Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive304

This is an archive page, last updated 2 December 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>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <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)

Another blog to spam

CP seems to be rapidly becoming a sort of "planet ex-conservapedians", just aggregating the blogs of people who once called CP home. The latest is "Bishop Bert", who sounds like a sort of knock-off Christian muppet (OK, he is a Christian muppet) but is actually our favourite KAL 007 conspiracy theorist. Popeye does the honours^img, and I presume he did again before Kendoll stole the credit^img. All we need now is for JPatt to start posting on MPR about his tweets and the collapse of Conservapedia will be complete. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Are they licking their lips that the recent Israel-Palestinian contretemps could be the start of something BIG? The END TIMES is coming? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Kara is the guy who saw the Egypt video of the Horseman of the Apocalypse, which - even if it's just a lensflare or a photoshop job - is a sign that Jesus is coming back any day now. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 10:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

P90X

"Made famous by Paul Ryan" or, you know, millions of people who've used it before Ryan decided to get body shots taken. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What the shit is a P90X? Sounds like a computer I had a decade ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a workout routine, video sold through infomercials. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was this thing http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/FN-P90_2.jpg --Revolverman (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Redux

I was just going over some old Andyisms and enjoying his entire rant about Hurricane Irene last year when it struck me no-one seemed to bring up his whining that liberals over-reacted to the threat of a possible storm. A year later Hurricane Sandy hits. DogP (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What does he care about the socialist, competition-discouraging enterprise that is public transportation? -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Obama - destroying a racist America"

"My fear is we will not be able to say the same about the path Obama will forge, as he continues to wrest freedom from our fingertips, impose regulations and executive orders, implement massive taxes and government control, while he strikes blow after blow against a colonialist, a racist, a capitalist America." - I am hammered while writing this (... did I really just participate in a drunk spelling bee? ... and lose badly) - but I found it pretty funny.--Danielfolsom (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops Terry didn't actually write that piece - minus 10 points. But it is linked on the CP front page.--Danielfolsom (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, classic Freudian slip there. But yeah, amazing as it might sound, Terry has managed to surround himself with people who are more batshit insane than he is, in Kehoe, Purpura and Salanitri. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 05:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I love their outrage at the precincts that voted 100% for Obama. (Many of them voted 100% for Obama the first time, and 100% against Bush as well.) These are precincts where a Republican would not feel safe to drive a car, much less live. I'd love to see someone from the CNAV stable quit bitching and go research this first-hand. Let's see Terry go door-to-door in one of these Philly neighborhoods, looking for the disenfranchised Republicans. Whoover (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I love how the right is still trying to push this issue without the most obvious solution: Find some constituents of that district willing to swear in court they voted for Romney. Even one certified voter would present an actual case. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 09:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's writing that sentence from what he believes to be Obama's perspective. It's a meme on the right that Obama is a radical postcolonialist driven for vengeance against whitey for slavery and imperialism. It's based on pretty sketchy evidence (his father is from Kenya!!) and would probably be applied to any black liberal president, along with dog whistles like "he's angry."--"Shut up, Brx." 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What the what?

Evolutionist women are like drippy faucets.^img Creationist women, on the other hand, are breeding machines.

Do we really need any more proof that the only women Ken sees are wearing white uniforms, are accompanied by burly minders and are there to give him his medicine? --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fucking wept, he's on a roll today. If there's one thing the world needs, it's more of foreveralone.jpg Kendoll's musings on the fairer sex. He's over 50 and still hasn't learnt a damn thing about the real world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother following that link because I know exactly what it says and exactly how much I'd hate myself for having read it.

ISTR there was an informal agreement not to link Ken's

stuff any more because it was always so shite. Let's bring that agreement back, yeah? rpeh •T•C•E• 21:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rpeh, no doubt you're an atheist evolutionist who doesn't know about peanut butter. I honestly didn't know that Ken has rigorous data to prove that atheist women prefer the smooth variety. You learn something every day. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenny's a tricky one. Half the time I think he's serious, and other times there's a glimpse of sanity or abject "nobody can honestly believe that"ery that make me reconsider. Puts me in the mind of Sherlock, Moriarty's story of Sir Boastalot.

Sir Boastalot was the bravest and cleverest knight at the Round Table. But soon the other knights began to grow tired of his stories about how brave he was and how many dragons he'd slain. And soon they began to wonder. Are Sir Boastalot's stories even true? Oh no. So one of the knights went to King Arthur and said, "I don't believe Sir Boastalot's stories. He's just a big old liar who makes things up to make himself look good." And then, even the king began to wonder.

I'm not getting at Kenny's boastings about how many times the dragon of evolutionism will be slain by the knights of the blahblahblah ask my arse. I'm getting at that it looks like he's gibbering batfuck crazy, but I'm wondering. Whether he's lying about that. Give it enough fairy dust and blue moons, even King Andy has to start wondering eventually.

On a side note, I think that edit's against the "don't mention sex" thing on CP. Dripping faucets? Ken, you dirty-minded pervert, you. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, if you marry an evolutionist woman you get sex on tap, but creationist women are dried-up mannequins. Генгис^evolving 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Long haired, creationist, wife sweethearts." Oh lord, both MPR and MPL have lost any semblance of coherence... WilliamR (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your move, Ken

Ken's bullshit about evolutionist woman is starting to piss me off a little. So I am offering him a challenge. Here is me with my evolution believing, atheist wife. Your move Ken, can you show me yourself with a "Long haired, creationist, wife sweetheart"? Do you have the machismo? (yes I know he can't - but the gauntlet has been thrown down nonetheless) Aceⁱ⁹ 04:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Acewife.jpg

your move, Kenny boy

Oooh, I want to play. Dear Ken, here's me and my gorgeous atheist wife. Let's see yours! (And yourself as well, please, unless you are too scared or embarrassed about how flabby you are). Carlaugust (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aye, touché! Brenden (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that a woman would get that close to ken and let her picture be taken.FailDeadly (talk)

Maybe another one of his "free use" clip art he found after 10 seconds of googling?Brenden (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, if Ken wanted to reciprocate,  the woman has to be "alive"? Oww, tough one for the person who may be a committee! Matzosphere (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the next /fyi Brenden (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI to ken: the P90X workout won't work that fast, the 90 represents 90 days not 90 minutes. Naca (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With due respect to Ace and the others involved, I find this discussion more than a bit embarrassing. Comparing photos of girlfriends to see who's the winner? Surely, we can do better than this. Phiwum (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think for Kendoll, whose every word drips with hypocrisy so thick you could dye it yellow and call is custard, it's a legitimate challenge. Evolutionists are too cowardly to debate? What debates have you been in Ken? Evolutionist women are cold fish, butch dykes? What's your girlfriend/wife/friend with benefits like? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Phiwum is right, we're trying to humiliate a 50-year old virgin who's biggest claim to romantic involvement is that he's been addressed, once or twice, as "dearest" in a letter from a lady. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure he wasn't addressed as "dearest" in an email from a Nigerian spam artist? That's happened to me a few times. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Dearest valued customer, we are writing to inform you your account is overdrawn...." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh well, I made my point. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's Reply

Summarized: Show me a 50 year anniversary picture. There's a secret cabal in CP. I don't want to show a picture of my beloved even though I demand you show me yours. I assume she doesn't act like women in the Bible. Linkspam linkspam linkspam. If a woman FEARS god, she's cool. Nothing new, but that "leftovers Christians leave on their plates" bit is just weird. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

oops, forgot to cap, but oh well, nothing worth saving. Lacking some machismo there, Ken? lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gone already? Ah well. Poking Ken with a stick just isn't fun anymore. It's just sad. The manchild becomes less coherent with each passing day and the more attention we pay him and his silly blog, the more he thinks he's winning and the more unhinged he gets. I know we always suggest it, and it always fails miserably (and I'm just as guilty) but maybe it's best - for his health, if not our amusement - if we ignore him for a bit. I know he's the only one doing anything notable on CP - which in itself speaks volumes - but playing on Ken's delusions is as bad as taking candy from thalidomide babies. And as easy. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 16:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that this is the sort of lovely long-haired creationist lady which "helps Ken sleep at night". (Who ref.) Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Rob loaned Ken his Kara Duhe collection? --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

damn, I missed the reply. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macheesmo doesn't really want people to read his replies, it just his way of saying 'fuck you' under his breath. Генгис^unbelieving 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So now people long for the halcyon days of the 70s?

"My overriding point is that the direction is wrong, going back 35 years, my lifetime..." This is getting way beyond ridiculous now. I'm accustomed to Conservatives of various stripes pining for the 50s, even if they weren't alive then, but, "holy shit, things were so much better in '78", is a fresh load of bullshit to me. The dumbest part is that he hits all the usual good things seemingly without any awareness that a lot of the "Scary Changes That Eroded Our Good Things" happened in the 60s and early 70s. It's a delusion even for the 50s to say abortion wasn't an issue, but how can someone who probably rages about Roe v. Wade in his spare time not realize that it happened about 5 years before he was born? I wonder if there's a psychological term for people's weird certainty that the world was perfect and perfectly conformed to them when they were six. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he may just be a shit writer, and half that stuff is intended be a hypothetical him that existed in a more perfect time before he was born. I have to remember these guys are just playing journalist. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the time before he was born is slightly better than after he was born on account of having one less him in the world. --Zipperback (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Trimming your problems away, the Andy way.

See no evil^img! Good old Andy, sweeping problems under the rug since 2007. Anything to keep the manchild who accounts for most of CP's edits happy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey! If it's not there, he doesn't have to respond to it. Of course, it's a big "fuck you" to the peons on his site, and now Ken will be even more unplayable "You ran to Andy, but Andy did nothing, so I'm right! Na-na-nana-na!" --PsyGremlin^Tal! 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What's really bizarre is the fact that Andy called the comments "non-substantive." It's as if he's implying that he AGREES that David Patraeus lacks machismo. Obviously it's doubtful that Andy does....I wonder if he lets his own kids get away with this much insanity? I can only guess that this might reflect on Andy's upbringing....WilliamR (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

...Andy has kids? --Revolverman (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You haven't been following this saga for long have you? One is called after him and the other is called after his mom (poor girl). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now this is very worrying

See a few sections above. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll move this post up there. AngryDalek (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Uganda will be killing gays soon! (unlike those faggy scandinavian countries)

Everyone's favourite schizophrenic is currently creaming himself over the fact that Uganda might be attempting to violently eradicate one of it's minorities this Christmas.^img This therefore is responsible for Uganda having a higher rate of birth, and thus makes it intrinsically better than the (and I quote) "perverse secular libertines in Sweden and Denmark". As always, I see little reason to pull apart the gibbering of a severely mentally ill manchild, but would this also not imply the US to be a "perverse libertine" nation? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, he's a revolting little man. He's actually celebrating that a country wants to put people to death for the crime of loving someone of their own sex. Kendoll, you've gone too far. You're a fucking monster. Go fuck off to Uganda and take Scott Lively and co. with you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Whats more revolting, ken saying it or the probability andy will do nothing more but maybe quietly vanish it? --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy probably agrees with Ken. I know Ed does. They're all a bunch of fuckwits over there, they'd kill people who don't think like them in a second if they thought they could get away with it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's to our eternal shame that white colonists indoctrinated Africans with Christianity. As Desmond Tutu said:

“”When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.

So cheering on the introduction of the death penalty for homosexuality is a real nadir for Ken Demyer. Is that what you call pro-life? Thankfully there are some sane people in Uganda such as Freethought Kampala, which I find quite heartening. Also I try to do my own small part by sponsoring scholarships for pupils at the Uganda Humanist Schools; we'd be grateful for any contributions. Генгис^marauding 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I bunged you lot 100 quid. Doesn't seem like doing a lot, but it's better than cheering on murderers I guess. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jeeves! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the death penalty (although that's obviously the worst bit). You can get years in jail for "abetting" homosexuality or not reporting your suspicions. It's a really, really odious law. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anger Bear rearguarding for Kendoll^img I see. Apparently it isn't Christians... because.. er... because brown people aren't Christian? I don't even know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh Kara. "It's not Christians," you say:

“”In this conservative east African country, Mugisha and other prominent gay rights campaigners say Bahati's initial bill was introduced directly after a March 2009 conference in Kampala that hosted representatives from the U.S. "ex-gay" movement. U.S. evangelical pastor Scott Lively, who spoke at the conference, said it focused on the "recovery from homosexuality" and warned Ugandans the gay movement sought to "homosexualise society" and undermine the institution of marriage.[1]

Apparently the death penalty clause has been removed. Still, "let's imprison people different to us!" I wonder where I've heard that before? --PsyGremlin^Hable! 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I seriously think Scott Lively and his ilk should be charged for attempting to instigate a genocide in Uganda. Whats worse is that you can tell from interviews where he is called out on his bullshit that the sole reason he chose Uganda to spew his filth is because there he can not only get away with it, but have his utterly insane and painfully obvious lies accepted as gospel truth by a majority of the population, and thus see his preaching lead to genuine persecution and suffering. Hes just a sick little shit on a power trip Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Look people, as much as I share the outrage about the 'law' and the positive comments it has received please cut the armchair psychiatry. Bandying words like schizophrenic around especially as some sort of insult are frankly offensive to anyone affected by mental health issues. I very much doubt that you will be able to raise yourselves out of the same sewer as Conservapedia but it would be nice if you tried. Sphincter (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh... im fine with stopping calling Kenny schizophrenic (even though I honestly was not using it as an insult) but how exactly are we in "the same sewer as Conservapedia"? When people call Ken out, its not because he is mentally ill, it is because he is a bigoted, hatefull little shitstain Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.^img He seems to be supporting genocide here.^img I don't even no how to express this properly..but Conservative's thread of logic is terrifying. He seems to think that conducting genodice against gay people is "ok" because they're probably, as his articles allege , bad people who would hurt society if they were left alive. Andrew Schlafly, if you are reading this: this man could be a ticking time bomb. He might seem benign and impotent, but there's some horrifying, almost serial-killer esq undertones in some of his more recent writings. User: Conservative can be a reasoned person at times, but if you keep on allowing him to think that this sort of mentality is "acceptable," you're only fueling his decay.WilliamR (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the most amazing bit of his disgusting screed is where he talks about cost-benefit analysis. Because, that's just what Jesus taught us. If society benefits from killing off a particular group of people, then that's just what Jesus would do. Phiwum (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, with Conservative's "Turn or burn" quote, I think that Brenden has a legitimate case of conservative threatening /harassing him,going beyond the usual trolling. Were this a more reasonable wiki, Conservative could be reprimanded for his actions. Sadly, this is not the caseWilliamR (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that Conservapedia knows very well - and since a long time - what thet Ugandese bill is about. An older version of the article about Uganda says "This bill would have done a lot to prevent the spread of AIDS in a continent already ravaged by the disease, and is punishment sanctioned by God in the Bible for homosexuality. In true liberal fashion, members promoting the gay agenda worldwide, including President Obama, pressured the Ugandan parliament to drop the legislation, interfering with the rights of a democratic government to make laws based on the will of the people, and the rights of people to practice their religion." http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uganda&action=historysubmit&diff=920471&oldid=689951 To be fair: Andy didn't write anything in that article, and the section has been edited later.

Seriously? I knew they were homophobes at Conservapedia but I never thought they'd go as far as to support the death penalty for it. Plus, it is overwhelmingly stupid that they think Uganda's high fertility is due to "machismo" and not the fact that it has one of the highest infant mortality rates on Earth, while Denmark and Sweden have amongst the lowest. AngryDalek (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been a long time lurker, and this is my first post. Wow... look at this exchange on this site's main Talk Page. A user (GSalmeron) asks Ken how is his plan to exterminate gays any different than what the Nazi's did against Jews and gays, and Ken starts accusing the user of being a liberal homo, and refuses to answer the questions. Geez, how can someone even "think" this way?! Loro-rojo (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This really happened, or, Everything I know about pro football, I learned from Andy Schlafly.

So I've been in NY for a little while for work-related stuff. I was at the laundromat the other day, and the guy using the machine beside mine looked up from his paper and said something like, "man, the Giants are really sucking this year, huh?" Now, I don't really follow sports all that closely anymore, and I haven't watched an NFL game in several years--but doing laundry is boring, so I figured a little conversation would help pass the time. So I said to the guy: "Never mind that. How about the Jets? I can't believe how they're not playing Tebow just because of his conservative views on abortion. They'd rather lose than give a conservative Christian a chance to excel. Typical liberals." The guy just gave me a confused look and went back to reading his paper. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Andy in public is an extreme sport. --Revolverman (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy should have his own reality show. We're probably missing a whole bunch of good stuff. Things like this likely happen to him for real all the time. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We need to convince Andy to run for President in 2016. He'll lose, badly, of course, but that would get him a regular gig on Fox News for years to come. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Schlafly/Hurlbut '16 ticket would be even more fun than the Bachmann/Palin ticket. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 12:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so much fun as a Schlafly/Demyer ticket. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What's fascinating to me is that all of the ridiculous shit we've heard Andy spew over the years is the product of at least some level of forethought. Since we haven't invented the direct thought-to-text editor... every stupid essay, lesson, insight, and article we've seen out of Andy has been the product of some level consideration. I picture an off-the-cuff Andy would be simply surreal. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, how are a Tebow-less Broncos doing this year? --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 07:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I just looked it up. I know nothing of American football, nor what a power ranking is, but I know it must be bad for Timmy Tebow when the Broncos are at number 8 and the Jets are at number 28. Only reason I give two shits for the Broncos is becauise of South Park. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Power rankings are a (subjective) ranking of where each team falls in the league. Since American Football doesn't have a point system (like futball), it's very hard to see exactly how the teams stack up against each other. Going strictly by record, The Jests are getting hammered. They're 4 and 6, currently sitting in second place in the division (only because their competition, which sadly includes my Miami Dolphins, suck). The Broncos meantime are 7 and 3, first in their division and Manning, Tebow's replacement, is in talks for MVP this season. I will say though, part of me wants NY to play Tebow. He sucks. Big time. If he were played, he'd get destroyed and then I'd love to see Andy rationalize his way around it. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 09:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Easily. "Outspoken conservative Christian thrown to the lions. By deliberately not playing Tim Tebow, liberal Democrat supporters of the NY Jets, set Tim Tebow up to fail, by denying him valuable game time and then expecting him to perform miracles, when their liberal policies had failed. The fact that he only threw 158 yards, instead of his God-given 316 yards, if proof of this." --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 09:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a reference to Revelation 15:8 - And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, 316 / 2 = 158... -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Dang, the Jets don't play Detroit this year. That way, Tebow could get thrown to the Lions. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer Psy's question, the Broncos are 7-3, which is a pretty solid record within itself. More importantly they have a three game lead in their division with six games left; so it is very likely "overrated sports star" Manning will have the Broncos in the playoffs as the division champs for the AFC West. This of course is why neither Manning or the Broncos are mentioned in any way by Andy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's fractal delusions.

EVIL LIEBRULS blocking adult stem cell advaances!^img. Only the article has nothing to do with stem cells, nor are anyone blocking the use of adult stem cells, nor is this going to be any help to any paralyzed human. Andy manages to pack so much wrong in to such a short paragraph, how the hell does he do it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In Andy's mind, liberals and abortionists are determined to kill as many babies as possible, and so seek to impugn adult stem cells in order to justify more abortions (to procure embryonic stem cells)--"Shut up, Brx." 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paging Mister Godwin

There's a Mr. Conservative for you on line three.^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Ken, because austerity riots are all about evolution. I think their WP article needs a picture update. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly Golden Dawn is bad on CP? If anyone remembers, Andy supported that chick in the olympics who was kicked out for her tweets in support of Golden Dawn, calling it "just criticism". Brillo pad of logic. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Link below this one about low approval rating of France's president (Sarkovsky? I don't even know who it is)..."Obama's socialism is similar". I think I speak for most liberals in the United States by saying, "if only!"

Also...why are they using a Chinese newspaper site as a reference?-- Seth Peck (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh. This is all somewhat entertaining, but can't match a real Ken gem like "Plus, when Jesus Christ returns, liberalism will end and there is plenty of evidence Christianity is true. Why fight against inevitability? " (Mind you, I consider myself a Christian and fairly ambivalent on the conservative/liberal scale, but boy, what a weird thing to say.) Phiwum (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I can think of no better evidence that god is just your external projection of your inner monologue than this "Jesus supports my political party/sports team/social group" talk. Thanks Ken for once again undermining religion just by existing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, silly! Ken is literally delusional, as we all know. He refers to his (perhaps pretend) chick as his "beloved". He doesn't undermine really anything more than his own particular activities --- literally speaking, he doesn't even undermine creationism or its political or scientific plausibility because, as we all know, the boy is literally deluded! Phiwum (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The sports team made it too. Maybe it will be like the book of Exodus. God is allowing the Jets management team's hearts to be hardened. And after the Jets suffer plagues of losing, Tebow will lead the Jets into the promised land of a Super Bowl victory! Whoover (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Just saw this was wigoed. I may have to make an exception to my voting down Ken stuff. I hate when I feed trolls. Whoover (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is worse with Ken's Jets statement, the ignorance of how football works or that they believe their god is so petty that he would go through all this effort just to punish a football team over the fact they don't play one of their players enough.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WAIT. Seth's comment made me think. Andy is gloating over the fact that the French leader has a low approval rating of 41%, right? A full 16% higher than G.W. Bush's low record? What the heck is that supposed to prove? That Frenchmen hate socialism, but less than Americans hate compassionate conservatism? Phiwum (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There's only one thing to know and that is that Andy will cherry-pick ANY fact, statistic or headline that superficially supports his point. This is known Schlafly Skimming. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some stats, ken style

Ladies love the Machismo site that is conservapedia^img, Oops, Wrong place^img , that's better^img The marginally more accurate than conservapedia site that is Alexa says the is too much machismo at CP and not enough long haired creationist ladies. Also why would anyone cite conservapedia except to ridicule it Naca (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it--"Shut up, Brx." 00:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenny boy's latest crush, Janice Shaw Crouse, seems to have cited ken's conservapedia's hatchet piece article on planned parenthood. Which has led him to the conclusion that ladies love the lies machismo that makes up conservapedia. Naca (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, if something appeals to ladies, doesn't that make it feminine, not masculine? Ladies love ponies, shoe shopping, pink flowers, conservapedia, fruity drinks, etc. DickTurpis (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that this woman doesn't have long hair and is pretty fat--"Shut up, Brx." 01:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I see she's described as the new Phyllis Schlafly, so that already speaks volumes. Also, looking at images on Google, his conservative moll also appears to be morbidly obese. I wonder how Ken explains that. --PsyGremlin^講話 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In Ken's defense, he does practice honesty in advertising. Check out the matador pic he uses while bragging about his personal popularity. There's no one in the stands. Phiwum (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Did practice honesty. Hi ken, your more than welcome to use User:Newton or create another sock Naca (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Ken is having to search the depths of his closet in a desparate bid to come up with a conservative lady, as this "news" comes from February 2011. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because some woman links to a CP article of which Ken happens to be principle author makes him attractive to the ladies? Ken, does she want to have your babies? I don't think so! Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 11:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty funny that he took the time to change the photo. Yes, that makes him look much less ridiculous. Phiwum (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he is responding to comments here is an extremely sad validation of his worthlessness. This whole "conservative ladies really like me" smacks of Shakespeare - The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just hovering over the PDF link shows February 2011. Did he just now realize that? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It just shows the lasting power of Ken-servatism! Olé! Olé! Olé! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fun to look at what is being cited here. Whoever this lady is took a piece of the CP article about how a dad in California didn't like Planned Parenthood, so he bitched until some school blocked the site. Does no one at CP see the irony in being cited for a story about censoring alternative viewpoints in school?? Isn't that the exact thing they're always complaining about over there? Imagine how enraged they'd be if a school blocked some "Pray Away the Gay" site. Carlaugust (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Censoring alternate viewpoints is fine if said viewpoints are liberal. Sophie^Wilder 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see "school block(ed)" I immediately think of vandal fighting/RC Patrolling at Wikipedia. 69.194.230.43 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's hidden changes and love for Justin Bieber

Ken recently added a long screed on how a particular blog page has received 250,000 hits. Andy edited the MPR entry (along with a few others) with the excuse that he wanted to keep recent news items visible. I notice now that Andy's edit of Ken's post is missing from recent changes. The change is still there, but either Andy or Ken decided that it was embarrassing enough to hide the evidence.

I guess this must happen somewhat often, but it's the first time I noticed such a trivial little affront by Andy being hidden by either him or Ken. Phiwum (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Lordy, who cares. Now Andy has Bieber fever. He's scrubbing Bieber's glowing comments on socialized medicine from the CP article as we speak.

It's one thing to have a mancrush on Tebow, who is at least a full-growed man. I don't care if Bieber has turned eighteen; he's still a little boy marketed to little girls. Phiwum (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone wigo it? I'm still green here. Frullic (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly <3 Justin Bieber^img Naca (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind that Bieber called the US evil for not having universal healthcare--"Shut up, Brx." 05:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not according to andy, he was just uninformed on the evils of universal healthcare^img. I wonder is some of bieber's tunes will start appearing as great conservative songs Naca (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That gives me an idea :) Damo^Hi 06:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hes a Birber fan? Holy shit. Andy schlafly is without doubt the most confusing person I've ever observed in my life. You don't know how much money I'd pay to be able to go into his mind, 'The Cell' style. --Revolverman (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou is way crazier. If Andy says it's Rolling Stones magazine and garbles grammar, it's Rolling Stones magazine and grammar should be garbled.^img And ban the bastard that says different. Whoover (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good old Kara - nobody gets to make Andy look like an idiot, except Andy. Got it, peons? Also, if it's true that Bieber's mom refused to abort him, that should make him the poster boy for abortion: "So, you don't want to terminate those cells developing inside you? Well, just remember, they could result in this... a soul-less, spiritless sucker of Satan's cock" --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 08:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at how little room there is for nuance in Andy's World. He literally cannot accept that someone can be both anti-abortion and pro-government healthcare. Does he really not have the ability to agree with someone on some issues and not on others? Nevermind.... I know the answer to that, SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

When you're an outlier the statistical bins can be solitary places. Генгис^marauding 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia Day

Dear Jpatt. Please, please, please post a follow up to Conservapedia at four.^img I'd love to hear how Conservapedia at 6 has crushed Wikipedia, ushered in a conservative government, abolished abortion, evolution and homosexuality. Perhaps tell us when last CP was mentioned in the news, without the accompaniment of laughter. Or maybe how Andy's "largest classes in the world" are coming along.

I'll say one thing for you, you were 100% correct when you said, "there is nothing that compares to Conservapedia." And yet, you guys still let Ken edit. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"We all need to give thanks for the opportunity to express conservative ideals which are always under a microscope and censored by academia." This is a beautiful quote right there. "Examine and censor". That's our motto. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the old days, before even I was born, there were travelling circuses which had freak-shows; CP is the modern equivalent. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Elephant-in-the-room Man; The Mysterious Man of Many Parts; Mr Perpetually Angry... --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 16:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bearded Conservative Lady and The Psychic Pschlafly - Man of Amazing Insights. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"you can't talk Wikipedia without discussing Conservapedia." Except that just about everyone does. Johnny seems to think CP is as prominent as Wikipedia, apparently unaware that most people have never heard of it. While it's not a perfect measure, if you google Wikipedia you get over a billion hits. Conservapedia gives you about half a million. I think there is a little bit of Wikipedia discussion sans Conservapedia going on. DickTurpis (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Google and Facebook are hiding Conservapedia, just like the rest of the Lamestream Media. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Another comparison. Google news hits for WP: over 100,000. For CP? One. A blog that dismissively mentions it in passing. But I'm sur there are many other mentions google is hiding. DickTurpis (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Monty Python;s old Election Night sketch. "Wikipedia: one hundred thousand, five hundred and eight six. Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel-pedia: Naught. Conservapedia: One." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

<pedantry>Tarquin won his seat for the Silly Party. It was Kevin Phillips Bonnnngggggg who got none. And Mitt Romney.</pedantry> rpeh •T•C•E• 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That sketch has a lot to answer for. I remember when it first came out we were about to have elections for president of the students' union. Instead of the usual handful of 'serious' candidates there were suddenly more than 50 people standing so that at the lunchtime hustings, instead of the normal 15-20 minutes each, the candidates each had less than 2 minutes to deliver their speeches. At that time you only needed 2 people to nominate you so one of my mates decided to run as well and was given a small sum for campaigning expenses which was dutifully imbibed by a small group of us in the students' bar. After that they greatly increased the number of signatures you needed to stand. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

According the Kenny Boy's beloved Alexa, Wikipedia gets around 13% of global Internet users daily while Conservapedia gets around 0.0035% So when JPatt says Conservapedia is 1/10th the size, it only receives roughly 1/3000th of the traffic.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, sure, if you use liberal math. X Stickman (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the sort with Arabic numbers, right? --Kels (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not worthy of a WIGO

User: Andy, your response to criticism of how you run this site is to trim the criticism!^img

Andy: Trim the criticism.^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To be absolutely accurate about that, it was Karajerk who reverted. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I hang my head in shame. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 20:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that come under this? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, that post was ripe for "trimming". Seriously, what legitimate editor would make their first post to CP one complaining about "Ken"?. There is nobody by the name of Ken who edits at CP as far as they're concerned. Mere mention of the name marks you as a liberal troll from the get-go. Come on, you have to play the game smarter than that, if you insist on playing it. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you mention "Ken" at all, you're there to make a point, not to be diplomatic or conniving. Just a thoughtWilliamR (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy on the Biblical Authors

"Though written by ordinary people who spoke Greek as their second language, the New Testament is remarkably free of grammatical errors"^img It's hard to know where to start with the problems in that sentence. --Damo^Hi 04:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that Andy thinks the Gospels were eye-witness accounts, written by fishermen, and a child, instead of the general consensus that they were all written decades after the alleged events. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 04:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I would hope it's free of grammatical errors after 2000 years of editing. Carlaugust (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda curious how Andy knows it's free of errors. If I recall correctly, he does the Greek translation using online resources and doesn't actually know ancient Greek. So, who told him that there's no grammar issues? Or how did he come to that conclusion? (This is probably one of the problems Damo had in mind, too.) Phiwum (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you not met Andy "fuck consistency, I have oversight" Schlafly before? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 17:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It takes great genius to be profoundly stupid. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is further amusing since the first copies we have are from the 400's and even then, there are major holes. And i'm not even sure how one could attest to being "free of grammatical errors", when there are huge holes in our understanding of ancient languages. Hell, i'm not sure you could even look at something of Shakespere's and say it's markedly error free.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Silence, woman! Andy be teaching English. Therefore, as the best of the public, he is completely qualified to pronounce on the perfection of the Greek documents. Deny this and lose all credibility. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Phiwum. Yes that, also the facts that all the manuscripts we have are quite different, they were obviously corrected and altered when they were copied, and that some of the books famously have awful grammar (Revelation is written in spectacularly awful Greek apparently). Damo^Hi 22:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

maybe Google translate comes up with meaningful english from the greek ? doubtful but could happen. Hamster (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Headlines ending in a question mark.

Why, no, Ms. Unsanitary^img, no he wouldn't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Betteridge's law of headlines. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, Ken, really, read what you write...

The sweet smell of Jesus Christ?^img Honestly, you don't think that sounds creepy and, dare I say it, gay? More specifically, gay for the son of God, savior of all mankind? And you talk about how he smells, as if you've just awakened next to him, with your nose nestled in those curly, fragrant locks?

Nah, never mind. Doesn't sound creepy or gay at all. Totally full of machismo. Put a picture of a matador next to it, and everyone will be suitably impressed. (Not that there's anything wrong with homosexuality in general, but it's more than a little distasteful for a putative conservative and gay-bashing Christian to suggest he has a hard-on for the messiah.) Phiwum (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do I imagine that even now Kendoll is franticly googling to try and find some statistic about the perfume buying habits of religious groups so he can write a million "essays" about how bad atheists smell? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Myrrh for Men? Also, wasn't it odd that there were never any female apostles? What was that all about then? Генгис^unbelieving 19:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All the 'stench of Dawkins' stuff reminded me of this scene from the piss-stain masterpiece Troll 2. Grumblejaws (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"I want to get on my knees and start pleasing Jesus. I wanna feel his salvation all over my face!" Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's post is one of the gayest things I've ever seen. And I once saw two men having intercourse. Carlaugust (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Phiwum: I'm sorry, but whenever anyone uses the word "putative" now, I just can't help but think of Hurlbutt howling at the moon over at CNAV. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 14:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Popeye: Gay men want to rape your kids.

As if Kendoll wasn't loathsome enough, Anger Bear gets in on the act^img with a new blog post. These days it seems like the only difference between CP and Westboro Baptist is that CP's denizens are too cowardly to tell people they hate fags to their faces. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that that he is slander the voice of Elmo, he neglects to mention that his accuser recanted his accusation. I guess innocent until proven guilty only counts for people you likeAMassiveGay (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the two accusers recanted. The other one is still accusing. --Kels (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I clearly hadn't followed the story closely enoughAMassiveGay (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was JIm Bob's neighbor worried he would rape her daughters. I don't get it. 01:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if now their side the lost the election, these nutjobs will get even more extreme?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind Creepy Uncle Ed, Kara's little parables always make my skin crawl. I'll never forget the one he told Jess, where he equated her posting here as Tokyo Rose to somebody in her house, stalking her, while she was in the bath. Oh and Kara, you don't need there to be gays in the boy scouts to abuse kids, they've already been covering up the abuse for years. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 04:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Kara, to his credit, already mentions the fact the Boy Scouts covered abuse allegations, unless he only added that part after you mentioned it here.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I always get depressed when Kara (and admittedly most other CP admins - though not to the same degree) tries to imagine how a liberal would act or react. Really, how does somebody fail this badly at trying look at things from another POV? --Sid (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh Kara, don't ever change

Boss! Boss! Somebody's saying mean things about you! But it's ok, because I've stalked him with checkuser and he's using the wi-fi at a restaurant. Let me phone the manager and tell him!^img Can I? Can I? Please? Please? Huh? Huh? And now? How about now?

What a little man you are. Maybe I should take you "camping." You'd look good in heels and a boa. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine being the manager on the other end: "There are forty people here using WiFi and you called us during lunch rush." -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd enjoy hearing that call. "Hey! One of your patrons totally expressed his disapproval of the Uganda kill the gays bill on a public forum! Arrest him! Call the FBI! Shoot him! Poison him with some bad deli bread!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC)−

I'm not sure what's more amusing; how Kowardjerk gets all excited about shit like this, or that he thinks anyone would actually give a fuck!. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see Arken's Law getting a hold of this one fairly quickly... -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Easy way out would be for there to be an opt-out list where right-wing sites that are worried about people criticizing them could be blocked from being viewed from public places. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can persuade wingnuts that the internet is too liberal, and that they should establish a global carrier pigeon network to bring their message to masses. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess he's also too stupid to realize that when you get on free wifi in a big chain restaurant like that, your IP will usually not match at all where you actually are. You could be on McDonald's wifi in Idaho and a checkuser could place you in New Jersey. Not that that's common knowledge, but you would think that someone who deals with checkuser as much as kare bear would know that.--BigHotKarl (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Koward thinks RSS is the bleeding edge in spy technology, it's a bit much to expect him to understand how IPs actually work. --Kels (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou has long tried to "get people in trouble" for their actions on CP, and it doesn't seem like knowledge of IP's would really stop him. This is the same person who wants to write letters to someone's Air Force CO, as if they would actually care... (I doubt he actually sent that letter, but the point stands). άλφα^Ταλκ 02:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It must kill him inside that all he got in the navy was some near useless fuckwit who only got his rank though sheer time served. --Revolverman (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to remind him that he now sucks off the public tit through his subsidised further education. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone ever follow up on this? Do we know if this supposed airman actually got anything from Kara's angry dance? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit. As soon as I saw "Hurlburt Field" I got a strange feeling about this, and the unit confirmed it. Kara actually thought that Air Force Special Operations Command would discipline one of their senior NCOs for socking on a wiki?? By writing demented emails to a special forces unit, it's almost guaranteed that Popeye has earned himself a nice little FBI file all of his own.--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.} 12:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Early voting

I know this Andy's new thing, but what is he gibbering about?^img

“”It is a liberal gimmick that has the effect of partially disenfranchising the value of informed votes on Election Day.

Is he saying that people who vote early aren't informed? That early voting shouldn't be allowed, because liberals use it and screw democracy? Or is his just foaming at the mouth again? --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a kernel of truth to the idea that early voting is tied to how informed an electorate is. One election post-mortem I read described how the Obama camp had a collective shit fit after the first debate because some people already had their early ballots in hand on the night that their candidate turned in a shitty debate performance in Denver--they were worried that people might cast their votes that night/the next day based on that debate, giving Obama no time to do any damage control/turn it back around. Imagine how you might feel if you cast your ballot two weeks before the election, and the next day your candidate makes a sudden turnaround on an issue you care deeply about, or just starts foaming at the mouth and goes off the deep end. You can't take it back. While I'm largely in favuur of early voting and giving every person as much of a chance to cast a vote as possible, one of the risks is that not everyone is casting a ballot with the same amount of information on each candidate-every day produces new statements by and the potential for new discoveries about the candidates. 64.134.175.71 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) People who vote early can no longer be swayed by Republican mud-slinging in the final days.. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

AugustO vs Iduan

What's the backstory with Iduan?Percival (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He's been at CP for years but he was away for a long time. He appears to have returned as an authoritarian twat. He is just sucking up to Andy in his exchange with AugustO. It looks like on his return he wants to be the next Bugler or TK. --Damo^Hi 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice his blatant regurgitation of Andy's misuse of the word "meritocracy." Does anyone actually believe that a setting in which the most regular users/the ones closest to the leader are the ones with the most rights is a form of meritocracy? It boggles the mind.WilliamR (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

CP is set up exactly like the mafia. You put in your time doing shit work in dirty conditions, and hope you come to the positive notice of your bosses. If you do, you get to be a made man and can exploit the peons to your hearts content, safe in the knowledge you can only be whacked with approval of the godfather. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I think you summed that up nicely. *sips* Now go home and get your fucking shine box! DickTurpis (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you do know what happened to the guy that said that Dick? --Damo^Hi 00:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was a made man. Untouchable. Nobody knows what happened to him. He came into the joint that one night, and then he just disappeared. That was it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy is Paulie, Ken is Tommy, Karajou is Jimmy, TK is Henry, Rob is Billy Batts. Lots of Spiders. It would be really, really cool if Ed were to play Morrie. Burndall (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Come on Burndall; Rob is obviously Henry Hill. He has betrayed the group. --Damo^Hi 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rob went away for a while, came back, got into a conflict of egos with Ken, got the everliving shit kicked out of him, got stabbed to death, and was briefly dug up again before being reburied. TK was the stool pigeon. Oh, and Iduan is Lois. Burndall (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that Iduan was a reasonable editor who was trying hard to be a sysop. What happened since?--Buscombe (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC Iduan is not religious but like many people in the early days of CP tried to play the game of being promoted to sysop when, despite Andy's insistence of CP being a meritocracy, it was only given to his trusted homeskolars. When they lost interest he had to bring in outsiders so that by and large the more that you were like one of the current goon squad then the better your chances of success. Iduan got screwed when (apparently) someone from his school posted something offensive using his account. That set him back a while but even after all this time he obviously still wants to get that sysopship, so sees being a sycophantic thuggish asshole as his best chance as trying the fair, hard-working, wiki-gnome route failed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why CP will never be respectable, part ∞

"Bishop" Bert: Spam^img, spam^img, spam^img, spam^img ... (and so on, for over a dozen pages)
Random Peon: Woah, dude! Spamming isn't cool^img!
JPratt: Bah! It's only one page^img! What's the big deal?
Popeye: Spam on, bish^img. Spamming your blog is totally cool with me.

Who needs wandals with janitors like these? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy, Testicleless. --Revolverman (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well they can't exactly stop Bert doing it when all he is doing is replicating the only things that kenny boy and flingbotty ever do can they? If they slap bert down for link spaming then kenny and terry need to be stopped and all editing will stop, Oldusgitus (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

<capture>More peons get in on the action.^img</capture>

Nothing new here. CP has always allowed this sort of thing. Anything that fits their POV, no matter how inane, pointless, or self-serving. DickTurpis (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't actually watch football

Apparently. The commentary on the game was filled with mentions of Tebow not being an option due to a rib injury. And I would be surprised to find an article that didn't mention it. I guess it's another case of low reading comprehension. Of course, the possibility that Andy is just being dishonest is ever present. And I can't wait to see him shift the blame if Tebow ever plays. The Jet's liberal offensive line would rather let Tebow get sacked... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I watched that game. The Jet fans did start to chant "Tebow, Tebow" until the last two minutes of the game when absolutely nothing could be done to change the Jets' fortune given they would need four touchdowns plus two point conversions to win. The audience didn't then empty of because Tebow wasn't placed on the field, they had begun to file out long before when it became obvious who was going to win the game. Besides, Sanchez (the Jets quarterback) did pretty well 26 completions for 36 attempts for 301 yards; 1 TD 1 INT; overall rating: 94.8. What killed the Jets was receivers dropping balls and fumbles, and the Jets' defense not applying any pressure, Tebow would have made no difference there, the whole team is just outclassed. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If there was a god, I'd say he enjoys trolling Andy, since out of every problem the jets have, the QB isn't one. --Revolverman (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely with a True Outspoken Christian leading them, the Jets would have been much more inspired to play and would have won by quite a margin. «-Bfa-» 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a god, It should be trolling Andy to teach a lesson for assuming It is so petty as to care about a football game.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll: Creationist Moses

Just 40 more years^img of wandering in a desert of meaningless blog posts and maybe you'll get somewhere, eh Ken? Today's potted Kendoll wisdom: "The best ideas are inspired by inspiration." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"It [creation.com] is now is a US 19,889 ranked site which means it is the 19,889th most popular website in America." Thanks for explaining that, Ken. I wouldn't have had a clue what it meant otherwise. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I swear I'm about to do to myself what Joseph Gordon Levitt did at the end of Looper. Faith in humanity GONE. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Cantabrigian, but did you realise it's also the 19,889th most popular site in the United States, while in the United States of America it's the 19,889th most popular site? I believe it also ranks 19,889 in the USA. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Those (obviously obese) fools at whatever site is 19,890 are pooping their pants with machismolessness! Meanwhile the internet is for Pr0n....need I say, NSFW? Matzosphere (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

NSFW? NSF fucking home either - my missus has just had a fit! 22:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My browser won't load any of the videos :( --Umichcynic (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever Ken says something like that, I always want to remind him that the majority of the web traffic at creation.com is from people who go there to laugh at it.--Umichcynic (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody with a foot in both camps, please get on to CP's main page talk and tell Ken this. You've got nothing to crow about which means that, once again, your "news" is not news.--Spud (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that in creationist circles Creation.com should be one of top sites and yet it is ranked at nearly 20,000. This is equivalent in popularity to CP's Hygd article where only a small change in visitor numbers can move a sites popularity by 100's of places. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What in the ever-loving holy fuck?

I just had to capture this^img for posterity. I don't think any comment of mine can do it justice. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I use oversight freely^img to hide my mountain of edits, he says. Now, why is Ken relating to a COMMIE way of thinking? Why is someone like him relating to ying and yang in an ironic sense? Maybe he just needs a little wang? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The link is dead but I assume by the URI that you're talking about the newest trolling from "Conservative". He needs to stop trash talking psychiatry and go back to the inpatient facility he lived at. I cannot believe Karajou and Andy Schlafly are letting him run wild like this. And for goodness sakes you don't talk about a man's wife or family. Ever. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. "I know all about Chinese philosophy but can't spell 'yin'" seems to have put up and deleted a red telephone message before anyone actually noticed it. I know the boy is literally mentally ill, but he is doubtless the most chicken-shit fella I've ever come across, despite his stellar reputation with obese middle-aged ladies and his fine collection of matador photos. Phiwum (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about the red telephone, if it is forbidden to mention or try to engage with RationalWiki at CP, what excuse has Andy given for not nuking Ken? in fact does andy even know about the Red Telephone, and if so has he ever said anything about it? I know this is fairly minor inconsistancies in the midst of ultimate bugfuck insanity, but it has been bugging me. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy is remarkably hypocritical and inconsistently enforces the rules about people he considers "valuable". This has been well known for a while. After all, User:Conservative should just delete his account and recreate it with his real name and initial (it would take about 5 minutes, Andy could restate all his rights, he would lose his edit count but vanity isn't a Christian virtue and his work would remain there). But, well, compartmentalization is an important skill for fundamentalists and Andy's ability to ignore things that are right in his face is legendary. --Sasayaki (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sasayaki, this gets even sillier when you remember that CP has the ability to rename accounts. Ken just has to supply a name, and Andy can move everything over to the new name with a few clicks. Andy simply "lacks machismo" and finds it easier to pretend that there are no problems. --Sid (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Qu'est ce que c'est "Red Telephone"? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See here...oh, nevermind. Well, Conservative posts messages for RW in his edit comments and user subpages, such as this one. He then deletes and oversights them, often before anybody even notices. (Or if you meant the name itself, see here...) 99.50.98.145 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Before it gets oversighted

GregG and Ken have a fight.^img Naca (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It simply wouldn't do if that fat fuck was questioned now, would it?Percival ^{Aldrige Grainger} 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is hardly the first time Kendoll has drawn the ire of everybody but karebear and the king, though. I hardly believe it would change anything. Red telephone to Greg I'm pretty sure we have copies of every ken/fyi here too.Percival ^{Aldrige Grainger} 03:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry! GregG has posted on Andy's talk page. That's bound to get results. Phiwum (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So there's a "mail" subpage because his actual talk page is locked...and now he's locked that too.^img For once Ken manages to make me laugh. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Andy insight

Why are abortions down?^img Because a lot of the folks who would've had abortions don't like Obama, because he's in favor of legalized abortions. So, out of spite, they decided to carry the fetus to term. That's why. It's all because people hate Obama (who was, of course, just re-elected, but that's due to liberal cheats like early voting). Which suggests, of course, that a committed pro-life advocate should be voting for hated pro-choicers like Clinton and Obama. Because it saves babies. Don't you want to save babies? Phiwum (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I missed the discussion three sections up. Sorry. Phiwum (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy day?

Pardon my ignorance of your strange colonial customs, but does anyone apart from the Glorious Leader really consider Thanksgiving to be a Holy day^img, on which people are expected to sit at home and read the Bible? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed it's been WIGOed. Still, the question stands. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I love the way Andy Schlafly of all people is using 'underachiever' as an insult. Vulpius (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes Andy's house sound the most godawful place on the planet. Everybody else is eating an drinking, catching up with family... in the Schalfly residence, Pater, Mater and offspring sit round the table in silence, with only a glass of water and a cracker each. Total silence reigns, save for the rustle of pages as they work their way through photocopied pages of the Conservative Bible... --PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh... you honestly think Schlafly's wife and kids give their pathetic loser patriach even the barest amount of respect? Given andy's uncanny ability to let his sysops walk all over him and his beloved Conservapedia (remember he sees this as his god appointed mission in life and one of humanity's greatest achievements) with impunity, even when they blatantly insult him and his beliefs (i.e. Ken and Catholics), and given how much of a trembling little bitch he is whenever he is even slightly confronted on his bullshit in real life (see vids of him being interviewed or his court cases), I would say his wife and kids are probably having a whale of a time this thanksgiving, while Andy is just following his Phyllis related upbringing in doing whatever the woman in his life tells him to do before scuttling off to the internet to blow off steam by playing internet tough guy Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I do find it a little amusing that we chastise Andy for his anti-consumer message while we boost "Buy Nothing Day" in out banner. DickTurpis (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is how I visualize Schlafly http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00f4f37 ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.182.139.80 / talk / contribs}

I'll answer that as an American. Thanksgiving is considered a national holiday here and not a religious holiday, the best example of the latter would be Easter and Good Friday. Even Christmas isn't viewed as entirely as a religious holiday but more of the biggest national one (truthfully seen as an international holiday). Andy is technically correct as in "holiday" stems from "holy day" but the word has evolved over time with its meaning; I don't see how one could argue that New Year's, Independence Day, or Labor Day are "holy days".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not Independence Day. There's nothing holy about rebelling against the leader appointed over you by God, His Not At All Insane Majesty King George III.--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.} 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy seriously think that people should just sit at home and read the Bible for the whole day, or recite prayers like Gregorian monks? Knowing the state of the underclass in the US where holidays (as in time off from work, not religious days of obligation) are at a premium then saving some precious bucks at the sales is a pretty sensible thing to do. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Only real reason I could see Andy grousing about people shopping on Thanksgiving (something I don't recall him doing before actually) is because a strong Black Friday showing would suggest an economic upswing and that is something he definitely doesn't want to see while Obama's in the big chair. Pretty sure if it were Romney the one on his way to the Oval Office right now Andy would be wanking like high school sophomore during a field trip to the Playboy mansion about how "Real Americans" were out in force helping Mitt turn the economy around and not glutting themselves like those lazy, unpatriotic, overweight and godless liberals. Or...$#!+ like that. --Tygrehart

My first thought was that maybe the early shoppers on Thursday had bagged all of the available stock for something he planned to buy on Friday. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You can skip this bit, it's just a couple of RWers having a row

Oh noes!! Good Vibrations has run out of Ken-shaped butt plugs??!--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.} 00:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Using sexual orientation as a way to make fun of people! That's hilarious! You're brilliant!! I've never encountered such insightful wit before. It's so funny! Because, like, fags and stuff. Right?!!? Fucking stop it. Don't be an asshole. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? oh you! --Revolverman (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, because ONLY gay people would ever use buttplugs... right? dont accuse people of being homophobic because they joke about something you think is gay, as it makes you look far more of a homophobe. Wait until someone actually uses homosexuality as an insult before going on a rampage. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to lecture me on who might use a particular toy. But seriously? Someone is referring to a buttplug in conjunction with insulting Ken and it's not meant to invoke homosexuality? I know you're a relative newbie here, but that'ts absolutely ridiculous. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, i don't think its meant to invoke homosexuality. Homosexuality is sexual attraction/activity with someone of the same gender, and from a cultural standpoint I am not aware that the Buttplug is a foundation stone of gay subculture. I thought it was meant to invoke him self-pleasuring on his own with it while thinking of how he crushed evolution this week. A butt plug is just a sex toy, one that can literally be used on everyone which makes it pretty much Unisex. And I was not lecturing you, just chiming in my opinion (as worthless and unimportant as the opinion of a "newbie" clearly is) that you should not call someone a homophobic asshole for the crime of mentioning a sex toy. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I know how buttplugs work, so save yourself the keystrokes. Anal sex, whether by human or artificial means, is a common touchstone for how straights characterize gay sexuality. Seeing as User:Conservative's pet topics were nowhere part of the thread, and this was thus a random shot at him, and seeing a there have been literally hundreds and hundreds of random shots of a homophobic nature thrown his way from this page, it's a pretty safe bet to see the above comment as one of them. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you pulling the "only gays have anal sex" thing on me? I believe it is pretty well known, especially on more progressive sites like this that its not just gay people who have anal sex, which is entirely besides the point because using a butt plug is not anal sex, it is masturbation. At worst Fergus accused Ken of masturbating to his own work, which you have decided was homophobic because said masturbation involved the anus. You linked it to being gay, not Fergus. And as for literally "hundreds and hundreds" of homophobic insults, what I am assuming is that you are referring to posts speculating that Ken/Andy are gay or have some gay urges, and this is almost always meant as an insult to their fundie/homophobic hatred of all things they think are gay rather than saying being gay is bad and gays should feel bad. Personally I don't particularly care for those posts too as they sometimes blur the line between anti homophobe and anti homosexual, but they don't give you the right to condemn people as homophobic assholes because they mention something YOU think is intrinsically gay Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're an idiot, or functionally illiterate, or a troll. Probably all three. I did not say "only gays have anal sex" or anything remotely approaching that. I said "Anal sex...is a common touchstone for how straights characterize gay sexuality." Can you see the difference between those two statements? No? Then you are an idiot. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 03:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A truely CP class Ad-hominem attack ToP. --Revolverman (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How cute, a schalfly style tantrum topped off with declaring me a troll because I dare disagree with you. Oh the irony. You were the one who claimed using buttplugs was synomynous with homosexual anal sex, despite having nothing but your own preconceptions to back you up. You tried to go on a self righteous rant at someone purely because they mentioned something YOU associate with being gay, despite it being neither a) solely used by gays or b) a significant part of gay culture or c) something widely associated with gays, and then you decided to go all schlafly with me when I questioned you. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

An ad hom attack isn't the same as "crass insult". ^moral 11:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make two points. First, Armondikov is right, of course, that calling someone an idiot is not, by itself, sufficient for an ad hominem (that is, for the logical fallacy, which is what ad hom usually means). Secondly, and I can't believe it's come to this, but I want to point out that Fergus's comment was not about Ken using buttplugs, but about Andy being upset that he was unable to purchase a Ken DeMyer-shaped butt plug. Ain't no fucking way that this was not a disparaging reference to homosexuality. (Even if it had been about Ken's use of butt-plugs, it defies all common sense to pretend that you are shocked, shocked! that anyone would think that this is a reference to homosexual behavior.)

For fuck's sake, if anyone was interested in the actual intention of the reference, they would have asked Fergus what he meant.

But no one is really interested. We all know that this was at heart a reference to homosexuality and a few of us are simply desperate to pretend otherwise, because (I guess) we like making faggot jokes at CP's expense. Phiwum (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe some of us take issue with hurling around accusations of people being "homophobic assholes" because they reference a sex toy. Also I was not "shocked! shocked!" that ToP equates Buttplugs with homosexuality, but that he thinks it gives him the right to act like a arsehole. Given however that you seem to indeed be correct about the remark pertaining to Andy rather than Ken (which I originally thought, given that I interpreted "Ken shaped" as being...nevermind) and that I lost all interest in trying to argue at about the time ToP started acting like Aschlafly, Im more than willing to end it and have the arguement nuked. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think most folk around here making faggot jokes are homophobes (a term I loathe) or even fundamentally biased against homosexuality, but instead make these jokes because they think that they are insulting to CP folks. Nonetheless, it's done often enough that it comes off as remarkably bad taste -- like telling a bigot that they're acting like a nigger (Ha ha!). Phiwum (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and I concede that this arguement has been remarkably pointless and bizarre so Im more than happy to end my part in it Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that certainly took an unexpected turn! Maybe I'm just an insensitive European who lacks a nuanced understanding of homophobia. However some of my best friends are chutney ferrets and rug munchers, my favourite bar is called Liberty and all its patrons except me are as queer as a bottle of chips, and my favourite US city is San Francisco. So no, it wasn't a disparaging reference to homosexuality. It was just a crude joke about Andy ramming a Ken-shaped object up his hoop. Hope that helps.--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.} 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So no, it wasn't a disparaging reference to homosexuality. It was just a crude joke about Andy ramming a Ken-shaped object up his hoop. Er, yeah. Um. I guess that helps.

I guess.

Somehow, I'm having trouble reconciling the two sentences, but maybe that's just me. Phiwum (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything inherently homosexual about people ramming things up their hoop.--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, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

When both people are of the same gender? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 14:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That would tend to be somewhat homosexual, yes. However anal masturbation (i.e. a butt plug, Ken-shaped or not) is neither gay nor straight.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet you chose to personify the central object in that activity as a man. Not a generic butt-plug, but one specifically cast as a man. Why not just "a butt-plug" full stop? why chose to point at some sort of homosexual encounter by artificial proxy? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 17:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. One cast as Ken. There's a difference.--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.} 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ken" isn't a man? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you privy to inside information about the mysterious collective? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, because I'm not talking about "User: Conservative," whatever User:Conservative's number or gender may or may not be. I am referring to "Ken," a word which typically applies to a single male individual. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't particularly think Ken's a man, and not just in the sense that he lacks machismo. He is very much a thing IMNSHO, not a person.--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.} 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is just too silly for words. Just to end this conversation, let's all agree that when Fergus imagined Andy sticking something shaped like Ken up his asshole, he never even imagined anyone would think that this was a reference to homosexual tendencies. Indeed, how could we think otherwise?

Now is this thread over? Phiwum (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

" He is very much a thing IMNSHO, not a person." And now we've moved from homophobia to totally dehumanizing someone. I love the internet. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about someone, we're talking about Ken. By his obnoxious, cretinous and repellantly homophobic behaviour he dehumanises 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.} 22:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back on topic

I am with Andy on this in a way, the idea that stores now open at 8pm on Thanksgiving Day for early Black Friday sales is pretty ridiculous. A lot of workers are forced to deal with impatient, greedy, angry crowds for hours on end on what would otherwise be a family holiday for them, just so idiot shoppers can get LCD TVs and iPads; I think one can wait a fucking day for their consumer shit.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's like I'm really on 4chan. --Sasayaki (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Abortions are down!

Should we tell him it's probably due to the advent of safe sex programs and increased availability of contraception?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Squeezing availability "helps" too. Contrast the experience on mainland Britain with that on the island of Ireland. Obviously Ireland has lower abortion rates, because abortion is illegal there and so if you're not wealthy there's a considerable barrier to getting an abortion (if you have money obviously you take a holiday to the mainland and then magically come back not pregnant). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand Andy stops pretending to make any sense:

MattyD: "Maybe it's because of the availability of contraceptives^img and stuff?"

Andy: "Yeah, right, as if preventing unwanted pregnancies would reduce the number of abortions. Please. It's obvious that folks stopped aborting because of Obama^img and his pro-abortion stance."

Just... what. --Sid (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can get him to say that it's a good thing Obama was reelected.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Abortions down under Clinton and Obama, having spiked up under Bush. Could it be the eight years of abstinence-only sex education? Of course not. It's civil disobedience among the would-be mothers who would be getting abortions if they weren't so enraged that the president really, really wanted them to kill their babies. Yep, that makes more sense. Whoover (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone think about 5 seconds before he came up with that his head twitched in one direction and he made a grinding sound? --Revolverman (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Angry Bear gets bored of the birdies.

So moves onto snakes.^img Naca (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He's a little late, we've been writing about snakes on CP for years. Sophie^Wilder 18:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's favorite pop star gets booed.

On his home turf, no less. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 04:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to see that Andy finally has Bieber Fever. 14:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's cousin

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/ - this article has been making the rounds on the internet. It includes:

"The so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them ... The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek."

...It was written by Andy's cousin.--Danielfolsom (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically shes telling all women (herself not included of course) that the only way they can get a conservative ubermench who will treat them like the brainless, babymaking nobodies they secretly wish to be, is by getting their collective arses back in the kitchen, making collective sammiches, and to stop pretending they are at all equal to men.

Looks like the foul taint of archbitch syPhyllis has found a worthy heir at last, one who can even get articles published on Fox news rather than crawling under a rock to play theocratic dictator on his personal wiki as her most disappointing (even more than the gurgitator and the confirmed bachelor) son did Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 07:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link confirming she is related to Andy? I can't see any mention of her background on her own website bio. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 13:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You read my mind, Egyptian. It does sound a lot like Phyllis Schlafly's rhetoric, though. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This article explicitly states the relationship. They have also worked and written together which may explain the similar tone. Worm (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. To quote the linked article, "Suzanne Venker and her husband, Bill, are in the midst of selling their home in Kirkwood, planning to move closer to both better schools and Suzanne's mother, so any visit has to be carefully timed around showing the house." (Emphasis added).

She doesn't homeschool? The fiend! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I can express in words how sick these kinds of women make me. Setting aside the stupid, hateful, and harmful dogma they excrete, the fact they know full well how utterly bullshit their rhetoric is by the sheer fact that they are the ones who are producing the rhetoric, thus contradicting their "feminine nature" by talking down to and insulting men, making money for themselves (thus putting some man out of a job), and implicitly demanding to be seen as equals to male writers, makes the fact they screech for all of these rights to be stripped from other women simply because they are "feminist/abortionist/liberal whores" who dare to contradict syPhyllis's dogma by trying to live their own lives, all the more disgusting, especially since their wealth ensures they will never have to face the realities of the shit they preach. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, Judge. Nihilist 20:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There was an interesting article in History Today November 2012 issue on The Changing Face of the American Family (excerpt here). The author, Tim Stanley, argues that the mom-pop-and-2.4-kids nuclear family only predominated in the USA for about 25 years from c.1950 to c.1975 and that conservatives' idea of family values owes much more to nostalgia than to practical realities. "It is tempting to accuse conservatives of promoting a paradoxical politics that is out of step with the modern world," he concludes. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Karatard: Pravda devotee

Thanks to whoever picked up on this - classic! Plus bonus for the fact that these days Pravda is well and truly lodged in tin-foil hat territory, so I can just imagine Kara mining this useful source of Insights™ again and again. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We have pravda.ru, and the WIGO text probably needs correcting, as it is no longer associated with the Party.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WIGO removed, my mistake 147.138.90.129 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I put it back and commented it out instead as it already had seven votes. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO still a valid point, not that it's a Communist Party publication, but you know, in CP land Russia = Evil Liebrul Europe. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 13:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have noticed CP get oddly brownnosey around russia, most likely due to their clamping down upon those diseased faggets, filthy liberals and feminists, and their masocheestic leader not taking any crap from those who oppose him, or those off whom he can make a populist buck by stamping into the dirt. I actually wager that they proportionately make significantly more positive comments about Russia then they do about America. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How did he miss this one by the same "columnist."? It begins The reason America has the trillion dollar war monger Obama as president today is because of immorality and materialism in America. Believe it or not, it gets better. Whoover (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations

Is there a statute of limitations on the "don't out parodists at CP" rule?

I just found one from a couple of months back. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one, but I think there should be. There is much gold to be found in them thar hills. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 13:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Parody at Conservapedia is like a national park. You can goggle in amazement to your heart's content, but don't take it away. Leave it there for the next passer-by to enjoy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Parody is like a wild-flower that should be admired but not picked. Генгис^pillaging 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Outing parody usually happens in two ways: the user is long gone (like TK, Thor rest his soul), or so badly obvious that others are even calling them so on CP itself, like Bugler. If it's parody in articles or the whole article itself, don't say anything; it's not our job to correct their stupidity. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenbot

Would it be feasible to cobble together a bot, that acts like Ken? Using various pieces of text wgeted from various places (forums, wikis, creation.com), that are put on a list, determined by the operator, so the tone could be controlled with extraordinary accuracy.Percival ^{Aldrige Grainger} 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen! I will pull your precious cutting board, enabling me to destroy RW pansies on the internet. You should all be vocalising over Operation alcohol, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.

Gentlemen,

It does seem that your comments in regards to Richard Dawkins and peanut butter are unsurpassedly amusing. Where it concerns evolution and homosexuality, you foolishly disregard the simple fact that a hard hitting article refuting Atheism is on it's way. In fact, by the end of the month, it is likely the Media will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)

Rest assured, Operation Charging Stallion is gathering steam!!! Now that Wikipedia has an article on "desecularization", the "Growth of religion" and "Postsecularism", isn't it time to fly the flag of surrender and shut down this wiki? Wikipedia was founded by an atheist and agnostic. Sincerely,

A user of the Conservative account

so much win on the above... and the scary thing is that with a bit of streamlining it would be identical Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So far it's passing the Turing Gutmans Test. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? Underneath a lengthy section suggesting that we ignore Ken completely, somebody decides that the real Ken is not enough and we need an artificail one too.--Spud (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Who needs Ken when there is Andy

Heh, stupid Obama supporters can't even win the lottery.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he backs up that statement...A Google search returned only one interesting graduate thesis on the study, which is localized. A Washington Post infographic (which, as typical, had barely any information), suggested that more men play the lottery than women...and yet, women more than men voted for Obama....

Furthermore, what does he have to say about the winners, who appear to run the gamut of lives and livelihoods? Even Faux News loves to bag on those who won...Plus, given that almost EVERYONE who plays the lottery loses, is he saying that ONLY Obama supporters play the lottery (and those very few Obama detractors who choose to play always win)? And given that it's a voluntary form of taxation/wealth redistribution...wouldn't conservatives prefer it over actual taxation? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all those stupid poor people who play the lottery. Don't they know that they can get free money from wingnut organisations just by having mummy get them a sinecure? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is because andy bought a ticket and didn't win anything. Imagine if Kendoll won it, ads for conservapedia would probably start appearing everywhere, atheism and evolution would be finally crushed, we might actually find out what ken/the collective looks like and conservapedia would get flooded with peons again reading the wonderful insights of the now famous ken. Naca (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy has opposed gambling, several times. It's classic Andy logic: "I believe in X. I am a conservative. Liberals, therefore, believe the opposite of X. QED." So, since Andy opposes gambling, liberal Obama supporters must be big lottery players.MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it strikes me as utterly plausible that more Obama supporters play the lottery than Romney supporters. For one thing, voting Democratic and playing the lottery are both positively correlated with low income (if I'm not mistaken). Sure, Andy hasn't justified his claim, but it really strikes me as more plausible than most of the stuff he comes up with (abortions go down because people don't like having a pro-choice president?). Phiwum (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting this^img here since I don't think it warrants its own section. Looks like the Dow is up 107 today, Nasdaq up 24. It reminds me of this bit from Family Guy. Wouldn't it be interesting if Andy were an anti-oracle? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuck Popeye.

That is all^img. Fuck him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"And there's quite a few of them wanting to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and our money...the same money, by the way, that's lining the pockets of these liberals." It's official: Karajou doesn't know history. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfectly fair ultimatum to me: "Accept our religious superstitions and pretend you're not gay or life in prison. You should be thanking us for not just killing you!". Jaxe (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You've gotta be like Ken Ham and put on your Biblical Glasses(tm), although about two dozen shots of absinthe and wormwood will do the trick too. If Hell is a literal place, that the dead gays are literally sent to when they die, according to the criteria set out in the Bible (but ignoring, strangely, the part that Jesus himself said "You cannot serve both God and money"), then yeah. Yeah, it's probably better that they spend a life in prison rather than avoid the eternity in fire. But that's also fucking nuts. It's like saying that if you accept that Harry Potter is real, then you should gather everything you own into a trolley and slam it into a pillar at a London train station because, really now, who risk not going to Hogwarts? --Sasayaki (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that he's still using the same illiterate strapline on his blog. But the death penalty provision has only just been dropped from the anti-gay legislation and it was probably only because of international pressure on Uganda that it was withdrawn, not because they are somehow being merciful Christians. Генгис^pillaging 00:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou, since you apparently read this site, I hope you're getting this message. I can understand your opposition to gay marriage, and your feelings that the movement is propagated through bullying, deceit, and manipulation of the media. I do not agree with this mentality, but I can understand it. Many of the people on here feel the same way about conservative movements. But Karajou, quite frankly, your behavior here is not in line with Christian behavior. Your argument is essentially one that impugns liberals for encouraging people to behave in ways that upset tyrannical governments. If you are oppressed, you argue, it is simply because you fail to submit to the oppressor. This is the equivalent of blaming Jesus for the deaths of his followers at the hands of the Romans. You may believe that homosexuality is sinful, but the Neros of old themselves believed that Christianity was wrong. You are encouraging the persecution of a group of people, and blaming them for the persecutions they face. It's just wrong. And although you say that Conservapedia does not endorse the execution of homosexuals, your very own User:Conservative responded to an inquiry about whether or not gay people should be executed by telling the person asking the question that homosexuals could "turn or burn." Not a single sysop spoke up to clarify that this was not Conservapedia's position. No one reprimanded User: Conservative. No one took down the jubilant headlines praising the bill. What are we supposed to take home from this, Karajou?WilliamR (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wanna red telephone to him, too! Karajou: you call those who want to imprison and execute homosexuals "liberals", because "it's the liberals doing it" (because hey, no true scotsman right?), yet two of your fellow sysops have shown that much disdain for homosexuality already. EdPoor said they should be imprisoned, and the whole she-bang was brought up because your buddy Conservative made a post praising it on the main page. You defended him with your "this discussion is over" bullying on the talkpage, thus you're defending his views of gay "turn or burn" statement and ideology. Your post about some douchebag making some tweet... guess what, we don't control twitter. Would've been different if he had been on RW, but in your case, you had and still have the power to confront Ed and Conservative. By not doing so, you're condoning them. By your own definition, you're a liberal by association. I know, you're too much of a coward to respond without force of impunity, but take a step back: by not doing anything about it/them, CP has become and will forever be a joke on the internet, and you helped that happen. Thank you! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian solution is to send gays to prison, where of course no homosexual activities ever occur. Karajou is a fuckwit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory time. American's incarceration habits have demonstrated, very clearly, that locking up criminals in modern jails tends to only make them better criminals. Perhaps Uganda wants to see if it can weaponize homosexuality by letting it ferment^(ferment?) and concentrate in jail for a generation or two. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 09:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's "foment", Princess. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually chose 'ferment' intentionally, but, I suppose 'foment' works as well. Also, I'm not sure which level between wetware and software was responsible for that autocorrect. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "foment" is transitive and you're (correctly) using "ferment" in an intransititve sense so, no, foment doesn't work as well. Whoover (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. I Schlafly skimmed and noticed the double "ferment". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Q: Does Karajou support jailing gays for homosexuality?

A: The bill was amended to remove the death penalty. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from what I'd heard it's not certain the death penalty actually was removed, and there was to be further amendment behind closed doors, so no idea if it's still in there or not at this point. --Kels (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While Karajou may balk at that question, let's remember that Uncle Ed does not. DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Something about fundies laying their cards on the table like that gives me a special feeling. I wish they would all do it all the time. Not be a pussy like Brian. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ed is a big Scott Lively fan. He's so stupid he actually believes that all genocidal maniacs are gay, and all gay people are genocidal maniacs. If you're coming from that premise, then I guess putting them to death doesn't sound so insane as it does to ordinary people. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

CNAV calls for a coup.

...and artfully calls the President a "spade." Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, now... she's calling for a "counter-coup", and it seems she wants this done by voting for third parties... Occasionaluse (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I only read the headline. Kudos for braving the depths. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The headline was nuts. The first paragraph was delusional. I wish I could be there when people like Roseann and Terry get together and work themselves into a panicked froth. Sadly, the rest of the article was pretty tame, although ever so slightly suggestive. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting "Salanitri" and "suggestive" in the same sentence makes me feel more than a bit queasy. I got a mental image of the demented hag in a basque and fishnets. Very upsetting, I can tell you.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There's also the continual implicit racism of always emphasising Obama's middle name. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Roseann "I'm not a racist!" Slatternly is calling the president a spade? Well, there goes that pretense then. Nice people you got there in NJ. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was sure they wouldn't post the comment, I'd ask "why don't you just call him a n*gg*r and be done with it?" MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that she isn't racist and I'm not even saying that her use of "spade" wasn't racially motivated (consciously or otherwise), but it really isn't an open and shut case. I use the phrase "call a spade a spade" myself, and I can imagine situations where it can be interpreted as a slur (as in this case). I just don't think we can conclude that she used that phrase because she's a racist. (She's despicable for enough reasons that we might as well tread carefully here.) Phiwum (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to believe she doesn't know exactly what she's doing there. It may be better to assume stupidity than malice, but the CNAV crew have both in, er, spades. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd feel a little more charitable towards just an unfortunate choice of words if she hadn't put the second spades in quotes. Генгис^unbelieving 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes grammatical sense. Consider the phrase, "To call a spade a 'spade'". The first occurrence of spade refers to a thing (namely, a thing which is a spade). The second occurrence refers to a term (the term "spade"). Frankly, I think her punctuation makes more sense than leaving the second occurrence without quotation marks, so, again, this is not evidence that she intended any racial slur. Phiwum (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I might theoretically agree, except that quoting the second spade is not common usage and to be totally unaware of the problems connected with usage of the phrase when referencing an African-American, seems incredibly thoughtless. Knowing the way that these people continually emphasise the Hussein part of Obama's name, I have no doubt that she knew exactly what she was writing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, let's talk about what's undeniable: their stupidity. (By the way, Terry never said that he would force others to be in his weird fantasy militia, either. Another misinterpretation, I think.) Let's assume the best of these people and point out that, even under this assumption, they are remarkably stupid, spouting false claims and throwing tantrums. Let's not bother to go beyond the most charitable interpretation of what they write, because that's enough to show that they are not worth listening to. Phiwum (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically he didn't say he would conscript people, but he said: "then this neighborhood will have a well-regulated militia, with, as like as not, myself in command." So he definitely said he'd be in charge, and that the militia would exist, and he's made it clear that it would be substantial in size (big enough to send scouting parties). It's not much of a stretch at all to suppose that membership in this vast body will not be voluntary (or essentially forced when the alternative is "be deprived of vital supplies and cooperation"). If you want to use the fruits of Terry's hypothetical generator in his fantasy apocalyptic scenario, you have to swear fealty to him. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe she didn't giggle in self-satisfaction when she chose the phrase about "spades." Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Does "temlakos" mean anything?

After scrolling through CNAV for a couple of minutes and reading the page we have on TerryH, I became curious. "temlakos" sounds vaguely Greek to me, with the caveat that I know absolutely nothing about the Greek language, so I typed it into google translate. "temlakos" doesn't return anything, but "tem lak os" returns "hairspray pc os" which simply must mean something, right? άλφα^Ταλκ 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(In case you can't tell, it's a very slow day in the office). άλφα^Ταλκ 21:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Temlakos is the angel that protects and cares for murdered/aborted children, while inflicting eternal pain upon the parents of the children. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You learn something new every day. I can see why that would appeal to Terry, especially the torture aspect. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Other men and women shall stand above them, naked; and their children stand over against them in a place of delight, and sigh and cry unto God because of their parents, saying: These are they that have despised and cursed and transgressed thy commandments and delivered us unto death: they have cursed the angel that formed us, and have hanged us up, and withheld from us (or, begrudged us) the light which thou hast given unto all creatures. And the milk of their mothers flowing from their breasts shall congeal, and from it shall come beasts devouring flesh, which shall come forth and turn and torment them for ever with their husbands, because they forsook the commandments of God and slew their children. As for their children, they shall be delivered unto the angel Temlakos (i.e. a care-taking angel). And they that slew them shall be tormented eternally, for God willeth it so. - The Apocalypse of Peter.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy. Fucking. Shit. That guy is messed up. 02:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Temlakos is an anagram of Ask Me Lot. Do I win a prize?--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.} 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So lets add up what we know about hurly. His alias is an angel who tortures people he does not like, he is disturbingly obsessed with both asserting his power over others in any way he can, to the point of masturbatory (yet detailed) plans on forming his own personal army and becoming essentially a warlord if he is ever given the chance and were local authorities unable to stop him, he believes that anyone who disagrees with him or mocks him is an arch enemy of both god and the entire nation, and thus god will punish them, and he is fervent in believing the apocalypse is nigh and that he will be one of the leaders of the forces of "good" (more conjecture here, given he seems to think he will have a high ranking role in any militia/secession/resistance). At this point, if the New Jersey police raided his house and found that he has been mak'n furniture out of human flesh and dressing up in corpse skins I would not at all be surprised Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I occasionally chat to him on Skype (it's a long story) and he's actually quite pleasant.--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.} 03:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The other ides

Beware the ides of November! All British people must watch out because... Kendoll is phoning an (imaginary) Filipino^img<capture> and that will literally <capture>end the world^img! (But perhaps only for the British.) I think he's off his meds again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kens long since passed into unfunny and boring repeats of old rants. Personally I would recommend giving him the Nephilimfree treatment and find ourselves a new chewtoy Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's ever claimed that one of his made up contacts would literally destroy the world before. His delusions of grandeur are the grandest. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's shark has been jumped. He's no longer funny - he's a figure to be pitied. Scream!! (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

His act's gone stale. It's the same imaginary world changing event that never comes to pass. At least Andy comes up with a new insight every six months, and Kara's started doing snakes instead of just sticking with birds, Ken's just trotting out the same material over and over. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only question left: Who is Pinky? And who is The Brain? --larron (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenny's the stupid one. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's act was never fresh in the first place. He just runs variations of the same hackneyed memes with no personal creativity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah man, it has been 4 (5?) years of veiled threats, matadors, inane red telephone messages, prophecies of impending doom foreshadowing evolution, claims of expertise and contact with other people of expertise who are excited about what Ken is currently obsessed with and all we have of it is a slightly haranguing piece by Dennis O'Leary which was hardly an endorsement. Nostradamus has a better trackrecord than dear ol' Ken. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it, a magic 8-Ball has a better track record than Ken.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Ken's stuff is pretty dull, but it's funny to watch Andy move things around so that his important news story about "Three and a half men" is on top, while Ken's warning about the end of the world is lower on the list. Phiwum (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever this occurs, I keep thinking of an impotent Blofeld strangling a cat in frustration. Odd, but I'm sure you have your own images.Percival ^{Aldrige Grainger} 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it's now after 5am on the 27th in London and... oh I don't want to do this any more - I'm bored. Ken, fuck off. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary! It was a terrible time for Darwinism^img! Look, he has a fake email to prove it. Only this time, it's especially incoherent. "I will share your mobilize your church link to them...." Kendoll, I know you started adding these "emails" to your posts as a verisimilitude after I pointed out that everything you post is fake, it isn't helping. We know how real human beings talk to each other on account of being actual human beings, that isn't it. You might want to gain a little more experience of humanity before you try emulating us. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No kidding. This pathetic attempt at propaganda, using overinflated claims and false accounts have gotten seriously... What!? No! I was just resting my eyes! Like I was saying, these blog entries are... zzzZZZZZzzzzzZzzZZZzzz... ---Inquisitor (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to know "It went behind [his] wildest expectations!" though. Wait, is that a good thing? StarFish (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The jokes just write themselves, don't they? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's writing skills appear to be going backwards; his grammar and spelling are worse than ever. The whole "college student English-writing tutor" thing is risible. Also, how can anyone get so excited about a Skype call? His life must be dull beyond compare. Генгис^mutating 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't just any Skype call, it was a Skype call that will destroy atheism! rpeh •T•C•E• 11:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm half waiting for the day when we find out that he's a deep undercover parodist who moonlights as a skydiving instructor or something. If you think about it, it would almost be believable.--Umichcynic (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Night-time skydiving? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If he were to turn out to be a parodist, I'd think that would make him even more pathetic. That would mean all those sleepless nights were spent on nothing but a very weak joke. It's not as if he's got many Christian Conservatives to come over to his side, so not many people have been fooled by it in any meaningful way.

Anyway, I think that if he started off as a parodist, he became the mask a long time ago.--Spud (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My money is on him being a Turing-test-esque type of bot. All of 'his' tweak edits are calculated. 'His' writing is cobbled together dynamically from various sources. The output is about what I'd expect. I'm guessing it involves a few people with graduate-level educations in AI and related fields. Not your average perl script. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's a cylon...--Umichcynic (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Ideas of -TRIM-^img Sayeth Andypants. Must feel bad knowing you're the founder and owner of Conservapedia, yet you're nothing more than a janitor cleaning up trails of shit left behind by the people you promote. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a rare example of Schlafly showing some backbone and wiping Ken's crap off the page. Clearly, whatever he might say in public, deep down Andy knows that Ken's stuff is all shite too. Spud (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet he does so in the most cowardly and passive way possible, by just quietly removing it and hoping Ken doesn't notice/care enough to raise a stink. Why he thinks it's a good idea to keep Ken around is baffling. If he just showed one ounce of leadership, he could stop the problem dead in its tracks and exactly one person would be upset about it. It's completely ridiculous. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I think the time has come when it is clear that ken has absolutely nothing new to surprise or annoy us, and far from the hilariously idiotic lunatic he was once seen as, it has become clear he is just a desperately lonely and angry little man with extreme mental illness and no life outside his delusions. Thus I think it would be in prudent at this point to simply have a policy of utterly ignoring him and his actions, ignoring the "Red Telephone" messages, and refusing to comment on his antics and attempts to get our (since we are the ole audience he has now) attention, and simply turning our attentions to other members of the site for our giggles. Ken's presence on CP has been dependant on us for the past half decade to satisfy his delusion of being in a "heroic fight against the forces of atheism", and If we stave him of this he will have no motivation to remain on CP. I am aware this proposal is almost certainly not going to be adopted or accepted, but I do believe we should reconsider our own continued fixation with him Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal has been made several times in the past, and has always failed. The only way to make it stick would be to remove any posting that is User: Conservative related. Such an act would lead to a reaction that would quickly spiral into HCM. Have fun with it. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 17:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but at this point the sole reason the proverbial bear is still dancing is because it knows we are watching it dance. I am well aware this proposal has not a snowballs chance in a sauna, but I am beginning to find the oddly symbiotic relationship between rationalwiki and Kenny rather disturbing Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh, Kendoll has been writing crap on the internet long before CP existed, and he'll probably go on doing it long after it sinks back down in to the swamp from whence it came. As long as he's a conservapedian he's pretty much a fair game topic for TWIGO:CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But there is an ethical issue at play. Most regulars here have acknowledged that they believe that the man is mentally ill. Is it alright for us to use a semi-public forum to antagonize a person we believe is mentally ill? Is that what a nice guy would/should do? Also, is that the reason that we enjoy tax-exempt status as a legally-registered non-profit ventured with an educational mandate--to provide people with a forum to pick on the mentally ill? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You could make the same argument about anybody at CP. Especially Terry, who I suspect is also severely mentally ill. Hell, would a nice guy point and laugh at anybody at all? The way I see it, as long as they're on the internet broadcasting their silly views to world, the world has the right to laugh at them. If they don't like it, they can stop posting on CP any time they like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that User:Conservative can? I'm not. Also, arguably there's a time and a place to point and laugh at people; at the pub, not in the classroom or at a board meeting. And i'm still interested in people's takes on the bigger question: How does pointing and laughing at one guy over and over again advance the mission for which we have incorporated ourselves as a tax-exempt body? How does this page do that? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, now it seems like you're arguing for the deletion of the whole CP space, which I think would be a serious mistake. If nothing else, RW needs some spaces that are dynamic to keep people checking back every day. Honestly, when you're dealing with creationism, is there any response that doesn't come down to pointing and laughing? We won the argument a century ago, the only thing left to do is ridicule the dead enders. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I kind of think that there comes a point where you have to "pay like unto like". If it was just Ken, Andy, Terry, etc... they wouldn't have any influence at all and really, the existence of a wiki about them would be more underground, like the Christian Weston Chandler community. As it stands, though, there are people who believe this crap. Andy himself is actually very well connected, politically. This affects the United States which has a global impact on all of us. I think it's important that, when presented with extreme viewpoints like Conservapedia (where, for the vast majority of the western world, there literally isn't a term for someone this right wing except 'nutjob'), we have someone on the sidelines going "Nuh-huh." Because, well, if Andy/Terry/Ken/etc had any power at all, they would make life extremely difficult for the vast majority of people. They would not be kind to us, and Linchon said, "To test a man's character, give him power." Terry's little... "in the event of a natural disaster, everyone would be in my militia under my command, like it or not" post really showed his colours on that one. So I have no qualms about laughing at them, manically if necessary, because they are dickheads. That's my two cents. --Sasayaki (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In Terry's undeserved defense, he said "like as not", meaning "very probably" rather than "like it or not". It's still a bit on the Napoleon side of loony to assume that he's the natural choice for militia leader (or an outright insult to his neighbours, guess he doesn't like them) but not so confrontational. --Kels (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Andy himself is actually very well connected, politically" PHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH.... oh christ thats funny. It was a good post but that line killed me. Andy has zero connections politically, the one time he got any attention outa the "fundiemocking" internet subculture was when he rewrote the bible, and he was universally rejected by the farright wing for that. The only "connection" he has is his mother, and from all appearances she is too ashamed of him to try and "connect" him with anyone else, and who herself is connected only to the more loathsomely wingnutty right wingers (and even with them she is the definition of a "has been").

As for continuing mocking Conservapedia and the scumbags who are not kidding about what they write there, I am all for it. I think that Ken should be ignored because he has grown excruciatingly boring and repetitive at this point. And I entirely agree with your point that Andy and co would likely do their darndest to make everyone they see as "liberal" suffer if they got any real power, but the fact is even combined they have about as much political power as radical feminist lesbians do in Saudi Arabia. Personally on this front I believe Terry should be most monitored for this since I think he is the likeliest to snap and try to start some violent insurrection should he get the chance, but even he is nothing but am impotent blogger who at most will be arrested by the FBI long before he becomes a danger (also can you link me to his "forcibly conscript everyone into my militia" comment, I could do with a larf). Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here ya go. It's all a pretty great thread. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah fundie goodness, so much stupid, so much self importance, so much anger. At this point he is praying for the apocalyptic end of civilization just so that he has a chance to be more than just a failed doctor and a hateful bigoted netizen, though in a real end of the world situation I give him 5 minutes before his "militia" put a bullet in his spine after he demands them to kill any surviving liberals Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, point well made, I thought his influence was greater than it really was. Cool. And... yes. I live in a natural disaster prone area (north Australia, we get cyclones). The Conservative idea of survival is some kind of Mad Max fantasy where Terry will cruise around in post-apocalyptic US with a shotgun, raybands and leather pants (there's a mental image I didn't need), but the reality is when these things strike the best thing to do is pool and share resources (but make sure you're not making yourself another victim by giving away essentials), help others (again, but making sure you're not going to injure yourself and contribute to the problem), keep calm and try to secure a source of fresh water. Your immediate concerns are communication, water, infection, food in that order. Some fucking idiot waving a shotgun around trying to proclaim himself Militia Leader and forcibly conscripting people to serve his power fantasy is a serious liability to himself and others. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the right word. "Liability". That's the word I think of whenever I read his silly puffed-up preening nonsense on his half-baked blog. The man is a liability. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

EC

I know we're veering wildly offtopic here, but I read some of the comments in that post I'd missed before. Holy dog shit. Terry: "Now in case you want to suggest that maybe those signals are unreliable, and the only reliable intelligence comes from direct scouting: if I sent any scouts into “downtown,” the police might misread their intent and pick them up on suspicion of attempted sabotage. That sort of thing would be bad for morale." My "Mad Max fantasy" was just a little stab, but it now seems frighteningly accurate. He really thinks he will be some kind of military commander with a small army at his disposal, large enough to send out "scouts" and with the main effect of losing a few people to be "bad for morale". Does he think his entire suburb will rally to him? The entire city? Throw in a healthy dose of "The cops/lawful authority are only out to hinder me" and you have a truly mad view of what it's like to survive in a disaster. His number one, overriding concern throughout the whole thing is how to consolidate his own power. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

His delusions of grandeur luckily are self defeating. While he may see himself as some heroic and badass revolutionary leader with the power of god behind him, the rest of the world (including his neighbours presumably) know him as a hateful, unhinged little prick with a napoleon complex. In the event of some disaster situation, when he tries to conscript a militia by either blackmailing them with his hypothetical generator, or simply threatening them, he will be knocked out and left tied up in a wardrobe while his neighbors wait for the police to take him away. Assuming the police don;t just shoot him when he demands they leave his new "sovereign territory" Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the comments myself because I'm not currently suicidal and don't wish to be, but doesn't the fact that the police are in a good enough state to arrest/detain for questioning a group of people nullify the need for his "survive the disaster" militia in the first place? The rest of the area is stable enough that cops are able to arrest people, and he still thinks he's going to be leading an armed militia an... man okay I'm not going to think about it any more. X Stickman (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense on any level because Terry didn't think it through any further than "I want to boss people around with the threat of force, and also have all the stuff so people come crawling to me and will do what I say." In fact, let's just cut it down to "I want to boss people around with guns". Although we can probably just say "I wanna be the boss". --Sasayaki (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not until he buys a generator. London Grump (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)