Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive301

This is an archive page, last updated 28 October 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

CNAV - Where the real fun is

Forget all that boring crap Kenny repeats ad nauseum that will never impact anything, they are again ramping up the crazy over at CNAV thanks to Launchbooty, (our own personal Jerome Corsi). Did you know Obama is not only a communist, but one groomed from an early age for power in order to lead American to communism? All on the orders of the Kremlin too! Oh and Frank Marshall Davis may, just may be Obama's father ('cuz then we get to Slut Shame his deceased mother), but Launchbooty isn't ready to commit to that idea, just yet. I love these stories, too crazy to be taken seriously by pundints, politicians, and most of the electorate, they are just written to stir the fringe side of the tea party base; to what end I am not sure, it isn't as if they would ever vote for Obama.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just how many real fathers does Obama have? I thought he was Malcolm X's kid. I especially liked the explanation as to why evil communist Obama hasn't actually done anything evil and communisty. Why, because the tea party stopped him of course! I guess Chuckarse missed the bit in the Bible about flatterers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Terry's theories about communism would be a lot more convincing if he had the faintest idea what communism is. However this does not appear to be the case. Obama? Communist? FFS, in Britain he'd be a Tory.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"In Britain he'd be a Tory" - You're not the only one thinking that. Sophie^Wilder 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But Terry disagrees.--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.} 21:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But don't you see?! Now, all (well, most) Americans have to buy health insurance (or pay a small fine) from a for-profit health insurer! Truly, we are now living in a Marxists Utopia. Carlaugust (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think its funnier that none of them can even tell you why they think socialism/communism is bad beside "It's Un-americian" --Revolverman (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, it's also Russian...they tried socialism once and imploded; therefore, nobody should be obligated to share anything, ever. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian? That would be news to Marx, a German jew who lived in London...--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You think Terry and his crew know that? --Revolverman (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Terry's not the only one who doesn't know what communism is about. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Although unlike Hurlbut, that woman realises that Obama was born in America. Doesn't negate the fact she's an idiot though. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 14:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The horror, the horror

Apparently Barack Obama coined the term "Czar." Oh fucking really?--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.} 23:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the term really took off under baby Bush. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I recall there was much made of the "Energy Czar" under Carter, and continuing under the next guy, what's-his-name. --Kels (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy's slipping

Nobel Peace Prize announced today, the winner is... a little surprising, and MPR at CP isn't frothing with impotent rage?

Though I suppose if you interpret the award broadly, I should congratulate you Europeans on this honor, though that would be a bit like me claiming to have been Time's Person of the Year in 2006. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So who gets the money? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Me. This entire European Union thing is a hoax I've been running for decades, and it's finally paid off. If anyone needs me, I'll be lounging on a beach in Rio. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy that for a few months before that prize money runs out!--Revolverman (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You think that's the only scam I'm running? Once the Nobel money runs out... well, let's just say a lot of Presbyterians are going to be surprised to learn where the offerings have been going the past few years. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mash has a good take on it. Andy's probably still on the smelling salts. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to thank the delegates, and you Mr. Chairman for your recognition of all I've done to promote peace in the world. I'll use this as inspiration to continue to break up cat fights in my back garden. no matter how dark it is at the time. Every notched ear I can prevent is a victory for all feline kind. When can I expect the cheque? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Once you say that the Nobel Prize in Physics is liberally biased, does your opinion on the Peace Prize even matter? --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken: The European Union will cause WW3. What are they thinking?^img "Cause and effect" isn't really this guy's strong suit.

I don't really think it was a good idea, I'd more like to see peace activists in parts of the world that actually have problems. After giving it to Kissinger and giving it to Obama for saying something vague about not having a-bombs, the whole thing has been further devalued for me. --K. (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, he didn't say that. He's just asking questions. Phiwum (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of people a lot brighter than Kenny-boy who fear the Euro will drive Europe apart because there isn't a consensus to share the pain in bad times as well as sharing the gain in good times. Norman Lamont on tonight's Newsnight, for one. It isn't ridiculous to be concerned that the last ten years, with a single currency but no fiscal or budgetary union, will undo all the good work for peace and cooperation in the previous fifty years. (What about a Peace Prize for people who are standing up for girls' education in countries and regions being taken over by Muslim bigots?) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised (only a bit, mind you) that one of the links Ken supplies about the causes of World War II goes to English Online: Articles in Easy Understandable English for Learners. (The other link won't load on my computer.) Come on, Kenny boy, surely there are enough websites written for adults who have a native-speaker level of English that support your claims.--Spud (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Plus, those articles are written in BRITISH ENGLISH. Which is LIBERAL and funds abortions and secularism. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 09:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anything happened yet?

It's been the 13th for a little while now...has anyone's belief in evolution crumbled? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Slight feeling of malaise, otherwise fine. I'll check back later. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I did start to believe that everything was created by a magical sky pixie who wanted us to cannibalise his son, but once the fumes had cleared I felt fine again. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently we may not see the full effects of this creationist onslaught until October 15 because someone caught a cold. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also based on that last link, I don't think QE India is getting anywhere. From Ken: "It wouldn't be hard to translate the campaign into Hindi too. Watch how easy it is to communicate with Indian Christians: آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا", he writes. Except that that's Urdu, which is not only a different script but is also written right-to-left... - well done Ken. Admittedly, the two languages are mutually intelligible, at the colloquial level, but not written which is where he wants to have the most impact.Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That question evolution blog looks pretty fear-inspiring. There's a chart and everything. We should be worried. Garçon^coffee! 11:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's so unfair. I'd planned to spend today at home so that when my entire system of rationality was undermined I could curl up in bed and sob myself to sleep. Now I'm going to be at work and will have to experience the whole thing in front of my colleagues. I only hope they understand and help me through it. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm normally one to vote all Ken wigos down, but holy crap, that bit about the cold is priceless. Burndall (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have read the Shakespeare's work Julius Ceasar in high school. English tutor? LOL. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought my belief in evolution was crumbling this morning while my was being filled with the spirit of baby jesus, but turned out I was just constipated so that's why I felt full of shit.. --GTac (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I bought a snag and coke from a sausage sizzle run by some christian outreach center instead of from some greeny group (who I bet are pro evolution, abortion and athiest). Albeit it was cause the christian one was alot cheaper (+ was a nice view there too lol) and the chick running the greeny group one had a full blown mustache ! :) Although I doubt even kenny boy would say thay is a win for QE!. --Naca (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I live in NZ we hit 13 October before you guys in the States and I felt a crumbling but it was merely my razor thin grasp on reality slipping due to my hangover. After some bacon I felt better but earlier I felt my belief in evolution falling away again but it turned out it was just my credulity. Aceⁱ⁹ 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The ides of October refer to refer to October 15. Evolutionists, beware the ides of October! huh? Aceⁱ⁹ 12:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole point has to do with beeeware!!! reaching deep into our collective atheist psyche and causing distress, or at least a little malaise.

"Beware the ides of March" was a meme before memes were named and described by some godless so-called "author." If you want to know more about that, ask someone who paid attention in high school, when the immortal bard of Avon was being droned into their head. With that out of the way, I want to know what the Bible has to say about soothsaying. Is it a stoning offence, or merely grounds for shunning? In at least one Abrahamic religion, speaking of the future without immediately saying "God willing!" is awfully close to blasphemy.

What the rest of the world should be asking is whether Sr. K. Olé Conservative thinks he's channeling the Delphic sybil here, or some other charlatan. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Beware the ides of March" was a meme before memes were named No no, my friend. The Ides of March is an RW/CP meme which, although lost in the mists of time (because some stupid fucks thought it a good idea to gut CP:Space and Fun:Space), was a hilarious time in CP history. Aceⁱ⁹ 12:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it was a sitcom/Looney Tunes meme in the fifties and sixties. I believe your "lost in the mists of time" is an artifact of internet time dilation. You may very well be correct about it having an iteration/rebirth in RW/CP space, but my attention was wandering elsewhere in those "early" days. Be well, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fucking stupid, Sprocket. I'm talking about RW history here. Not fucking Loony Tunes. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I care deeply about your wish to limit the present scope to RW history, and don't consider it stupid at all. Circle jerks and stupidity are non overlapping realms. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

More swear words and a threat directed towards your family. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Language fit for the back of the school bus, where it was well-known that the rotunda is a particularly painful place to be stabbed, almost as bad as the portico. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's astonishing just how often Kendoll gets a cold or the flu whenever he said he was going to do something by a certain date. He really ought to have a doctor take a look at that. I hear chronic malingering syndrome can be fatal to your credibility. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not a well man/woman/chimera/multitude/committee/baby. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the steep increase in atheism and nonreligious, I'm starting to think that QE! isn't doing anything at all. Shocking.--^talk 04:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it make me weird to admit that Ken is honestly one of the most fascinating people I've ever met?

Really though, I don't care if it does. You could write a god damn novel about that man. I would love to pour a drink with him and just listen to him rant for hours. ^{— Unsigned, by: BigHotKarl / talk / contribs 2012-10-14T07:03:45‎}

I doubt very much that Ken can hold a decent conversation with anyone. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

False alarm, everyone

That malaise I mentioned about a day ago? Yeah, that was just gas. Carry on as usual, nothing here but the relentless crushing of credibility and integrity beneath the mighty jackboots of the QE! campaign. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A new Karatoon!

His grasp on humour hasn't gotten any stronger in the past few months. Maybe we could revive the making Karajou funny thread. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What a master of subtlety! --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does Paul Ryan look nothing like Paul Ryan? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it okay for Mittens to talk over the POTUS and the moderator, but an issue when Biden behaves in somewhat the same way? OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wondering the same thing myself. I think it is the snide way Biden talked over Ryan, with the smirks and whatnot. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 03:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Paul Ryan is a (dis-)respected, wealthy white man, not an uppity negro, that's why. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Kara one of those people getting all uppity about people not using Bush's title when he was in office? Hypocrite has no problem omitting Biden's title in his doodle. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, this makes it pretty clear that he knows his boy got spanked, big time. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense! I tended to prefer Biden's answers to Ryan's, but Ryan did reasonably well in this pointless and irrelevant "debate". (I wonder why they bother writing down questions for these things. The politicians just hit the bullet points on their list anyway and never even attempt to answer what was asked.) Phiwum (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I also felt Ryan did well and I could understand him not saying Mr. Vice President as Biden kept calling him "friend" instead of Representative Ryan; personally I don't hold the informality used between them against either of them. As for the toon, hey its better than the spam main page right has been suffering for months.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a new entry to Make Karajou Funny - it's not very good even by usual standards, Karajou is even less imaginative (and therefore more difficult to parody) when he relies on the Democrat = Donkey standby. Hope some other people contribute, this was one RW I've been missing. Grumblejaws (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty much what you'd expect from a KaraToon, but it's infinitely better than Ken's nonsensical announcements. I give it about two days before it's utterly buried under even more announcements. --Sid (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Donkey? With those teeth it looks like a jackrabbit to me. Here you are, Karajou; this is how to draw a cartoon donkey. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 11:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Early voting

You know, Andy once said that early voting "makes it more difficult for liberals to engage in last-minute smear tactics."^img But now I guess he doesn't like it. Any idea on what caused him to flip-flop? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you really need to ask? DickTurpis (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (:P) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

When Republicans are ahead in the polls in the early voting stage, early voting is good. When Democrats have the edge, it's bad. Guess which case holds now? Come on, this is Schlafly 101 material. DickTurpis (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sort of what I figured. Hence the :P in the above post. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's jumps feet first into 'What-the-fuckery'

Stupid fucking liberals!^img Thinking Deer can read! Bahahahha. Errr, but wait a second, this shit doesn't make any fucking sense. The article starts with: An Obama voter who assumes if he can lower the seas then local transportation departments can get deer to obey highway signs? but then segues into: A woman called a Fargo, North Dakota radio station last month to complain about how she’d hit three deer with her car over the years and wants deer crossing signs moved so the deer will cross less busy roads – as if deer read and follow roadside signage! Is she for real?. What am I missing here? Aceⁱ⁹ 07:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't he have a headline that said "will CBS report a fake email as genuine?" As he linked to CBS debunking said email. --Revolverman (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a tacit admission that no woman would ever vote for Romney. DickTurpis (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious to me what is meant; the "he" refers to Obama. Obama can lower the seas. Random surfer (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. He=Obama. She=The caller. Perfectly obvious. But Karajou's still an idiot for trying to use it to make a political point.

I've just listened to the audio. At no point does the woman mention being an Obama supporter, a Democrat, a liberal or anything else that the Conservawankers hate.

But what really bothers me is that the radio station gave her nearly four minutes of air time. They should have just said, "Those signs don't tell deer where to cross. They're a warning to motorists. Thank you for your call. Goodbye." Spud (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obvious it was set up. Move the deer crossings to school crossings? It's a typical morning radio satire. Only CP could turn it into because liberals. Whoover (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now it is the 15th October

In NZ it is now that 15th of October so waiting for something big to happen. It'll start here and move over the rest of the globe I'm sure....unless someone still hasn't gotten over there cold or didn't get enough sleep last night. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

God lives in the Eastern US time zone, you dummy. Phiwum (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I went to church this morning, in the EST time zone, and I can report no notable effects were felt by my fellow worshippers. It would appear that the question of how the universe was created can still be best answered through science, but that questions about the divine, if such a thing can even be said to exist, are best answered on an individual basis, depending on each person's place on their own spiritual path. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken clearly liked our own Ides stunt from back before the Earth cooled. Originality was never a strong suit of his. His two QE! friends (one of whom is Shock) think it's very clever, and are chinking their root beer floats and having a big ol' belly laugh at our expense. We're SO screwed, he sure done got us this time. That's the end of Evolutionism fer good, I reckon. DogP (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, well I am waiting for something big to happen anyway. By tomorrow I am assuming that what ever tribulation that is soon to pass will be complete and everyone will be a creationist. Unless someone has a cold or a rash or something which means that weren't able to read a 350+ page book. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of a stopped clock being right twice a day, as long as Ken continues with his almost daily proclamations of doom, he's gonna be right some time. Imagine if he'd been going since, say, 2001 and he'd prophesied something on, say, the eleventh of September. Scream!! (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Except he'd still be wrong as they weren't atheists. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The stopped clock analogy doesn't work. He didn't just say that October 15 (any October 15 in some year between now and the end of time) would be a bad day for atheism. He very specifically said that atheists should beware of October 15, 2012. I predict that before it gets to be October 16 in Ken's time zone, he'll anounce on his blog that the "group member" has started reading the book and the QE campaign will finally go full throttle on October 31. Above the 15 image on CP's Main Page will be some Halloween clip art and more talk about how atheists should be very afraid.Spud (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Signs

I got a seat on the train this morning. Could this be the first sign that atheism is dead? rpeh •T•C•E• 07:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was woken up by the fire alarm at 4am this morning. Was that global atheism burning down? Was it the torches of the endless mobs of the Christians? Was it my drunk and idiot flatmate smoking indoors? Whatever the answer, it is surely a knell. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I nailed my boyfriend in the eye when I ejaculated after he gave me a blowjob this morning. It's got to be a sign; atheism is dead because homosexuals go blind!Umichcynic (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(okay, that was a little graphic...I was aiming to capture both the mind and absurdity that is Ken)Umichcynic (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I decided to make beer bread again today and ended up finding that using "Doom bar" bitter makes the 2nd best bread I ever tasted.... maybe that means that global atheism is being beaten with a bar and is thus doomed? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a bit of a cough at the moment so I my conversion to creationism has had to be postponed. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I ran out of weed about an hour ago (in my time zone, it's still dark out, and I haven't gone to bed yet). Oh, fuck, it's a sign. No, wait, I expected to run out and budgeted for acquiring more come civilized hours after I've slept. But, it IS forecast to rain and be miserable today, but that's fairly normal for October here. Olé olé olé! Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 12:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun came up today, and I continue to breathe. Surely this is a sign of the Divine? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

One of my colleagues, also an atheist, has some code she can't get working. Definitely a punishment for her lack of belief. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this morning that the leaves had started to fall from the trees along my drive into work. The autumn colours were looking particularly beautiful, which I can only assume is due to God. Praise the Lord! Bondurant (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, i'm rather intimidated by an "amazing sekrit project" that can be delayed by someone having a cold.GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 16:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

SWMBO just chased my lazy ass downstairs into the workshop so she could vacuum the sitting room. For the duration of that Hoovering, atheism in this narrow corner of the world experienced a downward trend. Now I've got a bit of a runny nose, but that could be from the capsicum sprinkled on my noontime pasta. I don't know what to believe any more. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the atheists on my block have gone out to dinner and are starting to come home in a fine old sozzled state. Someone barfed on my bins, another four of them are up trees singing their heads off, and there's loud thumping club music from the agnostics next door. Looks like we're not being affected by the inclement atheist weather here anyway…. DogP (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly only on Chuckbotty's strange world...

...can one make sense of the footnote at the bottom of the CNAV mainpage: "Thanks to oakworks, massage bed and credit repair." I guess I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't for the life of me joint the dots between 'oakworks', a 'massage bed' and 'credit repair', and come up with anything that makes any sense in my current universe. Can any of our our colonial cousins advise? Mick McT (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of bizarre attempt at a google bomb? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Google associates it with "los angeles seo" and/or Wordpress (at least on my end). Also, a company called Oakworks makes massage tables; dunno what they have to do with credit repair. Probably just a bad attempt at getting hits, or somebody vandalized his SEO/blog software. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The latter. He didn't update and his little blog has been exploited for spam. Good old Conservapedians. Always getting hacked for our amusement. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Roseann's latest garbage

Insanitary looks like she's been reading some of Andy's screeds on Biblical scientific foreknowledge. I liked her closing remark "By my accounting: that’s the Bible – 5 ; Evolution – 0, but whose counting?" Well, my dear, your English teacher for one. Furthermore, none of your points have anything to do with evolution. Генгис^pillaging 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't be from AS,he doesn't believe in black holes

Early Voting...

Um.... not to rain on the parade of whoever made the WIGO, but Obama is actually enjoying an advantage with early voters,according to sources other than the one Karajou linked to. The article Karajou linked to didn't liken it to a "draw," but rather commented that the data was not yet conclusive (subtle difference, I know.) Beyond that, Obama was clearly holding an advantage in one of the states(a tidbit that Karajou probably clung to as he was reading the article). What's WIGO worthy is Karajou's frothing, arbitrary hatred of early voting. I think that in insinuating that early voting is a "draw", we are kind of sending undercurrents that the advantage is in Mitt Romney's hands.WilliamR (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe "draw" wasn't right word. I just like how Karajou got "The election is going to be called early in favor of Obama due to cheating liberals" from an article that says "Obama is winning in Iowa, losing in NC, and who the fuck knows in the important states." And I'd give credit to Karajou and assumed he'd read a wide array of sources, top to bottom, and then carefully weighed the evidences before coming to a conclusion...but no he didn't. Anyways, I give total and complete permission to someone smarter/more clever than me to change the WIGO. Carlaugust (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, isn't the referenced diff by Andy? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WilliamR Jedi Mind Tricked me. Carlaugust (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of reading comprehension, apparently I failed to realize that the diff came from Aschlafly. I guess this seemed something more along the lines of Karajou's brand of villainy. My bad. WilliamR (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Biblical foreknowledge?

I sure hope Andy adds this^img to the Biblical Foreknowledge page. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of some one else... Ole'--Buscombe (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope CBP will make the prediction more obvious. Vulpius (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Chalk up another one for Obama's shadowy ninja squad.

Terry has a theory^img. It involves a conspiracy. Who would ever have thought it. Apparently, Obama just called up his good buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood (I'm picturing a forty thieves style outfit with long flowing beards and dirty kufiya) to have them kidnap the ambassador, they promptly outsourced the job to Al Qaeda who managed to botch it and kill their target.

Is there no raving insanity too insane for Chuckarse to breathlessly report? Does he seriously think this is how world leaders do business? Read the whole article, I think it may be one of the few cases of JAQing to orgasm I've ever seen. The best part is Terry referring to Nick PurplePeopleEater as "The Eagle", who has it from top men (TOP. MEN.) that all ambassador Stevens' guards were gay. I'm not even sure what that's supposed to imply, but I'm sure it's sinister. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well as Ken might say, being gay means that they're limp-wristed pantywaists who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, rather than being kick-ass Chuck Norris types. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly wonder what Chuckie, or anyone else this paranoid thinks is keeping a government who can, and will kill anyone REMOTELY connected to getting in the way of their power from just dropping a bunker buster on their home? --Revolverman (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old "Clinton Body Count" list... the Clinton death squads were so vicious and so efficient they killed anyone with any vague knowledge about Billary's misdeeds... and yet Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp continued to draw breath. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a parody site!

Time and time again, when I link to the mind-numbing stupidity at Conservapedia, I am laughed off. Everyone, without fail, is convinced that Conservapedia is a Poe. A parody site! "Nobody really thinks that," I am told dismissively. I'm just another gullible hysterical liberal who can't tell satire from genuine stupidity.

Where can I go to show people that Schlafly & Co. really are conservatives, as opposed to liberal parodists? I can think of Hurlbut's blog, but that's about it. Suggestions? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Telling people who Andrew Schlafly's mother is and pointing to his run for congress is a good start. Or point them to our Andrew Schlafly article? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)If somebody thinks that CP is Poe, they'll also think that of Terry's blog. No, stick with Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly. He has appeared in the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, CP was covered in newspapers, and he also did radio interviews/debates, some of which have been recorded and uploaded (search the archives for "radio" or something?). Oh, and his appearances as a lawyer for conservative causes, including the ABORTION = BREAST CANCER claim. Plus sideline stuff like his 9/11 theory about how Saint Asbestos would've prevented the towers from collapsing or something? But that's a tangent. Bottom line: Andy is either genuine or a genius troll who wants to make his mother's cause look like a bad joke. --Sid (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but when did Andy appear on the Daily Show? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It was during the Conservative Bible Project point-and-laugh fest. You can probably find a full video of it online somewhere, but that's where this comes from. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(Not Daily Show, it was Colbert. Minor point). DogP (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ack, you're right, my memory crossed some wires - I had been thinking of the time CP was mentioned/featured on the Daily Show. --Sid (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone hasn't seen it, here's The Daily Show clip that mentions Conservapedia (@ 01:04). --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

When people ask if Conservapedia is a Poe, I merely point them to "Did Litigation and Junk Science Help Bring Down the World Trade Center?", akas Andys hour long lecture about how its the liberals fault the twin towers collapsed. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In your face Ace McWicked!

You all laughed about the ides of October but Ken's campaign has begun to bear fruit in New Zealand. The small island nation is but the first domino. Take cover atheist evolutionist pantywaists. --Horace (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure Ken's heart raced when he first read of this homophobic adolescent, he had to conclude this kid's education was an epic fail. What's wrong with this picture: arguing homosexuality's danger to human evolution? There's nothing in the Bible about ducks getting dominion over the Earth after man's right of first refusal. This kid is a Godless liberal. Whoover (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This kid is an obvious parodist. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's because of New Zealands "barren woman who hate babies"^img Aceⁱ⁹ 23:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Conservative is dead wrong -- and also right

It will come as no shock that "no religion" is growing. AD mentions this above. And, if you have access to WSJ online, we see that those who "know" that God exists is dropping and the "don't believe" and "no way to find out" crowds are growing in the US.

So, how is Ken right? It's nothing to do with national trends. It's about that recent silliness where he quoted a blogger saying that some atheist had claimed to know that God exists, but being atheist anyway, just for pride's sake or something. The WSJ article says the following:

Among Pew's findings are that atheists and agnostics don't always act like, well, atheists and agnostics. For instance, 14% of atheists and 56% of agnostics say they believe in God or a universal spirit, while 2% of self-identified Christians in the poll say they don't.

What the hell? Fourteen percent of self-declared atheists believe in God or a universal spirit?

Obviously, the lesson isn't really that Ken is right, but that reading polls is difficult. Evidently, 14% of self-declared atheists don't know what "atheism" means or were confused by the question or something. My bet is that the bulk of them think atheism means no belief in God, but sure, a universal spirit, that's okay. But whatever the reason for the odd result, I thought that people here would be interested in seeing it. Phiwum (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They are likely viewing atheism and agnosticism as "not being part of an organized religion" or subscribing to a particular religion's beliefs about the nature of the divine and what it would want from us; yet they still believe there is some supernatural deity or force beyond and above the universe, they are really more akin to deists and should be called as such. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In the US, professing to have religion is often a political or social necessity. I doesn't surprise me that a lot of people who consider themselves atheists would say that the believe in God.

That comment makes no sense to me. If I want to profess to have a religion, I won't call myself atheist! Phiwum (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In all these opinion polls, there's a certain amount of noise with your signal. There's always about 10% of people who will give the most braindead answers to questions, because they misheard them, they misunderstood them or they misheard or misunderstood lead in questions. That doesn't actually mean they believe what they said, and if you presented them with their answers later they'd probably have a facepalm moment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Very few of us have a completely rational and thought-through philosophy. Also I can appreciate that for many, religion implies doctrine and dogma. You may believe that the universe had a creator, perhaps even creationism and ID, but then reject the authority of man-made churches. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not talking about the "no religion" folks. We're talking about folks who self-reported as god- or universal-spirit-believing atheists. That's just mighty confused. Phiwum (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I know what I mean by atheist, but not everyone agrees with that definition. One of the stupid arguments that the likes of Ken and Ray Comfort promulgate is that atheists reject or deny god - which is the definition that some dictionaries use - but by rejecting god they are implicitly accepting his existence in the first place. And even Richard Dawkins suggests that everyone is an atheist to some degree, he just goes "one god further". Argument by dictionary definition is pointless. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But I honestly can't imagine anyone who self-reports as an atheist on the basis that they believe in God, but choose to reject Him. This is just a silly myth. What kind of fool would say, "Yes, I recognize that I am condemning myself to an eternity of torment, but by gum, I ain't a gonna bow down to no omnipotence?" Phiwum (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd consider it if there weren't a damn good explanation for all the murders and such... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've known one or two people in the past who described themselves as atheists but believed "there's got to be, you know, like, something". That would mean they were counted in the "universal spirit" part even though they don't believe in any actual god or gods. I think Genghis hit the nail on the head with the comment about being flexible about definitions. It's an oddity, but not inexplicable. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Crazification Factor? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More cutting edge policy from CNAV

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/10/16/editorial/guest/bush-doctrine-and-reality-doctrine/

How to keep America safe? By blowing every country to kingdom come, and promising to keep doing it! But we give them 2 hours notice!! Who wants to bet that guest writer was jerking off when he wrote that? --Revolverman (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dwight Kehoe is so deeply and frighteningly fucking insane that I'm amazed Terry lets him post his shite. And yes, I'm aware of exactly what I'm saying there.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this shit is less scary than some of the paranoid conspiracy theory stuff that Hurlbutt spews up. At least Kehoe knows this is just fantasy war-porn, and not real. Terry actually believes his delusions. I imagine he sleeps with a tin-foil hat and AK-47 under his pillow, so the guys in suits and shades from FEMA can't abduct him during the night. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 08:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Never. An AK-47 is a Commie gun. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, now I have The Clash's "Tommy Gun" stuck in my head with the words replaced by "commie gun". DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Ides of October again

Conservapedia was wrong: [1]^img No, it wasn't: [2]^{img — Unsigned, by: 109.132.74.37 / talk / contribs}

They're so obsessed with covering up Ken's craziness and hating Obama that there's not a single entry on the main page about Arlen Specter's death. Literally, only one edit to his article simply puts the year of his death on it. About 4 in 5 of every "In the News" section is a link to the QE! blog, Terry's linkspamming, or some non-news site that furthers their crazy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Specter wasn't really a favorite of that crowd. Were they to do anything regarding his death, it would be to piss on his grave as a pro-choice turncoat.Phiwum (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL Ken reverted it. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy tried to edit in stealth mode but got caught doing so^img. He's not only trying to ignore what's going on, he's trying to be invisible while it's going on. ROFL Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How has AugustO not been hung, drawn and quartered on CP yet? Isn't Uncle Ed still chomping at the bit to get rid of him? --Revolverman (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's hilarious that the edits aren't even the weird pet projects that Andy "improves". These edits are incredibly insignificant. I love that it was so important to him to make these changes with the cloak of secrecy so he didn't have to deal with the complete meltdown that's occurring. He's such a pussy. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a proper look at CP mainpage for a while. But just scrolling down though the slurry to the abyssal plain of crazy is disturbing. The fact that CP is clearly getting worse is terrifying, I didn't think it was possible, but it obviously is. I wonder what Andy of 2008 would think if you showed him today's mainpage? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 02:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Paltalk

Ken's Paltalk channel doesn't work, you can't log in, and the profile of the user who created it has vamoosed. Sigh. The channel is dead. Another pathetic little flop Ken has to cope with….DogP (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank god. If that channel ever goes live that's the end of evolution forever. I hope this has bought us at least another few days so I have time to make my final arrangements. DickTurpis (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess if you build it, they won't come. Still, I'm sure the chat room is empty because evilutionists are all cowards who won't debate, not because the question evolution! campaign is entirely a figment of Kendoll's over-active imagination. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. It seems like he couldn't find the 'On' button. DogP (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I dropped in today to see what it was like. There was one user there, "Danny of America," who writes in a style that I'm sure I recognise from somewhere. Anyway I got kicked out inside five minutes and the room is now requiring people to ask for approval (including explaining why you want to join) before joining it. It appears that "evolutionists" aren't allowed to actually answer the 15 Questions, for some reason. Must be because we can't, right?-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.} 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is some insulting shit

Ken writes some of the vilest shit he has ever come up^img. Someone wanna screencap this article? And so we all know this featured on Conservapedia, here is the edit^img. Nothing else can ever discredit Conservapedia like this. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What would a 50-year old virgin know of any women, be they atheist or creationist? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that's hilarious. I think for Kendoll the Bible reads "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: But when I become a man... ah, fuck it." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I laughed. --Horace (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Number 4. Good Lord. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's really not insulating shit - it's just standout hilariously redneck uneducated dumbness on an epic scale. But it's also one of those posts where I wonder if Ken isn't a truly epic troll. DogP (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vile, but we are talking about the creator of the CP articles Lesbianism and obesity, Homosexuality and Murders, Atheism and bestiality and my all time favourite Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality. The fact that Andy lets this clearly mentally ill man post this garbage on his encyclopedia says a lot. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really vile. This is perhaps the nearest I've come to feeling pity for Kenny. He has such a stunted view of people that this is how he honestly sees the world. The 50 year old virgin comment is almost certainly right. He's a child in a man's body, force fed propaganda from the likes of focus on the family and with no anchor in the real world to counterbalance it. Someone could write several doctoral theses on what that's done to him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal Protestant women are often whores and more prone to catching sexually transmitted diseases which make them barren." Vile and misogynistic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Atleast he didn't start comparing various parts of anatomy to oceanic orgasms. Someone should linkspam that speech JG gave last week on his blog and his paltalk and twitter(did he manage to get it working). Naca (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Kendoll knew this would get a rise from RWians. Yes it's vile, obnoxious shit but we're the only people ever going to read it. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And whilst there was a semi-epic edit war going on^img, good ol' kennyboy thought it would be good time to shit on MPR as well^img. Gotta love his Machismo! Ole Ole Ole Naca (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel emasculated and hollow already. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 08:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit. Slut shaming, marital rape, transphobia, climate denial - this one has got it all. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 08:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. As someone who's actually studied demography from an academic point of view, Ken's got it all wrong. Birth rates don't fall because of liberals and atheists, they fall because of women's educations and advanced economies. If that's his argument about 'swamping everyone', then surely he wants to take us all back to the ages of poverty, famine and destitution? Even right-wing, racist academic loonies like Eric Jones constantly said that 'backwards' Asia and India always had higher birth rates than 'Protestant' Western Europe. There is a very very small element in what he says - see Quiverfull [4] which is indeed a Christian cultural attitude to higher births, but that's as far as it goes. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 08:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just in case Ken ever attempts to memory hole this revealing view on how he, and by extension CP, views people different from themselves, took these screen caps. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had Capturebot capture the entire post (notice the ^img next to the original link?) so Ken can't memory-hole it at all, btw. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 08:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• The musings of a 50 year old basement dwelling virgin
• 

  A lame attempt at trolling?

• 

  Or Ken's honest misogynistic view of the world?

OK. I'm calling bollocks. Total bollocks. Absolute and utter bollocks. He has got to be baiting us with that one. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No-way would he risk the integrity of the ever-growing QE movement by using its high-readership blog just to bait RWians! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I read things like this, I can't help but feel intense psychological projection. To me this reads like a poor, sad man desperately trying to convince himself that his penis is powerful and can make babies, and the men of his enemy tribe have tiny floppy dicks. And the women of his enemy tribe are ugly or something. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 14:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In Ken's case the enemy tribe would appear to go by the name of Homo sapiens sapiens.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor approves. I'm surprised. No wait, the other thing. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor is the jimmy savile of cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed senses that his moderating influence is needed in this time. And it's a fantastic opportunity to get rid of AugustO and others who irked him - wait to see wild accusations of incivility, disobedience, not listening to senior administrators, etc. --larron (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Did Creepy Uncle Ed really just describe his change of "and" to "while and" as "tweak grammar"? More like violently sodomise grammar without lube.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaking grammar like a deranged coconut crab unwantedly tweaking a professional escort's nipples. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaking grammar like a priest fondling a choirboy.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No surprise, some of the serfs on CP are calling Ken out, and of course Ken is attempting to vigorously defend his screed^img. Somehow Ken manage to shove in some anti-Catholic red herring in there as a response; claiming that in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated there is no conflict between Catholicism and evolution and that somehow ties to the Catholic Church's less than stellar record when it came to the Holocaust (despite it happening in the first half of the Forties). I love how Andy never says or does anything when Ken routinely derides his church; perhaps Andy is a liberal since he lacks such MA-CHEESE-MO.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My personal favorite contribution to the thread. Ken is defending his claim that atheist and liberal protestant women are butch, fat, cold fish whores who often turn down husbands' advances but jump at an opportunity for adultery. Okay, there's a lot of odd conflict in these claims, but that's not my point. What nation does he bring up in the thread? Sweden, a nation well-known for its thoroughly unattractive, grossly overweight and practically asexual women. Good job, Ken! Phiwum (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This just in! There is an atheist/agnostic woman (I assume, I've never heard of Ms. Cupp) who is not a horrible dyke harpy. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What sort of atheist would ever say, "While I currently disbelieve that God exists, I hope to later change my beliefs?" Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

People who buy into Pascal's Wager, maybe. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why has he got a downer on protestants?--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Times like this really make me wonder how much I understand Andy. Even those who never want to show they were wrong would find something to trump kennyboy on to get him out of there. Does he agree with him? Is he intimdated? Does Ken some how have something on him? IS KEN SLEEPING WITH PHYLLIS SCHAFLY!? --Revolverman (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken and Phyllis? Ugh! Fucking thanks for that image. I was just about to have my dinner, too. Looks like the cat's going to eat well tonight.--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.} 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've said this before: Ken and Andy are the same person. The Ken persona is currently dominating AMassiveGay (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You could be right, going by how hard Andy's trying to bury every complaint about Ken's latest crayoning session.--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.} 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The only deleted complaints are those coming from new accounts registered just for the purpose of adding to the talk page war. The established users' complaints aren't being deleted. They're being ignored, which is really par for the course. Phiwum (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My wife is 5'7" and weighs about 60 kilos (132 pounds, I think, for you Yanks) who greatly enjoys the benefits of marriage if you know what I mean and is amazing with children and can't wait to have our own. In fact. I have never meet anyone so good with children and so committed to having our own. Oh yeah, she is a liberal atheist. Oh well. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Once you gave her weight in kilos, it was redundant to say that she's a liberal atheist. We knew. Phiwum (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think we need to think hard about the ethicality of our constant lampoonings of Conservative. I definitely don't think that the trolls jumping in out of nowhere are helping anything, and I don't think anyone will contend that there's any legitimate point in what he's saying about atheists and family-crafting (it's hideous and a product of sexist ignorance, for sure.) What we DO have to think about, though, is whether we're doing the right thing in playing the part we play here. This is a guy who adores the criticism aimed at him.. if he didn't have the atheist masses to fight against, his works would be for naught. If we continue to make a big deal about all of the nonsense he says, he's just going to continue making a fool of himself on the wiki...but if we ignore him, he might lose an outlet for his emotions. Part of me honestly believes that we're doing him a favor in continuing with this. But seriously, approach this guy with mercy. Our goal, with User: Conservative should be to help him find peace, not drag him into the dirt. WilliamR (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The only moral issue here has to do with whether he's mentally competent and whether it's morally permissible to poke fun at the mentally incompetent and thereby perhaps exacerbate their problems. And these are obviously relevant issues, because it's certainly plausible, given his behavior and arguments, that he is literally mentally incompetent.

It is a shame that some mentally ill persons are simply abrasive, irritating and worse, by virtue of their illnesses. It's hard not to react to an arrogant but obviously ignorant person like Ken with derision, even though we know that both features are likely due to whatever mental illness (likely) afflicts him. Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand it's quite possible that he's just a complete dickhead.--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.} 20:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but I find it doubtful. This is even ignoring the whispered-about evidence of his hospitalization. His attempts at argument are so immature and irrational, his editing so bizarre (both in duration and content), his tendency to view everything in terms of good vs. evil and simultaneously in terms of numbers of believers (so that larger birth rates win! Yay!), all of this shows such addled thinking that I sincerely doubt that he is mentally healthy.

I say this despite the fact that I regularly mock his contributions here. I'm not a proud man. I throw rocks at little duckies, too. Phiwum (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness, while unfortunate and something to be approached compassionately, is no obstacle to simultaneously being a complete dickhead. Sane or mad, Ken is an obnoxious shitcunt with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. On the bright side he's now busily engaged in scaring away whatever relatively sane editors CP has left.--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.} 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Without actual evidence otherwise, I am just going to assume he is an socially-inept, self-righteous asshole. He wrote this for attention and he is getting it of course, not just here but on CP's talk page too. Of course he will be immune to any complaints by the plebes there as his fellow admins will either ignore or justify his actions; whether they do it out of fear or craven desire for pageviews I do not know.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The other side of that coin: Mental illness is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for being a hateful misogynist. Dude is responsible for what he does until a court of law says otherwise, and there's nothing wrong with calling him on his bullshit. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The accountability is with Andy on this one. He knows it's there and has given it tacit approval. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Courts of law got fuck-all to do with moral responsibility. What Ace says, on the other hand, is dead-on. Phiwum (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is just. Oh my. I think he just said most women in the United States are whores. He said that, right? I wish his Paltalk thing worked. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ken...

...how many children has your creationist arse fathered? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kendoll collective are legion. He's probably sired children with himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

He's certainly welcome to go fuck himself.--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.} 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives don't fuck themselves. It's a sin. That's why they act the way they do. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me karajou...

...but fuck you too.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 03:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah. Doesn't Kendoll realise he's playing with fire? He must surely notice his fellow sysops only barely tolerate him as it is, and won't usually deign to answer his talk page posts or emails. Andy is certainly spineless, and certainly needs Kendoll to keep up the charade that Conservapedia is still a going concern, but as various sysops before him have learned he will eventually act if pushed enough by his trusted sycophants. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken isn't worried at all. Look at main page left, the top fifteen sections are all his, with virtually every single one leading back to his blog. Only when you finally get down to Andy's old comment about Akin do you finally find something else and that is quite the scroll. Ken has successfully turned Conservapedia's front page from its intent to be a portal to their "encyclopedia" to one ugly, long billboard ad for Ken's pet blog and project and no one with any authority to do so even attempts to curtail him. If Andy isn't going to step up and take back control of the project he shells out the dollars for, certainly none of the others will.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven wrong !

Stop being such a dick AugustO^img and fuck you too^img Naca (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, Ken got rid of the Olympics too. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only sysops can edit "Conservapedia proven wrong" now? I guess that page will never be touched again. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The fall of a conservative great

Whilst killing time in t'office, I spotted that some fella called Tim Tebow (I have no idea who he is, but I gather the Assfly loves him) is on the list of overrated sports stars! Has Mr Tebow done something to upset Andy? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It's Sanchez that Andy is calling overrated in your link. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Big Man, the link isn't to the Tebow entry being added, merely a lazy link to the revision I was reading. Teabag is at number 17... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Temeister getting added. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

gggrrr You shoulda kept quite about it. I bet it could of stayed there for another few months, until Andy decided he saw someone he didn't like (ie not tim tebow). Definitely worth a WIGO though, although can't find funny way to say it :( Naca (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The editor's not really noteworthy. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

True has been there for a while though, woulda thought he woulda picked up any criticizer of St tim Naca (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean Naca, but I thought it would be interesting to see how long it takes the Assfly to remove him now it's been mentioned here. Or maybe he won't remove it now that we've said he will... Or maybe he will remove it now that we've said he won't remove it because we've said he will remove it...... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Enjoying the silence

after the second debate. There's a blurb about how libruls take more time. Terry vaguely crows about how Romney won. There's not a lot for them to pick apart. The moderator with her pesky facts? That fat ugly cow Michelle being a dirty whore and clapping during the debate? Obama once referred to his presidency in the past tense? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

After Chuckarse's "Mitt Romney easily won last night’s second Presidential debate" article I was going to ask him if the weather was nice on his planet but decided it wasn't worth it. I particularly like the way he calls the moderator a liar for calling Romney out on his lies. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken as Prophet

The Old Testament prophets invented the "yo mama's a ho" diatribe. Consider Ezekiel. Or pretty much all of Jeremiah. I think Ken's going for his prophet props, and Andy might be a bit awestruck. So these are not mere rantings -- they're Kenniads. Whoover (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Impossible. Humor didn't exist before Jesus, according to Andy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The day after

It's just turned October 16 in my timezone and I can report that I still believe that the Earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old, it was not created in seven days and evolution is a better explanation than "magic man did it." The Ides of October has been and gone and hasn't changed me at all.Spud (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At least we know what the fuss was about. Apparently there are now 3 QE online communities or something. No links to where they are, but apparently they exist. Yes, a few websites with zero traffic have brought evolution to a screeching halt. DickTurpis (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And how is creating more online communities helping to defeat atheism in what, according to Ken, is already a post-Internet world? Spud (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're dealing with a man living in a world in which Christianity is on the rise and atheism and secularism are nearly extinct, in which Conservapedia and obscure blogs read only by their detractors are changing the world, in which google searches for various words are authoritative reflections on international trends. Looking for rhyme or reason in anything he says is futile. DickTurpis (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But guys a couple of Ken's QE buddies got on the Intertoobs and set up their own blogs today! Didn't you know, when a YEC sets up some random blog, it is a dagger int he black heart of atheism!?! I mean look how popular and influential Ken's blog that solely gets any pageviews through RW users wanting to mock him is! Better yet they'll be teaching others how to create blogs, and given that it's such a complex process only designed for the truly dedicated, how could such a plan fail!? Oh and one of Ken's friends are contacting a local youth pastor, and he heard from a friend of a friend who got a pen-pal email from a fellow Christian in their church that lives in India! Tremble!

Not quite yet for the 3 online communities or something. This report from the entity-who-will-destroy-athiesm is a tad pathetic, no? I mean, this wouldn't even qualify for ShockofWebmaster.

We have figured out some of the major bells and whistles for two of the online communities in terms of the software. The third one is more challenging and there does not appear to be robust documentation yet, so we sent in a customer service ticket. Whoover (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not even under the influence of anything right now and I laughed way too hard at that. --199.231.86.185 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you two have such a condescending attitude here. He's talking about the major bells and whistles. This is the stuff of nightmares for Darwinians. Phiwum (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Too right! I’ve been hiding under the table all day clutching my helmet and frantically viewing my laptop (no, that’s not what I meant, just cut that out) and now I read that a customer service ticket has been sent! Fear stalks my atheist under-the-table bunker like a fearsome thing on stalks, I don’t mind telling you! JumboWhales (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that Ken, if these alleged sites actually exist, is paying practically nothing, if anything at all, for them. Filing a support ticket because there's basically no documentation? Yeah, they'll get right on it. Drop everything and write all the documentation because your stupid head doesn't know how to Internet because you're stupid. Can you sit for a month while they prep it all? Oh, lol, Kendoll. If only I lived in Ken's world, I'm sure I'd have a lot more false self-confidence following me around. Oh, right, I'm out of weed. brb Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Which wins in a fair fight? Major bells and whistles, devastating frills or stupendous trivialities? Phiwum (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The latest QE blog is hilarious - Walter Mitty joins forces with the People's Front of Judea or possibly the Tooting Popular Front. "The staff member was very enthusiastic about the work we are doing and asked if we published a book about dinosaurs and the Bible and the Bible that she was very fond of." Wonderful, Ken, you're really getting the message across. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Today's QE! blog really is just brilliant. Ken's three sorry, two blogs that he's set up are clearly about as useful as an octopus on an ice unicycle. But I think what I love most about Ken is that he's still denying that QE! is his, and entirely written by him. So cute. DogP (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Julius Caesar is forever ruined for me. I will always hear "Beware the Ides of October, for it brings a customer service ticket." Whoover (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean Julius Ceasar? :) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And remove the evidence. Surprised he didn't oversight it as well ! Best burn the evidence^img Naca (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And no predicttions about other dark days in the rest of October? Now it's just back to how 2013 will be a bad year for evolutionists. Could it be that Ken has decided that book will tske him sixty days to read instead of two?--Spud (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's Ken - and not particularly sincere - but the wording of this addition to "Conservapedia proven wrong" did make me chuckle. "The 13th turned out to be a lucky day for Darwinism and unlucky instead for a Question Evolution campaigner who caught a cold." DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I try not to think too hard about Ken. I've drawn my conclusions about him, and they're not very pleasant to think about. However, I just found this on NPR. Charles Darwin And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A very early Andy Prediction

Didn't Andy predict, early on, the Conservapedia would overtake Wikipedia by some date?

Have we reached that date yet? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he said that specifically, but he did make some dire predictions about Wikipedia which I think should have borne fruit by now, probably several years ago, if he had been right. I've looked for them, but haven't been able to find them. There's a good chance they got memory-holed when Andy's talk page got deleted years back. DickTurpis (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as early as the one you and I are thinking of, but here's^img Andy in 2009: "Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years. All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse. It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States. It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia." --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Andy if there's one wiki that's looking more and more like the former DDR then it's Conservapedia. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's got just over a year to turn it around. Besides, notice how he doesn't specify his criteria for what would make a pretty comparison. Sure, he can't argue with the fact that WP is a top 10 website in both the USA and the world in terms of views and his is around 50,000, so he'll point to the fact that WP editorship peaked a little while ago, and CP's pageviews have gone up. He'll also make a fuss about quality over quantity, insisting CP is an objectively better resource because it lacks liberal bias, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He definitely claimed that Wikipedia wouldn't exist 5 years from now (about 4 years ago I think). Aceⁱ⁹ 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right (I think it might have even been and earlier timeframe). I wish I could find the diffs though. DickTurpis (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, like other internet sites, WP will almost certainly lose favour and be replaced by something better in the future. Ashlafly know this. Trouble is for him, WP will probably have the longevity of Google rather than Altavista amongst its peers. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy's not abandoned MPR

See! He's exhorting liberals to give it up! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Another great example of Andy reading the headline without appreciating the detail. Yes, that poll looks bad for Obama but when you look at the detail, all Romney's lead comes from racking up huge majorities in the South. That might spell trouble for Team Blue in Florida, but it's looking a lot better in Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, when he says "Give it up, liberals," at least he's acknowledging that only liberals read his blog for something to laugh at. It's heartening to know he isn't completely delusional--"Shut up, Brx." 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. He's not. When you choose to communicate to a given (loathed) group in a public forum, it doesn't mean that you think they're the only readers present.

Indeed, it doesn't even mean you think any of that group is present. There are rhetorical reasons to address an absent audience, after all.

So, no, Andy has not publicly proclaimed that the only readers of CP are liberal. Phiwum (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know. It was a joke--"Shut up, Brx." 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, on the topic of absent audiences what should we do if Andy starts talking to a chair? Frullic (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Point and laugh. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberals having something to give it up in the first place implies that they actually have something, apparently quite a lot of the stuff (whatever "it" is), if they have to be told to "give it up" with exclamation points. Andy has never told conservatives to give "it" up, which itself implies that conservatives don't have anything to begin with, therefore liberals are winning. X Stickman (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. That's a keen parsing of colloquial English, that is. Phiwum (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're just mad because I logic'd harder than anyone has ever logic'd before. X Stickman (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Son, I am a master of logicking and I got me a paper that says so. Phiwum (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I bet I've taken more logic courses than both of you. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very confident you would lose the bet. Phiwum (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You realise I was joking, right? rpeh •T•C•E• 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I knew you weren't really saying it mattered, but I thought you were jokingly serious about the number of logic courses you'd taken. Phiwum (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting not everyone is up on every single CP-related meme. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Every single verse in the Bible is a lesson in logic; it's the most logical book ever written. So if you've read it and understood it then you are as great a logician as Andrew Layton Schlafly Esq. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I used to think I was good with logic, but I gave that up a long time ago. Sometimes my roommate and best friend claims my xnoring disturbs her sleep, but I deny doing any such thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, curious...

I note ken has moved all reference to his hate blogs over to shock's blog^img I wonder if this had anything to do with the email I dropped to CMI asking if they wanted their QE campaign associated with this sort of vile speech? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Did they ever reply? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No because my email account had been closed because I hadn't used it in 4 months so the email would have bounced had they responded so I'll never know for sure. I have a copy of my post to them at home - I'll upload it later. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Do you know if they generally tend to respond to emails? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't an email, it was sent through the website. Sorry for the confusion. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, Shlock's blog has been moribund for months so now Ken poops all over it and removes the turd pile from his QEer blog. What a tosser. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if even shock of goat would even want to be associated with that stuff? He must be a least a bit saner than Kendoll, right? Maybe someone should let him know what's going on on the blog he so stupidly let Ken have write access to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad I took those screenshots from Ken's QE blog; had a feeling he would attempt to burn the evidence. C'mon Ken, where is your MA-CHEESE-MO? Putting Shock's name to your "10 reasons why young earth creationists have bigger families" so he would take any fallout is an act of crass cowardliness. Also noticed you removed the reference to the article from CP's front page, afraid to stand behind your work?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(Ken) Can't touch this, dun nuh nuh nuh ♪ I almost think this should be maybe a WIGO:CP now that he's decided to move and burn the evidence to "protect" QE! after, you know... someone actually read his vile shit. And I think this makes it more than abundantly clear that QE! is Ken and only Ken and always was, as if we needed more evidence. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Holy fuck

Kenny boys has decided to clean some of the excrement he has chucked on MPL ^img, Alas this floater has reappeared :(^img Whats the bet a real stinker is about to hit MPL, MPR and knock atheism out for good Naca (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me. Ken is always going on about the global rise of Christianity, and now about these big Christian families that will overwhelm the atheistic world. Well, if Christianity is growing on a global level (which is unlikely, at least as percentage of world population) it's entirely due to Christianity in China, as it is shrinking basically everywhere else in the world, and China is the one place where there are certainly not big christian families popping up, unless "big" means one child. DickTurpis (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For the first time ever, Ken has done soemthing that's made me smile. I love that picture of a macaw on a bike.--Spud (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Christianity really growing in China? I visit Guangdong every year, and I've been to Beijing and Inner Mongolia. I don't recall seeing any Christian churches in the dozen or so visits I've taken (but many of those visits hit the same areas repeatedly). Of course, it's possible that Christianity is growing without publicly visible churches, but I haven't seen any visible signs of Christianity (whereas Buddhism is very visible). Phiwum (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering where it's starting from, "growing" doesn't necessarily indicate much. Ken constantly touts a study which indicates there's a growing Christian movement, particularly in rural China, I believe. China, being so big in both size and population, and with its heavy government restrictions, is very hard to accurately survey, especially about things as controversial as religion, but I have read some articles about some Christian movements there that seem to be growing, though it is largely anecdotal. So is Christianity growing in China? Probably, but who can say by how much. Enough to offset the explosive rise of the nones in the rest of the world? Very doubtful. DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate, now, to point out that RW now beats Conservapedia on Alexa, outright. It was getting more daily views for a while, but the historic "dominance" of Conservapedia gave it an edge on the page rank. Now, however, we're actually noticeably ahead in terms of our page rank. I wonder what User: Conservative has to say about THAT.WilliamR (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly it's because he's no longer putting the whole might of his SEO expertise behind CP. Soon the Question Evolution! Blog will have more traffic than wikipedia. Olé! Olé! Olé! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But haven’t you seen?! Bird on a bike. BIRD on, right... wait for it... aaaaa BIKE!

Sheesh, if this doesn’t thing or maybe doo-dah or something then I don’t know what will! (Well, I say bike but it’s actually a trike, but even so, hole-A, hole-A, whole-Ass!) JumboWhales (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal drunk driving

Funny how Andypants blames liberals for drunk driving. Let's take a look at some stats I found on drunk driving fatalities. Top 10 are 1. Montana, 2. South Carolina, 3. Mississippi, 4. Wyoming, 5. Louisiana, 6. Alabama, 7. North Dakota, 8. West Virginia, 9. New Mexico, 10. Arkansas. With the exception of New Mexico, those are all pretty conservative states. But I'm sure it's the liberals in those states who are doing it. DickTurpis (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember a certain c former president had a conviction too. 216.53.143.250 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And rounding out the least fatalities we have 1. Utah (no surprise there), 2. New York, 3. Massachusetts, 4. New Jersey, 5. Rhode Island, 6. New Hampshire, 7. Connecticut, 8. Washington, 9. Michigan, 10. Minnesota. With the exception of Utah, that's a pretty liberal group, though a few barely qualify as swing states. I don't think this is a coincidence. DickTurpis (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, a lot of this is an urban/rural thing. Kids in Boston, NYC, all those college towns in the Northeast don't drive, they walk and take the bus. In Montana and Wyoming and North Dakota, your next-door-neighbour is a 15 minute drive away, and there's no decent public transport in a lot of the South. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that some of these folks are driving drunk and others aren't. DickTurpis (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was liberals (liberals I tell you!) that founded the Bob Kasten school of driving. Well, it probably was liberals that founded that saterical student party... but it was a conservative that was the inspiration. --Shagie (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dickturpis I suggest becoming a Christian so you can develop more self-discipline in terms of your study habits. Also, consider learning the statistical concepts of regression analysis and the Generalized linear model (see: Atheism and obesity). I would also suggest looking at the abundance of data that Conservapedia offers in its Atheism and obesity article. Lastly, I am sorry to hear you are a thin skinned atheist who lacks a sense of humor about thick skinned atheists. Nate Keaton (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Add a few smileys and that would have been perfect. joya^{BAD KITTY!} 02:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Onion channels Schalfly

Sound familiar? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Schlafly and his continual crowing about how print media is declining because more people are visiting conservapedia? No? Well fuck it. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. Schlafly being a pompous ass! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Newsweek readership is down because of liberal bias, not because of the internet. That's why people are flocking to conservative magazines, like The National Review, whose circulation is 1/10 that of Newsweek. DickTurpis (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

National Review still puts out a print edition? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Magazine readership is town, TV audience is down and all because people are flocking to Conservapedia. In the future everyone will have a screens glued over the eyes and reading/editting Conservapedia will be all they do. That's just the nature of geometric growth.--Night Jaguar (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Magazine readership is town Town? And I remember Andy saying something about how TV audience is down because of CP. I just lol'd and thought "Well, in his defense, CP is rather entertaining..." Schlafly and his continual crowing about how print media is declining because more people are visiting conservapedia? No? Well fuck it. Oh, and that was sarcasm. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fidel Castro has suffered a stroke. Will hilarity ensue?

It has been announced that Castro has suffered a stroke and no longer recognizes anyone. How will Andy spin this? Ayzmo (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

He'll die (as we all do) and Andy will announce "See, I told you so! He's dead!" DickTurpis (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how this has any effect on Andy's beliefs. Just another example of liberal deceit. Eventually, they'd have to make up a story where Fidel dies, and they've chosen one where he dies unseen. Phiwum (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's unpossible. Dead men can't have strokes. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 02:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Castro forgets all his acquaintances? It's a cover. The guy they had coaching the 40 year old off-broadway actor they'd hired to replace the real Fidel has defected to teach flower arranging in the Czech Republic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that’s pretty much what I heard. JumboWhales (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, Terry. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was Andy/CP's position that Castro died several years ago and a body double has been playing Fake Castro in order to prop up the obviously-doomed (to CP) Communist regime. But then again, if there's anything we WIGO Andy for, it isn't consistency. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wigo is a verb? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Any noun can be verbed. Whoover (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Verbing weirds language. «-Bfa-» 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Three Million!

I see that this page has been accessed over three million times and thought that this milestone should be noted. Let me put three million into a context for you that’s annoyingly patronising. Imagine a million blogs about atheist whores. Placed end-to-end, and assuming each has an arbitrary length that I’ve just made up they would reach all the way to Jesus and back! Now multiply that by three! JumboWhales (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is nearly as many as Law Terms D got ! Naca (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but remember that Law Terms D is imperial and so had to be weighed separately. We all look back fondly, but time marches on. JumboWhales (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Law Terms D was a legend in its own lunchtime. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just how much of Kendoll's life is pure fantasy?

I have to admit I have a morbid fascination with watching Kendoll's QE! stuff. He's been at this for a year now, continually making promises none of which have ever panned out. There seems to be a pattern, when he has someone real to report like Ian Juby saying nice things about CMI, he is specific, using names of people and organisations, and linking to whatever it is he's talking about. When he discusses things that I'm reasonably certain are pure fantasy, he's very vague. They're speaking to a person identified by only nationality about some unspecified thing they may do at an unspecified date in the future. So to give a concrete example from the recent past, his "3 online communities" were probably fantasy, while the paltalk channel he actually linked to but that nobody ever showed up to was a real thing.

Is it actually possible that this whole thing is just in his head, some kind of idealised version of himself he wants to live out? It seems so incredible that he's taking this thing so far. Surely he must realise he can't produce the things he's promising? I mean, look at this hundred page booklet he trailed for months, posted when each fictitious chapter was completed, and then said was finished, and then never mentioned again. How does that even work in someone's mind? It just baffles me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's possible that sometimes he doesn't give names because he's talking about people he only knows through the Internet (and barely knows at that). He only knows them by usernames from the various websites he craps all over. He probably posts the "news" that somebody somewhere might do something as soon as he sends a message asking someone to do some translation or write a book or whatever, not waiting for a reply from the person he sent it to. Mind you, if it was just entirely in his head, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Spud (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I might be the russian connection, I've left a few comments on his blog saying i'm a guy from Russia (and other countries as well) looking to spread the word. Although he may actually have a real Russian connection. See Atheism and it's Downfall Naca (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that Ken set up the paltalk channel. It is attributed to Danny of America, and he has a little bio on his paltalk user page as well as mentions writings on lulu.com, though I couldn't find any. He also has a photo. The main thing is that the bio is too coherent to be written by Ken, and Ken has never made up whole personas for his fictional allies. So, as odd as it seems, I think that someone other than Ken set up the useless, always offline paltalk channel. Phiwum (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to get into the channel twice. The first time I got kicked out for 24 hours (for trying to answer the 15 questions) and the second time I got banned (for the same thing.) So if you're not allowed to answer the questions, what is the channel for?--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.} 16:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fergus, atheism is declining, and atheists are a bunch of fat cowards who lack machismo. And evolutionists STILL can't answer the 15 questions. :-) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you ignore my repetitive cut and pasted arguments HERE and HERE and HERE? Also your parents were probably liberal Protestants who had no children and will be unable to prevent the rapid collapse of the ghettos of global atheism because of the final solution of the Question Evolution! campaign. I predict that 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 will be a very bad year for the cold fish intellectual bunnyhole of Darwinism and atheism and agnosticism and homosexuabestiality and some other things I don't like, just as soon as one of our members has read a bestselling Chick Tract on why Darwin ate babies. Also very soon one of our members will be sending an email to a random blogger who claims to be a best-selling author who has expressed an interest in writing more of our 100 page Question EvolutioN! booklet which we think we can legally hand out to schoolchildren in the USA. Also see HERE and HERE and HERE unless you want Hispanic ladies to think you lack machismo. Olé olé olé!--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You do it much better than I do. Sadface. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken's style isn't actually hard. You just need to turn your brain off - I find absinthe helps - and then, whenever you think of something sensible to say, say the opposite.--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.} 21:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken spouts all this stuff because he's a sick, very lonely, unemployed, religious nutter living in a basement apartment glued to his computer. We often have minor compulsions to voice our random musings - at home it's usually after a few glasses of red wine over the dinner table, and the wife either completely ignores me or tells me I'm talking bollocks but I get it out of my system - Ken, however, doesn't have anyone to natter to in real life. Any efforts at starting his own blog/website from scratch would never get off the ground so he latches onto the coattails of the likes of Andy or Schlock who already have a bit of a following. When someone acknowledges him it gives him a bit of excitement from his dreadful mundane existence. I was once one of his "foreign" contacts with just a single vague email (although his reply was a bit paranoid) and he was immediately trumpeting possibilities about it all over MPL. Ken can't really face real-life so he locks himself away, just like he locks his articles, talk pages and debate pages. His life is a shithole with a few virtual plastic baubles to brighten it up. I met a similar guy when I did Christmas dinner deliveries for the Round Table. He lived on his own in a terraced house called "Te Deum", the place hadn't been decorated inside for well over forty years and the electrical wiring was the same as when it was first installed with rubber wiring and round bakelite switches. In his back room he had an old radio and there were hand-written Bible verses hanging on the wall, there was also the faint odour of stale pee. He was the sort of guy you see with sandwich boards proclaiming "John 3.16". He was a miserable bugger, especially compared to the other people we visited who were so grateful. That's a little how I see Ken but connected to the internet. Генгис^evolving 05:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So, it's pretty much confirmed. Leave a message somewhere Ken hangs around saying that you are the best selling Afrikaans-language author Jan van de Hoek. Ken will send you a message asking you to translate the 15 questions into Afrikaans and before you've even read his email he will go on CP to shout that atheism is doomed in South Africa. By now, most people would have noticed that almost none of the "QE supporters" they've asked for help have done anything and would have stopped making those vague and vain boasts. But we all know that Ken is not most people. Spud (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was once one of his "foreign" contacts with just a single vague email (although his reply was a bit paranoid) and he was immediately trumpeting possibilities about it all over MPL. no shit? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He called himself David Jensen and signed off

Lastly, I wil [sic] contact... to verify that you are the person you say you are and not someone merely playing a prank. You seem to be serious though and not playing a prank.

In Christ,

The principle author of the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

More doctored pictures from a vast liberal conspiracy!

They seem to be fans of photoshop in Cuba.--Still a doctor (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy liveblogs the debate on his "encyclopedia"

He tries to predict and posts his opinion on MPR. Romney is "more confident", Obama is "hogging the time". He's either trying to make edits as fast as possible or he's masturbating too much and one hand can't do all that work. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh, more interesting than Ed Poor live-blogging Three Men and a Little Lady. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I miss Uncle Ed's liveblogging of tween flicks. Where have they gone? DickTurpis (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

and Terry Chuckarse decides to take a dump right in the middle of the commentary^img Naca (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Classic! Everyone is so engrossed with their own interest that they ignore what's going on around them, which is pretty much what they do politically. But Andy's contextual spelling checker is letting him down: the job is too much for him, and he nows it. Oops, that was Chuckbuttocks. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

With 20 minutes to go Andy declares Romney the winner^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

piss off terry, it's my turn to shit all over the main page of my blog. ^img andy growing some backbones. Naca (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Telephone to Ken

Capturebot is faster than you and has more machismo. Ole! Ole! Ole!

time to^imgedit^imgsome more^imgpixels^img Naca (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Golf clap. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all of those captures are successful. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Than Christ we got three of them, though. This could change everything. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, I think we have now foiled his plot to crush atheism. :) Naca (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The fight back starts now. Here WIGO! Here WIGO! Here WIGO! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh man that's awesome! I was obsessively refreshing Recent Changes on Conservapedia waiting for something this incredible to happen but I missed these gems! It's so funny when Ken resizes pictures! Yeah buddy! 03:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm on the internets. Now there's something you don't see everyday. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to me I had had 6 beers before I wrote that.

The excitement is raging

[3]^img I have nothing to add. Yes, I'm a despicable bastard for poking (ha ha!) fun at the apparently ill, but come on. Phiwum (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, why is he crowing that CMI is beating AiG? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 23:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Qe! is affiliated with CMI so that means its got to be the most importestest of all christian sites. OR maybe AiG snubbed him or something. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there was a bit of a schism there at some point, but surely that kind of infighting is bad form? Then again, we are talking about Ken here after all. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 23:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What's "pantywaste" mean? I think they sell it in vending machines in Japan, but I'm not sure. Whoover (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I thought that was your typo, but I see it is Ken's and it is still uncorrected. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I look up on ubandictionary.com, is Gross! Hi, I recently discover this site. American conservative is funny, I think, but this man 'conservative' he make fun of them good yes! :) ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.168.132.48 / talk / contribs 2012-10-21T03:10:36}

What I love is the fact he used Quantcast, which requires the site to embed some code in the webpage(s) for them to get their traffic info. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the old richarddawkins.net site had this code embedded, but the new one does not - hence the sudden flatlining of traffic, according to Quantcast. Other sites which do not require this, such as Alexa, for example, show things like richarddawkins.net having a global traffic rank of around 43,000, and creation.com one of ~84,000. 86.149.45.159 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to base your personal self-esteem and self-worth on the traffic counters of pointless, hopeless websites that are taken about as seriously as My Little Pony toys, you sure as hell are going to choose to use the analytics that your opponent doesn't use so you can crow about how your measely traffic numbers are still infinitely better than your opponent's essentially-nil showing. I wouldn't be surprised if Ken turned out to be using clickbots to inflate page views for exactly this reason. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, hey - leave My Little Pony out of it. I'm sure I'm not the only Brony here. -Lardashe

Another liberal mud pony trying to stir up trouble. Unfortunately, you and your kind are far too busy hiding on your dirty ground to find true pegasus women who hang around the clouds of Cloudsdale! :) Much as pegasus ponies create the weather, we shall create a storm of creationist evangelical power leading to all the Conservative water in Ponyville being sucked up into Conservative Cloudsdale! It is fortunate that hard working, manly pegasus ponies with machismo are flying up a storm with hurricane Question Evolution!. Soon the boring, rural mud pony lifestyle will be blown away by a gust of creationist wingpower! :) 1642 will be a good year for the creationist/pegasus lifestyle and the parasprites will soon consume all the Liberal crops of the mud ponies, leading to all wise ponies to grow wings and convert to the power of Celestia herself! :) --Sasayaki (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a pint of what you're drinking...--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just some cider, I'm sure. «-Bfa-» 19:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Would that be real cider or the wanky non-alcoholic apple juice they pass off as cider in the USA?--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.} 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned a valuable lesson on not lying for what you believe in to prove that it's right. Also, you're kind of a bitch.

Your faithful student, Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob Reiner's mother. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A brony who doesn't want to mix ponies with something irrelevant. Now I've seen everything. Vulpius (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So, he's still going on about "cold fish" liberal women and now he's referring to stained underwear (and making a poof joke at the same time, it seems) on the front page of Conservapedia. He really knows how to win friends and influence people.--Spud (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Ken is crowing about how creationism is on the rise, and as evidence is citing a Gallup poll which reports "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago" What a clever boy 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.} 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say that Ken doesn't know what /r/atheism is, and how many active subscribers are viewing it at any given time, and how many links to shit-crazy sites are posted on it. Because that would probably account for any traffic increase more than individual, independently-interested viewers. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The next person who mentions fucking ponies will be responsible for my spittle-flecked psychotic break. What's with the obsession with ponies???? Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As the one who mentioned My Little Pony toys in the first place, I mentioned it because it's a topic that most people would not take seriously in the context of political discourse, and it was a convenient comparison for Ken's utterly insignificant crusade that is as I type this making some atheist furrow his obese brow with impotent frustration (olé!) proving the unstoppable might of MPR--I mean QE! in accomplishing fuck-all. I did not mean to put up the Brony Signal, and it was a light-hearted and sarcastic comparison. I could've chosen Hello Kitty, I suppose. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not what you learn in public schools!

First, credit where it's due: Andy actually gave a reasonably clear explanation of why the Gallup poll that puts Romney in the lead may be biased.

But now, let's look a little deeper in lecture six:

In electing a president, voters should consider what a president does. How would you rank his most important roles? Here is one ranking of ::presidential powers:

1. Influence the economy.

2. Nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and judges to the other federal courts.

3. Determine foreign policy and serve as commander-in-chief of the military.

4. Set abortion policy in several ways: through health care regulated by the Department of Health & Human Services, and by the policy of its Food & ::Drug Administration toward adult versus embryonic stem cell treatments.

5. Nominate the leaders of all the executive departments.

6. Nominate commissioners for the independent agencies.

7. Pardon people who have been unjustly convicted, or commute the sentence of people unjustly punished.

8. Issue executive orders on almost any issue.

Are there any other important powers that should go on this list?

Oh, I don't know, the ability to sign or veto legislation, perhaps? Lordy, how can he forget that? Isn't that kinda important or something? Phiwum (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A cute homework extra credit question:

9. Do you think Congress could ban interest groups or lobbying? Why not?

Note: not "Why or why not?" but simply "Why not?" At least it's obvious what the answer to the yes/no question should be. Not that his answer is mistaken; of course, the first amendment places real obstacles to banning either, but if you're going to ask a yes/no question, you can't presume the answer is no in the remainder! Phiwum (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet more:

12. Is the "political spectrum" best modeled as a straight line, or as a circle, or as some other shape?

A circle? So when you go really far to the left, you end up on the right? I suppose he meant to ask whether it should be modeled as a disc, so that we distinguish, say, fiscal and social attitudes, but a fuckin' circle? The man is an idiot. Phiwum (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty common idea. Hannah Arendt has argued that if you go far enough to either end of the political spectrum, it starts to resemble the other end--Hitler and Stalin are the classic examples. So yeah, it's a thing. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that, from an admittedly simple standpoint, if you're the average citizen of an oppressive state, it doesn't really matter what the underlying political philosophy is -- it just sucks to live there. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 20:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Capitalism is the exploitation of man by his fellow man and communism is the exact opposite" sort of thing. With apologies to the ladies. Prodigal (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you say so, TOP. Sounds stupid to me. Even if the effects are similar, political differences are philosophical. I don't see why it's useful to pretend that the justifications and reasoning behind two different kinds of government don't matter. (Admittedly, Stalin was more autocratic than communist, but that just indicates that he doesn't properly appear on the far left side after all. Nor the far right, of course.) Phiwum (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the idea. I'm just saying that if you take a poli sci class in college or read any intro-level political theory, you're bound to encounter it. It's not something Schlafly pulled out of his ass, this time. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting he lists "set abortion policy" as a separate power, especially when it's pretty much from powers he lists elsewhere -- job appointments and executive orders. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the lack of commander of the armed forces to be surprisingly lacking given Andy's belief in the need for a strong military. What about chief diplomat and representative of the US abroad? I do notice he didn't say produce jobs or regulate gas prices which is some level of intelligence. Ayzmo (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Read #3. I can't get over #1, though. Influence the economy? The President does about 2 things in that regard, and both of them are my balls. Likewise nominate Supreme Court justices. Sure, it's a big deal, but really, it happens about once a term on average. Hardly their #2 thing. DickTurpis (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Can't believe I missed that. As to SCOTUS, 4 justices are turning 80 in the next 4 years. That is a big deal. Ayzmo (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but that's atypical. Clinton and W each served 8 years and appointed only 2. Carter didn't appoint any. I get that it's a big deal (someone once challenged me to come up with a single important difference between Clinton and H.W. Bush, and I think I won that with 2 words: Clarence Thomas) but I wouldn't rank it that high, especially since it is something a President might not ever do. I guess he does include other federal judges in there as well, so with that maybe it gets boosted higher. His #1 is still just plain wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Andy watching a different debate to everyone else?

The consensus of news outlets seems to be that Obama was the winner of the debate, and that the moderator ought to be shot for not actually stopping the candidates from wandering in to their prepared talking points. Certainly the CNN poll Andy used in the first debate gives this last one to Obama, so at least some viewers also think that. How does Andy come to the conclusion that Romney won? Is it because he sounded less Muslim? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Did they discuss Pokistan? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so. And if you don't pronounce it like a hillbilly hopped up on bootleg joy juice that makes you a Muslim. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone jog my memory - I'm kinda sure that this isn't the first time we've seen Andy talking about the "Muslim pronunciation"^img of words... --Sid (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. It's one of Andy's reasons, if that word can possibly be applied, that Obama is a Muslim. Others include his lack of public dancing, and that Muslims are allowed to lie about not being Muslims. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the plot of footloose? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh Conservapedia. Why you no understand fair use?

Karajou's at the birdies again, and despite every photo he uploads being CC licensed, he's tagging them all as "fair use." If Andy cared at all, he would explain to his fellow idiots that fair use isn't a catch all licence to steal. It's a specific set of circumstances that photos of wildlife could almost never fulfill. If Conservapedia ever became a real encyclopedia and not a joke site slowly sinking in to internet mire, they'd have so much cleaning up to do. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well then, lucky for Andy "Harvard Law" Schlafly it isn't. --Revolverman (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And where is Karajou getting all these templates from. I highly doubt he has made them himself, is there a tweetipedia out there somewhere that he is just ripping all this content from ? Naca (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This won't end well

The assflys Government lecture 7^img has been 'corrected' by a peon. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait for it... -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that Andy admits that Romney's gonna lose in the first paragraph! Of course he can't and doesn't complain that the 'electoral system is rigged' since it delivered the Bush victory of 2000. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am really looking forward to the Constitutional Fundamentalists' take on Obama winning the election and losing the popular vote, should that be the case. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean people of this mindset? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Dvergne did the honors. Speaking of which, check the recent spree of blocks Dvergne has been handing out, as well as some of the bizarre expiry dates for them. Inactive accounts can now apparently be blocked, too. This is making me recall TK.... WilliamR (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy: "Greg, the studies are overwhelming that abortion causes breast cancer, and the science for why is well understood. Indeed, logic itself compels the same conclusion as no one disputes that childbirth lowers breast cancer risk. Of course Wikipedia can be expected to deny basic truths like this."^img It must be nice to always have "logic" on your side.--Night Jaguar (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never really paid attention to Andy's "breast cancer/abortion" shit, but this has piqued my interest. I've always been under the assumption that there is a vague, tenuous correlation between the two, and that fundies have jumped all over it as is expected of them. But now "the science of why is well understood"? This is shocking news to me - what is the well-understood reason for abortion causing breast cancer then? Do the breast cells notice other cells being murdered and start multiplying like crazy before the cellocaust reaches their doors? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some vague recollection that it's not that abortion causes breast cancer per se, but that pregnancy has a some protective role, because pregnant women are producing progesterone rather than oestrogen (which is a major risk factor) and extended breast feeding also reduces the total number of lifetime menstrual cycles. But as with most cancer this is all a bit statistical and the data are not conclusive. So abortion doesn't cause breast cancer, but the fact that a woman is no longer pregnant increases her risk. But if the risk factor is non-pregnancy then you might as well argue that being a nun causes breast cancer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The way I understood it is that it's not that abortion causes breast cancer, but it's that carrying a pregnancy to term helps prevent breast cancer. Women who have had an abortion but also given birth do not show an increased risk of breast cancer, but women who have had abortions but never given birth show an increased risk of breast cancer similar to women who have never been pregnant. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he might be referring to this speculatory thing,^img which has been on their "breast cancer" page for years. I doubt Andy would refer to anything in the actual "abortion" article because it's one of Ken's unreadable screeds, but maybe he hasn't bothered to write down this "well-understood" process yet. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again the wiki-meister demonstrates his farcical inability to add a reference correctly. Генгис^mutating 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(On the original topic): Why does he mention the 1960 election? Nixon lost the popular vote (albeit a very close count) and lost the electoral count. Jared (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Because he's an idiot. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)