Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive306

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2013. 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>, <304>, <305>, <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)

Andy again finds censorship where it doesn't exist

Well Johnny Manziel wins the Heisman trophy, a purely sports history moment as he is the first freshman to win the most prestigious player trophy in college football. Andy being Andy though, needs to politicize this moment, but how? Oh, claim media censorship of the speech!

Andy: Lamestream media omits Manziel thanking God!^img

ESPN - Thee mainstream sports network, directly tied to ABC and Disney (as mainstream as you can get) posts entire acceptance speech, including Manziel thanking God. Actually Andy links the entire speech from the Sports Blogs site himself in his screed, a site owned by the multinational media conglomerate Vox. Irony, thy name is Andy.

Oh CP, despite your fantasies, Christians are not some persecuted group in America; especially in sports. Actually watch any NFL or NCAA post game interview in football, nearly half the players talked to will "thank God (and/or Jesus)" for their victory right there on television. We live in a nation where politicians have to verbally demonstrate their religiosity publicly on a regular basis to pleases the electorate; where on cable news atheism is talked about as if one spoke of the criminal. If you drew a pyramid of privilege in America, those who are older, white, male, hetrosexual, and Christian, would be at the very apex, you know the same group that are the CP editors.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You also haven't seen a lot about his drunk-and-disorderly arrest record from a few months ago. I'm sure Andy would consider that "gossip" and irrelevant, as opposed to his thanking God, which speaks directly to his football prowess since the Big Guy will have his back. Whoover (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this video about the insane double standard that Christians are held to vs Atheists. If Johnny had been an Atheist, you can bet Andy would be blasting him for being a hedonistic Liberal whose Godlessness leads to violence and anger, anger at knowing that he's going to hell after he dies. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The same on a professional level

In other news, Andy has to try and spin a NY Jets Tebow-less win in failure.... How does he do it? Of course, The Jets barely squeaked by. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 02:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is the fault of the "liberal media". I am curious if Andy honestly thinks the sports media has influence or out and out control over couching decisions? Of course to Andy it can't be a real victory since there was no Tebow because to him it means victory for "them".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Word Ever!

Ken has invented a new word: faitheism!

Ken, let me say this: as a nominal Christian, I find that you provide an excellent argument for atheism. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the game Kendoll has invented better. I think I know how this works. 8 women too overawed by my raw sexual energy to sleep with me! 8 VCs too embarrassed by my business acumen to give me money! Um, er... 8 imaginary friends Kendoll pretends to have so he can continue his ridiculous campaign? Oh, wait. Shit. I screwed up that last one by engaging with reality didn't I. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I like how he is calling upon his readers to email these eight atheists; Ken your only readers is Shock and us and we aren't going to do it.

Of course we know why they don't debate shockOfGoat, because it would be a total waste of their time. After all what would they get out of debating some nobody on Youtube in their heavily censored chatroom and talkblog program where any alternative points of view are routinely censored?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Ken even bother to tell us what "faitheism" means, exactly? Is this some kind of stupid SEO nonsense, so he can brag about being the number one listing on Google for another obscure phrase that he invented? RachelW (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I heard Shockofgod use the word "faitheism" before. It must have been nearly a year ago now because it was at the height of Conservapedia's "Beasts Blogs" phase. It was in a video that Ken linked to (via the favourites page of another YouTube user, to make it look like someone other than his good buddy was talking about it) to show how some people were praising his articles that showed the links between liberalism and bestiality. Shock said that he called atheism "faitheism" because all the history and archaeology prove that God exists and atheism is based on nothing but faith. He didn't elaborate on what historical and archaeological evidence there is that show that God is real and he only mentioned the bestiality crap in passing at the end.--Spud (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in January 2007 Sophie^Wilder 15:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In 2009 Coyne decided to use 'fatheists' to describe atheists who are soft or accommodating to religion. I liked this runner up: credophiles. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So Conservative and Shockofgod are the same guy, right? I mean, all of the hints are really kind of piling up. Yes, the two links above are by two other different people, but it's all too easy to see Ken/Shock find it, glam onto it, and make identical tirades using it as an insult. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC

Nah, they are two separate people but are BFFs online so they tend to regularly promote each other. Ken promotes Shock's heavily censored chat room and blogtalk show and Shock promotes the extremely heavily censored CP (although he never cites Ken's blog).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Shocky has definitely cooled on his promotion of Ken Krap of late. I think he must have gotten to know him. I mean this is the guy who completely ruined his blog after all. I think Shock must have come to deeply regret the day he gave Ken the keys. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Ruined"? How can you tell? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps "killed" would be a better word. Drove away all Shock's good little sycophants with his insane drivel. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Which blog do you mean? Was Question Evolution originally Shock's? Phiwum (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, this one. Originally shock's, and still linked from his website, but he rapidly stopped posting there after Ken got his claws in to it. Now even Ken doesn't bother with it much, though he did dump his women are whores stuff there after he decided that was too offensive even for the QE! blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny quote mine (Hi Ken)

This afternoon I was browsing creationist nonsense for my daily outrage when I stumbled on some classic Kendemyer from back in 2004. It's a tortured locution that incorporates a mere 4 quoted words, yet manages to get so much wrong. I think we're all familiar with this ditty. It appears dozens and dozens of times in Ken's posts all over the internet for more than 8 years (google it for some insight into how insane Ken has been these last years):

“”Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.

I've long been in awe of how persistently dishonest Ken is so I couldn't resist taking a shot in the dark that, like so many others, this is also a quote mine. I was at the library anyway, so I pulled the June 15, 1979 Wall Street Journal.

Those 4 words do appear in the article and they were uttered by Robert Sloan. There is, however, no indication whatsoever that he was "reluctant" in uttering them. Quite the contrary. Kenny boy omits the key part of Sloan's statement. Why do "creationists tend to win"?

“”"What you have is a bunch of right-wing conservatives upset at what they perceive is an infringement on religious freedom, and they're trying to disguise it in the form of a scientific controversy," says Robert Sloan, professor of paleontology at the University of Minnesota. "They indulge in every kind of logical fallacy to state a rather overblown case."

I lolled. 05:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. They tend to win. Evolutionists lose. Nihilist 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"...to state a rather overblown case." In terms of academic understatement, these are stronger words than any pub talk could offer.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have zero doubt that Ken does not even realize he's quote mining. He's just reciting back what he's heard elsewhere. He sees some creationist article that claims "evilutionist Bob Smith admitted that evolution is a lie, God really exists, and belief in evolution inevitably leads to death via hyper-cerebral electrosis" and he recites it back, unquestioningly and constantly.

Remember his repeated claims that Wired magazine said "atheists tend to be socially challenged, quarrelsome men"? When I finally asked him for a citation, he wanted me to find the article. Someone else here found it, and I pointed out to him that it made no such claim; it merely described one atheist in terms something like that. It was clear he had just head ShockofGod say something about the Wired article, and he ran with it. He at least quit referring to Wired, and stopped using the "socially challenged" line for a while. He's not claimed it's from Wired recently, but he is back to using "socially challenged". MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure, in Ken's mind, he is the toast of every party (that he attends weekly), has a large number of friends constantly seeking his attention and approval, has many young, smart, pretty Christian girls competing for his sexual favours and is in every way not at all socially challenged. --Sasayaki (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

James Gatz was the toast of every party he threw, but how many friends did he have? CS Miller (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anger bear is the funny kind of dumb

... as well as the scary kind of dumb. He doesn't seem to understand that a blog that's just him being angry isn't going to attract any readers. This post amused me a bit though^img. "That city has an average violent crime rate of 23.88. Again, Saginaw's population is a mere 51,000 people. If the population matched Detroit's without a change in crime rate, then the rate would be 310.44." Snork. No, Popeye. If the population matched Detroit without a change in crime rate, the crime rate would be 23.88 per mille, you dickhead. The whole post is full of him not understanding numbers, though how you could manage to write "rate" twice in a sentence without realising what you're describing is a rate is beyond me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I saw that too, although it is crime rate per thousand people, which he even explicitly states, he thinks that if Saginaw had a larger total population, then the crime rate per thousand world similarly rise; someone didn't finish high school mathematics.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Math is liberally-biased. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, inability to think in even the most elementary quantitative terms is pretty common. Most of the non-science-major undergrads I teach wouldn't understand the problem with Karajou's logic unless it was very slowly and carefully explained to them. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's too subtle for even an English major. He said "if the population matched Detroit without a change in crime rate" although he cited a figure for "if the number of crimes matched Detroit without a change in the population." Any moron can understand that he's either trying to pull a fast one or is even a bigger moron than they. Substitute "LA" or "Russia" for Detroit and you can get the crime rate into the millions per thousand people. Whoover (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't be too harsh on the poor little dumbfuck, after all the level of numeracy in the general population is not that great. When people take fright at a doubling or tripling of risk they are usually not taking the original rate into account. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am a big fan of Longsworth's The Song of Hiawatha. See also the work of Vincent Hugo, the sarcastic ribaldry of Olivia Wilde, and the mysteries of Arthur Doylnan. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Olivia Wilde is one fine author. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Forget not "Calamity" Jane Austin. (This page is deep down in Google rankings now, but it was specifically designed to trip up lazy students.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The literary dumbfuckery looks more like the stuff that Andy's homeskoolers used to write back in the day.--Spud (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

One cannot match Shakespeare; Lend Me Your Ears, To Be Or Not To Be, Oh, Black Fellow. I love all his plays. Генгис^pillaging 17:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Detroit was once the auto capitol of the world", "with all three city counsels talking about razing empty neighborhoods". A pity he hasn't posted this humdinger on CP because a lot of it is exactly the sort of stuff that parodists used to insert. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Both of those statements in and of themselves are true. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You with your politically correct homonymphobia. Генгис^mutating 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. I completely missed both of those, and I'm usually pretty good at catching that sort of thing. DickTurpis (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you spot the "Three cites: Saginaw, Flint, Detroit"? Spelling checkers can give you a false sense of security. Генгис^unbelieving 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

'There is no cure for malign and deliberate stupidity.' (ie not the ordinary sort which makes video players and shop self-check out machines refuse to behave) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the city had a population of 5.11 million, the crime rate would be 2388 per 1000 people!!!!--Grix (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-secateur [3].

I was making a general observation. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Call Dan Dare! The Eagle is outraged!

Apparently "The Eagle" called Chuckarse to SHOUT HIS OUTRAGE! Terry, his name is Nick. You geezers are too old for jolly pirate nicknames. I have to wonder if this actually happened. Are they all so permanently outraged in the NJ retired lunatic's club that they call each other and scream about how evil Obama is? (Damn it, now I want to watch The Crow, and of course UK netflix doesn't have it. UK netflix doesn't have anything.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I love what "The Eagle" shouted...

"Herr Hitler had a bust. Comrade Stalin had a bust. Chairman Mao had a bust. And now we have a bust of Obama?"

I like to think he sounded like Oprah giving away cars. "You get a bust. Herr Hitler gets a bust. Comrade Stalin gets a bust. Saint Reagan gets a bust. Freedom fighter Rush Limbaugh gets a bust. Hurricane Mike Fucking Ditka gets a bust."

Lots of people have bronze busts. Idiot. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Best line by far: Actually, the bust looks very much like the bust of Julius Caesar that divers found in the Rhône River in France four years ago. It dates back to 46 BC and hence to Caesar’s Dictatorship. Yes they look very similar except the Roman doesn't look so much like the black man and the toga is sort of hard to confuse with the business tie and the ears give Obama away if you're still not sure which is which. Whoover (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Raquel Welch had a bust. And what a bust it was. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Weren't they complaining that Churchill's bust was removed from the Oval Office?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How paranoid do you have to be to care if somebody has a bust of a sitting President? He acts like this is somehow unprecedented, but wasn't there a conspiracy theory that revolved around a bust of Bush somewhere, that had a plaque reading "2001 - " below it? I mainly remember the plaque because it was supposed to be preliminary evidence that Bush intended to make a run around the 22nd amendment. What it labeled could have been a G.W. action figure, but I'm pretty sure it was bit of sculpture in a national museum or important facility. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Found it: [4]. Dubious source, but the best I can do in ten minutes with the details I remember. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hah, That's from the Alex Jones nutbar stable. Exactly the same place Terry is getting his third term Obama conspiracy from. I guess that must be a perennial tall tale from them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick Purpura is The Eagle? For some reason, I thought Andy was The Eagle. (I'm trying to come up with a "The eagle, the dove, the turkey" joke, but it's too early.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, Mr. Nutter...

I'm sure you worked long and hard to come up with your very interesting theory, but it'd be amiss of me not to point out the slight flaw. Wouldn't that also destroy their initiative to go out and vote for democrats? (Also, wasn't reefer a commie plot back in the day too? Its nice to see there's one form of recycling this frootloops embrace.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Back in the 60s I used to have a reefer jacket. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of good stuff there, but not great. I love the appeal to numbers.

“”And while it can be argued that all chemical compounds are not hazardous to one’s health, the list of chemicals in marijuana, including those cited above, number close to 400. Imagine this: toxic smoke drawn into one’s lungs, hot and unfiltered, and held there under pressure, as the concoction of chemicals and smoke are forced into the blood vessels of the lungs.

“”And while it can be argued that all chemical compounds are not hazardous to one’s health, the list of chemicals in [coffee], including those cited above, number close to [1500]. Imagine this: toxic [liquid] drawn into one’s [esophagus], hot and unfiltered...as the concoction of chemicals...are forced into the blood vessels of the stomach.

QED, coffee is at least 375% more dangerous than marijuana according to Dwight Kehoe. Also, the hilarity of a liberatarian blog bitching about soft drug legalization... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

One of my more libertarian friends and I talk about these sort of things from time to time. I love that two people like Jared Polis and Ron Paul can agree on something so strongly (e.g., marijuana decriminalization) but for entirely different reasons—only one of which shows any amount of compassion for fellow citizens. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I love Terry's incomprehension that progressives could possibly want to legalize pot for any reason but nefarious ones. He lives in a strange, dark little world, that boy. --Kels (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"So the author of the article simply asks himself: why would the same people who want to ban quart-sized soda servings, “fatty foods,” and tobacco, want to legalize marijuana?" Who the fuck is he talking about? Bloomberg's anti-soda campaign is stupid. He just happens to be the mayor of a city with marijuana laws that have been described as "the dumbest drug law in the country.[5] The states that have the loosest pot laws don't have any restrictions on fast food or soft drinks. As a matter of fact, those restrictions are incredibly few and far between. Does CNAV complain about states that don't allow liquor sales on Sundays? That's a legal substance. Isn't that a bigger infringement on personal liberty than Hurlbutt's goddamn stupid my-freedom-to-let-poor-people-die paranoia, or whatever it was. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Just like in a video game"/"A Facebook user."

Words that do not appear in the story that Andy is referring to in this posting "Facebook" or "played video games". Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

He's citing a witness in the article who said, "He carried an assault rifle 'like you would see in a video game.'” Normally assault rifles are good, but not the kind used in video games. He does have a Facebook page, but there is no sign of any gaming except for online poker. Is Facebook's association with Satan a right-wing thing generallly, or just an Andy obsession, like relativity? Whoover (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There are like a billion facebook accounts now. When can I expect one sixth of the planet to come and mass murder me? Including my mother. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally an Andy thing. Sarah Palin was completely trashed on CP after she started using Social Media (as any smart PR person would do nowadays) to promote herself/Tea Party. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an Andy thing. He'll do anything to link anti-social behavior, espeically murder and adultery, to video games and Facebook respectively. As Whoover said, the video game reference is from an eye witness. We have no idea if the shooter even cared for video games, and Andy knows this, but he'll try and link the two anyway no matter how dishonest the assertion is.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's been grinding an axe against Facebook at least since he linked to a New Jersey pastor who forbade members of his congregation from using the site, on the grounds it destroy marriages. (The pastor himself, as I remember, was himself having affairs with several women in the congregation.) I've never seen any indication that was Andy's own pastor, though, but Andy's referred to it as damaging marriages since then. He's also repeatedly declared it to be a time-waster, which I suppose makes sense as a concern for someone who fancies himself an educator.

My pet theory is that Andy loathes anything that came out of Harvard that's been more successful than him. Facebook and Barack Obama, two of his pet obsessions. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right that jealousy drives Andy's hatred of Facebook, but I don't know if it's has to do with Harvard specifically. I suspect that Andy truly believed (and still dreams) that Conservapedia would become the premiere online encyclopedia, change Internet culture, and American culture at large. Instead what do we find? A site languishing in obscurity, chained down by its own rigid ideology and petty behavior by insecure old men dreaming of a former America that never was. Facebook is the opposite, popular, relevant, and it has impacted American culture, and its ran by an atheist!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy even realize what a pathetic failure CP is? In one of the leaked private forums he speculates that CP was the driving force behind the swing to the right in 2010. I'd pass it off as his standard way of talking about himself and CP on the site, but this was a private conversation not meant for the public, where one would think he might speak more candidly. Can he actually be that genuinely delusional that he thinks his blog is changing the world? We've discussed whether or not Andy has legitimate mental issues, and things like that really make me wonder. DickTurpis (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he is driven by the desperate desire to "be someone". His mother is relatively famous and among the social-conservative set, well regarded, he likely sees himself as her successor in that regard. What really hits him though is the fact his fellow Harvard graduates have gone on to great things (Obama), even those who dropped out (Zuckerberg) and these guys are liberal. One of Andy's mantras is that conservatives always do better than liberals in similar situations or circumstances and he is personally failing at that. Although he is aware of this, he still hasn't come to terms with it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of that is pretty clear from having observed him for years. What I'm curious about, and what I guess we can't know for sure, is when he says something like "Conservapedia is the primary reason the country is becoming more conservative", does he actually believe it? If so that is a staggering level of delusion, perhaps to the point of neurosis. At least when Ken says outrageous things it's pretty clear it's because he thinks it actually bothers us. He thinks we react to his "Atheism and..." articles not because they're ridiculous and hilariously pathetic, bit because he thinks we're genuinely offended/scared/outraged by them, meaning he wins. Andy doesn't, especially not in a private conversation with his lackeys. This could be his honest view of his project, which does not speak well for his sense of reality. DickTurpis (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

<Compulsary moralfaggotry about the implications of diagnosing mental disorders over the internet/> Does Andy have a delusional disorder? Yes. A thousand times yes. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy even managed to squeeze in a dig at those folks with their "Hollywood values" that make horror movies. Strange to see an old- fashioned bogeyman like scary movies being dragged up. Maybe next he'll blame comic books and detective serials on the radio. Spud (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Penny Dreadfuls are the scourge of our times! CS Miller (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, Looks like MattyD just got a 90/10 warning for upsetting poor little andy. Also I the top piece of spam from Ken on MPR made me lol quite a bit, I very much doubt he knows what is written is a double entendre and yes Ken roots are very important and something you desperately need. Naca (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, how many Americans, aged between 16 and 30 do not have facebook accounts? I suspect the main groups without one are the Puritan/Amish etc, those who can't afford a computer/internet, or those in the ultra-rural farming country where only dial-up is available. CS Miller (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in that age range. I nuked it a while ago. I discovered I really haven't missed it. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And Ken weighs in

Declaring that the shooter must have been an atheist because he had a skimpy beard.^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good old Ken. You can always rely on him on to make bizarre and horrifying statements no matter what the issue. It's almost like he's a complete sociopath. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I love how he derails conversations with his pathetic attempts to get people to read his articles and blog no matter the subject.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative of the beard hypothesis - Charlie Marx, Pete Kropotkin and Ozzy Moseley. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Logically, the default setting for everyone is atheist—it's only until they're indoctrinated that they become a theist. The articles (so far) don't say anything and Wikipedia describes the shooter as a bastard son whose mom died in labor, raised by his aunt. I guess we'll see how right or wrong Ken is eventually. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrinated isn't enough to be a theist. Like Rayment, I don't think he considers anyone who he doesn't know from church or whatever CMI cult meetings he goes to a real Christian. He's too much of a coward to go after any CP admin, but were he being honest he'd have to treat JPatt as badly as he treats Greg what's his name for being a Catholic non-YEC. Fuckin' pussy. 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's Andy he's more concerned about. But almost no one at CP lives up to Ken's Real, True Christian definition. Hell, Ed's a proud cultist. It just shows how selective Christians can be when they're sorting the sheep from the goats. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy just comes out and says video games are the cause

No real surprise^img, no real surprise he didn't really read the article either. Andy most likely got his justification from the following line in the cited article:

"A former neighbor of Roberts said he liked to play video games and never seemed troubled"

So he sounded like most other twentysomethings; I guess we better take the xboxes and playstations away from all young adults before we have an epidemic on our hands.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the main problem here is that he wanted to move to move to Hawaii. Those damn Hawaiians and their murderous rampages…. Nihilist 02:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. Computer-generated images of guns are the problem. Not real guns in the shopping mall. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I love how Andy declares, "And nothing else explains his killing rampage." Well then, I guess that's all there is to it. It's been decided. Let's just go ahead and move on until the next time someone fires a high-powered rifle into a crowd of people so we can once again complain about video games. No need to have a rational discussion about sensible gun laws. Nope. Fuck you, video games. Also, because liberals. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And now he's siding with Jack Thompson. Really, Andy, there's legitimate debate on the effects of violent video games, but considering Jack Thompson a reasonable source on the issue would be like quoting Fred Phelps about gays. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy is such an idiot. Thompson is just exploiting the tragedy to take pot shots at Grand Thief Auto, his personal boogeyman. That game he speaks of with the mall, that is Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, which was released in 2003. The game doesn't have any mission that requires you enter a mall to murder people although you could walk in at anytime and do that on your own. Somehow though I doubt his shooter was influenced by a game nine years old, which is an eternity in gaming.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why Dvergne is my new favourite parodist. He backs up Andy's delusions with a quick dose of common knowledge (the name of a specific GTA game) while all the while playing the role of TK 2.0 and IP banning everything he can get away with and driving newbies away. It is a masterful display. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Blocking

Looking at recent changes it seems that both Karajerk and DVergne have gone on a bit of an IP blocking spree, blocking a little over 700,000 IP's. Although the entire effort seems to have failed given that the last few edits have just been spam. It does seem whichever spambot(s) are targeting the trusworthy encyclopedia have cottoned onto the fact that stupid names will get instabanned, it also seems that the spammers are waiting for a while after account creation to post their SEO and dating spam (note to ken; some of the stuff in those posts could be really useful for you blog, although not as useful as getting andy to install the youtube addon into conservapedia). I don't really know much about spambots but is this a usual tactic or does this mean that someone has specifically told the spambots to do this ? And WTF is Blackhat spamming ? Naca (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a little link about it: Blackhat spamming Refugee^{talk page} 17:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have gone largely without comment on here, but that DVergne is a sycophant of the highest order with a bit of a mean streak. Bugler and TK would be proud. Props to whoever is playing him. --Damo^Hi 07:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree on your analysis of DVergne, he's mean, his blocks are excessive. But Andy seems to like him. Refugee^{talk page} 17:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess Andy likes him because he's mean and blocks excessively. That is Andy's MO when it comes to promotion. I wonder what DVergne's game is; I highly doubt he is genuine, although that is always a possibility. --Damo^Hi 09:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin on a forum, and 95% of our memberlist is random-ass names. Few try and spam immediately. Most are dormant and have never been touched after creation. Of course, the forum is set up to not allow people to post publically (they can post, but their posts are held in moderation and hidden to non-mods) until they've had one post approved through moderation. Keeps it very tidy. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 08:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember the latest trick in forum spamming being to make a bunch of vaguely on-topic posts, perhaps harvested from a search engine, but not quite bad enough to get insta-deleted, then some time later add a signature to the account with the spam links in. That's an annoying trick I'm glad they haven't yet gotten around to trying with wiki templates. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And more blocks, doubt it will do anything though given their technical incompetence. What solution do we have here that stops us getting waves of spam? it seems there are still large amounts of new users with spam names but none of them ever edit. Naca (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy and the shooting

You people probably believe this is not appropriate for a WIGO, so I'll leave this here: "We don't know a lot about the details, but we do know Adam Lanza believed in wearing masks." Occasionaluse (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. There for a little while, he simply said that "we pray for the victims". I have to admit that I believed that, at least for today, he was going to show a little class. Nope! Now it's all about masks and whether the media will "admit" whether the killer was addicted to violent video games. Good God, can't the man give his speculations twenty-four hours of rest? Phiwum (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see from that link^img he is blaming trying to place the blame on video games; Jeebus Andy they haven't even been dead for more than a few hours and already you exploit it for your own political purposes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"[Andy's] own political purposes"...bwahahahahahaha... --Seth Peck (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Arm the infants^img. He's a fucking piece of work, that man. I have no words. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

He's simply repeating what he heard on Fox News. My FB feed is lighting up with the exact same sentiments from the less-informed members of my friend list. Bobblehead parrots, every one of them. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to guess he meant the teachers and administrators.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hes a hateful, impotent sociopath. Wanking in self righteous triumph over the deaths of dozens of innocent kids, and rendering them into nothing but further ammo (no pun intended) for his petty tirades against anything he sees as "liberal" is probably the most fun hes had in months. But did you honestly think this worthless sack of cunt would do anything else in response to this news? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, for the first time in a while a tragedy strikes that Andy does say something stupid about, rather than just editors going "oooooh, I wonder what Andy will say about this" before he's done anything as if it fucking mattered. ^bomination 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if he meant that armed kindergartners would have prevented this, or that if teachers had loaded guns on their desks this one could have blown her son away before he blew her away. Whoover (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mom was killed at home, and it was her sonS who did it. Allegedly. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Was that confirmed? All I've heard was there was a body at another location, but not who it was. --Kels (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The mother, who was a teacher at the school, was the first apparent victim, killed at home. She does have two sons, but only one committed the murders (the younger one, Adam). Apparently he had the ID of his brother(Ryan) on him though which lead to conflicting reports early on that it was his older brother who committed the murders.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And they were her guns. That's a sad footnote to "arm the teachers." Whoover (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who the hell is talking about firearm control other then Andy? Anyone? So, is Andy just saying "they're talking about taking away yer gunz!" for no reason? God, why am I not surprised?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The right is mobilizing as we speak. How's this quote from Alex Jones?:

The latter will feed into the latest government gun-grabbing scheme — to deny firearms to people who are suffering from mental illness and PTSD.

He's actually against denying guns to the mentally ill! Andy is almost reasonable by comparison. He's blaming laws that make schools gun-free. With impeccable timing Michigan just fixed that problem in their state, making concealed carry in schools legal. Whoover (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Michigan bill has not been signed into law, and I've got a gut feeling it probably won't be. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase: So, only the radical right wing is talking about firearm legislation/removal, and it's limited to "they're talking about taking away yer gunz!"? God, of course. This is what makes my party look like a bunch of fucking morons. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's always Bloomberg. Whoover (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point it seems like the only time anyone talks about gun legislation is after a bunch of people get shot. And even then they're just talking about how we shouldn't be talking about it. «-Bfa-» 04:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another insight from Andy, guns don't cause shootings, gun control does. 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how he works around the fact that the suspect seems to be in the minority that didn't use Facebook. [6]. (He apparently had no Facebook page and his electronic footprint was minimal.) An absolutely shocking incident, and I agree with Bloomberg that something should be done about gun control. That Bloomberg that used to be a Republican of course. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 11:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course he didn't use Facebook, he was too busy learning to shoot people by playing violent video games! 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Another user has been blocked for saying the same thing as Andy's:::: Arm the infants^img.

ChicagoTony goes down for saying it like it is, a desperate ploy to pin shootings on whatever Andy and his cohorts dislike. Karajou spews out a last wordism^img lecture, a gem I think needs preservation. He even goes so far as to claim tony's "side" made sure the shooting became so bad. *kisses three fingers* molto bene, Karajou! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy Again Pins the Blame Directly on Video Games

Claiming there is no other basis for what the murderer did,Andy has already decided before there has been a real investigation that the cause was video games^img. How did Il Duce come to this conclusion? Because his linked article states:

"He enjoyed soccer, skateboarding and video games, the booklet said." (emphasis mine)

By this logic we must conclude that Soccer and Skateboarding may also lead to mass murder. I suspect Andy just uses the Find feature on his browser in linked articles for the words "video games" and simply makes his conclusion right then and there.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically the Japanese fighting game Dynasty Warriors^img, because of a passing remark in an article by an associate who talked about how Adam Lanza was into Japanese culture in the Nineties, including the game. Why are authorities not pinning a video game from a decade ago about fighting in a fantasy Asian setting with swords and quaterstaffs to mass murdering school kids? Probably because they are not idiots.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the cartoonish, bloodless hack and slash where a typical level has you defeating nearly 1000 enemies single handed is totally training you to shoot people.... Maybe it was the magic abilities. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Karajou wins an argument by reason and logic

Only joking. This is what he did^img and this is why^img. You want to win an argument? You block everyone who disagrees with you - simples. Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooter was home-schooled?

...not relevant.^img Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch ToP but at this point I think the sheer douchebaggery of that lying, spiteful, shitbrained fascist has stopped surprising me. Its times like this that it becomes painfully clear that out of the entire menagerie of repulsively hateful old fucks on CP, Andy remains the most despicable of all of them, more than angerbear, more than tosser, more than mister ed, and more even then ken Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does Andy's claim about a mask come from? I haven't seen that anywhere. Of course, it's relevant to Andy only because the previous shooter wore a hockey mask and hence was Hollywood's fault. If this shooter wore a mask, then it's Hollywood's fault by transitivity or something. Phiwum (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Adam Lanza" + mask. It's been reported that way, a bit...Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That edit actually infuriates me. It seems further proof that the young mass murderers page is a collection of how these murderers might've fit into Andy's preconceived notions of evil - even in the most trifle of ways (HE PLAYED VIDEO GAMES!; WORE A MASK!)--Danielfolsom (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy really is the worst of them; he is the most educated and really should know better than the semi-literate, know-nothing, dysfunctional half-wits he has surrounded himself with. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ToP. Evidently, I am new to this Google thing. Phiwum (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

His edit-comment shows his double-standards in a nutshell: fact tags are silly when the fact has been been reported and citations are easy to find; also, claim of homeschooling needs a time period before it can be considered for relevancy. Therefore references for the use of video-games are obviously not necessary, but to show that he was home-schooled, we obviously have to get sworn statements of a couple of pastors - the word of his aunt isn't enough... --larron (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

After some edit-warring, Andy found a workaround: His mom considered homsechooling^img. There, so now it mentions homeschooling, and it puts it in a positive light. Problem solved. (Amusing to see "His mom" and not mother) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy now considers the case close. He links a newspaper article that uses the phrase "violent video games." It also has this quote:

"I want people to know he wasn't always a monster," Foy said. "He became one, but he wasn't always that way."

Foy said she and other students accepted his shyness because, she said, he had been home-schooled and "hadn't really been socialized." Whoover (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've said it before, but hopefully I have the self-discipline to stick with it this time. Fuck him, and fuck CP. I'm not going to waste anymore of the precious little time I have left looking at his website. The YEC stuff? Fine. The birtherism. Fine. The ridiculous takes on sports? Fine. Dancing on the graves of innocents? Fuck him. Minutes I will be screaming to get back. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A new low

I know it's Kendoll, but editorial standards at CP have now plumbed a yet deeper mire by openly promoting Alex Jones^img on the front page. At least in past ages they had the decency to be slightly embarrassed when found in agreement with that arch-nutter. I think this past election has pushed them firmly in to the conspiracy theorist closet. How long until Obama is a reptilian from the planet Zeist I wonder? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Handy link for those of us who never heard of Alex Jones. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

wp screenshot

so.... who is going to update the screenshot on wp? Michaelmichael (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is this screenshot? Links would not go amiss. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume it's the one of CP's mainpage. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CP down?

Just tried logging on to CP, just getting:

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING in /home/cptransi/public_html/LocalSettings.php on line 287

Have they being trying to "improve" things again? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a goat's got into their system. A little nibble here, a little nibble there and before you know it, you're flying backwards your wiki's gone titsup.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Has Andy's ranting over the school shooting become so extreme someone decided to shut the site down? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, just Andy fucked up setting night mode and never checked it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping it was because he was trying to install Ken's embedded video extension. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken seems to think so^img in his latest red telephone. K3n the c0d3r^img those atheist noobz will be shaking at their keyboards Naca (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor Kendoll. He doesn't realise just how much his fellows at CP despise and pity him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken, have you forgotten that you already asked Andy to enable videos and he evaded the question? Complete twat though Andy is, he's got enough sense not to let you ruin his hate blog anymore than you already have.--Spud (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What would happen if

One for the regular CP-watchers: What would you do if CP went down permanently? Sophie^Wilder 11:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have some more faith in humanity... and look at WND and creation.com a lot more.Man of Perspective (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken would probably come here to peddle his shit, that would be a bit amusing. He would even be able to add videos. I'm sure chuckarse will still have his blog, he just won't be able to use conservapedia to linkspam to it. Naca (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The same way i reacted to Rww going down: "oh... meh. lets remove the bookmark and find somewhere else to waste time". For them, andy would just keep doing what he's always doing, terry has his own site, and the rest just aren't interesting enough to care about, though we'd still have to deal with ken for a bit probably. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Koward would just go off to his little blog o' hate, most likely. Jpratt will likely be recycled for parts. --Kels (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I used to long for the end of Conservapedia. Then I realised that the same nutters would still be writing the same stuff elsewhere on the Internet. What's worse, they probably would try to push their agenda over here.--Spud (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why you gotta lie so much, Ken?

When Sloan says "creationists tend to win" immediately after saying they cheat their asses off, do you really think he's "reluctantly" admitting anything? No. He's calling creationists scumbags for indulging all manner of logical fallacies to make an overblown case. See? That's what's called an indictment. Another academic quoted in the article commented on something like how laughable it was that creationists had to bus people in from churches to attend these "debates." Sounds about right. If I said "Ken won the race" immediately after saying you cheated your ass off, would you run off to your creepy blogs and Yahoo Answers and god knows where else you spam your garbge to crow about it? I guess I know enough about you to assume you would since you attempted your dishonest rebuttal. Anyhow. Olé olé olé and all that. You still suck. 02:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Far and wide.

I don't think Kendoll quite understands what a meme is^img even in the colloquial internet sense. Lets see what google serves up from your link eh, Ken? Well, there's you. Then there's us taking the piss out of you. Uncyclopedia taking the piss out of you in third, then a youtube video by pilgrimpater (whoever that is) taking the piss out of you. Then we have your obligatory spamming of yahoo answers, which is incredibly sad by the way. Finally rounding out the first page we have USA today reporting on skepchick taking the piss out of you, and of course skepchick taking the piss out of you. Ken, I think the meme here is that you're a fucking lunatic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A user blasted that on the talkpage, saying there's 5 million hits for "Christianity and Obesity", so Ken goes to revise that search^img to save face. Moving the goalposts AND no true scotsman, impressive. By the way Ken, "very non-religous atheists and obesity" yields the same! None! Derp! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does he know that the word meme was coined by Richard Dawkins? -Lardashe

If he accepted that Wired magazine never called atheists socially inept, why won't he accept the reality of what that Gallup poll said? Saying that people who consider themselves religious are slightly more concerned about their health than people who don't consider themselves religious is not the same as saying, "All atheists are morbidly obese, all Christian men look like Chuck Norris and all Christian women look like these lovely Indian dancers." More than anything else, the "fat athesists' thing is an Internet meme, one without much basis in reality.

And that was a pretty pathetic attempt to look like Mr. International, Ken. The content on Yahoo Answers India is just the same as on Yahoo Answers.--Spud (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think my favourite part about that is the "none of the Biblical figures were fat" thing. It's only been recently, comparatively speaking, that being fat was a negative thing. Being fat used to be its own form of conspicuous consumption, as you were rich enough to have other people do your heavy work for you and you could afford to feed yourself to excess, while hard-working peasants went without. So, all the Biblical fathers were low-class peasantry, eh? (This actually does make some logical sense, but I guarantee Ken isn't looking past making jokes about inevitably-obese atheists.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 07:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Real Cause

Karajou: Yes, you can blame legitimately blame liberals for the Connecticut school shooting. Why?: a "liberal" bill to prevent forced medication of the mentally ill. Missing: any evidence that anybody wanted to medicate Adam Lanza but was blocked. Autism: not a mental illness. Mental illness: spinning a paranoid tale of liberals engineering this tragedy. Whoover (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

His brother said he had a personality disorder. Difficult to diagnose and my understanding is not typically susceptible of being remediated with medication. Comorbid conditions are. I suspect the brother knew about the personality disorder because it was a topic of discussion at home, not because he was making shit up. Who knows whether he was treated or how. I don't get why a "conservative" would be in favor of forced anything but prayer. Care to explain that one Karajou? And how do we define "nuts?" Who gets to decide? This isn't a trivial legal issue and it's pretty well worked out. Did you just hear about it and decide to get angry, K? 05:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a game that wack-a-loon fringe "conservatives" like to play. See, they already know that everything wrong in this universe is the fault of liberals, but the trick is figuring out how. So that's what brain donors like Popeye do. It's like playing some fucked up game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, only with liberals. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are so many things about this that are awesome. Small government Karajou wants the government to force medication (which probably gives people breast cancer) on people who death panels deem unfit. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Dear fucking GOAT. How long before terry h and his gang of loons pick up on this and start reporting it as fact. The guy who allegedly said this was a GOP candidate for governor of Arizona. And some of us thought Palin was a freak. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt they'll go for it. They parrot many conspiracy theories, but "blame the Jews" is not one they go for. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Terry Hurlbut is staunchly pro-Israel, and wouldn't speak ill of the IDF and its organs if they killed his mother--"Shut up, Brx." 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the site is state-owned Iranian media, this will never see the light of day in most of the US wingnut-sphere. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more of dwight or roseaane as being the likely ones to 'report' this. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah presstv, one of the few sites to make Conservapedia occasionally seem sane, balanced and sensitive. Though it is amusing that only the state propaganda of a violent, repressive theocracy is truly a match for CP's idiocy Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Terry Quotes the CBP

Terry's latest column includes a scriptural reference, to Acts 26:24-25 (under the section titles "Does anyone suggest anything else?")

I found the sentence "Paul, you’re crazy! All your book learning has driven you straight over the edge!" a little... non-Biblical, so I checked. He's using the Conservative Bible Project.

Curiously, he doesn't link to the CBP, but he does link to Bible Gateway for a couple of other verses near the end of the piece. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Also: WTF is the "poll" about? Q: Gun control v evil control A1: Agree; A2: Disagree; A3: Undecided. What's that all about then? Scream!! (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken reclaims MPL

After Assfly had finally pushed most of Ken's spam down to the bottom.^img If your going to do that Ken I suggest you oversight those revisions and claim it was some kind of technical error. Then again I doubt Andy has the Machismo to put your links back down to where they were. Also how is the implementation of adding the embedded video extension going ? I'm guessing Andy has palmed you off again and this is payback ? Maybe you should also ask andy to add an embedded audio extension. I'm sure you could do some really neat things with it.Naca (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's about time for autoplaying MIDIs to make a comeback. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing would say Christian encyclopaedia better than a MIDI of "What a friend we have in Jesus" autoplaying on load. If your religious beliefs are stuck in the bronze age, why shouldn't your web design skills be too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would've picked "Amazing Grace" myself, but what do I know? I'm a fat gay liberal atheist that lacks machismo. Or something. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't 2012 supposed to be a "bad year for evolution", what happened? I guess the new mantra is to say the real bad year will always be the next year, that way you try and hide your failures.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. Scream!! (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which will come first, a "bad year for evolution(ists)" or "the year of Linux on the desktop". (I'm not trying to start an OS holy war, people.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Year of Linux on the Desktop" predates CP by quite a bit. I'd bet that you can find mention of it back in 1999 or so, but certainly it was an old and failed prediction by, say, 2002. (Not that I'm knocking Linux, which has been my desktop OS of choice since 1996.) Phiwum (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Ken, what is the point of adding an FYI if you delete it 10 minutes after you create it. Could you please re post it again ? Also I really think you should get andy to install mediawikiplayer. HERE is the link you need to give to Andy, it has the instructions and everything. Naca (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a link to his FYI blog. Basically, he commented that, due to recent medical advances, the cure to his sleep deprivation is in sight,and that he will be in a better condition soon. Interestingly enough, he wasn't combative at all with it. It was only about four lines long,with a motivational video attached to it. I tried to wish him well, but he took the thing down before I could even write a brief response WilliamR (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

He put the same thing in as an answer to Wschat's cp:Conservapedia:Community Portal#Main Page proposal

I am against such a change. In addition, the health sciences have now progressed to the point where my malady causing sleeplessness can be cured with a high rate of success and very minimal risks. I am making progress as far as the alleviation of my malady, but should my current and planned regime of making progress not prove 100% successful within the next 30-180 days, I now have an alternative I can consider pursuing. Yes, God willing, soon I will be completely restored to my usual energetic self. Better than I was before. Better, stronger, faster! The Steve Austin of theism, biblical creationism and conservatism. :) The abortion article may gain a significantly higher internet profile than before. If that should occur, CP may achieve enough conservatism and ma-cheese-mo energy to "break free" from the liberal forces attempting to suppress it. :) The day may be coming where the CP abortion article has an M factor of 5. Of course, this will include an embedded pro-life video by Shockofgod and his lovely wife on their motorcycle. :) Gentlemen at another wiki, you may want to consider making less predictions about the imminent death of CP. :) Conservative 12:12, 18 December 2012 (EST)

This, too, was deleted after 18 minutes. --larron (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of photos of Ken and his lovely conservative, creationist wife then? Not even a slight hint of her existence? Until they appear we shall continue to regard Ken as a sad, basement-dwelling, socially-inept, confirmed bachelor. Генгис^marauding 10:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Early New Year's resolution: Stop picking on people who display the signs of having deeply-rooted challenges to living what we would call a "normal" life, no matter how much they seem to ask for it. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I'll go a lot easier on you in 2013. ;) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll wish him well in his recovery from insomnia. Having once been required to do a bit of shift work, I found that Melatonin based sleeping tablets where quite effective for the switch arounds as they didn't make you kill people or walk around outside naked. Naca (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Ken's insomnia is just your average "trouble sleeping" kind. Often delusional people are encouraged to seek treatment for their mental illness by focusing on the most overt undeniable symptoms, such as the fact that they've been up for days. It's often unhelpful to tell a delusional person to seek help because they're living in a paranoid fantasy world; they'll just withdraw deeper, incorporating you into the fantasy as a persecutor. I've always interpreted Ken's "sleeplessness" as code for psychotic break. --Marlow (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Favourite Conservapedian

2012 is almost over, and now, who is your favorite Conservapedian this year? Mine: Dvergne - parodist extraordinaire! (although Ken's demands place him at a close second) Percival^Weasley 01:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

CamilleT--"Shut up, Brx." 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

so Brx's favourite conservapedian is...Brx. No surprises there. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Dvergne is a parodist myself. My favourite would be that guy who kept on repeatedly making socks from about 3 months ago. Karajou began to get ever so annoyed and eventually did a /16 IP block. Man of Perspective 01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Has to be either learned parodist DVergne, or AugustO. AugustO is like a cat with 9 lives, by all rights he should have been permablocked many times over. As for DVergne not being a parodist, I doubt that very much, everything about him screams parodist to me. --Damo^Hi 02:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My favourite part of the DVergne persona is his blocking of vast swathes of IP space without even having checkuser. It's genius like that that marks out the truly inspired wiki-wrecker. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Has to be AugustO for me, constantly annoying and arguing with Assfly, Karajou and Ken and somehow managing to survive it. Has he been blocked as I haven't seen him editing for a while. Brenden rates a mention as it seems he is/is apparently openly supportive of homosexuals and was threatened by Ken. That guy who wrote all those car articles that got mentioned a while ago also rates a mention. Dvergne also rates a mention although he does seem genuine. Anyone have any thoughts on whether AlanE or GregG are genuine or not ? Oh Hi brenden! Naca (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Brenden (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems you where a bit slow on that last vandal, maybe you should ask Ken why he didn't block it. You don't have checkuser either, so I doubt that block will stop that vandal. Naca (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was doing my homework. Brenden (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@Damo, I suspect AugustO's longevity has something to do with the fact he rescued Conservapedia's relativity article after their wiki went tits up. In return, Aschlafly got on his knees, and started kissing August's bum.Percival^Weasley 02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that. Still, he has said a hell of a lot to Andy about the Hebrews authorship question and I'd say he is bloody lucky to still be there, even considering his saving the day. Damo^Hi 03:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AugustO for his integrity, sincerity and likability. Although he gets a minus for trying to make CP less funny.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Honorable Mention

As he wasn't the usual CP toady but an in-your-face sort of commenter who survived until last week when AngryBear infinite blocked him --chicagtony. C®ackeЯ

Ah, so that was you?Percival^Weasley 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm no. I consider it gauche to tout one's own sock(s) or to memorialize them yourself. 07:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

How did chicagotony manage to go so long without getting blocked for breaking the 90/10 rule? Were the sysops afraid of getting whacked? Spud (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has bothered to enforce 90/10 for years. The only use it sees now is from Kendoll as an excuse for blocking people who point out awkward data contradictory to his fantasy world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken picking a fight with Dvergne?

It looks like it to me. I'm sure that Dvergne knows that the only way to the top is with Kens tacit approval, so I expect him to roll over and play nice. That doesn't appear to be in Dvergne's nature though. [1]^img The petulance is starting already [2]^img. --Damo^Hi 11:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No offense but Ken not freaking his shit out and drooling all over the place is boring. I guess it's no mean feat to appear more fair and reasonable than any of the other goons, but it doesn't last. Let me know when he does something interesting so I can get all self-righteous about you people making fun of him despite his obvious suffering. 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Teavangelicals?

Ken uses the term "teavangelicals" over on MPR.

Isn't that a derogatory term? Admittedly, not as bad as "teabagger", but it's still unkind, right? Or is this like the gay community recapturing the word "queer"? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

From his obscure blog: "A teavangelical is a evangelical Christian who is also a supporter of many of the positions that the Tea Party movement in America espouses." So I am going to guess and say it is supposed to be a positive term. Don't expect it to catch on, especially given many in the Tea Party are already evangelicals and never had a reason to differentiate themselves before.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

People who don't realise the tea party was over in 2010 are cute. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And those who don't realize it was over in 1773 are pathetic. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

TiVo: The Trusworthy DVR

How is it that Andy hasn't posted something about how now that Tim Tebow has endorsed Tivo, it's the only DVR that embodies True Conservative values and that the box you get from your cable company is nothing but liberal claptrap? --75.140.157.105 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy loves Tivo. It lets him rewind Tebow's blink-and-you'll-miss-them appearances on the field. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just watched the first two quarters of NY Jets playing Tennessee on Monday night (thank-you BBC - 'red button' channel 301 on Tuesday evenings, in case anyone else is interested). Apart from special plays, T-bone appeared for just one set of four downs. He didn't throw the ball once, he lost ground, he kept running into trouble. Mark Sanchez may be inconsistent but I'm not surprised the coach picks him ahead of Andy's man-crush. There's nothing liberal vs conservative about it, just moderate competence plus experience versus raw talent but lack of confidence. But you knew that. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I know shit about this, but when I was at the gym today (first time in two years: 50 pounds off by next Christmas, or else...) the talking head on the sports network was saying that Sanchez is done, the other QB would play out the string, and that Tebow would either be traded or released. A Montreal paper has reported that the odds of Tebow coming to the CFL are not insignificant....Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh god damn. I do not need Andy trying to find out how Canadian Football works and proclaiming it so much more christian then the NFL just so he can keep following his man-crush. --Revolverman (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's going to be worth it to watch Andy attempt to justify and rationalize how Canadian Football is superior to American football when we're a bunch of liberal socialists with legal gay marriage and hate-speech rules. And Christianity isn't nearly as strong (or crazy, outside a few troublesome spots) up here. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 07:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting Andy aside. I am interested in seeing if Tebow really clicks with the long and fast offensive style of the CFL. If he does go up north and fund sucress, I'm sure Andy will spin it like he's some saint like missionary, bring god to the red horde of Canada. --Revolverman (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does "long and fast offensive style" means T-bone would have to throw the ball more often as a QB in Canadian footie? I wonder if he's thought of converting to Tight End. Seriously: most of his appearances in NFL this season have been as a blocking QB to protect the punter. </sport-bore> Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A Canadian football field is 10 yards longer, and it's three downs instead of four, so yeah, it's a big throwing game/less of the short run. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just generally, since you guys seem to know about Canadian football: does not being able to throw a football or run lead to different outcomes in Canada than in the US? 13:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Only in that the talent pool is weaker. A guy like Tebow might be a mediocre NFL player, but in Canada, he could be a star. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the talent pool is weaker, just the differences (and its more then just 10 extra yards and 3 downs) means talent in one rule set, doesn't me you'll have talent in the other rule set. --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Predictions for the new year. Part 1: "Tim Tebow shows communist atheist Canadians how football should be played: run with the ball like a good conservative, don't throw it like an evil liberal." Part 2: "The way that communist atheist liberal British and Australian rugby players run with the ball is completely different to the way that conservative Tim Tebow runs with the ball. Deny this and lose all credibility." Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Since America rejected His messenger, God has chosen to send his only begotten quarterback to Canada." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inouye versus Bork

I'm too lazy to hunt up the specific posts, but check out the "tweeting hate" thread at the CP MPR talk page.

In summary, JDrag points out that liberals did say nasty things about Robert Bork when he died, but look at what some conservatives said about Daniel Inouye.

Karajou basically says "it's okay to say horrible things about Inouye.". MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun rights lobby silent per Andy

"Gun rights lobby silent" now; it spent "$2.9 million lobbying Congress" in 2011, "$1.1 million in direct campaign contributions", and 18.9 million (~$11 million anti-Dem, ~6 million pro-Repub) in spending on Federal elections in 2011-12 to promote easy access to assault weapons like that used by the young mass murderer in Connecticut." Surprising to hear Andy report that. Oh, wait, of course he didn't (ref for NRA vs. evil ESA)--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because it's what the lamescreed media isn't reporting that makes the main page. Everyone knows gun lobbyists are panicking, so there's no need to include it. Also, I love the fallacious appeal... "They spent billions last year...but they've been silent for days now!" Occasionaluse (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It finally snowed!

Nothing special, but I am kinda glad that it's this time of year. Two-thirds into December, there's a snowstorm in the upper midwest. Global warming? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh the old Andy belief that if Global Warming (Climate Change) was real, there would be absolutely no cool days, no snow, no winter in essence; an all or nothing approach. So of course if there are any snow storms in the Upper Midwest in winter then the Earth must be cool, ergo no Climate Change. In reality even with this storm, it is still rather warm. Here in Chicago it is actually raining as part of the storm and in the mid-forties, definitely above normal. Of course that doesn't in itself add any credence to Climate Change but it certainly doesn't strengthen Andy's case either.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There was so much lightning and thunder with this snowstorm that my daughter (who hates thunder ever since a neighbor's yard was struck by lightning) was up all night long. And I had been so happy that we were out of thunderstorm season...--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It must be an ice age here (northern Germany) then, because it started snowing two weeks ago.-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.} 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I like Andy's claim that global warming isn't a big deal because people more to Florida because it's warmer. Is that really what he thinks we're all worried about? A slightly warmer day? Someone should tell him that we're actually concerned about raising oceans sinking Florida, and large swaths of the ocean dying. Carlaugust (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

huh what ?

Ken goes all KAL007,^img I wonder if he will blame PZ Meyers or Richard Dawkins for the whole even. Naca (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, he was just doing some formatting. Nothing to see here, move along. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Because if there's one thing Kendoll knows how to do, it's make walls of text readable. Incidentally, book your slot at the Kendoll summer camp experience. Guaranteed to not exist be a barrel of fun for the whole family. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The liberal sports media strikes again! When will Andy respond?

When is Andy going respond to this? What's more important, blaming a school shooting on video games or blaming the liberal sports media for keeping outspoken Christians out of the QB slot? RachelW (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot twist: Andy complains about the Tebow's stats in Madden '13 for Xbox 360 . Occasionaluse (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to read when all you see is red

Anger Bear: Damned liberals running our universities don't understand the first amendment!^img

Article: Universities seeing big improvements in prohibitive speech codes over the last 5 years.

Well I guess all those liberals must be doing the right thing, eh Popeye? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll never fully understand what it's like to live a life blinded by rage. Why did he leave the Navy? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Jeeves, can you explain your point here? Karajou took the claim about understanding the first amendment straight from the article headline. Doesn't seem like a misrepresentation to me. Phiwum (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Some bonus points: He's outraged that universities have strict harassment policies. Same guy who wants to call the FBI on us. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that there's the "liberals" Popeye thinks are in charge of universities are actually fixing the problem, and it says so right in the article he's so angry about. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay, but the misstatement begins with the article headline, not with Karajou. I'd blame WND on this. Yeah, Karajou should have read the article and realized what's really going on, but the fundamental error is that bastion of responsible journalism. Phiwum (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the error is with Karajou. For a wingnut daily piece, that's a remarkably OK bit of journalism, even if it is of the "reprint the press release" school. The problem is that Karajou read the headline and got so angry he never read further. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There's really enough stupidity, ignorance, and agenda-driven dishonesty to go around here. No need to concentrate it on one guy. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's homespun wisdom

If everyone supposedly opposes global warming, then why do so many people move to Florida?

I have nothing to add. Phiwum (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From the school of argument that brought us "If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?" I can see why Andy has never been a trial lawyer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of our very own rally-driver-turned-weirdo-politician, Ari Vatanen, who once argued that global warming is a good thing since "in cold weather you can catch a cold and die" and subsequently lost his re-election bid to European parliament as everybody tilted their collective heads in confusion. Good times... Vulpius (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just when CP was getting so boring we were commenting on Ken's dribbles and Kara's dog templates, Andy manages to come through again.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservative's brilliance shines through again

Violent video games are okay if it's good vs. evil!^img, sayeth Kenneth, defending both CP's stance on violent games and shock's playing and advertising of violent games. A good example is Wolfenstein, he claims, because you kick Evilutionist Nazi ass! .... Except......

Anders Breivik and Adam Lanza both played Call of Duty. Anyone that has played it knows the player fits the role of Allied and fight against the Axis in the earlier releases, or basically play the good guy against, well everything else, in the current releases. Even the game Doom that the Columbine shooters played is a good vs. evil plot - you're a marine incarcerated for refusing to shoot civilians and you end up the sole survivor against demonic entities from Hell. Impossible to escape by ship alone, the player is forced to enter Hell and kill satanic forces. So by Ken's failed logic, those killers are as decent folk as shockofgod. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And of course, Shockofgod doesn't really "fight Nazi evolutionary racists" anymore than I evade ghosts when I'm playing Pac-Man. It's just a game and playing it will do nothing to help defeat atheism or evolutionism.--Spud (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The resulting effect is probably the same as with Ken's Operation Flying Kitties though. Also, I'm kind of saddened by the fact that Shockofgod can only afford a computer that can run a 20 year old game. Vulpius (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I like Andy's take on the whole thing. Andy: that is not a meaningful counterexample to a tendency.... You know who has a "profound" argument countering that? Other Andy. "one case can prove a theory. Either there are two Andy's, or he's being "intellectually" dishonest. Can't figure out which. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What Ken isn't telling you is that ShockOfGoat also plays Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty 4, and frequently too if you go by the sheer amount of videos he devotes to those games. Of course he is playing multiplayer in those videos so he isn't shooting random NPC Nazis, he is shooting other random players using real world weaponry. So yes, there is hypocrisy there at least from Ken; I have no idea what Shock thinks of video games in general other than "military FPS are awesome".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually hard-pushed to think of an FPS where you AREN'T playing as a 'good' guy, fighting against 'evil'. Even widening that to 'games' in general, that scenario is kinda rare. The only ones I can think of is the Overlord games, where you undeniably play as an evil son-of-a-bitch (though the whole tone of the games make it clear they're more parodies than anything else), and the Legacy of Kain series, where you play as either the vampire Kain, who basically becomes something of an evil emperor at the canon ending of the first game (though you can choose to depart from that and, as Kain, valiantly sacrifice yourself to save the world), or his betrayed lieutenant, Raziel. Even then, the storyline of the entire series makes it quite ambiguous as to whether there's a good reason for Kain being so apparently evil. Apart from that, there are only very open games, where you can choose to be a bad guy, if you want, like the Elder Scrolls series, the Fable games and the GTA games. 31.53.231.20 (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why what Ken wrote is utter bollocks.--Spud (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dogs

Conservapedia goes to the dogs is a much better WIGO title. Any bets on which species of fauna the copy and paster noted botanist will improve next? Naca (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. I had considered something along those lines but opted for this version since Angry Bear did all those boid stubs. C®ackeЯ 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Botanists" don't study "fauna," dummy. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Methinks dear Naca was being kind using "botanist" in place of "dumb as a tree". C®ackeЯ 00:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No it should have been zoologist, mixed them up as originally wrote flora instead of fauna:( Has he done bears yet or was he too angry? Naca (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm guessing that was KDaug who was the author of the paragraph that seems to want to insinuate that Obama is a fan of bestiality but fails miserably in doing so. Naca (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

At the present rate of progress it might be a while before Ursus Angrius gets around to cataloguing his kinfolk. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county." Our county has a K9 unit, and so does the county next door. So which county are they talking about? Doctor Dark (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Nature of Dogs.^img Oh hi MattyD, You met capturebot2? Naca (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was pure parody, then I realized Kara wrote it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aw. They finally noticed that one, eh? Alas. That was brought to you by the finest wandal of the year. He who also brought you this^img. That gem survived for months before some damn drive-by suckup spotted it. 3 thumbs up, mystery wandal. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory. Vulpius (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to place a bet that Karajou will next turn his attention to fish. What's the prize?--Spud (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A fish.--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.} 12:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For the seals^img pi^pi internetz for anyone who can somehow manage to get the musical artist seal into the article. Naca (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No fish for me, then.--Spud (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Digg

Those evolutionary atheists over at Wikipedia have been doing dodgy things with Digg.^img I wonder if they where the same sort of things that chuckarse and his Digg Patriots got caught doing ? Another case of Conservative Deceit?. Naca (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't understand sports part LXIII

Andy believes the NHL players dissolving their union is a blow to originated labor^img. Truth is this move is a attempt by players to force the NFL owners and commissioner to come to the bargaining table for a new labor agreement by threatening the NHL itself directly, by allowing players to sue the NHL for antitrust violations. As soon as an agreement is reached (which will happen at some point, if not this season, then next), those same players will vote to reform the union.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Andy, don't talk about shit you clearly have not been following until you hear the words "Dissolved Union". Love, a hockey fan very pissed off at the NHL and the NHLPA. --Revolverman (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy?

Andy posts a Ron Paul quote about the ridiculousness of the NRA's gun plan. [7] WTF? I'm trying to process this... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Only logical explainations are that he is trying to tar either Ron Paul or the NRA as filthy liberal untermench, despised by all REAL TRUE XTIANS(tm). Maybe hes pissed at finding Ron Paul is not as "conservative" as he thought, or that the NRA stole his "games cause mass shootings" rants without citing him, or inviting him as guest of honor to their speech Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This might sound crazy, but maybe we could read the actual story and see if there's any cluse in there. Something like Ron saying "Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets..." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa Cluse? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I figured it out. Guns are largely defensive. Posting armed guards in public schools would make them safer. Its bad for homeschool business. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, be fair. The plan of imposing government guards in schools should raise a big red flag with conservatives just as much as liberals. Even though Andy is pro-gun that doesn't mean he has to agree with every harebrained plan of the NRA. In any case, the placing of a story on MPR does not necessarily mean that conservapedia agrees with it entirely, its just a thought-provoking article that will interest conservatives. --Damo^Hi 22:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Thought provoking"? That would be unusual. Most MPR posts are appeals to emotion. Генгис^unbelieving 10:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"total state control over its citizens' lives" is Andyspeak for "what liberals dream of". So Ron Paul is basically saying that only a totalitarian state would do what his strawman liberals want. Which... er... means that the NRA is liberal? *sound of brain breaking* --Sid (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken's new targets

Setting his sights on Wikipedia with a possible war on woo to boot!^img I'm sure you can find a large amount of anti woo material here at RW. Naca (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Boring, boring, boring. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He has been posting his spam to his little blog all through Christmas Day; that is really sad when you think about it; he had nothing else to do and no one to see on Christmas. I really do feel bad for him and pity him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ken. We know you read this. In all sincerity, Merry Christmas. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 05:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodwill to all men.

I see that even on Christmas day both Karajou and TerryH managed to find things to be angry about. Don't they ever give their fuming hatred a rest for even so much as one day? It must be exhausting. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They are horrible men. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"Men" is too good a word. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

'Women', then? Nihilist 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they are men. Sadly, all too typical men. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Andy really an intellectual coward?

One of the reasons Wikipedia will continue to grow and Conservapedia will continue to stagnate is that it does not lock every single damned article and talk page simply because they are terrified of dissenting opinion. Andy may be convinced Wikipedia's NPOV stance is a sham and that it's a shill for liberal opinions, but as someone who has edited on Wikipedia and was raised with Christian conservative values (I'm quite open-minded these days and have abandoned most of those values), he's full of crap.

The funny part is that Andy's policy of locking pages to prevent dissent is actually LESS in line with being like the vengeful, hateful God he seems to follow. In the Old Testament, you were free to spout a dissenting opinion in the face of God, and you could even outright defy God, at your peril, though "your blood would be on your own head" and you would die and go to a place where you would be without the presence of God, which would be the equivalent of blocking someone then papering over all their edits with the oversight functions.

Instead, he chooses more often to lock pages against editing and discussion, which more reveals Andy as someone terrified of dissenting opinions because he doesn't want to entertain anything not in line with his preconceived notions (maybe he's scared he'll realize his house of cards has a foundation made of sand and BS when forced to allow anything that might make him challenge his own perceptions) than someone who has long decided what he chooses to believe and plans to never deviate from it as long as he lives so he might as well let dissenters bray on as long as they wish until their blocking.

I could be wrong, but that's my take on things.

On an unrelated note, I read the Tim Tebow article at CP, and I love the hypocrisy in this part:

Tebowing is the act of kneeling on one knee, resting your head on your fist and giving thanks. It is named for Tebow's fashion of public prayer, although critics (among which are fellow Christians) have criticized such open practice as this by citing Matthew 6, verses 5 and 6:

Which they are right to do, in my opinion. He's showing off his faith for attention, which is the long version of "pious hypocrite" (a description that sums up CP in encyclopedia form).

However, Tebow's act can be considered simply an expression of faith and thanks, rather than a prayer.

Which he doing for attention, and he knows it and has not quit doing so publicly when called on it, showing humility instead of pride, so once you translate the "conservative claptrap" said above to English", Andy is saying "because I think he's a conservative, it must be right".

Which was the same thing Boxer said about every word that came out of Napoleon's mouth in Animal Farm, come to think about it.

That Tebow bows to God on the field does not mean that he does not also pray to Him in private.

Which is irrelevant padding to the article. The important part is that even Conservapedia admits the hypocrisy even while trying to downplay it.

Arcane (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Arcane

"One of the reasons Wikipedia will continue to grow and Conservapedia will continue to stagnate..." There is only one reason that WP will continue to grow while CP will continue to stagnate. The former is an online encyclopedia project edited by a large and diverse user-base that is interested in seeing the project thrive. The latter is not an encyclopedia but rather a marginal blog edited by agenda-driven crackpots and internet bullies, most of whom are not very educated and none of whom are particularly intelligent. Once you see it that way, you can dispense with more nuanced readings. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't be arsed to check the details, but has Andy been protecting pages recently? As with most things at CP, Andy pretends to play the honest and open card whilst relying on one of his goons to do the dirty work. But certainly, Andy is a coward when it comes to managing his wiki. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's why he lets Ken and Terry linkshit all over his Main page, because they'll happily do the work he doesn't want to dirty his own hands with? --Revolverman (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy has argued for mild blocks, and believes in redemption. But he's generally been quite happy not to intervene when the shitferbrains have played the heavy hand. Just like dozens of popes have done. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ToP's assertion Conservapedia is a hate blog was just proven with this little bit of intellectual cowardice: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Conservapedia_proven_wrong#Why_is_this_page_locked_again.3F

According to Andy, the page is open to all "substantial editing", right? Well, not only does it have very few substantial edits since he said this, they are all sysop approved edits, with no ordinary editor input, as shown here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_wrong&action=history

Then again, it's a page where Andy and his minions are forced to admit their hate blog was *GASP* wrong about anything they predicted, so no surprises there. Bonus points for the fact Karajou put the block on since November, and Andy saw no reason to remove it even when asked about it in December.

Arcane (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Arcane

Family troubles?

My imagination leads me to believe that Phyllis is being more vocal with her disappointment with Andy. I can't think of another reason CP would be silent on Big Phy winning WND’s 2012 "Lifetime Achievement Award". Occasionaluse (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy has always been a bit reticent in pumping up his mother. I think he relies on the sycophants to make an issue out of it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlopshot has long avoided mentioning any of her spawn by name, and her brood has lovingly returned the favor. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't she once plug teh assfly's blog on her radio show though ? Naca (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, it was a very diminutive mention. Something along the lines of "your little website thing". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he just understands the hypocrisy of a woman who spends her entire life going on book tours and radio programs telling how all of America's women should be in the kitchen making sandwiches for their husbands and children...and he really wants a sandwich. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hah. Read the article. She apparently thinks she never had another job after she got married. Got it? All that stuff she got paid for? NOT A JOB. I suppose that's how, in her own mind, she justifies telling women to get the traditional MRS degree. After all, that's what she did. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pin money. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

will Andy show leadership?

A page is created for a Youtube-channel with 30 subscribers. He deserves a CP-page just for promting the QE! campaign. Plaints are voiced on Andy's talk page, with the urging question:"The community will be looking to Aschlafly to provide leadership on this issue." http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Djw0071

Looking for Andy to show leadership is liking looking for the sun to rise in the west. It's not just not going to happen; you're not quite right in the head if you seriously think it will happen. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also if you are from CP, I hoped you used a proxy. Angry Bear (Hi) watches this page so if you didn't don't be surprised if your entire /16 gets range blocked. Naca (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Good laugh from that guy's videos. Makes horrible arguments, gets torn apart in the comments on his videos, and only defends himself with strawmen or completely broken logic. His video on the QE! have locked down comments and ratings. I wonder if this guy knows the full extent of Conservative, and how he'd respond to his ideology (such as Uganda executing homosexual, his opinion is "turn or burn" or some such). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I kind of hope this is the one promise Kendoll made that comes true. I'd love to see Ken's own youtube channel. He'd spam it all over CP, and it'd have perhaps half a dozen subscribers. Unlike all the other things like books, summer camps and blog networks he's promised, this one actually seems to be within the scope of his abilities. Please, please make it happen Ken. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is to say that this youtube channel isn't Ken ? Naca (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I had that thought myself, except the channel has some much older crap in it. If it is Ken's channel, he's taken a while to add it to his QE! campaign. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all because of teh ghey agenda!

Russia bans American adoptions.

Andy: Is it because America is pushing the gay agenda?^img

This isn't a case of Andy failing reading comprehension again; the article mentions nothing about the "gay agenda". He's just making shit up. The closest I found is a much better article from the LA Times that describes Russian's concerns, and has one member of the Duma citing same sex marriages as one of her concerns.

I also note the irony of an "encyclopedia" that claims to be pro-American actually taking the side of the Russians in a US/Russia dispute. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy (and alot of hyper-right wingers) have had a growing hardon for Russia lately. Its really quite incredible "He who stares into the abyss..." --Revolverman (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Kennyboy misquoting the Beatles made me smile. Naca (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They actually use the term "Lamestream Media" on-site? Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 12:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Constantly. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So Andy actuallys believes this? What is he basing it on? This is weird even for Andy. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The guy who believes black holes are a liberal plot to prevent people reading the Bible? Sure, he believes it. It's always wheels within wheels for these people. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I forgot about who we were dealing with here. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dvergne

Okay, I reckon Dvergne is a parodist now, considering he is taking the mickey out of Ken, with stuff like this. Anyone else agree? Man of Perspective 08:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's nothing. Read this, I'm sure he's a parodist now, with this insanity about how with God's guidance, he can stop spamming: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dvergne#A_question_about_blocking_-_please_do_enlighten_me...

I love the snarky reply he got in return for that statement.

Arcane (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Arcane

EC, was just posting the same thing. The full exchange is this rubbish^img. He'll overstep the mark soon and be history, noone - not e ven anger bear - is taken in by him. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. He is basically a carbon copy of Bugler. He is sychophantic and always demonstrating how wonderful he is, he has a habit of redoing trivial things like this to make it look like he was the one who did it. I've noticed he also likes taking credit for articles that he didn't write. Probably the thing that is most suspect about him though is his heavy handed blocking approach. I'm certain he's been around CP for a long time and is familiar of what has curried favour in the past. They should be on to the routine by now, but somehow I don't think they are. --Damo^Hi 10:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dvergne has spotted his error and takes some time out. --larron (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, he's a new account and immediately got into the spirit by blocking. It may be an old account holder under a new name but the account itself is fairly new. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The account is new, sure, but I think he has been following CP for a while. Damo^Hi 11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dvergne has done some shady things, such as deleting talk page comments, including on his own talk page, especially comments that show he is wrong about something, and he's archived portions of his talk page to get rid of comments he doesn't like, while continuing the original discussion without those comments being shown. He also does virtually nothing other than make silly redirects of terms people would never type in as a search and extremely overzealous blocking. Refugee^{talk page} 21:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy alleges millions of non-citizens voted for Obama

The best part about reading CP. Watching Andy take the hard road of twisted logic and stupidity instead of the easy road of copping to a bad call. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely love it, this might be my favorite part of CP. Also loved this quote:

"It is indisputable that there was large-scale voting without the traditional safeguards to ensure integrity. It's analogous to having school exams in the absence of any safeguards or standards against cheating on the tests. -Andy Schlafly"

Sooo, what safeguards are there against the CP Exams for the homeschoolers? Wait, don't tell, the answer is: "HOMESCHOOLERS DONT NEED SAFEGUARDS CAUSE THEY WERE TAUGHT NOT TO CHEAT, CONSERVATIVE SUPER VALUES!" GTac (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here a Rice alum (..paging Ames!!!) want to tell us about how the honour system works there? I had a prof who told me some great stories about working there -- students getting pissed at him if he wouldn't leave the exam hall so that they could start writing their exams. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Because he had the "American voters" phrase, he uses that as a cop-out and clings to it. Gotta love Karajou's farting in with his assertion of the usual "well the only way to prove us wrong is to inspect the voting machines!" Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"You, Anonymous User, are going to scour the area known as the United States of America, which now is occupied by Barack Hussein Obama, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every voting machine and every single ballot before you carry on with your opinion in this website. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that voting fraud doesn't exist." Vulpius (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I might be some time. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was just reddit circle jerking, but it seemed like most people busted for voter fraud this cycle were conservatives. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to T of P for the link. Andy at his most entertaining! Warping logic through 360 degrees to avoid ever admitting that he might have been even a teeny-weeny-weeny bit wrong. Just like "There was no humour before Jesus" and "All the best composers were German". Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"It's analogous to having school exams in the absence of any safeguards or standards against cheating on the tests."
LMAO! Today...
Andy: "More than 85% of our class scored more than 80% on our American Government Midterm Exam. How well can you do? (Grading is done automatically online.)"
--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's some painful stupid.

Oh, my head^img. I can't fathom the stupidity behind this arcticle. Claiming that all hydrocarbons are naturally occurring because ethane is, confusing hydrocarbons in general with oil in particular... I don't even... The comment section is even worse, I think it might actually have killed a few thousand braincells. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WND has been pimping Abiotic oil for a long time now. --Revolverman (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Where to even start? The fact that all oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons, not all hydrocarbons are oil and natural gas? Or that they take this all or nothing view even further; claiming just because various hydrocarbons are produced by methods other than the compression of dead organisms (something we have long known) suddenly mean that there is no way any hydrocarbons are produced by anaerobic decomposition of dead things. It isn't even oil they found in space, it's propynlidyne, while most oil on Earth is made from pentane, octane, hexadecane, and nonane (the first two are used for petrol, the latter two into kerosene, diesel, etc). Yes they are all hydrocarbons; yes they all can be used for fuel (so can methane, which is a hydrocarbon but no one ever claim its oil or solely made by living things, well maybe Corsi would), but it doesn’t mean suddenly oil is not a fossil fuel.

The best part was Corsi stating the following:

"In other words, hydrocarbons are not "organic chemicals" resulting from life processes on earth, as is commonly assumed by proponents of the fossil fuel theory." - Jerome Corsi

Yes they are you conspiracy nut. An "organic chemical" or more correctly, an organic compound is any compound whose molecules contain carbon. It doesn’t matter what produced them, it matters if the composite molecules have carbon in them; if they do, they are "organic".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Strictly, any compound whose molecules contain carbon chemically bonded to hydrogen. Otherwise CO₂ would be organic. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Granted, just the whole conspiracy Corsi is trying to generate here just blows my mind. Hydrocarbons in space is not some mind-altering new concept. He has to be deliberately obtuse about this.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitions vary. You won't usually have any trouble getting an organic chemist to agree that CO₂ is inorganic, but the exact rationale will depend on what sort of organic chemist they are. In a few cases they will actually argue against you, saying that CO₂ is organic but just really boring. It's no longer a really big deal because vitalism is dead, but obviously someone who considers themselves an "organic chemist" will be annoyed if other chemists say they're not because the particular compounds they're working with don't meet someone's definition of organic e.g. because they lack a direct bond between a carbon and hydrogen atom. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two aspects to abiotic oil that the conservative and religious fringe want to have. The first is that if oil is created now through non-fossilization process, then they get to continue to deceive themselves that the world is only 6k years old. From the conservative pro business side, this is a way to imagine that peak oil won't happen and one can drill for oil for ever without any need to invest in alliterative energy or scale back current energy consumption. --Shagie (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversight and Ken

Seems the peons are getting fed up with Ken's inability to block vandals and his liberal use of oversight (Note to Ken: Your quite liberal use of oversight indicates you lack machismo. I bet PZ Meyers or Richard Dawkins don't use it to cover their tracks. Ole Ole Ole). Just a question, is it possible for someone like Ken or Karajou to block someone and then use oversight to cover their tracks so there is no evidence of that person ever registering ? That would create some serious issues visa-ve accountability, then again there is no such thing as conservative deceit Naca (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last looked into the technical details of oversight, but I'm 99.9% certain that it only applies to edits, not log actions. Otherwise, Ken wouldn't leave tracks of his incompetence and trolling ALL OVER THE WIKI (patrol log, deletion log). --Sid (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Karajou explains Conservapedia's reputation

Karajou: "We say that liberals are nothing more than racist, bigoted, intolerant, lying little thugs who declare to the public that it is their way or the highway,^img and whenever they do make a little vandal attack on us, they prove our point about them beyond a shadow of a doubt."

At least he's honest about CP's goals. --Sid (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that Karajou divides the world into "conservatives", "liberals' and the "general public". Try telling Andy that humanity comes in a third flavour.--Spud (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Racist, intolerant, lying little thug? Karajou, that's a mirror you're looking at. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, he did block someone for antisemitism recently, but that may have just been a once off thing. Arcane (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Arcane

Does he seriously think that the "general public" reads CP?--"Shut up, Brx." 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think andy has convinced himself that they really do, I don't think any of the rest mistake CP for anything more than it actually is. Also, silly brx, the best of the general public reads conservapedia, the rest just don't matter in that worldview. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservative's reply in that section is just icing on the cake. He says that after oversighting all his edits during the vandal spree (so it doesn't show him gleefully editing and ignoring the vandal), oversights a revert in that section by someone, while crapping all over the wiki. His response is just as he claims liberals act, its a tantrum. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Because they are low class, trashy liberals." is something you just can't read without a snooty, upper-class British accent. Vulpius (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of 'liberals' in that context seems distinctly american to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As does 'low class' and 'trashy' now that I think about it. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll's reply^img Maybe if you unblocked S....d, he wouldn't be so obscure ? Naca (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RW article on CP^img Hasn't been burned and Andy has been there since it was created. I'm impressed Naca (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dance, for us, little man, dance! C®ackeЯ

Rational Wiki

Alright, own up, who did that? Brenden (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Goatbotdidit.Naca (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed rounds off the year with his usual blindness

Ed Poor: "Dear user who retired^img more than ten months ago because the admins here fail as conservative Christians, I finally got around to reading^img your talk page post^img from almost a year ago , and hereby give you an implied Writing Assignment..."

If I didn't know better, I'd assume that he's doing this on purpose. --Sid (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why I love Ed. All the others are outwardly bonkers, but Ed's idiocy is completely surreal. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Icing. Just in case he had any competition for Conservapedia's Biggest Idiot award. Stay classy Ed Poor, stay classy. C®ackeЯ 22:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey how about a little gendered essentialism?

Women. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Meyhap it is women's intuition to "avoid something without knowing why" that has kept CP delightfully female free?--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was Kendoll's MA-CHEESE-MO that did that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice one. Unfortunately, my lesser, male intuition has not kept me from that place. Nihilist 20:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I miss Hsmom. It's coming up on a year and a half since she's edited. It's not entirely clear to me that she wasn't a parodist in the sense that her goal was simply to highlight their creepy hypocrisy, but goat bless her sweet heart for doing good. What other female edits have there even been since Hsmom quit? Sharon something? 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's always me. I've been there for eons, although they don't much like me anymore since I admitted that I also post here. Of course many CP editors have (or had) accounts here too, including RobS and the infamous TK himself. I edit at other wikis and boards too (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but it really shouldn't be any reason for concern, as I've only ever posted real edits and helped out, no secret vandal here. I'm actually annoyed by vandalism. There used to be more female editors, students like Bethany (she was nice) and a few others, but I can't think of any current female editors now other than me. I like Joaquin Martinez, wish he'd come back. Refugee^{talk page} 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Joaquín is still around. Scream!! (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Anger bear and his delusions of importance.

Strives to reach new levels of idiocy^img. Yeah, because the worldwide muslim brotherhood spend their entire time reading cp to see what right wing loonies are thinking of them and the PotUS. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. "A Christian will never support attacks on the wealthy." Hey Kajagoogoo, remember what Jesus said about camels, needles and rich folk? --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 11:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

He was just joking when he said that. --"Shut up, Brx." 12:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood may or may not do that, but we know al Qaeda monitors US media and uses it as recruitment material (or atleast did prior to 2009). Although my understanding is that the Muslim Brotherhood is much more regionally focused, so I would doubt if they do the same.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh get off. Do you REALLY think anyone at all takes cp seriously, especially AQ or the Brotherhood? They may well monitor and utilise influential right wing sites and people, possibly the likes of Limbaugh, but if they are even aware of cp at all then I confidently expect they will only be reading it for the same reason most of us are. To laugh at the fruit-loops and their impotent spluttering. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not saying that they do use it, but if they were ever to stumble across it, they could take a quote mine a few lines (hell, given some of the shit CP has said, they wouldn't even need to quote mine it) for a "look what they really think of us!" leaflet, or whatever the hell they do for recruitment (open days? Do they set up a kiosk in a mall once a month or something?). Obviously it's not very likely but it could potentially be a useful tool for them. X Stickman (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)