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is basically like when the nationalists hold a rally in England and the anti-nazi groups show up. It would be considered a serious error if a local police chief let such a rally go ahead without getting adequate riot police cover because it's bound to end in violence if you can't physically separate them and arrest anyone who starts throwing things. I guess maybe for a new phenomenon you could excuse police for not guessing that there will be violence. Not every crowd warrants hordes of riot police, and that's something you can judge from experience. You don't want to "over-police" things because it creates an oppressive atmosphere that itself contributes to violence. So it's a balancing act, and this time they got it wrong, hopefully there won't be a next time. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's right. We can and should disagree with the ideology behind their statements, but in saying that they are "acceptable victims," we would be taking the stance that many southern governors and police chiefs adopted in response to the violence against the civil rights protesters in the 60s: "You just can't guarantee the safety of a fool and that's what these folks are, just fools." Even if we are to choose to view them as foolish, there's no reason for them not to have the same protections that the man on the street would have. WilliamR (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Goldarnit. Blocked again.[edit]
I don't know who it is that prompts an IP block in my area, but it's pretty darned annoying. I don't try to edit CP. I haven't had a (non-blocked) login there since TK chose to execute me several years ago. I just wanna read their silliness. Is this too much to ask? Phiwum (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- just use a proxy server. not hard. Tamboratta (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- They've got my area as well, it seems that conservatism and YEC isn't strong enough to be viewed by people who disagree with them. It must drive Andy to drink to be the standard bearer for belief systems that are so weak. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 03:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was working fine for me yesterday, then I started fixing Capturebot, and by the time I was done, CP stopped working. It's not even a 403 block, it just doesn't load and times out. -- Nx / talk 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Same here. I assume they blocked the IPs of their regular visitors... larron (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can load recent changes and some diffs, but several requests are dying. It's probably just the usual signs that the server is about to crap out. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's crapping out for me too. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Capturebot works? From the preview button, it doesn't look like it's working... --Andynot Schlafly 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a disaster. I was right on the verge of having my flabby evolutionism ground up, then shot and set on fire. I’m now not even sure Conservapedia ever existed. I mean, where’s the proof and evidence? JumboWhales (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I wish CP was blocked here. That way I wouldn't have seen their joke of a page about the terrible ebil librul conshpiracy of Global Warming and I wouldn't have laughed so hard that I woke my ill wife up. Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- CP isn't loading for me either. It just says "Oops! Google chrome couldn't load CP." --Andynot Schlafly
- I wish CP was blocked here. That way I wouldn't have seen their joke of a page about the terrible ebil librul conshpiracy of Global Warming and I wouldn't have laughed so hard that I woke my ill wife up. Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Capturebot works? From the preview button, it doesn't look like it's working... --Andynot Schlafly 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's crapping out for me too.
- I can load recent changes and some diffs, but several requests are dying. It's probably just the usual signs that the server is about to crap out. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Same here. I assume they blocked the IPs of their regular visitors... larron (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was working fine for me yesterday, then I started fixing Capturebot, and by the time I was done, CP stopped working. It's not even a 403 block, it just doesn't load and times out. -- Nx / talk 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- They've got my area as well, it seems that conservatism and YEC isn't strong enough to be viewed by people who disagree with them. It must drive Andy to drink to be the standard bearer for belief systems that are so weak. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 03:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It's down for all the proxies I tried too. Havent tried tor yet 66.183.41.215 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- It works on my smart phone, but not my home computer. Phiwum (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Did someone say something mean about Andy again?66.183.41.215 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Did someone say something mean about Andy again? Me or the other Andy? --Andynot Schlafly 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Monsieur Schlafly, obviously. Aside, since when did we use green ink?66.183.41.215 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK. And I used the tq template to quote your post. --Andynot Schlafly 23:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Did someone say something mean about Andy again?66.183.41.215 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
For reference, my access is back. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 02:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- So is mine. --Andynot Schlafly 12:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh noes! The demons are coming![edit]
Kendoll is afraid of faked up videos. Apparently the UFO demons are coming for his soul! Quick, Kendoll! Only a tin foil hat can save you from Satan's little imps. Construct one immediately! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- If anyone would get afraid of fake videos, it's Kenny.
- Wow, he's a complete idiot. (And in other shocking news, the sky is blue.) --Andynot Schlafly 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...and a zombie image makes the MPR. It'll probably get trimmed+oversighted fast, though. WilliamR (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure he still believes in crop circles. Wasn't it Ken who claimed atheists were preparing for some alien invasion here? Now because people can make funny noise videos suddenly aliens and UFOs are real as long as they are demon Red Lectroids from the eighth dimension or some such nonsense, cuz' that is just so rational.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- No! Aliens and UFOs are most definitely not real. God created life on one planet only. Believing in extraterrestrials is a crazy thing that only evolutionists do. It's just as stupid as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or evolution itself. Demons (and zombies, by the looks of it) on the other hand...--Spud (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- the good people at Creation Ministries International have a link to a website run by one of their people on UFOs but its OK, no alien invasion because UFOs are demons in disguise. http://www.alienintrusion.com/ That suggests a movie of shape changing demons, I could call it TRANSFORMERS ! ohh been done you say ? Hamster (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like how the website has a slash symbol over a Grey's head to symbolize believing in such aliens is nonsense (which I agree), but turns right around and argues as real what is essentially malevolent extra-dimensional supernatural beings (which is just as ridiculous, if not more so).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- the good people at Creation Ministries International have a link to a website run by one of their people on UFOs but its OK, no alien invasion because UFOs are demons in disguise. http://www.alienintrusion.com/ That suggests a movie of shape changing demons, I could call it TRANSFORMERS ! ohh been done you say ? Hamster (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- No! Aliens and UFOs are most definitely not real. God created life on one planet only. Believing in extraterrestrials is a crazy thing that only evolutionists do. It's just as stupid as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or evolution itself. Demons (and zombies, by the looks of it) on the other hand...--Spud (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure he still believes in crop circles. Wasn't it Ken who claimed atheists were preparing for some alien invasion here? Now because people can make funny noise videos suddenly aliens and UFOs are real as long as they are demon Red Lectroids from the eighth dimension or some such nonsense, cuz' that is just so rational.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- ...and a zombie image makes the MPR. It'll probably get trimmed+oversighted fast, though. WilliamR (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, he's a complete idiot. (And in other shocking news, the sky is blue.) --Andynot Schlafly 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
So, what is Andy up to these days?[edit]
He isn't contributing much to the main namespace these days and the fourth lecture on American Government is overdue. Correcting the homework can't be that taxing - even if there are more than those five pupils who publish their answers on Conservapedia. Is there any interesting legal work he is doing at the moment? Or is he just fed up with CP? --larron (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that Tiger Woods underperformed at some sporting event recently--I'm surprised that andy isn't crowing about that. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- But he was defeated by Europeans. Increasingly atheist, increasingly socialist Europeans from countries where people are forced to marry those of the same sex. He's not going to crow about a defeat like that.--Spud (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of sporting events and Andy, I just now looked up the result of yesterday's Jets game. Oh, dear. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yet somehow the Broncos managed to decimate the Raiders without Tebow. Maybe Peyton Manning is conservative after all. DickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could Andy be getting bored? CP is bogged down in a pit of ordure, dug and filled by Ken; the homeschoolers have vanished; genuine new content has dried up - the main activity now is linking to wingnut blogs. I expect Andy to rekindle some enthusiasm with the election but he'll probably mope after Obama wins and could lose interest again. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- His latest crusade is defending Todd Akin. We can only hope that Tim Tebow will say something negative about Akin. so Andy's head will explode. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm visualising Andy camping by his front door in a futile and lonely wait for his invitation to dinner with Mittens and Prion to discuss election strategy.--
Jabba de Chops 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, he's busy re-reading his old law schoo textbooks, prepping for his position at the top of the Romney/Ryan Justice Department. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, I haven't seen him say anything about the 47% comment--part of me thinks he gave up (Give it up, Schlafly!) at that point. JubalHarshaw (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh, I read that and a vision of Andy's feet gently swinging back-and-fore in front of his monitor flicked through my mind. Bad mind.-- Jabba de Chops 18:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh, I read that and a vision of Andy's feet gently swinging back-and-fore in front of his monitor flicked through my mind. Bad mind.--
- Speaking of which, I haven't seen him say anything about the 47% comment--part of me thinks he gave up (Give it up, Schlafly!) at that point. JubalHarshaw (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, he's busy re-reading his old law schoo textbooks, prepping for his position at the top of the Romney/Ryan Justice Department. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm visualising Andy camping by his front door in a futile and lonely wait for his invitation to dinner with Mittens and Prion to discuss election strategy.--
- His latest crusade is defending Todd Akin. We can only hope that Tim Tebow will say something negative about Akin. so Andy's head will explode. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Dick. Sam Tally-ho! 19:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- He gave to Lugar? I guess he isn't really a conservative, Certainly not by Andy's standards. DickTurpis (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could Andy be getting bored? CP is bogged down in a pit of ordure, dug and filled by Ken; the homeschoolers have vanished; genuine new content has dried up - the main activity now is linking to wingnut blogs. I expect Andy to rekindle some enthusiasm with the election but he'll probably mope after Obama wins and could lose interest again.
- Yet somehow the Broncos managed to decimate the Raiders without Tebow. Maybe Peyton Manning is conservative after all. DickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of sporting events and Andy, I just now looked up the result of yesterday's Jets game. Oh, dear. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's pretty obviously lukewarm for this campaign. Anybody but Obama is the rallying cry, but if Romney loses, then so much the better for Andy's pretense that America wants a real conservative. (It's hard to see how that pretense is consistent with recent elections, especially given that many "real" conservatives don't think that GWB was one of theirs.) Phiwum (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- And doubtless there'll be the obligatory Conservapedia Proven Right gloating about how Newt and/or Santorum would have been the better choice. Considering Andy has never really gone in for Terry's Marxist Kenyan Usurper conspiracy theories in such a big way, he may even be looking forward to Obama winning so he can be "right" yet again. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, of course conservatives will disavow Bush, he's an embarrassment and a liability. Was he invited to speak at the Convention in Tampa? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. He was always a stalking horse, even in those times that they said he was the great pro-life hope. Because those times didn't really happen. Phiwum (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you could kind of build a case for him serving as a stalking horse, simply because he cast himself as being a true conservative, much like Gingrich did. If he were to act as a stalking horse, he would only need to split Gingrich's vote in the southern states to ensure that Romney would have an "inevitable" victory. Unlike Gingrich, Santorum did not drive himself into financial oblivion through his campaign, and many of the policies he supported have been more moderate than what you might expect from the Santorum we saw on the campaign trail. I still do not buy the theory, however. WilliamR (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Andy's use of the term "stalking horse" is idiosyncratic. Traditionally, a stalking horse is someone who first floats what may be a controversial idea. If it sells, then the primary guy goes public advocating the same proposal. This idea that a stalking horse is a candidate whose aim is to siphon votes in the primary seems to occur on CP and nowhere else that I've seen.
- And it just sounds like a fantasy to me. The idea that Santorum would run for president just in order to aid Romney's campaign really is just silly. Think of the time, effort and money involved -- all to clandestinely support a candidate whose public views are not very much like Santorum's. (Of course, Andy thinks that Santorum is really a closet pro-choicer, too, so the conspiracy goes pretty deep, evidently.) Phiwum (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, a proper term for the concept that Andy is referring to would be a "spoiler." That Santorum was a spoiler for Gingrich may well be a point of contention, albeit a dubious one. I honestly hadn't looked up what the term meant, and just assumed that it was a synonym for "spoiler." Woops. Andy happened to be "not even wrong" here, then. WilliamR (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The US system doesn't seem to be big on stalking horses. In the UK a stalking horse is useful because the parliamentary party controls the top jobs, and so an unpopular Prime Minister can be toppled by just a few dozen people. Knowing whether rumbles of discontent among those people translate into potential for you to become the new leader, or are just ordinary grumbling is tricky so a stalking horse helps you find out. I'm not sure which posts in the US are even under the control of the party directly in this way. I think a "stalking horse" strategy would be too dangerous with the ordinary electorate, not to mention too slow. Are the house leaders (Cantor, Pelosi) able to be replaced by their party on a whim? If so that might be a use for a "stalking horse" in the US system. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It always helps if you know the origin of an idiom. A stalking horse was a domesticated horse behind which a hunter could approach game, as the prey wouldn't see the horse as a threat and wouldn't notice the extra pair of legs. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 10:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, a proper term for the concept that Andy is referring to would be a "spoiler." That Santorum was a spoiler for Gingrich may well be a point of contention, albeit a dubious one. I honestly hadn't looked up what the term meant, and just assumed that it was a synonym for "spoiler." Woops. Andy happened to be "not even wrong" here, then. WilliamR (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you could kind of build a case for him serving as a stalking horse, simply because he cast himself as being a true conservative, much like Gingrich did. If he were to act as a stalking horse, he would only need to split Gingrich's vote in the southern states to ensure that Romney would have an "inevitable" victory. Unlike Gingrich, Santorum did not drive himself into financial oblivion through his campaign, and many of the policies he supported have been more moderate than what you might expect from the Santorum we saw on the campaign trail. I still do not buy the theory, however. WilliamR (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. He was always a stalking horse, even in those times that they said he was the great pro-life hope. Because those times didn't really happen. Phiwum (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- But he was defeated by Europeans. Increasingly atheist, increasingly socialist Europeans from countries where people are forced to marry those of the same sex. He's not going to crow about a defeat like that.--Spud (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand[edit]
As a New Zealander I can say with confidence "no Ken, no". Acei9 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken should pay attention to this page, in particular the bottom graph which shows a wave of atheism approaching and his creationist boat doesn't look to sea-worthy! Ole Ole Ole! Acei9 22:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see a light at the end of the wormhole for Ken and his NZ creatioooooh hold on, it's a photon torpedo. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't give him this kind of attention; you know his proclamations mean nothing, let him rant in obscurity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biblical creation belief is growing in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand Associate Education Minister John Banks says he is a creationist. Wow, that's great Ken but unfortunately John Banks is also a liar and a crook who's party and personal support is at an all time low and he only got into Parliament because the prime minister needed his support on a single issue. In addition with John Banks party polling below the 5% threshold his parliamentary boat isn't looking seaworthy. I claim victory of Ken's so called intellect once again! John Banks also said I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people, especially in this post-Christian society that we live in. Operation Troll Ken is a success once more! Ole Ole Ole! Acei9 00:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The tidal wave of RationalWiki is about to overwhelm Ken!
- You know, unrelated, (and perhaps this is because I haven't looked at this too much; you all are probably used to this craziness by now) but looking through the Main Page talk at CP, a lot of people seem to be bringing up the obvious thing about Mainpageleft; it's Kenny's personal blog. People are like "you know Kenny, should the main page really be QE! blog entries?" and he's like "CREATIONISM IS RISING BLAH BLAH BLAH we're gonna crush evolutionism like an aluminum can..." And no matter how many times people ask Kenny to answer the question, he still doesn't....
- And I'm tempted to ask Kenny about that Ace, but he'll probably just post some irrelevant slogan from the QE! blog and ban me for 2 years. For violating the 90/10 rule. Or whatever he can think of. --Andynot Schlafly 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biblical creation belief is growing in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand Associate Education Minister John Banks says he is a creationist. Wow, that's great Ken but unfortunately John Banks is also a liar and a crook who's party and personal support is at an all time low and he only got into Parliament because the prime minister needed his support on a single issue. In addition with John Banks party polling below the 5% threshold his parliamentary boat isn't looking seaworthy. I claim victory of Ken's so called intellect once again! John Banks also said I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people, especially in this post-Christian society that we live in. Operation Troll Ken is a success once more! Ole Ole Ole! Acei9 00:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't give him this kind of attention; you know his proclamations mean nothing, let him rant in obscurity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see a light at the end of the wormhole for Ken and his NZ creatioooooh hold on, it's a photon torpedo. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Red Telephone to Ace -- Something about how great the Sierra Leone conflict is. Or something. Seriously, Ken, get some help. You're not winning, or "showing" anybody. We all just feel bad for you. Carlaugust (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear Ken. It wasn't my post-Christian comment but a comment from Minister John Banks, your creationist Minister in New Zealand who has been shamed by donation scandals, lies and is currently polling so low as to not be elected ever again into New Zealand parliament. Ole! Ole! Ole! even Creationist Ministers in New Zealand can't tell the truth! I declare victory! Acei9 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you guys let yourselves be trolled so? If RW ever wants to be taken seriously it's going to have to stop wasting time analyzing the spewing of nuts like conservative. This is a guy who "cured himself" with "vitamins". He really needs to be ignored so he can move onto something more healthy.
- I felt for sure I was trolling him for comment. Acei9 02:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, there's absolutely no good reason to believe anything Kendoll has to say about himself. He was still "curing himself" of various ailments with alternative medicine a year of so back, it just seems to be one of his many excuses why he can't do the things he promised to do. Everything that man says is a lie. I'm just wondering what a proper interval I should let pass before I start reminding him about that 100 page creationist booklet he trailed for months. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I felt for sure I was trolling him for comment. Acei9 02:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you guys let yourselves be trolled so? If RW ever wants to be taken seriously it's going to have to stop wasting time analyzing the spewing of nuts like conservative. This is a guy who "cured himself" with "vitamins". He really needs to be ignored so he can move onto something more healthy.
- Honestly guys, I still cannot see why anyone would bother with such a textbook case of Schizophrenia, all he has been spewing is the same old shit over and over again until his carer is able to yank him away from the keyboard for a few hours to sleep. That being said, if we were to ignore all conservapedians likely to have severe mental or emotional issues, we would then be pretty much with just power hungry cunts like Karajou Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 05:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- At the risk of analyzing somebody over the Internet in a manner that I'm completely unqualified to do, Karajou obviously has anger management issues. That would then mean we'd have to ignore all of them.Spud (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would also then add on some serious self esteem issues for Kara, given his utter failure as a sailor, his obsession with being seen as a badass soldierman, and his fanaticism with enforcing his power over a blog under the delusion it is the "heart of the conservative movement". Personally I think if we are to pillory any members of the site, we should stick to paranoid schizophrenics like Tossbotty, as it is so damn darling watching him scream in terrified rage about how not believing stripes=hitler means your part of Obama's muzzie/commie/faggy/atheisticy cabal, and will burn in hell for your crimes against true conservatives. Theres something about pure screaming batshit insanity that appeals to me Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 06:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- At the risk of analyzing somebody over the Internet in a manner that I'm completely unqualified to do, Karajou obviously has anger management issues. That would then mean we'd have to ignore all of them.Spud (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Utter victory over the SS. Ken and his unseaworthiness creationism![edit]
Ole! Ole! Ole! Like the Minister John Banks who was caught lying and over and over again, creationist Ken just can't get his facts right! Neither can the SS. Ken get his head around the fact even John Banks says NZ is a post-Christian country! Utter destruction! Bible believing Christianity and belief in biblical creation are growing so fast in New Zealand! Oh no they aren't! Your linked article states the very opposite! Utter victory! Operation Pull Disturbed Creationist Bunnies from Intellectual Bunny-holes is a success :) :) Acei9 06:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- He cant hear you, hes likely too busy throwing a tantrum over the orderlies trying to give him another spongebath after he forgot to go to the bathroom while tapping out this recent communique Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 06:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Does Kenny always forget to sign his comments? (Like he did here.) --Andynot Schlafly 11:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations on discovering that one single burning question we've all been wanting to ask about a mentally ill creationist with nearly a decade long history of humiliating himself on theology debate forums now taking advantage of Phyllis Schlafly's son's spinelessness by spamming staggering amounts of even less coherent garbage than he could muster in the mid-2000s, and that's saying a lot.
15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Was just wondering. --Andynot Schlafly 17:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why I said always. I meant to ask whether Ken often forgets to sign his comments. --Andynot Schlafly 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I know it isn't Ken but...[edit]
Between Kenny's flooding of the main page with spam and the occasional link to Terry's little blog Andy still manages to squeeze in a few words now and again, once again focusing on his no-doubt expertise on all things NFL football. Well the Jets lost again, which means Andy's cares because it allows him to conspiracy theorize that the only reason the jets lost 34-0 to San Fran instead of some overwhelming victory was because they didn't allow Tebow to run the game. It had nothing to do with the porous Jets defense allowing San Fran 200 yards on the ground alone, or that they got a fumble recovery for a touchdown, or their dominating defense, surely it was just liberals keeping Tebow on the sidelines so to allow the gay-loving atheists from the west coast a signature victory. Oh and if you wondering about Tebow's old team, the Broncos, well they and "overrated sports star" Manning are doing just fine, so Andy will utterly ignore them for now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ofcourse the jets lost because of a lack of tebow. God, the sports cheat in the sky, isn't going to intervene for anyone less than st Tebow AMassiveGay (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not miss the fact that the man who orchestrated the Manning/Tebow shuffle just endorsed Mitt Romney, and also endorsed McCain in 2008...
In fairness, giving up 34 points on defense isn't that bad. Only scoring 0 points on offense is terrible. </Andyism> Carlaugust (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone get the feeling that most of Andy's hangups would melt away if he finally got to fuck Tim Tebow? --Revolverman (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It reminds me of when Andy tried to change John 3:16 (I can't be bothered to link to it), he said he thought of it "while watching a video of Tim Tebow." I always figured that by "watching" he meant "watching". It would be the perfect arrangement - Tebow needs to lose his virginity, and Andy needs to realize that he's just been repressing his natural feelings. Carlaugust (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I normaly don't care for the "Homophobes are in closet" line of thinking, but god damn, its hard to argue with just how much Andy cares about Tim. --Revolverman (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't Andy want to alter John 3:16 because it states "God so loved the world..." and Andy felt that saying "world" was too environmentalist?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I normaly don't care for the "Homophobes are in closet" line of thinking, but god damn, its hard to argue with just how much Andy cares about Tim. --Revolverman (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The Founding Fathers were Pro-life![edit]
...says Roseann Unsanitary, because the Declaration of Independence says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
That's pretty much the entirety of her argument. Not surprising, since laws banning abortion didn't start to appear in the States till the 1820's. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably she's against the death penalty then, given that ALL men endowed with the UNALIENABLE right of LIFE by their creator. Someone wanna stick that in the comments over there so we can all watch the consequent squirming? ONE / TALK 11:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking my oath to never ever post at CNAV again, I've already asked her to cite the anti-abortion laws that existed when the DoI was signed. Someone else can take one's suggestion and run with it. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the deplorable state of medical science at the time, I'm pretty sure everyone was opposed to pregnant women attempting to force a miscarriage. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You would be in error. Herbal "remedies" were known and used at least from 500 BC on (probably much longer, some sources say stone age man probably employed them), and were fairly well known in colonial America. Black cohosh is your friend. KillerChihuahua (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware of them, though I was under the impression such remedies were often dangerous. I am in error, all the same -obviously women used them despite the dangers involved. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much all abortion practices are dangerous when done by the unskilled and most surgery pre-Lister was inherently risky. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Until the 1930s, abortion was more dangerous than giving birth. Both have risks. It is estimated that in the 1800s the rate of morality was 1 in 6. However, studies show that the rate of abortion is not diminished by its risks; today abortions are performed in about the same percentages in areas where only illegal abortions are available as where abortion is legal and easily available. The difference is the death rate of the women. Hence, while just as many people perform abortions =/= just as many people support access to abortions, if the gap is not significant enough to affect the number of abortions, then it is probably not highly significant. KillerChihuahua (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- The social risks of carrying to full-term have often outweighed the physical risks of abortion. I believe that in the 1920s my own grandmother even attempted self abortion rather than deliver out of wedlock. Thankfully the stigma of unmarried mothers has been drastically downgraded within my lifetime; well at least in most of the UK. Генгисunbelieving 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- The social risks of carrying to full-term have often outweighed the physical risks of abortion. I believe that in the 1920s my own grandmother even attempted self abortion rather than deliver out of wedlock. Thankfully the stigma of unmarried mothers has been drastically downgraded within my lifetime; well at least in most of the UK.
- Until the 1930s, abortion was more dangerous than giving birth. Both have risks. It is estimated that in the 1800s the rate of morality was 1 in 6. However, studies show that the rate of abortion is not diminished by its risks; today abortions are performed in about the same percentages in areas where only illegal abortions are available as where abortion is legal and easily available. The difference is the death rate of the women. Hence, while just as many people perform abortions =/= just as many people support access to abortions, if the gap is not significant enough to affect the number of abortions, then it is probably not highly significant. KillerChihuahua (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much all abortion practices are dangerous when done by the unskilled and most surgery pre-Lister was inherently risky.
- I am aware of them, though I was under the impression such remedies were often dangerous. I am in error, all the same -obviously women used them despite the dangers involved. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You would be in error. Herbal "remedies" were known and used at least from 500 BC on (probably much longer, some sources say stone age man probably employed them), and were fairly well known in colonial America. Black cohosh is your friend. KillerChihuahua (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the deplorable state of medical science at the time, I'm pretty sure everyone was opposed to pregnant women attempting to force a miscarriage. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking my oath to never ever post at CNAV again, I've already asked her to cite the anti-abortion laws that existed when the DoI was signed. Someone else can take one's suggestion and run with it. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I've heard the claim, admittedly from pro-choice sources, that the entire reason abortion was banned in the States was not to "save the little bay-yay-yay-yay-yay-bies!" but as a women's health issue. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dubious. The early laws prohibit various practices that would now be seen as inherently unsafe (mostly, use of herbs or other preparations to induce abortion) but they're poorly targeted because women trying to procure an abortion were treated as criminals rather victims. Compare laws against streetwalking. Streetwalker is clearly an unconscionably dangerous choice of job and thus (unlike say in-call prostitution) we can't just license it, but in most places the laws target the prostitutes as well as, or sometimes even instead of their clients and pimps. Why? Well it's obviously a moral judgement. When someone defends a law that targets women seeking abortions it's the same deal, they're making a moral judgement on those women. Even if lives were saved (I mean actual people's lives, not hypothetical "unborn children") that wouldn't justify it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it was to attempt to prevent extramarital sex, which leads to Hell. Epic fail, of course. It worked as well as all the other puritanical laws. KillerChihuahua (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Her argument rather depends on what you think the constitution meant by 'all men'. Clearly it didnt include all actual men (e.g.slaves) so why must it include unborn babies?
Texas wuvs CP, or does it?[edit]
Conservapedia has always been desperate for any attention by the media, so when one half of an editorial in the Mason County News mentions CP, it becomes front page news. Of course according to Ken, it isn't Mason County, a rural central Texas county of 4,000 or so people that supposedly love CP (or really the one person who wrote half that editorial), but the 25 million plus people of the state of Texas. Sadly for them, I doubt even most of rural Mason county have any idea what Conservapedia is, and as the editorial didn't leave any links, will be unlikely to be arsed to find out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really hope he asks Chuck Norris for an endorsement.--"Shut up, Brx." 12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I loved how they literally said "All true Texans". Because, you know, the guys who do The Atheist Experience -- aka the Atheist Community of Austin -- aren't true Texans because they're not creationists. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it would get CP some attention, Andy would probably sell his mother. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah. He'd sell his brother, for sure - but Phyl is the reason any of them are notable at all. He wouldn't sell her. KillerChihuahua (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure in their relationship, she would sell him, not the other way around. --Revolverman (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah. He'd sell his brother, for sure - but Phyl is the reason any of them are notable at all. He wouldn't sell her. KillerChihuahua (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it would get CP some attention, Andy would probably sell his mother. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I loved how they literally said "All true Texans". Because, you know, the guys who do The Atheist Experience -- aka the Atheist Community of Austin -- aren't true Texans because they're not creationists. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- All true Texans? Really? ... of liberals? (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's absolutely adorable that Ken thinks being Texan has fuck-all to do with being manly (and hence conservative). He really is the most gullible consumer of pop-culture nonsense that I've ever seen.
- He also has a thoroughly adorable idea of what winning and losing means in the marketplace of competing worldviews. I'm endlessly tickled by his notion that atheists should be concerned about China's projected population loss. First, he continually claims that China is growing as a Christian country (when, after more than a dozen visits, I recall only one church outside of Hong Kong). But more seriously, who thinks like this? Any self-respecting atheist should surely think that averting overpopulation is a good thing. Only Ken thinks that numbers of adherents are a direct measure of truth (so are web hits --- which is why he's trying desparately to turn his blog postings into numbered lists, just like Cracked.com). It really is startling that Ken thinks beliefs win according to numbers of believers. A stunning similarity to Darwinesque silliness like meme theory.
- To be sure, Ken is almost certainly literally mentally ill, so no one should think his views are representative of any rationally formed opinions. (signed a Texas-born, Oklahoma-raised Christian) Phiwum (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken's number-grabbing is just snatching at straws in the wind, blithely ignoring the fact that his trousers have been blown off by the tornado of atheism. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken's number-grabbing is just snatching at straws in the wind, blithely ignoring the fact that his trousers have been blown off by the tornado of atheism.
Watchlists[edit]
Has anyone else with an active account at CP noticed that their watchlist has disappeared? I have a couple socks, and each had a number of pages on the watchlist, but today the lists are empty. ("Your watchlist contains no titles.")--108.59.252.58 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
CNAV?[edit]
I'm bored to tears with CP. CNAV had some great lulz for a while. What happened? Did people lose interest or did Terry start silencing dissent? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. CP hasn't been very active recently. With the election soon, though, we should be treated to some good conspiracy theories courtesy of Terry! --Andynot Schlafly 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ken's got a Flickr account...[edit]
...under the fiendishly cunning name of Atheism. [1] Its just four crappy images at the moment but what plan does he have to increase the number of visual nails to drive into the coffin of evolution? Plus a young man in Poughkeepsie has volunteered an hour a month to help build an online hangar for creationist B52s. There's nowhere to turn now. Checkmate atheists! London Grump (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is very old news. The only news is that Ken appears to have abandoned it. Генгисevolving 08:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a very old Grump. London Grump (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Andy makes the easiest of predictions[edit]
No doubt in an attempt to pad the "Conservapedia Proven Right" credentials, Andy predicts that 57% of all American households won't tune into the debate on their television sets. No doubt that he is correct, but this is a prediction that is little better than saying that Obama won't get 75% of the vote; its obvious. Unlike 1980 in that Reagen vs. Carter debate, we have a far larger selection of mass media, even without that massive draw of the Internet. Nothing on television these days would ever capture 57% of the households, not even the Superbowl.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Predictions: One of the candidates will use the word 'the'. Obama won't say "In order to make things equal whites will have the be the slaves of blacks for a while". Romney won't whip out his dick and yell "Mine's bigger!!!". Will RationalWiki be proven right again? (Feel free make your own predictions!) --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- TheLateGatsby will get pretty buzzed. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Obama picks up Mitt Romney, holds him upside down and uses his hair as a mop? Say, could we set up an RW Proven Right page in funspace so we can do silly things again? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 07:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- TheLateGatsby will get pretty buzzed. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- If we tune in to the debates over the internet and not on our televisions, does that count or not? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This[edit]
Why, oh why, do people still think just saying "This" and linking something is adequate? I mean... Why? Am I the only one who just downvoted it and still have no idea what it is about? They made no effort, so why should I? Dendlai (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- ^This. I hereby award myself the prestigious "Most Predictable Man In The Universe" trophy. X Stickman (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it's pretty lazy WIGOing. Also, only 5 WIGOs for the whole of September? That is probably a serious indicator of which way CP is heading. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- They're definitely heading west. I was going to put something else here, I'm going to stop now before I say something concerning Lord of the Rings and completely confuse the etymology of that saying and look like a complete nerd in one sentence. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 18:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alas, as Conservapedia dies, so does WIGO:CP. I think that's what they call a pyrrhic victory. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- A Pyrrhic victory would suggest that the winning side in one battle wouldn't be able to survive another battle. This is more like "swords to plowshares", to use a biblical/M:tG term--an army is only needed as long as enemies exist. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, to hell with these recurring death knells. Either it dies or it don't. If it dies, then I'll spend a couple weeks wondering why the WIGO:CP talk page (which is more fun than WIGO:CP is) has fallen silent, but until then, let's stop the lameass prognostication.
- As far as lameass prognostication is concerned, however, here's mine. We'll spend a little time discussing Ken's latest idiocy, but we'll all feel a bit guilty for doing so. Some of us will mention Terry's stupidity, while apologizing for adding to his hit count. Eventually, Andy will say something truly and remarkably stupid and we will all want to discuss this fact because the failure of a Harvard-educated lawyer makes each of us feel a little bit better about our own meager existences. Phiwum (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you survive with such a relentlessly positive nature. Try being just a little cynical sometimes!--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. 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, now, be honest. We're here because mocking the obviously stupid makes us feel better about our damned selves. It's not a pleasant observation and it says something rather dark about our own failed lives, but so it goes. We take what pleasures we can get. Now I'm going to have a little cry over in the corner. Phiwum (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's it. I like watching creationists just like I enjoy getting my news on the homosexual agenda from WND/Breitbart/TheBlaze/Newsbusters. Something about knowing these people exists rustles my jimmies in such a way that I just want more. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why, oh why, do people still think just saying "This" and linking something is adequate? I mean... Why? Am I the only one who just downvoted it and still have no idea what it is about? They made no effort, so why should I? This --Andynot Schlafly 22:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, now, be honest. We're here because mocking the obviously stupid makes us feel better about our damned selves. It's not a pleasant observation and it says something rather dark about our own failed lives, but so it goes. We take what pleasures we can get. Now I'm going to have a little cry over in the corner. Phiwum (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how you survive with such a relentlessly positive nature. Try being just a little cynical sometimes!--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. 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alas, as Conservapedia dies, so does WIGO:CP. I think that's what they call a pyrrhic victory. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- They're definitely heading west. I was going to put something else here, I'm going to stop now before I say something concerning Lord of the Rings and completely confuse the etymology of that saying and look like a complete nerd in one sentence. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 18:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it's pretty lazy WIGOing. Also, only 5 WIGOs for the whole of September? That is probably a serious indicator of which way CP is heading.
I guess it's called Poe for a reason?[edit]
Making a pointimg with all the colors of the LGBT Rainbow Flag. --K. (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you[edit]
JamesWilson, junior admin since July 21,2011, retiresimg , apparently due to poor healthimg. I for one wish him a full and speedy recovery. Cue Conservapedia's expressions of gratitude and sympathy in 3, 2, 1.........?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- In light of his retirement from Conservapedia, can anyone explain this as well as the subsequent spree of bizarre edits he made here?
- I think he had some problems with Ameriwiki. He kept contacting me and the other AW Sysops complaining about how liberal AW had become blah blah blah. --Andynot Schlafly 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think we might need to draught a new law. As t approaches infinity, the ratio of of wingnuts to wingnut wikis approaches one. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jeeves' Law? --Andynot Schlafly 22:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Craziness is a very personal thing. Nobody else can match an individual nutter's unique craziness. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 22:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Call it the law of the Popular Front (splitter!) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good example but you can see it in any extreme ideology where there's often more infighting than combatting the supposed opposition. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good example but you can see it in any extreme ideology where there's often more infighting than combatting the supposed opposition.
- Call it the law of the Popular Front (splitter!) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Craziness is a very personal thing. Nobody else can match an individual nutter's unique craziness.
- Jeeves' Law? --Andynot Schlafly 22:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think we might need to draught a new law. As t approaches infinity, the ratio of of wingnuts to wingnut wikis approaches one. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think he had some problems with Ameriwiki. He kept contacting me and the other AW Sysops complaining about how liberal AW had become blah blah blah. --Andynot Schlafly 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
JPatt Does WHAT?[edit]
Well, it wasn't enough to Unblock SamHB (who Karajou had permabanned previously), he just had to summarize it as a "Righteous" action. Is there something going behind the scenes here? Does this have anything to do with JamesWilson's retirement? — Unsigned, by: WilliamR / talk / contribs
- JPratt had previously banned Sam for 2 years for using multiple accounts and then had it overturned by Andy. I think it only shows that they're all morons and don't know what they're doing. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Kenny boy has left this nugget of shit/joy on karapous talkpage[edit]
Can someone captchabot it, quote is below. I read this recently at a wiki inhabited by many tightfisted atheists: "That leaves us in a bit of a conundrum. Doing nothing will mean that our community is now "capped" at what it can support and further growth can not be supported. It means relying on technical issues and slow response to drive down or drive away additional traffic. This keeps our "costs" the same but is not ideal, and may ultimately be a destructive path to take. But doing something requires some major changes." See: Atheism and uncharitableness What to do, what to do! How about a paywall like the liberals at the New York Times are doing? That wouldn't work. Who would pay to view that website? Nobody! It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article on it despite the fact that Wikipedia has a large, liberal, atheist contingent.img I bet he tried to mention rationalwiki but the spam filter didn't let him :) — Unsigned, by: Naca / talk / contribs 08:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken doesn't need to mention RW as he delights in circumlocutions. But his hypocrisy is par for the course as he has leeched off the good graces of the Schlafly family for nearly six years while RationalWiki has grown organically and been paid for by the community of editors. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC
- And it now seems that consevapedia has now shat itself, how many pieces of shit does it take for Kenneth DeMyer to ruin a blog --Naca (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- One. Then he puts a ribbon on it, puts it on again as a separate entry. Then he'll put a tie on it, and put it on twice more. Then, who knows? Maybe a bridal gown. The entirety of the sane world just sees it for what it is, a grown man playing with his own turds, but he sees it as the doomsday machine or something equally disastrous for the atheist evolutionist insert people he doesn't like here communities, wheras the only use it'd be in a fight is we'd run away from the shit smeared man because he reeks of stupidity and is barely worth our time. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm not sure I get why this particular post is all that entertaining. Sure, Conservative comes up with yet another odd wording to refer to rationalwiki, but he does this all the darned time. He claims that the fact that money is an issue here and not over at CP is because atheists are skinflints, rather than the fact that at least one conservative was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is likely responsible for funding CP in its entirety. Big deal (though one might ask how much the good Christians of CP have contributed to keeping the site running, Andy notwithstanding). And he points out (correctly, but not so effectively) that a paywall would kill RW, just as it would kill CP and even severely damage WP. I mean, sure, there's a lot of stupidity in that post, but that's standard with Conservative.
- My latest fascination has to do with the fact that his QE blog spends more time talking about the traffic they get than any other subject. Imagine: a blog primarily devoted to how popular it is. That's pretty damned funny. Phiwum (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I find it funny because ignoring the stupid way he worded it, the underlying message of his post is "atheist group grows in popularity", despite spending 99% of his time claiming atheism is on the decline, dying, being massacred by the gasmask wearing stormtroops of christianity. X Stickman (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I missed that reading. That's kinda funny. Phiwum (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- He did exactly this crap at our last fundraiser. Day one when we'd only got a couple of hundred bucks on the board, he did his spamming thing on Karajou's page talking about "uncharitable atheists." Strangely, he never acknowledged when we hit the goal. It's almost like he enjoys cherry picking the data or something. Nah, that'd be dishonest and BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS(TM) are never dishonest. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I missed that reading. That's kinda funny. Phiwum (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I find it funny because ignoring the stupid way he worded it, the underlying message of his post is "atheist group grows in popularity", despite spending 99% of his time claiming atheism is on the decline, dying, being massacred by the gasmask wearing stormtroops of christianity. X Stickman (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- One. Then he puts a ribbon on it, puts it on again as a separate entry. Then he'll put a tie on it, and put it on twice more. Then, who knows? Maybe a bridal gown. The entirety of the sane world just sees it for what it is, a grown man playing with his own turds, but he sees it as the doomsday machine or something equally disastrous for the atheist evolutionist insert people he doesn't like here communities, wheras the only use it'd be in a fight is we'd run away from the shit smeared man because he reeks of stupidity and is barely worth our time. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- And it now seems that consevapedia has now shat itself, how many pieces of shit does it take for Kenneth DeMyer to ruin a blog --Naca (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
CNAV down[edit]
Also, does anybody else think it's funny that he uses Cloudflare?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think he's blocking IPs. Use a proxy and you'll get in fine. --41.132.52.28 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you just tried to get there via the top link on MPR, it only doesn't work because Terry forgot to type a : after the http in the URL. And no one's fixed it... all day. --BigHotKarl (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I went at it from my bookmarks.-"Shut up, Brx." 03:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No one has fixed it because other than us, no one visits his site, at least from Conservapedia. By the way, your welcome CP when you read this and finally fix the syntax error.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I went at it from my bookmarks.-"Shut up, Brx." 03:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you just tried to get there via the top link on MPR, it only doesn't work because Terry forgot to type a : after the http in the URL. And no one's fixed it... all day. --BigHotKarl (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Very late to the game but[edit]
I've just discovered this very poorly written Daily Telegraph article that's basically a rip off the RW Rules of the Internet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html . Surprised that it gives such heavy prominence to Ken DeMeyer a real newspaper though. I do wonder if Ken has ever tried to contact them! Doraemon話そう！話そう！ 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Poor guy. We know he'd love to claim this as another media citation for his work, but to do so, he'd have to admit that he is, in fact, Ken DeMyer. What would Sun Tzu do? Phiwum (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- So late, there are fifteen links to that exact article already. Come on, people, it doesn't take much effort to check these things. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- It always annoys me that one of those laws is mine (mine, all mine I tell you) and we never got a linkback for it. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 21:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- It always annoys me that one of those laws is mine (mine, all mine I tell you) and we never got a linkback for it.
- So late, there are fifteen links to that exact article already. Come on, people, it doesn't take much effort to check these things. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Is Kendoll coming out as the deepest of deep cover parodists?[edit]
He's deleted MPRimg and replaced it with... er... a blog. He's off his fucking nut. Lets see what the Arsefly has to say about this. Taking all bets, psychotic break, deliberate vandalism or palace coup? You decide. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sheer incompetence. larron (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's sheer something, that's for sure. Probably some strategy to boost his pay per click earnings. What a spacker. Even Schlafly should realise by this point that Ken needs help.--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. 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- My money's on Andy reverting it and pretending nothing happened. If he doesn't it's officially Kenapedia. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It'd be pretty hilarious is Andy actually grew a backbone and stripped him of his sysop rights. He wouldn't be able to edit any of his articles. But you're probably right. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The current main page *LOL* larron (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Jeeves: That would be hilarious, actually.
- On the subject at hand... wow. Years ago, I kinda thought I'd be laughing my ass off about a blatant hijacking like this, but... I ended up just smirking and rolling my eyes at the insanity. Odd. Though if Ken really did come out as a parodist... oh dear God, my mind would be so completely blown. Seriously, I would bow down before the grand master of parody. --Sid (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we will get lucky and see Conservative and Terry fight for the pay per click earnings --BoredCPer (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't forget JPratt. He still calls his twitter feed "Conservapedia", he'd probably love it to be MPR. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I expect "problems with sleeping and lack of medication" to be surfacing as excuses. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
- PS Can someone please cap the whole page rather than just the top. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- PS Can someone please cap the whole page rather than just the top.
- Speaking of Terry, guess whose last 50 contribs suddenly go back to fricken FEBRUARY thanks to the MPR deletion? XD --Sid (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The current main page *LOL* larron (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It'd be pretty hilarious is Andy actually grew a backbone and stripped him of his sysop rights. He wouldn't be able to edit any of his articles. But you're probably right. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Screencaps of the full main page mayhem and Terry's retcon'd two-month hiatus --Sid (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
God is displeased with Kendoll's initiativeimg. I wonder if he'll engage epic ignore mode and never mention this incident again? What am I saying, of course he will. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Annnnd... Kendoll oversights to hide the dear leader's displeasure. Too late, Kenny. Capture bot is quicker than you. This is hilarious. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right about Andy going into Full Ignore mode:
- EJamesW: "Ken has sabotaged the main page of this blog!"img
- Andy: "It's not a blog."img
- *eyeroll* --Sid (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hehehe, that's not just ignore mode. That's straight denial. He should pay attention to how his site is being used. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Andy just "trim"ed a huge section of Talk:Mainpage without archivingimg. As if nothing happened. No censorship here, folks! He removes all that and has the balls to say in his very next edit that it's not a blog. HAH!
NorsemanCyser Melomel 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the plus side, now I can lie about things I have previously done!img Acei9 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Andy just "trim"ed a huge section of Talk:Mainpage without archivingimg. As if nothing happened. No censorship here, folks! He removes all that and has the balls to say in his very next edit that it's not a blog. HAH!
- Hehehe, that's not just ignore mode. That's straight denial. He should pay attention to how his site is being used. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- ...Either my views on Hanlon's razor either need serious rethinking or are absolutely fine, but I'm not so sure any more. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 00:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Christ, even Kim Il-sung would admit he fucked up by letting someone have control of parts of his government if he started shitting on the desk where he was working. --Revolverman (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- The whole MainPage is like a palace coup with Andy meekly caving in. I count 14 major pictorial ads to the QEer's blog on MPL plus all the MPR links. Andy's dream of making CP a conservative alternative to Wikipedia has well and truly vapourised. But what on Earth was Ken thinking with his redirection of MPR to a blog? I can only think it that he did it as some sort of inane way to incorporate videos. Lily Inspirate me. 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or... "Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder characterized by a difficulty in recognizing reality, regulating emotional responses, thinking in a clear and logical manner, and behaving in a socially accepted manner." 07:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Should someone finally tell Andy that Kenneth is collecting money from CMI from services rendered at CP? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 08:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see that Ken memory-holed his blog. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see that Ken memory-holed his blog.
- Should someone finally tell Andy that Kenneth is collecting money from CMI from services rendered at CP? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 08:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or... "Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder characterized by a difficulty in recognizing reality, regulating emotional responses, thinking in a clear and logical manner, and behaving in a socially accepted manner."
- The whole MainPage is like a palace coup with Andy meekly caving in. I count 14 major pictorial ads to the QEer's blog on MPL plus all the MPR links. Andy's dream of making CP a conservative alternative to Wikipedia has well and truly vapourised. But what on Earth was Ken thinking with his redirection of MPR to a blog? I can only think it that he did it as some sort of inane way to incorporate videos. Lily Inspirate me. 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Christ, even Kim Il-sung would admit he fucked up by letting someone have control of parts of his government if he started shitting on the desk where he was working. --Revolverman (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice that the blogspot address is a co.uk address? Why????--Buscombe (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because Jeeves lives in the UK and Blogspot is regionalised. Ken's original link was to blogspot.com. Генгисpillaging 22:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Only wiki nerds obsess about diffs![edit]
Evidence of what? A vast right wing conspiracy? Only wiki nerds obsess about diffs! I had a wiki nerd pesterfest me about diffs on my user page and talk page, but I quickly put the kibosh on that! Conservative 02:43, 6 October 2012 (EDT) img
That's exactly how I remember that episode, too (just omitting a period of not-editing due to other projects and problems with medication and sleep- deprivation and the fact that he is no longer regularly deleting and recreating pages in the main space) --larron (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- what is this i don't even --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 11:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Ken, what I like about diffs is that they enshrine your stupidity. Take for instance revision nr. 1010752, made to Template:Mainpageright at 19:41h UTC on Oct 6, 2012, where you added:
| Conservapedia ranks #1 at Google USA for the keyword search "secularized language".[2] |
Did you want to suck up to Andy after botching his Main Page? Well, it didn't work - as you realized half an hour later when you deleted this item. I assume that you started to realize that though the first results for this search are linking to Conservapedia,
- there are less than 2,000 search results, so the term never got popular after being invented by Andy and
- all non-Conservapedian entries (and there are even a few under the top 10) are making fun of Conservapedia and Andy Schlafly.
So, a fail. A more honest editor may have just deleted the item, but you oversighted it. larron (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- You may try to hide your dishonesty but you can't hide it from God, Ken. Генгисunbelieving 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Red telephone for Kendoll...[edit]
You know Kendoll, as a Christian you're a member of a religious community that has a long history of actually killing each other over minor differences in belief. You personally regularly declare some (what am I saying, BILLIONS!) of your fellow Christians to not be Real, Actual, True, Bible Believing Christians(TM), or accuse them of belonging to the wrong sort of church. You might want to think about these facts when you call atheism factious. Just saying. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- And while you're at it Ken, you might like to read the study from The Pew Forum on Religion that shows that the number of religiously unaffiliated in the US stands at a record high of 1 in 5. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jeeves, you don't get it. Real, true Christianity is not factious. It's just that there are lots of fake Christian sects also, but they're not part of real, true Christianity and real, true Christianity has no internal divisions. Phiwum (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Meh. Standard fundamentalist thought; you are surprised by this?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jeeves, you don't get it. Real, true Christianity is not factious. It's just that there are lots of fake Christian sects also, but they're not part of real, true Christianity and real, true Christianity has no internal divisions. Phiwum (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL is all I can say about some of these debates ![edit]
Debate: Cats are Useless Dogsimg . I am guessing this was wrotten by the homeskoolerz or is it just parody ? --Naca (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Some more:
--Naca (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the impression that none of us has visited CP before. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I fully believe you've read them / contributed to them. However given nothing much is happening at CP atm (and much hasn't since I originally left this site) I thought I'd start bringing up some nuggets again. --Naca (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Has it really come to dragging up pages that haven't been edited in over two years? Wake me up when something interesting happens.--Spud (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Back in the "glory days" When CP had more than a handful of editors; say what ever happened to JoMar?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- JoMar, yesterday. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose it's just that Ken's territorialism drove him off the main page...I forgot he was still around too. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- JoMar, yesterday. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Back in the "glory days" When CP had more than a handful of editors; say what ever happened to JoMar?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Has it really come to dragging up pages that haven't been edited in over two years? Wake me up when something interesting happens.--Spud (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I fully believe you've read them / contributed to them. However given nothing much is happening at CP atm (and much hasn't since I originally left this site) I thought I'd start bringing up some nuggets again. --Naca (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This illustrates the quality of Ken's contributions to these "debates". In the page to which OnTheInternet... refers - a talk page for 'John Maynard Keynes and pederasty' - Kenny-boy tells an editor, "here are some resources for you to investigate" and gives a link. The links points to a Google search for <John Maynard Keynes and pederasty>. Of the top ten Google links, the top three point straight back to CP, at least two of the others are to sites where the only relevant material is a link to CP, one is JMK's WP page which doesn't mention child-molesting at all, one is about Vikings and mentions Keynes only in passing, one doesn't even mention Keynes... You get the idea. Lazy as well as hyper-active and thick - a lethal combination. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- And at the end of the day, not one of Ken's references supports the proposition that Keynes was a pederast, unless you count having some kind of relations with a 16 year old boy, who I am certain was of the age of consent in Italy in the 20's. Fuh. 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- And at the end of the day, not one of Ken's references supports the proposition that Keynes was a pederast, unless you count having some kind of relations with a 16 year old boy, who I am certain was of the age of consent in Italy in the 20's. Fuh.
Lieberals hate science![edit]
Did you know that "pro-aborts" are so determined to kill babies that they're deliberately interfering with adult stem cell research in the USA? They must be, Andy tells us, because otherwise how could non-Americans have won a Nobel Prize for medical research?
Princeton and Harvard must be tearing their hair out at the antics of this moronic shitcunt. What a blot on their reputations he 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. 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for introducing me to the word "shitcunt." It's indelibly writ in my lexicon and I even used it with seconds of learning it to describe the majority of editors here. Dumb as rocks, childish and broke. dirty shitcunts through and through. Nice term. Thanks. 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- If your platform is "post non-sequitur penis photos on high-traffic pages", then yes. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Back to the topic[edit]
As for the rubbish about why Yankee researchers were deliberately left out, John Gurdon did his ground-breaking work 50 years ago. Switch your brain on, Schlafly. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- All because quantum theory is soooooooo much more Christian than the Higgs Boson.img Can you be this stupid without wanting to be this stupid? --K. (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Everything really has to be liberal or conservative. No grey areas, no topic where it has no relevnce, it must be black or white. That boy's not right. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I've said before, Andy probably selects breakfast cereals based on perceived liberalism and conservatism. For instance, there's no way he'd eat Rice Krispies -- Snap, Krackle and Pop are clearly living in a homosexual three way marriage. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 17:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that Andy is celebrating a win for a federal employee. Surely this support for Big Government just shows that Obama is manipulating the Nobel Committee again.
- As I've said before, Andy probably selects breakfast cereals based on perceived liberalism and conservatism. For instance, there's no way he'd eat Rice Krispies -- Snap, Krackle and Pop are clearly living in a homosexual three way marriage. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 17:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Everything really has to be liberal or conservative. No grey areas, no topic where it has no relevnce, it must be black or white. That boy's not right. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that Andy is celebrating a win for a federal employee. Surely this support for Big Government just shows that Obama is manipulating the Nobel Committee again. Anyone want to point that out to him? --Andynot Schlafly 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thing is, though, Nobel prizes tend to be given for lifelong achievement, excepting the Peace Prize. So in a couple of decades when they may very well get the prize, Andy will have to dig through so much of his archives to revert this post. -جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 21:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that Andy is celebrating a win for a federal employee. Surely this support for Big Government just shows that Obama is manipulating the Nobel Committee again. Anyone want to point that out to him? --Andynot Schlafly 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No news here[edit]
Kendoll just fails reading comprehension once more:
“”If you want to convincingly contest the 2012 claim, show me a worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism than 2012 and support your argument with evidence. I put forth evidence, you need to do the same if you want to proceed forward with any credibility. Conservative 06:33, 10 October 2012 (EDT)
When my little niece helps in the kitchen baking a cake, she gets some dough to play with - and we make sure that it doesn't end up in the cake. Afterwards, we thank her for her help. In this sense: congratulations to your great achievements! AugustO 06:43, 10 October 2012 (EDT) I am glad we are in agreement that 2012 was the worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism. Conservative 07:05, 10 October 2012 (EDT) |
(btw: could someone make that quote quotier, please?)Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's pretty clear that Conservative knows what August was saying. He's just adopting the same sarcastic tone that he does whenever someone challenges him. He's printed several articles "thanking" evolutionists for perceived blunders. It's certifiably insane, though. An atheist thinks that the QE!C is ineffective? "THANKS for encouraging me to try harder!" An atheist voices his annoyance at the campaign's attempts to indoctrinate children? "THANKS for showing that atheism is afraid of the QE!C" Evolution is on the rise somewhere? "THANKS for daring us to outperform you. Evolutionism is a paper tiger!" In User: Conservative's world, everything is a constant victory for his group (and , by extension, himself.) Conservative takes refuge in his sarcastic statements, because they seem to imply that he knows more than everyone else. In actuality, he simply BELIEVES that he knows more than everyone else, and he is willing to ban and completely ignore the opposition to maintain that delusional belief. WilliamR (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more briefly, he's an insane cunt.--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. 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's rather rude of you to call him/her a cunt when you don't know his/her gender! Mick McT (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- My investigations suggest that he/she/they/it has a double-cunt chromosome.--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. 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't 1925 (year of the Scopes Trial) by definition be a worse year in the history of Western World Darwinism than 2012? No matter how badly Ken thinks he's beating evolution in 2012, no one is being arrested and fined for teaching evolutionary theory in 2012, but they were in 1925. X Stickman (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- How does that compare to 2012, where some atheist website slowly lost a bit of popularity? Phiwum (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because liberals. Doraemon話そう！話そう！ 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because QE! and Ken's blog didn't exist in 1925 silly! --Revolverman (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fergus, come on. Say shitcunt. 22:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- The reason Ken comes out with such incoherent bollocks is that he's a complete shitcunt.--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. 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dingleberryscrote, meet shitcunt. Charmed, I'm sure. I am a fluke of the universe. I have no right to be here, and whether I can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind my back. 00:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The reason Ken comes out with such incoherent bollocks is that he's a complete shitcunt.--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. 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fergus, come on. Say shitcunt.
- How does that compare to 2012, where some atheist website slowly lost a bit of popularity? Phiwum (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't 1925 (year of the Scopes Trial) by definition be a worse year in the history of Western World Darwinism than 2012? No matter how badly Ken thinks he's beating evolution in 2012, no one is being arrested and fined for teaching evolutionary theory in 2012, but they were in 1925. X Stickman (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- My investigations suggest that he/she/they/it has a double-cunt chromosome.--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. 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's rather rude of you to call him/her a cunt when you don't know his/her gender! Mick McT (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more briefly, he's an insane cunt.--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. 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must respectfully disagree, shitcunt is too serious an epithet for Ken. Baboon-arse is far more appropriate. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must respectfully disagree, shitcunt is too serious an epithet for Ken. Baboon-arse is far more appropriate.
- Ken evidently doesn't understand that the Scopes trial was a (nominal) victory for creationism. When 1925 was mentioned as a bad year for evolution, Ken replied, "Christianity can move forward despite laws against it and the Roman Empire confirms this." Phiwum (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just keep waiting for Ken to run out of metaphors for his Atheism-related windmill-tilting. In 2014 will the unprotected penis of creationist science stand naked and erect, ready to violate the intoxicated, helpless schoolgirl of Atheism? Will the 737 of creationism hurtle into the twin towers of Atheism and Evolutionary Thought and bring them crashing down? Will the Mother Of All (creation)Bombs be dropped on the innocent Atheist civilian, burning its child (evolution) to death with napalm? Will the nuclear bomb of the Question Evolution! Campaign be smuggled into the rapidly-becoming-more-Atheist United States inside a drink machine, then be detonated during a Liberal controlled football game, killing the (Democrat) President of the United States? --Sasayaki (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Putative president, please. The Real James Brown (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- So much bigotry in an apparently innocuous word. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- So much bigotry in an apparently innocuous word.
- Putative president, please. The Real James Brown (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You would never have thought it possible...[edit]
But Kendoll plans to end evolutionismimg on the internets on October the 13th. By reading a book. I don't know about you, but they very idea that he could possibly be literate chills me to the bone. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why Andy persists in calling his site Conservapedia is beyond me. MPL has been taken over by
illegal Hispanic immigrantsKen's QE advertising to such a degree that it's a wonder to behold. Генгисmarauding 03:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and looking at Creation Ministries web statistics of an average 8.4K unique hits a day, well that's still some way behind RationalWiki's average of >10K. Генгисunbelieving 03:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder what percentage of those statistics for the two sites overlap. In any case, surely a large number of RW's hits are one-visit folks and bots, right? There can't be anywhere near 10K active users or even regular visitors here, right? Just seems like an awfully high number. Phiwum (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, site infrastructure is being taxed heavily recently... --Revolverman (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was going by this as it is the most recent publicly available. (Trent undoubtedly has more recent figures but I know he's a busy man.) I doubt if there is much overlap between us and creation.com, unlike say QE blog where we are probably the major source of hits. Генгисevolving 04:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- We are at about 300k uniques for the month ATM. About 20-30k a day average. Most of the visitors are from social media referral links and search engine traffic. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was going by this as it is the most recent publicly available. (Trent undoubtedly has more recent figures but I know he's a busy man.) I doubt if there is much overlap between us and creation.com, unlike say QE blog where we are probably the major source of hits.
- Well, site infrastructure is being taxed heavily recently... --Revolverman (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder what percentage of those statistics for the two sites overlap. In any case, surely a large number of RW's hits are one-visit folks and bots, right? There can't be anywhere near 10K active users or even regular visitors here, right? Just seems like an awfully high number. Phiwum (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and looking at Creation Ministries web statistics of an average 8.4K unique hits a day, well that's still some way behind RationalWiki's average of >10K.
- He's not reading the book. "A member of our" is reading the book. Could be a person. Could be his dick. Whoover (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's Ken, he's the only sign of life in that foetid cesspool, and his "specialty" is SEO (there's a link to his Skype SEO operation somewhere). ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, the book is about reaching people in a post-Internet world (I find it hard to believe there's already a "classic" book about that. Are we in a post-Internet age already?) I wonder if reaching people now the Interwebs is dead involves hanging around on street corners and givinhg out leaflets or sticking up posters. Those tactics have been very effective in crushing Darwinism so far. And a little advice Ken, when you turn your attention to crushing atheism in the UK again, remember that a black cat is traditionally a symbol of good luck there.--Spud (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The secret of attracting attention in a post-Internet world is the same as it has been for millennia - just make a complete fool of yourself and you'll always have people lining up to point and laugh at you. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 07:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- The secret of attracting attention in a post-Internet world is the same as it has been for millennia - just make a complete fool of yourself and you'll always have people lining up to point and laugh at you.
- So, the book is about reaching people in a post-Internet world (I find it hard to believe there's already a "classic" book about that. Are we in a post-Internet age already?) I wonder if reaching people now the Interwebs is dead involves hanging around on street corners and givinhg out leaflets or sticking up posters. Those tactics have been very effective in crushing Darwinism so far. And a little advice Ken, when you turn your attention to crushing atheism in the UK again, remember that a black cat is traditionally a symbol of good luck there.--Spud (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's Ken, he's the only sign of life in that foetid cesspool, and his "specialty" is SEO (there's a link to his Skype SEO operation somewhere).
Mainpage left:
- October 13, 2012 and Darwinism: October 13, 2012 is going to be an "unlucky" day for Darwinism
- 2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief
- The 5 strategies to collapse Darwinism
- 100 ways to grind up evolutionary belief
- 13 recent grim events for Darwinism
- Systematically attacking Darwinism
- Victorious creationists; Darwinists' defeats
All links to Ken's blog. We must thank Ken again for making Conservapedia look even more ridiculous. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken's full understanding of generating webhits is on display! Start with a numbered list: 4 key pillars for defeating Darwinism. Then add pointless questions to increase curiosity: Has Dr. Jonathan Sarfati published a Christian apologetics book with another author which covers a wide variety of defenses of Christianity?. A master of psychology! If only he'd add LOLcats, he would totally defenestrate atheism and regurgitate evolutionism! (I'm sorry, but I really like his, for lack of a better word, style. He's just so darned cute!) Phiwum (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All evolutionists are atheists, all atheists are fat[edit]
I've noticed Kendoll doing this quite a bit lately. Ernst Haeckel is now an atheistimg... because, er, he's an evolutionist. As far as I know he was a pantheist, but never mind the pesky facts. He did it with that professor who went nuts on campus, claiming he was fat when none of the sources made that claim. I think his weird obsessions are metastasising, I wonder if he even remembers why atheists are supposed to be bad in the first place. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably it's because we have a lifetime of great sex rather than aspiring to a life of celibacy. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)