Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive308

This is an archive page, last updated 1 February 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>, <306>, <307>, <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)

You know what I'd say, Terry?

I'd ask why these gun owners weren't able to defend their home. After all, that seems to be one of the main reasons given for owning firearms. That and killing fascists--"Shut up, Brx." 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bah! I'm with the gun-owners on this one. No one ever said that presence of a gun in an empty home guarantees no burglaries and publicizing which houses have guns really is an invitation for burglaries. It's a fairly irresponsible act.Phiwum (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If no houses had guns....Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Still feel it was a mistake for the media to actually show the addresses, they could have easily made a map that just demonstrated how many registered gun households there were without the details.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Theory, were you trying to make a serious point? (I surely hope not.) Phiwum (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My pacifist tendency, which does not live in the real world, may have been. Otherwise, no, I wasn't. And BmcP is pretty much right. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that airing everyone's location was a mistake.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mostly also agree on that, though it's also a nice wake-up call to what information is actually out there and what can be done with it.

That aside, and a point I haven't seen raised yet (though probably because it's just so obvious that nobody bothered to point it out), funny to see Terry immediately making the connection there. Because burglaries simply don't ever happen unless an online map tells burglars that the home owner has guns?

Which brings me to another point (which is connected to the previous one) - would you break into a house that belongs to a confirmed gun owner? Like, if someone puts up a huge billboard saying "I HAVE A GUN!", would you go "Oh, sweet, let's break in!"? That just doesn't add up to me. (And yes, once they were inside, they tried to go for the guns... but they weren't equipped to actually take them, which again doesn't add up under Terry's theory.)

And finally... oh, look, those guns were LOCKED AWAY. Which means that they'd be OUT OF REACH in all those scenarios Andy dreams up (like the one where the child supposedly could've shot a dog that had been mauling her little sister or something - I'm too lazy disgusted to look for the link right now). Oh God, make the stupid hurt less... --Sid (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I now realize that Phiwum argues exactly the opposite of my "You wouldn't really break into a gun-owner home, would you?" point, so maybe I just lack insight into this criminal mindset, or the case at least isn't as obvious as I had assumed. Hm. --Sid (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, let's not forget that the information was already publicly available. The newspaper just made a handy map out of it--"Shut up, Brx." 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sid, I think that knowledge that guns are in the home would deter some burglars and would entice others. It would certainly entice those who want to steal guns (and, I suppose, there's some profit to be had there). It also would serve as less of a deterrent to a careful burglar who has good reason to believe that the home is empty and the owner will not return soon. It would presumably deter those who don't plan their crimes well (assuming that they somehow nonetheless knew which homes had guns) and so on.

I'm not coming down one way or the other on the gun control issue, but publishing that certain homes have valuable items in them is a bad idea. Phiwum (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Totes. I'd break into people's houses to steal their guns and sell them on the black market to those who don't have registered firearms. Problem solved. 01:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should remember that the house getting robbed doesn't necessarily mean it was robbed because of its presence on the list. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discuser? 23:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So, Terry's position is now simultaneously that having a gun deters crime and that having a gun promotes crime. Keep on with that doublethink, Chucky. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All that aside, I'm sort of wondering how the NON-gun owners in the region feel about the fact that this newspaper just announced to burglars that their homes have no guns--and therefore, may be safer targets. All in all, I think this was a very bad move. --Phentari (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama killed Aaron Swartz.

Pretty much.^img Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this: Andy doesn't really give two shits about Aaron Swartz's life or what he was fighting for. All that matters to Andy is that the justice department and thus Obama by proxy, were prosecuting him, therefore its just another stick (or int his case, tombstone) to bash the president over the head with. Had this been a conservative Republican administration in the executive branch we would just hear about how the guy was depressed because of his atheism or ignored completely.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I think it's hilarious to watch Andy rally around a net anarchist who was caught trying to liberate private property from a corporation by abusing network privileges at a private university. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

--PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 20:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs} 06:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Countdown to page nuke...

Two and a half years after making^img yet another bullshit announcement, Ken tries^img to make the stupid go away, resulting in predictable^img hilarity^img and the usual olé olé olé^img (which Ken tried to oversight^img away right after posting). --Sid (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the saving of WIGO:CP, Ken couldn't have better timing with regards to the saving of WIGO:CP. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In a heavily oversighted edit,^img Ken announces that he's latching on to Stumbler as a lifeline for his ego. Five people liked CP's abortion page. And to be honest, it's probably for the laughs more than anything. That or they didn't read it and "liked" anything pro-life.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

First Kenny touts a Youtube user who's videos get views in the hundreds (if that) as front page news, now it is the fact CP's abortion page got five whole likes in a discovery engine; the bar just keeps getting lower and lower. Put a fork in CP because it's dead.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how big the second biggest grassroots anti-evolution campaign is. Maybe someone should ask how it's possible to have a campaign with less than one person. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think CP's dead, just every single crusade that Kenny boy goes on. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 08:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All this just reinforces the image of Ken as a Quixotic character. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree CP isn't truly dead, as it will live as long as Andy's ego forces him to pay the server costs. However, it just shows how things have really become moribund there where Kenny is reduced to promoting Youtube users with subscription counts in the very low hundreds as their biggest front page news.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Things Karajou doesn't understand #26866345

Evolution. Surprise, surprise. Of course, he's also clueless about the domestication of the dog. Still, for somebody who's sucking at the government teat, supposedly doing a course in anthropology and archeology, you'd think something would have sunk into Angry Bear's brain by now.

But no, it's easier for him to trumpet his ignorance. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 08:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Karajou himself is an excellent argument for creation: natural selection couldn't possibly have come up with something so wilfully stupid. Where do you start in arguing with these people???!!! Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I love his argument against evolution - "they are making those guesses and assumptions based on nothing more than looking at it" - which is pretty much the entire bedrock of most of creationist biology. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, he's "doing a course in anthro" as in taking it or teaching it? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

He'd do well to read the wikipedia article on the Domesticated silver fox (and its references). Russian scientists, investigating how dogs were domesticated, selectively bred silver foxes (a morph of the red fox) for tameness. After 40 years, about 3/4 of the foxes are tame. They also show neoteny (pup-like behaviour/appearance) in the adults, like dogs (and cats). CS Miller (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about to bring up similar. He's using wilful ignorance to try and force a point, the foxes were never bred for floppy ears, curled tails or colour, they were singularly bred for behaviour. He's also neglecting the fact they've bred a parallel strain that fucking hates humans and attacks on sight. Oh yeah, and I do recall reading they'd done it with mink as well. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that you read this fine organ, Karajou. Your article didn't mention foxes in its first version.

I think that they used foxes as they are easier to keep (smaller territories and less food required). Also wolves are pack animals where only the alpha-male/alpha-females mate, foxes form solitary pairs, so you need a far smaller number of animals. To bred foxes all you need to do is shoot the ones you don't want to bred from.

BTW, have you read Wikipedia's article on the domestication of the dog? It mentions the hypothesis that some wolves chose to hang around humans, scavenging the middens or following the men (at a distance) and then scavenging from animals that they killed. The least weary wolves would do better, and breed themselves to hang around humans, and possibly chase off other wolves wanting to raid the middens.

I'd recommend that you pop down to your local library and order Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal Behavior, Edward O. Price, 2008, ISBN 1845933982. CS Miller (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Red telephone for Ken!!

Ken! Ken! There's a podcast tomorrow that's right up your street - Atheism and sexuality! They even have a doctor on the panel for you to school with your wisdom. Please, please, please call in and pwn them, just to show how you're crushing atheism on the internet. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

CNAV humor protip

This is funny: "John Boner Boehner." But it's only funny if you do it once in a given article. This is less funny: "Colon, oops, Colin Powell." And it gets less and less funny if you do it several times in a single article. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to know whey they're comparing him to a punctuation mark. (Yes, I know what they really mean.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the same group who writes "damned", a word in the Bible, as "d____d" but somehow this is kosher.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

6 times in such a short article. That's fucking oops rather overdoing it! Scream!! (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just goes to show that at heart, these far right psychos are nothing but a collection of spoiled manchildren throwing tantrums because people don't pander to them enough Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, "d____d" is also the perfect emoticon to respond to such behaviour. Vulpius (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So why did Dwong, oops, Dwight change Rino's Ass to Rino's [Heine]. Is Terry's blog too prudiish? Anyway, the Teabaggers once again air their closet racism. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think CNAV and I agree on one question: "What the hell is Powell doing in the Republican Party?" Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Powell is the mirror image of what happened to Reagan -- he didn't leave the Republican party, it left him. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn that Colon Powell, weaseling his way in to favour with his blackness. And they wonder why we think they're all racists. But at least Terry saved delicate little minds from having to read the word "arse", what warped priorities he has. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwight Kehoe has the scary ability to make Terry look sane. And, of course, the best way to make your point is to resort to playground-mentality taunts. It's also fun to see that they are so thin-skinned that should somebody turn on the party, it's their fault, not the party's. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 20:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Of all the places to mock Colin Powell's name, Terry Hurlbut's blog might not be the best place. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Colon, only an 'L' away from an outright racial epithet. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs} 06:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait...

Is Andy arguing that "taking a knee" during a football game is the same thing as Tebowing?^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaah Vienna: "England and America are two countries separated by a common language." That whole article might as well be in Chinese. Scream!! (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

*Ponders to himself whether its not too late for an arrow to the knee joke... meh. Im not too sure what I find more amusing. andy's breathtaking arrogance in projecting his own perverse obsessions, including his mancrush on Tebow, onto everyone on earth, or his impotent and furious hatred at those who he deems to be betraying said obsessions. Personally I just want to see how his infatuation with Tebow ends. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The only possibility I can think of is he is referring to what happened at the end of regulation. The game was tied 35-35 when Denver got the ball back with 31 seconds left and two timeouts; instead of attempting to go down field for an attempt at a winning field goal or touchdown, they took a knee, running out the clock. It was an extremely conservative move by the head coach (the same head coach that Tim Tebow played under and who is always known by his conservative, by-the-book play-calling) while risky for his team, given anything could happen in OT. Not sure what faith has to do with it, at least religious faith, one would think their god has bigger things to attend to than who wins a football game.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The head couch? You're making it sound like an American version of 'sofa rugby'. Генгис^pillaging 08:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL; it's what I get for writing right before I crash into bed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to prove that Andy is confused. He could just be basing this on wordplay. "Last year Tebow got to take a knee and pray after his victory. This year, in the same game, Manning took a knee in cowardice at the end of the first OT, and subsequently lost." Whoover (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Genghis Khant / talk / contribs} 11:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Smoothies are liberal

Karajou gets his incoherent froth on again^img. I guess he likes having himself a good drilling. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So he's trying to prove that liberals are somehow hateful, intolerant, ignorant people by writing a fictional account of a strawman liberal who claims that he wants to murder Christians/ the people who manage the smoothie shop. What? Doesn't he realize that he can't just -prove- that someone is intolerant by accusing him of being intolerant? This boggles my mind. What even spawned this?Did some liberal voice his ire at the offensive nature of the restaurant's practices? Lord help Karajou's soul, this is insaneWilliamR (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I came here to post that same link, but my point was going to be that I had no idea what the hell Anger Bear was trying to say. Seriously, that whole thing makes no sense -- it makes Proxima's writing look like Shakespeare. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit. Even by Anger Bear's low standards that's pretty demented.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So I am glad I am not the only one that was confused by the terrible writing. I actually had to follow the link to figure out what the hell Kara was trying to get across with his, well strawman I guess? I couldn't really tell. Regardless I figure most liberals, if they still wanted one of the smoothies that bad, would just say they are conservative, get the cheaper price and once they had smoothie in hand, reveal their true ideology for the lutz, at least that is what I would do.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So uh, what's the over/under on that business going into liquidation? Depends on capital I guess, but surely no more than 6 months. That has to be one of the stupidist ideas I have ever heard of, especially considering I imagine a large part of the customer base for fruit smoothies will come from tree huggers and other assorted liberals, even in Utah. --Damo^Hi 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama got 8.7% of Uintah County. Romney's 90% in the county compares with this 73% for all of Utah. If Obama got 90% of a county anywhere, Fox would be calling it the work of ACORN. Vernal is a center of oil and gas drilling. I think their tree huggers and other liberals go into the fracking liquid. This isn't a real brave move. Whoover (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know stoners who make more sense than Karajou did there. I'd WIGO this, but too tired to find a funny way to summarize that clusterfuck of a blog post. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, fuck whales! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You above...Stop that at once! Some of my best friends are Welsh. Mick McT (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO this is pretty basic psychology stuff. Karajou thought about the "$1 more for liberals" thing and imagined the reaction of liberals to it. He loved the idea of them getting worked up about it. Because it's something he can never see for himself he fantasised about it. It helps make his fantasy more real and satisfying to write it all out. StarFish (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It speaks volumes that Angry Bear thinks that liberals would be outraged at paying $1 more for something, knowing that $1 would be going to help people less fortunate, whilst the conservatives sit on their collective asses and do fuck all. All Karajerk is doing is projecting his own biases onto his definition of a liberal. What a pathetic little man. Being conservative, the extra $1 is going to line the pockets of the Heritage Foundation, not charity. Go figure. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 09:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also it's a "city" of 9,000 (seriously, where else in the world does a grouping of 9,000 people qualify as a city???) in a corner of Utah - probably not exactly a hotbed of liberal activity. You probably get labelled a liberal if you aren't wearing your Mormon tie... --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 11:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In several less massively populated countries, if you must know. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, it's not a real city unless it has a cathedral. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

He's doing that thing he often does in his lame toons where he has the choice of several utterly underwhelming punchlines so decides to try and ramble through all of them. The Howard Hughes vibe from the whole 'pretty clean conservatives' bit was funny though. Grumblejaws (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just think its funny that the shop owner is giving this money to the organization that wrote the original Obamacare proposal in the first place. Anybody in Utah wanna go over there and try to explain the irony? RachelW (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Vroom! Vroom!

So according to Ken, "Darwinism doubting" is good English and it seems that just like creationists are raging fires, destroying buildings, they're also lousy drivers who ignore the rules of the road and kill pedestrians.^{img — Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs} 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just amused by how easy Ken is making it for us. Do you know who else practiced "Germanic Efficiency"^img, Ken? Hitler!!!11one!! Naca (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should that heading be "Vroom! Vroom!" I assumed at first that there was some reference to both cleaning and Basil Brush.--Spud (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Fine. Just because your make-believe cars have got a dodgy sounding engine... --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 13:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Even easier: Who else used German efficiency?^img Oh, Ken, you're just a walking disaster. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear goat. I looked at his blog, he really has his "Germanic efficiency" and "Josef Megele" posts back to back. How can anyone lack self-awareness to this degree? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And now he's memory-holed the Germanic efficiency post. Does he not realise that his deletion sprees make him look like an even greater buffoon? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

He has? It's still on MPR and the QE blog. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I had assumed that the newest entry on Ken's QE blog would be about the 15 questions being translated into German and the campaign being about to go full throttle in Germany. Instead it says that one QE supporter is of German descent which, of course, means he's super-efficient. Even by Ken's standards, that story is stretching the definition of "news" to breaking point. But, what's next? "One of our members is of French descent and will be able to woo all the ladies", "One of our members is of Italian descent and will make all atheists an offer they can't refuse" or maybe "One of our members is a woman and might even clean up our mess"? Spud (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"One of our members is an Asian woman, and while she can't drive, I have fallen in love with her and she with my machismo!" Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This explains Ken's QE! campaign members in Texas. We know only two things come from Texas, and Kendoll disapproves of one. Also, isn't calling the Sicilian mob Italians likely to get your prize stud dismembered? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Make that "one of our members is of Sicilian descent". Spud (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming is Liberal Claptrap part XXXVIII

One of Andy's mantras is that Climate Change is bollocks because land base temperature monitors are biased and inaccurate. So it is no shock that when satellite measurements of Earth's temperatures reveal that Europe, Asia, and Australia was below normal for 2012 that he chime in and state how Climate Change was all a lie^img. Of course he conveniently skipped the part in that same article about how 2012 was also the warmest year in continental US history (including Alaska), and for the planet as a whole, this was the ninth warmest year since 1979; in fact, the eleven warmest years since 1979 happened since 2001 (2008 being the exception). Oh them pesky facts!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was warm, they had summer, don'tcha know? Andy's cherrypicking certainly knows no bounds. Somebody should point him towards this article: http://grist.org/news/the-32-most-alarming-charts-from-the-governments-climate-change-report/ --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 14:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm moving to Wyoming. Thanks for the chart, lol--"Shut up, Brx." 15:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's really cold in England right now, stupid libtards. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Concern for global warming is responsible for the possibility that tens of thousands may lose heat in Britain during the coming snow and wind storm according to Andy. Because once again he doesn't read the article he cites. The predicted power loses are from boilers being overtaxed by people during the cold because sometimes their are not well maintained, or old; the usual reasons. It isn't a lack of power.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This just in! Heating shortages in socialistic Great Britain caused by liberal overtaxation! Man you walked right into that--"Shut up, Brx." 02:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs} 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

QE Day!

Whoo-hoo! We have a definite date from Ken - 12th Feb is the day they launch an all-out assault on evolution and Darwinism. I can't wait - it'll have the same impact as the Rapture and Apocalypse combined!! --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 11:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd best watch out, Psy -- Ken has a map of South Africa on the QE! Day page. Prepare batten down your hatches against the upcoming onslaught! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were referring to the 2012 apocalypse or the May 21st Rapture, then Ken's QE! day will have the same effect as both combined. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 11:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably be too busy aborting babies to notice. Oh, Ken - we have provinces, not regions. Australia has states. New Zealand has... sheep. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NZ has regions. And sheep. Plus lots of pacific islanders in the North. Aceⁱ⁹ 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In other news, in Ken's world link-whoring your blog counts as it being "featured on Conservapedia.^img Bonus points for the childish "They can be. That doesn't mean they will be though." Just another sign of him shitting all over Andy's blog. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ho' boy! Robert S, a.k.a Cowboy Bob, a.k.a. Piltdown Superman has a video up on Youtube! Stop the presses! After all he has 26 whole subscribers; all of the evolutionists on Youtube and the bloggosphere better beware!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, Ken put up a map of NZ. I can't wait to see if the SS Creationism pulls into the habour. Aceⁱ⁹ 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There's always someone who has to play the Nazi card. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll translate for you, Genghis: I can't wait to see if the HMS Creationism pulls into the harbour. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NAZIS. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Creationism nuclear powered? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets ask Ken - "Hey Ken, is the HMS Creationism a nuclear powered ship"? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Or even a nuclear-family powered ship? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 09:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to the 12th

Thought I remembered something: I mentioned this a fortnight ago (see here) Scream!! (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"In the news?"

I know that there are more humorous things to talk about on CP's main page, but I just noticed that they have "news" stories on MPR dating back to Thanksgiving. When Andy trims the page, I guess he only removes Ken's crap (and a few other embarrassments) while leaving his own contributions about how much better Turkey Day would be with Tebow instead of Obama. Phiwum (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

His targets are funny. He won't let Popeye's blog posts stay up for more than a few days. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

News that the MSM Isn't Covering

Like the article about how the New York Times got suckered by the Manti Te'o story. Of course the article is a major deconstruction of the coverage by the Public Editor (formerly Ombudsman) of the New York Times. It's good we have CP to ferret out these stories from alternative sources with the credibility of the NYT.

It's the same thing as "why don't dictionaries include" stuff they include. What's it called? Dissociation? Whoover (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"News Conspiracy theories, rumors, and other bullshit that the MSM isn't covering." Fixed that for you. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If the NYT is your citation, that still doesn't work. Whoover (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but it's in the blogs section so it's not really the NYT, is it? Plus, the author is clearly a conservative internal dissident. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Even Conservapedians call Andy out on his nonsense

Here is an excellent refutation of Andy's entire argument strategy as bullshit^img. Arcane (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Cap it. Quick. It won't last. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 22:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for August. Although repeatedly pointing out the Dear Leader is lying / making shit up, probably won't do much for his continued existence on CP. Especially now that's lost his blocking rights. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought he had them back? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

reattempting capture^img since Arcane did it wrong. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. For something this good, I should (A) remember to set the capture hooks and (B) and I have made a note not to forget for next time. Arcane (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

I wouldn't call AugustO a Conservapedian. At least, not in the sense that Karajou, Ed Poor, or Jpatt are.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy is getting beaten up in his own wiki pretty badly. Nobody could possibly miss the attempted misdirection here. Any parodist worth his salt would be in there defending Andy. Come on DVergne get in there and defend your master! Parodists just aren't made like they used to be. Damo^Hi 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone want to point out to him that c is also the speed of gravity? It's a chance to take the discussion in new and interesting directions. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1029953^imgOuch, looks like Andy is still getting hit with pointed questions. Arcane (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1029953^img Last capture went wrong, retrying. Arcane (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Better link for that^img. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ToP. Arcane (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

AugustO will be OK for now (I'd like to think that he'll eventually quit Conservapedia in disgust). However, DonnyC, DamianJohn and anybody else who chimes in to tell Andy that he hasn't got a sodding clue what he's talking about, will soon be toast. Spud (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AugustO is a goddamn Jedi. He ain't going nowhere. Even if some slob like Popeye or the imposter Dvergne strikes him down. He'll be back. Glowin' all blue and shit. Haunting Andy's dreams. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for one moment, please

God damn it, Andy, you were a fucking electrical engineering major! You should at least understand that E=mc² is not about unifying gravity and light! For Christ's sake, I learned more about physics reading comic books than Andy apparently learned at Princeton! (And then I actually got my own degree in EE, thank you very much, though from a somewht less prestigious school.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the outburst. Thanks, I feel much better now. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody with a spare sock might like to point Andy towards Why Does E=mc2?: (and Why Should We Care?), which derives the equation from first principles. I still can't really understand why he won't accept this. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how long this has been on the actual E=mc² page at CP, or if Andy even wrote it, but:

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

That doesn't quite address his objection to the theory, but it at least hints that he doesn't think it's Biblical. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Who will kill August?

cp:User:Andrew Schlafly	9	Vote
cp:User:Conservative	4	Vote
cp:User:Dvergne	2	Vote
cp:User:Ed Poor	42	Vote
cp:User:Karajou	31	Vote

It would be a suicidal move from Dvergne, I'm betting on Colonel Mustard with lead pipe in the library Ed Poor - block reason incivility

--larron (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne would not take the risk. He's working too hard to maintain his parodist front so he's not going to risk that on this. Anger Bear knows that andy is being a jerk on this relativity thing so he'll just keep out. Is it questioning evolution? no. then kenny baby doesn't give a shit, besides he's enjoying seeing andy getting a kicking. Andy hasn't got the balls. So Uncle Ed 'get ready for articles about films that adolescent girls like' Poor it will be. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed might still have some beef with August over the whole Netherlands thing. I wouldn't be surprised. Though Ed doesn't go on much now, so failing him it's going to be Anger Bear. Also, being blocked for incivilty for pointing out that someone's objectively wrong is suppression of free speech, isn't it? Doesn't that come under the First Am- OH yes, this is CP where the Constitution is as Andy wants it to be when it's convenient for it to be so for him. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that you're only funning, but the First Amendment doesn't say anything about censorship on CP. Phiwum (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It could go the ASK/PJR route: boiling down arguments until it comes to the conclusion that they are lying/dishonest. That's uncivil. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't AugustO regain his blocking rights ? If so only Andy could effectively kill him off. (Kenny boy this might be your chance to get that video extension you've always wanted. Andy will be so greatful you saved his ass by protecting/deleting that talk page, which is making conservapedia look stoopid (and we don't want that do we). go on ken do it you know you want to!)Naca (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

August got his blocking rights back on Dec 26, so barring another tizzy, he'll be around probably until he gets bored. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I like how instead of trying to help August, or Andy (depends who you back), you guys are just spreading speculation, and making rather obtuse (and improbable) speculations. Brenden (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Help August? How? How? By dragging Andy into therapy to deal with his narcissistic personality disorder and then into a first-year physics tutorial? What the hell else would help the man, given that he has chosen to debate with an obtuse moron who makes all the rules and who believes he can never be wrong? How? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Help? It ain't my site and I'm not keen on contributing there. Nor am I welcome to. I'm only an observer, enjoying a silly little argument between others. What do you expect? Phiwum (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Each time Ed Poor has come back, however infrequently, he has done something pointless and spiteful. He also fancies himself a science teacher and great expert on mathematics. My money is on him being the axe man. Ë. (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WTF? Where did this come from? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, Mr. Khant. Ë. (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Kendoll...

Aren't you at least a bit sorry about "your" illiteracy^img? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The police? Bunch of liberals.

Everyone is a liberal, even the cops^img. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Desperately wanting to blame it on anything but the perfect storm combination of mental health and access to several guns. It took months and months to get toxicology results from a local pastor's death (Zachery Tims) and then it was sealed from the public due to his family's LIBERAL CENSORSHIP TACTICS OMG. He was found dead with "a powdery substance" found on him. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In which Rob says things

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Robrail.

I don't suppose Joaquin reads this page, but...

Joaquin's latest work has been on a gallery of images of Mayan ruins. Unfortunately, he titled the section "Mayan Ruins Gallery", and I honestly read that as a newspaper headline about an art-hating Mayan. So, on the off-chance that JM reads this, he might oughta think about changing that section header. Phiwum (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The underutilized hyphen would be a great remedy here. Nihilist 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Matter of taste, I suppose, but "Mayan-ruins gallery" looks bloody awful to me. Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worth the two-letter investment to go with "Gallery of Mayan Ruins." Whoover (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a fan of compounding. Nihilist 23:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Must be that Germanic efficiency thing. Phiwum (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy goes gangster

So, now 1940s underworld slang^img (per Online Etymology) about carrying a concealed handgun is really a conservative slogan about the right to carry. Any guesses what other 1940s gangster terminology will be appropriated as conservative insights? (Or why he thinks liberal dictionaries were slow to adapt Philip Marlowe's vernacular?) Phiwum (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the abridged Merriam-Webster Collegiate has pack -- to wear or carry as equipment <pack a gun> and heat -- slang: gun. It's clear liberal bias that pack heat wasn't the citation. Whoover (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So apparently dictionaries are supposed to include common(?) idiomatic phrases, as opposed to just individual words? --Seth Peck (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Andy's list of Conservative words consists mostly of phrases, that's probably what he thinks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Chicago Typewriter be Liberal (since its Chicago, second only to San Fran in Liberal failure after all!) or conservative because its a Sub-Machine gun? --108.180.91.182 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. if you get in a heated argument with a stranger, you bluff them into thinking you have gun by looking them in the eye and saying, "Are you packing heat or just packing shit?" nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Douche Physik

Andy^img:

“”"Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the Bible. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared? What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the Bible earnestly, or pursue other real truths?"

Andy's willful ignorance can be quite entertaining sometimes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Of all the things Andy is out there against, relativity in general (and E=mc² specifically) are to me the most stunning and confusing. I simply do not see the reasoning behind what he honestly feels is such a terrible threat from these concepts; concepts I might add that virtually no other Christian or creationist opposes. Someone please explain this to me.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy. Human Digestion =/= a fucking nuclear power plant. That is all. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What gets me is how he's so married to some of the crap he believes, apparently under the premise that even acknowledging a different viewpoint will weaken his faith in his own beliefs, which is ridiculous because even God himself acknowledged beliefs other than in himself in the Bible, if only to condemn them, but even GOD (and his prophets) at least took the time to know enough about opposing points of view to be able to contrast them to their own (and make it clear why they contrasted) and then categorically reject them. Andy isn't even willing to do that sometimes quite often, which is one of the reasons I'm occasionally convinced Andy is either completely insane or the most dedicated troll on the internet. Arcane (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

BTW, the Facebook page 'I Fucking Love Science' recently posted this screencap of CP's E=mc² article with the description 'Conservapedia Where intelligence goes to die'. Over 10,000 likes. I guess someone should point this to Andy so he can have more evidence that Facebook is liberal. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but what is it about the equation that has Andy so adamantly opposed? Is it because it's related to relativity? What is it about *that* that has Andy in such a panic?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The ToR promotes moral relativism and once people believe in the ToR, they stop reading the Bible. That is the basis of his objection. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 12:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He seems to take the attitude that the equation is in some way the cornerstone of the ToR. Imo he essentially is a moron who completely misunderstands, willfully or not, the Tor and thinks that if he can undermine E=mc² then the Tor collapses and he is shown to be the visionary genious that he knows he is. Unfortunately as well all know reality has a well known liberal bias and he is in fact just a failed patent attorney, failed electoral candidate, failed son, failed lawyer and failed engineer. That's a fuck of a lot of fail for a single person to cope with. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And a failed wiki owner, too. Don't forget that.

So, does he know anything else about the theory of relativity? Time dilation, length contraction and so forth? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Does he know anything as basic as metric/imperial weight conversion 0.5lb ~ 1Kg, err... really? Not on my kitchen scales. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In Andy's mind, 227 grams is roughly 1000 grams, apparently. Any other editor saying that would've been banned for trolling, or insulted heavily. How he relates water to pure energy is amusing, because I think in first grade my teacher taught us that water is to living beings (us) as oil is to machines. PS - would like to also point and giggle at Andy's class of water typo. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And dvergne, luke the good little parodist he is asks if anyone minds if he 'archives' the talk page and then 6 minutes later^img without giving anyone the chance to respond does it. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just like the Obama thing, I would bet this all traces back to an event in Andy's life. At one point, he genuinely, naively questioned E=mc² and a professor of physics (and likely a whole class) laughed at him. It's personal, not political or mathematical. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I always thought it was his staunch opposition to the idea of moral relativism, which carried over into anything that has the word "relative" in it. He just seems to have glommed onto the delusion that he can disprove Einstein, because obviously Andy is the very best of the Best of the Public™ and why shouldn't he be able to overturn one of the most well-known physical laws just by typing on his computer? «-Bfa-» 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a little more than a simple equivocation between "relativity" and "relativism." For a True Believer like Andy, it must be the case that all of God's rules, whether moral and physical, must be consistent across space and time. Murder and adultery are always wrong, everywhere and at all times, because God commanded it to be so. Space and time and gravity must always work the same way across all of creation, because God made it so. (That's why he doesn't believe in black holes, either as they mess with how space/light/gravity/time work). Any attempt to explain the universe that allows for inconsistency means an inconsistent God, which is a contradiction in terms, illogical, and therefore impossible. That's why he thinks reading too much about relativity draws people away from the Bible; it's a dangerous and tempting idea that undoes the notion that God is perfect/perfectly consistent. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with this being personal for Andy (Bad mark on test with relativity? Professor of physics said something to upset him?) and all else just being incompetent rationalizations. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, what does their article on nuclear power say on how nuclear power works? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. It contained the evil formula, but MattyD^img removed it as "liberal claptrap", later reverted by Dvergne. Open minded (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just completely fascinated by this; it's so insane I really had to look into this more just to try and even conceptualize what the hell drives Andy to defend such absurdities.

It seems Andy’s objections to E=mc² are as follows:

Because there is not yet a Theory of Everything (linking together gravity and the other three fundamental forces), Andy views such a theory happening as an impossibility. His "logic" behind this belief stems from the concept that light and matter were created separately as stated in the Book of Genesis; therefore energy could not possibly be in an equation that involves mass (which he equals to gravity.. wut?)

It is also viewed as bolstering Relativity. The opposition there stems from all sorts of reasons:

• Space and time can be bent and relative passage of time will be different for objects moving at different speeds. This upsets Andy’s view of an ordered universe where time moves at the exactly same relative speed no matter the effects of gravity or velocity.
• Oddly Andy also believes that the speed of light in a vacuum will vary therefore c as a constant is bollocks to him.
• Relativity allows liberal politicians to metaphorically justify political positions of moral relativism. He cites Obama, who he claims uses the theory to justify abortion.

In the end it appears Andy's opposition is because 1) It would cause one the question the Bible 2)Liberals like it, and Obama used it, and well.. OBAMA!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"...virtually no other Christian or creationist opposes." It comes more from Randroids than creationists these days, but the theory of relativity attracts a lot of physics cranks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Andy also believes that the speed of light in a vacuum will vary" - that ties in with the whole starlight problem - stars can appear to be further than 6,000 light years away, because the speed of light changed over time. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 22:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about Andy implied belief that the universe has a radius of no more than 6,000 light years.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that AugustO or someone else hasn't mentioned the creation of positron-electron pairs by the collision of multiple high-energy photons. This was something proposed back in 1934 by Breit and Wheeler, who didn't think that it could be observed under laboratory conditions because they didn't think that high enough photon densities could be reached. Well, by 1997 the existence of particle accelerators and high-powered lasers allowed experimenters to slam a laser beam head-on into gamma rays bounced off of relativistic electrons and actually create matter (electron-positron pairs, with rest mass) from photons (no rest mass). Light and matter no longer nonoverlapping magesteria! Better yet, relativistic effects come into play here: Unruh radiation and relativistic momentum, at minimum. There's a nice writeupin this Google doc. There's another review here.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a minority strain of Creationist thought--to which Andy apparently belongs--which states that the history of physics ended with that 'great Christian scientist' Sir Isaac Newton (his foray into alchemy notwithstanding), and that everything discovered since then, especially since the turn of the 20th century, is bunk--or worse, a deliberate deception by Satan and the Forces of Darkness to cast doubt in the minds of men (because who cares what women think) about God's perfect creation. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tacitus / talk / contribs} 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading a lengthy essay about this (pre-Conservapedia) on some creationist web site that I have long-since forgotten the name of. I doubt this view will ever gain much traction with the more popular creationist outfits because their mission depends on at least pretending to be on the side of science and taking the nihilistic approach with physics makes that hard to sustain when you've already denied the reality of the entire last 150 years of biological and geological sciences.Tacitus (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

One should consider an article that came out during Andy's term at Harvard Law Review - The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics. Such that this was associated loosely with Mr. Obama (note the footnote), Andy loaths it. --Shagie (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well found Shagie! Youve probably hit on it. Scream!! (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned at least twice on Conservapedia itself. Random surfer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

AugustO has gone too far this time. Surely. Dvergne should now be considered a real contender for his blocking now. He won't put up with such insolence directed at the dear leader. Damo^Hi 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Editing_the_Article^img Think August went too far? The guy who responded under August's last comment is surely bound for the banhammer. Arcane (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Bill Gates

Don't hate me for this, but I suspect that Andy is not making a point on Gate's supposed atheism, but rather to gloat over how Bill Gates has (possibly) converted over to Christianity, and is acting in a way that is not associated with being uncharitable. Brenden (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar -- maybe not speculating on a possible formal conversion, but trying to claim one of the good guys for his own camp. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I heard Melissa being interviewed on the BBC a couple of weeks ago and she appeared to express some religious views; so maybe she influenced Bill. But women often tend to make their husbands nicer people, whether they are religious or not. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, sometimes. Sometimes the only time soft spoken, mild mannered men explode into profanity laced tirades is when the subject of their wives (or ex-wives) comes up. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"The dog that didn't bark in the night"

I'm waiting to see how CP will record President Barack Hideous Obama's Inauguration Ceremony. I was expecting a vitriolic tirade from e.g. Terry Thrustbum about how he (the President) has suborned the judiciary / Congress / military into accepting the appointment of a fake / fraud / pretender but there's doesn't seem to be anything there yet. Maybe CP is making its point by ignoring the whole event? Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They have been silent about BHO adding "So help me God" to the oath. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been some talk in wingnut circles about getting Chief Justice Roberts impeached. I imagine one of Chuckarse's minions will comment on that at some point. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Launchbooty is the one doing most of that talk. Apparently, nobody told him that impeachments go through the Senate. RachelW (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let the bitterness begin...

The Inauguration? Liberal idolatry. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Imagine if the inauguration was Sunday instead of a private oath of office, given they normally happen on the 20th and only happening today because the 20th was a Sunday.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's "an attempt at idolatry"? So, in addition to being a Muslim and a commie atheist at the same time, is Obama now (inside Schlafly's head) trying to set himself up as a fake god?--Spud (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If taking the oath of office is idolatry, what's fake-landing a jet on an aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished!" sign seven years before a war ends? --Seth Peck (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Machismo! «-Bfa-» 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, its times like this that actually feel a faint but legitimist twinge of pity for Andy. Yes, he's a subtly racist, openly sexist, willfully ignorant would be demagogue with delusions of grandeur and aspirations that far, far outstrip his meager talents. But its days like this that really, really have to sting. Obama came from virtually nothing and has now achieved a second term presidency. Its a remarkable accomplishment for anyone regardless of what you think of the man personally or his politics. Andy came from a politically and financially powerful family, went to the best schools, earned degrees in engineering and law and now runs a third rate wiki and teaches class to homeschoolers. This man aspired to so much more in the political world, the conservative movement, and when the tally is taken he will be little more than a footnote (if that) while Obama now has a permanent spot in the history books. Little posts like this show that it must really gnaw at him, really twist the knife of knowing, KNOWING, for all his self wrought excuses and justifications, what he could have been and never will be. To crib a bit from Red Dwarf, if Andy is guilty of anything in his life it will just be being Andrew Schafly. That is his crime, that is also his punishment. For all we mock him and for all he may deserve it, it is a fate I would wish on no one. --Tygrehart

At least Arnold J. Rimmer had some semblance of a conscience and universal morality. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the CP crew working on the Red Dwarf under Lister and Rimmer. --154.20.2.85 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Martin Luther King Day on the Conservapedia main page, but apparently it's important to note on the very top that Obama didn't say 'United States' properly during the oath^img. (Also, he didn't flub it again^img because, as Andy's link says, Roberts was the one who messed it up the first time.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the "New Jersey Herald" part of the "lamestream media"? Tygrehart is right, the fact Obama has success gnaws at Andy's pride on a personal level.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Its only lamestream if it says something Andy doesn't like. --Tygrehart

Bill Gates and God

One can disbelieve in "a particular god or gods" - most of us are atheistic towards Thoth, Thor and Marduk - or 'god and gods in general.'

Who was it who 'proved' that it was better to act as if there was a god and an afterlife - if you believed and did good, and there was, you would go to heaven, if you did neither, you would go to hell; if you disbelieved, you would benefit - and if there was no god, you would not lose anything.

And 'horseshoes will work even if you don't believe in them' (as 'whats-his-name' said) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The "better to act" thing is Pascal's wager. The horseshoe remark is attributed to Niels Bohr. Cantabrigian (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is easier to remember the quotes than the particular authors :) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

... and if one 'does good' for whatever reasons there will be a postive sum game. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How quickly can you find the inventor of the kitten-flap (possibly with ceiling-cats in mind)? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it Newton? Wouldn't surprise me if his mischievous kitty knocked that apple off the tree, too. RachelW (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kinda one of those inventions by accident. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I heard that Leibniz got the idea for a pet door and when he heard Newton had beaten him to it he screamed 'You have to be fuckin' kidding me!'. :p --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These ideas always puzzle me. Why would anyone think that this kind of argument is convincing? If someone believes for the sake of not getting spanked in the afterlife, then they aren't believing. -Lardashe

William James thought that, even if one chooses just to "go through the motions" out of self-interest initially, eventually real and deep belief will result. It is in this sense that one can "will to believe". James's essay of the same name is a bit like a grown-up defense of Pascal's wager. I heartily recommend it, though it certainly won't persuade any non-believer that he should believe (nor is that the point of the essay at all -- it's a simple defense that certain beliefs can and should be chosen on non-rational grounds). Phiwum (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a stronger argument against Pascal's wager is the question of how to know what to believe, out of all the many competing and incompatible options (as discussed in the article). Cantabrigian (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a stronger argument against Pascal's wager is "Actually, I'm in fact God and if you don't give me your money you won't get into heaven." --GTac (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these claims is a real issue for James's point. He claims that we are justified in settling certain issues (the so-called genuine options) on non-rational grounds. One necessary condition for an option to be genuine is that it be an open question for the person in question -- that is, that the person views either of the two options before him as having some plausibility. Note that this means that whether an option is genuine or not depends on personal facts -- where and how the person was raised, for instance. Hinduism is not, for instance, a genuine option for most Okies, nor is Christianity a genuine option for most Indians. And GTacism is not a genuine option for any person I know, but good luck with that. Scientology didn't start out as a genuine option either, so you keep at it!

In any case, I'm not really trying to defend either Pascal or James, but if you're interested in how to make sense of Pascal's wager, then "The Will to Believe" is a good place to start, regardless of your personal beliefs. Phiwum (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

<fact-check> Regarding "nor is Christianity a genuine option for most Indians": about 5% of Indians are Christian, mainly in the south and north-east. Manipur has a Christian majority and Kerala a Christian plurality. Indian Christians are sensitive about the accusation that Christianity is a foreign religion when it has in fact been established longer in India than in England. </Here endeth the lesson> Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical about Christianity having been established in India longer than in England. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "established" but WP claims that it was present in 52 CE and "rooted" by the 6th century. Sorry for the tangent, but it intrigued me. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my specialist subject so I can only go on what Indian Christian friends have told me, but the theology of the Syrian Orthodox church in Kerala is similar to that in Egypt and Ethiopia, suggesting that Christianity was well-established there before the Ecumenical Council in 453 AD, which led to the split between Egyptian/Ethiopian and other churches. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there are some claims that Jesus is buried in India. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hadn't heard that before. France, England, Scotland yes, but not India. You learn something new every day. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

… and lived there for some years Scream!! (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Cardinal, but of course it makes little difference to my point. Phiwum (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was down to St Thomas the doubting apostle London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So the Indians say. It's not impossible: the Roman Empire traded with South India through Petra, the Red Sea and Aden. St Thomas could indeed have ended up in Madras. (@Phiwum: apologies for the digression.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. In fact, I chose India only because William James mentioned the Hindus, as I recall. Just a historical accident, but I appreciate your correction. Phiwum (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Education not yet known"

I know, I know - it's Andy, but I always amused by the lengths he goes to deny the bleeding obvious. This edit where he claims the education of is Nehemiah Griego "not yet known"^img so he removes the article which states The motive for the horrific slayings were still unclear, but the paper said the home-schooled teen had had a "minor disagreement" with his mom Sarah Griego Friday night. I wonder if he'll ever back down on this. Oh yeah - Thanks Google! Aceⁱ⁹ 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure once it's known that he was homeschooled, he'd quietly vanish from the list. Also I like Andy's edit comment "Education not yet unknown." What the fuck does that mean? --PsyGremlin^Tal! 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fruedian slip there. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 01:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I had just come here after spotting this on Crooks & Liars - http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/homeschooled-teen-who-killed-family-ar-15-al I wonder how Andy would get his head around this posting. A very liberal site, giving plenty of notice to the kid playing violent video games, and also to him being homeschooled. -Lardashe

Ever seen that head exploding scene in Scanners? --Tygrehart

By the same logic that Andy uses to call hosting regular classes for 30 kids in a church basement "home-schooling", I'm sure he'll no-true-Scotsman this and claim that just because the kid was schooled at home by his parents doesn't mean he was home-schooled. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the whole list of famous people is a prime example of cherry picking. Some people that were tutored at home between 5 and 7 years and then spent the rest of their education in the public system ar categorized as home-schooled. While Heinrich Himmler who was homeschooled throughout his elementary years was removed from the list. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Genghis, if you're implying that the fine website Conservapedia.com and its founder/operator Andrew Schafly would dare to selectively pick examples that conform to an intractable, dichotomous view of the world while ignoring or outright censoring alternative or contradicting views, I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside! PS, anybody else catch Mama Schlafly's clip on the Daily Show Tuesday Night? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw her, I was looking for ages thinking "That last name seems familiar." I don't know why it took me so long. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 03:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning ZetaSonic

I believe we have a new parodist that has successfully infiltrated the site. ZetaSonic. Thoughts? L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Who's turn is it to get the popcorn? --Tygrehart

Our general response to parodists is to not talk about them being parodists. he's also been blocked for the last day. --^Mikal 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides, any parodists (like Dvergne) these days who think they're being looked upon as anything other than useful idiots are fooling themselves. Ego (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly lack a true appreciation for the art that is trolling :P --Umichcynic (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

People take trolls too seriously. Nihilist 06:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Trolls and parodists don't amuse me a whole lot. What is funny to me is the stupid crap that comes out of Andy's mouth. I always was good at coaxing the crazy out of Andy. Sure I never got my name in lights. But I goaded Andy into some of his most WIGO-worthy moments. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think trolling is a art, but parodists like these are like 16yo girls writing shitty poetry thinking their artists.. -GTac (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Or good at spelling. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See, you gotta be subtle. -GTac (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They're you go. Генгис^pillaging 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What you don't realize is that Andy is my sock. Vulpius (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he's my sock. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If Obama is a Muslim, what does that make Andy?

If growing up in a Muslim country (like Barrack Obama) makes you a Muslim, does growing up in a secular country (like the United States) make you a secularist? Ah! Now it all makes sense! Andy is a Deep Cover Liberal!

And would a Muslim (even a covert one) swear an oath (any oath) on not one, but two Christian Bibles? Do we know Andy's thoughts (I use this term loosely) on this?

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AObama%27s_Religion&action=historysubmit&diff=1026853&oldid=1026850

yes, apparently Deep Cover Muslims are allowed to do things like drink alcohol, eat pork, attend Christian churches and dance, if it helps them keep their cover. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 12:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the stock birther argument is cp:Taqiyya. Генгис^evolving 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe cp:Takeyya, which is exactly the same but without those "citation needed" templates.--Spud (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this is one of the most massive and all encompassing conspiracies of all time, hatched even before his own birth. He spent decades going to a church, just to try and throw the American public off the scent of his true belief in Allah. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with this line of reasoning is that Andy doesn't believe America is a secular state but "a Christian Nation" in the explicit sense.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting quote from Andy from the link above: "The point of the paragraph is "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans" (which is true)..." A little shout-out to inclusiveness. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait. What?

iPhone sales have hit a plateau. Repent! Can CP be jumping the shark? See also Ken's stubborn insistence that a refrigerator repairman's anachronistic insights are feature-worthy. Whoover (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, but my Bible doesn't hold as many MP3s as my iPod. Nihilist 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

CP can never jump the shark, as the motorcycle ran out of gas before it even hit the ramp. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was half-expecting that link to lead to CBP, though I suppose Andy has forgotten about it already. Vulpius (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't. Just yesterday he decided that every CBP entry should be re-titled. But he got bored and gave up after moving the one. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A fine example in that link of what I first assumed was Andyism, but turns out to have been added by TerryH: the poetic "And here is the mind which hath wisdom" (Rev 17:9) is translated and clunkified as "Here is where you need insight." And in 16:9 ".. blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues" becomes "blasphemed the Name of the God That has authority over these plagues", thus making a restrictive clause, implying that there's more than one god to choose from. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia Bible Project

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon Bar.

Ok which of you translated "mark of the beast" as "cattle-stamp of the ravener" on Conservapedia ? Hamster (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think our old friend Terry Hurlbut^img has an account here, but he's the wordsmith responsible. Cow...Hammer^time!

Don't you dare argue with Terry's version. He has not one but TWO Greek lexicons, so DON'T. YOU. DARE. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, someone has made the Bible into something interesting! Carlaugust (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bible is very interesting. Except the begats. And Paul is a bit of a wade. But lots of it is weird, scary, beautiful, violent, moving, offensive, ridiculous and even sexy. What did you think it was like? Sophie^Wilder 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Stick a fork in it

22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

When did we open the Bar? Before that, TWIGOCP was the default hang-out page, which prolly accounted for a good chunk of its traffic. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember, the default hangout space before the Saloon bar was a split between Talk:Main page and Human's talk page. The Saloon bar took some of TWIGOCP's traffic, but not much. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember different, but yeah, this place is contracting rapidly, regardless. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bar opened on 10 January 2009. First edit summary: "(New page: I hope this will be a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't (or shouldn't) fit in on the CP:WIGO_talk page or Rationalwiki Main_Page_talk, similar to WP's Villa...)." There seems to be a bit of a corresponding dip in the chart here. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WIGOCP was for general inanity, but the creme-de-la-creme was usually saved on The best of Conservapedia. Once we got the voting system going though BoC became an archive of WIGOCP for those items that garnered more than the threshold. C®ackeЯ 23:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I started The Bar because people wanted to discuss general stuff which was not related to CP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea for all those bitching about WIGOCP: STOP READING THE FUCKING PAGE IF IT OFFENDS YOU SO MUCH! Jesus, do you also write letter demanding a radio station be shut down every time they play a song you don't like? --PsyGremlin^Hable! 08:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 --Damo^Hi 09:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 more. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I done my part to keep it alive but it get's Robrailed. So fuck it. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you still persona non grata over there, Rob? Did you ever settle things with the petty officer? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This was a major factor in prompting the need for reform and accountability. I see Andy deleted the disputed page and talk, over a year later. There must have been some private correspondance I wasn't privy to. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the graph with total site traffic included.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We also had actual forums at the beginning as places to chat, which are now in the ether. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia is retarded, even to conservatives.

Has anyone noticed that?

I have. I am a Mormon, Republican, romney/bush/reagan/whatever supporting conservative, and even I think it is crazy.

Anyone have moment like that where they think that some parts of humanity should not represent any portions of it?

Obviously. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Santorum could come on here and say conservapedia is retarded compared to him and I would fully agree with him. CP is probabaly the best example of what happens when the sum total of all the hateful, paranoid, and narcisistic delusions, propaganda, buzzwords and conspiracy theories of the far right coalesce into a single entity who are able and eager to shut out any and all dissent both from the site and their minds, and thus allow this veritable echo chamber to cause it's contents to become ever more insane, spiteful, and intellectually bankrupt. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 07:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've long thought that CP is like a brine pool; over time the fresh water has evaporated or been driven off and all that is left is a concentrated corrosive soup of crazy which can no longer support intelligent life. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

'My theory is' there are websites which are the internet equivalent of 'those who are likely to be awarded a Darwin award or at least an honourable mention' - where the deliberately daft, weird tastes (fanfic and the offside rule, bizarre hobbies etc) and suchlike can go and discuss their 'we are not appreciated (and everybody else is damned)' complex, rather than cluttering up the rest of the internet. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Their "home page" is a disaster that I doubt anyone reads except for the people who write it. And I doubt they even look at it, really. But calling it "retarded" is an insult to the developmentally disabled. At least they try. ħuman 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

March for Life

Andy is coming to DC again^img for the March for Control of Women's BodiesLife. (Fortunately, I work out in the 'burbs now.)

Whatever happened to the busloads he used to organize for the March? Haven't they diminished in number ever year? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please. he never organised any buses. All he did was shepherd his hapless home-schoolers on to buses (because a wasted trip to Washington is more important than a day's schooling. Although, with Andy as a teacher, that's probably true) organised by some local church / pro-life group and claim that "Conservapedia is taking x buses to the March this year." By putting at least one child (and Jpatt) onto a bus, he could claim Conservapedians were taking 4 or 5 buses to the march. But organise his own? Never happened. PsyGremlin^Prata! 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your analysis, while intriguing, is, as usual, lacking in facts. IE, you just make shit up, and you're wrong as usual. ħuman 03:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Play nice. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he's not even promoting them this time. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember this being a pretty good source of entertainment when in 2009, Andy disparaged estimates about inauguration attendance, then transparently pumped up the numbers for the march for life. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy (2011): "Each participant in this growing March -- unique in American history -- likely affects up to 20 others, making the true reach of the March far more than 5 million people." LOL! --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I probably would have cringed a little less at this Onion article if I hadn't been following CP for so long. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Guess who's a "Sandy Hook denier"

who else but JPatt? See The Examiner for the TRUTH! Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not surprising. It's a favorite trope among out-of-touch, spite-filled morons. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's JPatt! JPatt! ya never really know what hes gonna say next! He's JPatt! JPatt! Fuckidyfuckidyfuckidyfuckidy What a Twat! Honestly, after his multiple calls for bloody insurrection and civil war because a damn uppity democrat negro became president im simply surprised he did not jump on this bandwagon sooner. Him happily denying the deaths of over 20 kindergarteners and thus smearing their grieving families as evil liars simply in the vain hope it will somehow "hurt" democrats and "liberals" is just another day at conservapedia. Times like this that remind all of us just who we are mocking Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a new low for Johnny 'I own a sub-machine gun' Sedition. Then again, the brainless one never met a conspiracy he didn't like. I'm almost tempted to wish ill upon his family. After all, it's not like I'm dealing with a member of the human race here. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 08:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says not to believe the media, I agree with that. I believe the official story even though our media is not asking questions, the government is not making details public. "I hope your child dies in a shooting." There's the kind side of liberalism we love. "Using those grieving parents for your retarded opinions." My op was "Strange days indeed." Funny how you don't blame Obama, Coumo, Feinstein, Biden, Peirs Morgan, and the rest for fuckheads for pushing their agenda on the graves of dead children. Go lick another man's bung, homosexuals.--76.188.25.61 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All right. Bend over. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Impressive, in one self pitying sentence he manages to lie about the content of the very article linked just an inch above, lie and weep about how "persecuted" he is by claiming the comment above threatens his family despite it evidently not, throwing a mini tantrum over people questioning the need for little men like him to compensate for their lack of machismo by buying military grade assault weapons, and of course he manages to cram his desperate obsession with mens' anuses and homosexual sex acts into a thread about murdered children. Just keep praying the gay away Patty, im sure jesus understands your pain Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Things is, if jonny rebel simply relaxed a little, rather like Frankie told him to, then his 'obsessions' with homosexual acts and mens' anuses would no longer hurt. He may even realise he enjoyed it. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It has to be hard to be a rightwing conservative, especially considering opening line about "the alleged Sandy Hook elementary school massacre". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For pointing that out on CP, MattyD gets erased. Karajou is such a coward to nail someone like that so fast and hard... and deep... mmmmm... while completely ignoring Ken. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It reinforces the point that this is the only way their faithful and their ideas can survive. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the government were willing to go to such lengths to take away people's guns, couldn't they have just shot the kids themselves instead of lying about it?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

They did. The lying is just the coverup. Whoover (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha MattyD. He was twying to get me in trouble (this is a problem), wittle baby liberal. Ban hammer bitch. --76.188.25.61 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite the humble Christian, JPatt. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Twat. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comment by WilliamWB [1]^img. Open minded (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing Ace. Since you know so much of Christians, maybe you can tell me if it was not Christian for Jesus to smash the money changer tables at the Temple? Do you think the Disciples should have not carried swords?

I don't give a fuck about the sword carrying Disciples in your big book of fairy tales and the hypocrisy of the right when it comes to big business and Jesus's tossing out of the money changers is astounding. Your Jesus would be ashamed of you. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

oh be nice. Clearly its been some time since patty interacted with humans and thus he is in desperate need of pity and empathy. given the past half dozen years of his sad little life has been spent acting as cheerleader for a blog run by schizophrenics he must be feeling extremely insecure right now Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I love watching the historical changes of what people think Jesus would say. In the Gospels - "Love your enemies, don't raise a hand to fight back, do not repay evil with evil." In Revelations - "I have come back to murder everyone's face off!" In JPatt's mind - "If people don't like you using the deaths of 20 little children as a political lever, they go all go fuck themselves, those assholes. Tell them bitches to shut it." Carlaugust (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dumb, you people know a couple of lines from the bible and think you know what it means to be Christian. I don't pity the fool. Talk about dancing on graves. Show me where you thought it wrong to talk of gun control hours/ days after the tragedy. You liberals vote for the Democrats who use the deaths of 20 children for their precious gun grab, perfectly ok. Fuck you, I am a sinner and a Christian. Fuck you, because everyone is so embarrassed by Conservapedia that they won't follow me on Twitter. In Jpatt's mind- Fuck You! Oh, I humbly say Fuck You. --76.188.25.61 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Every time I see a right wing fuck head rant about a "gun grab" it just reinforces that they're as out of touch with the actual plan as they are with reality. Show us one piece of proposed legislation that specifically states they'll be coming through your door to take your precious penis extension away. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken's petition to stop the US govt recognising Darwin Day

The all out assault on evolutionism starts here. Only another 99,921 signatures to go! London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"This would be tantamount to the government taking a position in the controversial debate of creation versus evolution." The only controversy is that there are people who think there is a legitimate debate. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, given I'm English and have read Andy's government lectures, I know nothing about the US government, but isn't Ken doing this wrong? Can Obama (the arch-Muslim/Atheist/non-dancer) actually do anything here? Can't congress pass whatever it wants in this regard? Isn't this the situation where they should be writing to their representatives rather than petition the White House? Or is it Kenneth being lazy or plain ignorant? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think these days honouring various things are usually done by presidential proclamation. Congress only needs to get involved if they want to make it an actual holiday where people get the day off work. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the episode of The West Wing that deals with proclamations as a b plot, but this isn't "honouring" or "giving people a day off" from what I understand, it's just a resolution that says "we recognise it exists". Can't all branches of government do this at their own whim, provided they aren't making it a law or whatever, which is when checks and balances come in? And if it is a presidential thing, why does Kenneth think a petition to Obama, CP's arch-Sauron, will do anything at all? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also Lincoln's birthday, (unofficial) National Freedom to Marry Day, Georgia Day and International Red Hand Day. You'd think they'd come up with a better thing to protest, or at least a better argument (e.g., "You can't have Darwin Day on Lincoln Day!"). Nevermind 2/12 is International Darwin Day. I'm waiting for them to say "You can't have an official day commemorating a foreigner!", and then completely forgetting about Columbus Day, Pulaski Day, or even Christmas.

In other news, Atlanta is officially recognizing it as Darwin Day (as well as Georgia Day). --Seth Peck (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm pretty surprised that Ken attached his reputation to a project that we can actually get a solid statistical count on how badly it will fail. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably because he is so certain that it won't fail. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My old eyes are having a job finding K.D. from Buffalo in the list of signers. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I noticed the same thing. My money's on him exhibiting a familiar lack of machismo by signing it under a fake name, since he would have been worried about confirming his initials and location with only 80 votes on the petition. PM, no location. Peter Moore, American. 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should the White House take any notice of a petition replete with false identities? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

81 votes! Oh my. As an aside this is a pathetic new low for Ken. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just created a petition that's far more serious and that far more people can get behind in good conscience. I'm a uniter, not a divider. I urge you to share it with your friends and family so we can raise our voices in harmony in the spirit of togetherness to encourage the White House to do the right thing. click Here!! 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen! Where is your proof that I/Us/We/Our/"Her?" is responsible for this petition, Flying Kitty!, that will no doubt buttfuck Darwin's atheist corpse by 2020? There will be no further communication via a channel of ten's of thousands of Flying Kitties! Ole! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Ken started this, he's a copier not an innovator. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. He's taking yet another thing and pretending he's involved. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he's not involved and prolly didn't even sign it; but by giving it his imprimateur, its failure will become his failure. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd bet you an internet or two that "P. M." with no location given is Kendoll under his Peter Moore alias. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's up to 87 people now! Tremble, tremble! Oh wait...Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if this one - to make Darwin Day a national holiday - can get more signatures than Ken's.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I doubt it. Most people who recognize Darwinian evolution as the dominant theory are not passionate about drawing attention to it. Why should they be? Most people who recognize relativity as a wildly successful physical theory don't sign petitions for it. But creationists view themselves as the noble downtrodden. It's easy for them to view this as a real fight and to be passionate enough to sign and publicize petitions.

For myself, I'm not interested in either petition, because they are pointless wastes of time. Phiwum (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, how many people would like an extra day off?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 16:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Congress passing a resolution recognizing the day as such doesn't make it a holiday and no one therefore would get it off.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I know. That's why I started a petition to make it a national holiday :-) --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.} 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So Sarah Palin is a true conservative again?

Otherwise, how is Fox News dropping her a bad thing?^img--"Shut up, Brx." 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Was she ever not, per Andy? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

She's a heavy facebook user and it always made Andy a little uncomfortable that she used it as a platform. That's about all I can think of. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I remember Andy implying that she wasn't representative of "the cause," so to speak. Could be wrong. Probably wrong.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember him saying that The Social Network not winning the Oscar a few years ago was a very bad omen for her (then potential) presidential run. Yes, that IS as insane as it sounds. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the pronouncement that Fox is no longer conservative more significant? btw, the Conservative Movement page is good for some chuckles. The definition is "a collection of volunteers, principles and goals for the betterment of society." As opposed to libruls who, by definition, want to destroy society. Whoover (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wooo, hold on. So there is no requirement to be anti abortion to be part of a 'conservative movement'? When did that happen? Oldusgitus (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

She's a RINO Backer... A lot of the people on that list work with Fox. So Fox, by dropping one of their many apparently fake conservatives, becomes less conservative. Checks out.--BigHotKarl (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

CP's entire history in a single stub

Oh look, Andy adds^img his usual rants about academics, liberals and liberal denial to a fairly innocent article about a humorous term.

Man, I kinda pity the poor guy whose article effectively got warped and vandalised. Actually, let me check who that was!

...oh, it was... Andy, mid-2007,^img when he was actually trying to build a sort of educational resource instead of just blindly hating on every single aspect of existence that doesn't conform to his preferences. --Sid (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In a previous life, I did category theory. I think it's mighty amusing that Andy says that work in this area is of "dubious rigor". He's such a know-nothing jackass. Phiwum (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So this is a new one on me; Andy has a dislike for mathematicians now?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The theme seems to be a dislike for any discipline that requires substantial (non-Biblical) study. I know that Andy is not an uneducated man, but he seems to resent non-intuitive domains that require focussed and dedicated study. It's not unlike the Taliban's distrust of non-Koranic education. I've always felt his disparagement of relativity comes from resenting the elite who truly understand it. Whoover (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "Academic mathematicians, however, almost never criticize each other publicly". Someone should direct Andy here. Monthly Letters to the Editor featuring academic mathematicians publicly criticizing each other (e.g, "In his comments on the “(so-called) BrentSalamin algorithm” for computing π, Professor Adlaj misses some important points", "I was saddened to read Rob Kirby’s article “Whither Journals?” in the October 2012 issue of the Notices.", "I would like to correct an impression mentioned by Dmitry Fuchs in the article “Memories of Vladimir Arnold”", etc.). As for Category Theory, from what little I've studied of it I can easily see how the name 'abstract nonsense' came about, but it seems to have proven to be useful abstract nonsense, :). --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy has long had a disdain for some concepts in mathematics. He ridicules imaginary numbers - although he must have had to make use of them in his electronics course - and he frequently rails against the Axiom of Choice. The problem is that if Andy doesn't understand something, then in his mind it cannot possibly be true. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually understand exactly what Andy is reacting to, because I saw it in my father as well. It all boils down to how an idea was explained to him the first time he heard it, and what state his mind was in. Usually there's a specific word that they focus on, which they aren't interpreting correctly, and they focus on that as being an indication that the idea is complete nonsense. My father refused to believe that the Big Bang Theory had any merit, mostly because he was focused on the idea that this was intended to create a defined starting point for the universe. Andy has similarly latched onto the constant as an idea that he can't get past. -Lardashe

I'll just leave this^img here as also representative. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The True Obama

Don't miss the guest editorial in CNAV, which reviews the evidence that Obama is a communist (confirmed by Pravda), gay (confirmed by Newsweek), Muslim (confirmed by WND), fraudulent (confirmed by Joe Arpaio), criminal dictator who is living high off the American taxpayer. The only question remaining is whether he is the, or merely an antichrist. Whoover (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I was reading through Bresciani's latest sack of crazy, and particularly liked the part about how Obama supporting gay marriage is going to cause the end of the world, and there was a line I thought was odd.

The Bible says the antichrist will be aided by a figure called the false prophet.

I hear this all the time, and maybe I read my Bible too literally...but my Bible uses antichrist just to mean someone who says Jesus isn't God (and the phrase is never used in Revelations). Why do crazy Christians keep talking about the antichrist being involved in the end of the world? Do they really mean the Beast? Or the Dragon? Or Satan? Does the average Christian really just think "Well, Reverend says the Antichrist is in Revelations, that's good enough for me"? I'm just really confused, and not growing up around Christianity, I was wondering if there is any light to be shed. Carlaugust (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who still lists himself as nominally Christian, most Christians don't think about those things, because they're not a focus of mainstream Christianity (mainstream and liberal Protestantism and Catholicism. I don't know about the Orthodox Christians or the Mormons beliefs about eschatology.) Most of Christianity realized long ago that the prophetic parts of the Bible are a muddled mess, and impossible to understand coherently. When it's taught at all, it's a general idea that Jesus will return sometime, the entire world will be transformed for the better (from a Christian perspective), and that it happens on God's timetable, not man's. Even trying to predict it is a waste of time, and some might argue "date-setting" is sinful in and of itself. A former pastor of mine basically summed it up as "the message of Revelation is 'in the end, God triumphs'. And that's a general message, not just one about the end of the world."

The Christians that get obsessed with Revelation and it's weird symbolism are a minority. They get attention, because it's good stuff for the media. After all, some guy saying "I've analyzed the Bible and the world will end on February 30!" is a heckuva lot better story than "I've analyzed the Bible and I have no idea when or if the world will end."

When the books that would constitute the Bible were selected, Revelation was hotly debated, with none less than Martin Luther opposing its inclusion (though I also understand he later changed his mind.)I've also heard, though I'm less sure of this, that when it was decided Revelation would be part of the Bible, it was with the warning it should not be taught as prophecy. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at Carlaugust's question as someone who grew up in the fundamentalist/baptist/evangelical world.

According to the article, terry’s cohort does refer to Obama as “an antichrist”, which fits the definition Carlaugust was referring to (i.e. one who directly opposes the Word of God).

Thee Antichrist as depicted in Revelation is a major figure in Biblical eschatology. This figure (who is also called “the beast”, “son of perdition”, “a little horn”, and “man of sin”) is believed in evangelical and fundamentalist theology as someone who will unite the world behind him and rule it, claiming themselves to be God; those who are not true believers in Christ will be deceived and worship him. He isn’t supposed to be Satan, but is empowered by Satan. It is also stated in this eschatology that actual God allows all of this to happen and gives this Antichrist full authority to do all of this (for some 3.5 years, i.e. the first half of the Tribulation).

There is also a second figure in this called “the false prophet” who is altogether another character, whose purpose is to convince the entire world to worship the Antichrist as God through the use of miraculous signs and wonders to establish the Antichrists credibility. The article's author just stops short of declaring Obama as this figure.

Hope that helps, at least it will help explain the views of Terry, Ken, and several other CP and CNAV contributors (I have no idea if Andy believes any of this though, given his catholic background).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good answers from MDB and BMcP. I will just add that while the fundamentalists will argue endlessly over the details, a large majority of them believe that they are "in the Last Days" -- i.e. that they are the generation who will see the Biblical End Times unfolding before their eyes. It's a bizarre form of wishful thinking (after all, the "End Times" will see the death and destruction of billions of people) but dovetails quite nicely with their belief that everything in America and the rest of the world is teetering on the brink of tyranny and disaster, and that the world leaders are deliberately bringing it about.Tacitus (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, when someone says "Revelations says that The Antichrist...", what they really mean is "Revelations say that this (or these) random figure(s), who 2000 years of the Christian telephone game has retconned into being antichrists, a word with an entirely different meaning..."

This seems rather like saying "Spider-man will fight in World War 2" instead of "Kansas farm boys will fight in World War 2". I can see how they got there, but... Carlaugust (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The book of Revelation does cover the Antichrist in the most detail (although still keenly vague on many points, allowing for people to view many figures in history and politics as the candidate); other books also make mention of him, and to understand fully the fundamentalist viewpoint, you'd also have to know the Gospels, Daniel, and First John (not to be confused with the Gospel of John).

A nitpick PSA. The final book of the Bible is Revelation, not Revelations; I only mention this because if you use the latter in a debate with a fundy, they'll use the fact you mispronounced the name to dismiss your arguments by claiming you "really don't know the Bible".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DouglasA

Any ideas who he may be? He's apparently an admin, but his take on e=mc² almost seems like he is trying to out-andy his highness himself. Could he be a deep cover parodist? Or just rather silly? Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 02:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

He was around a long time ago. I can't remember if the consensus was that he was a parodist or not. It's possible, but then in order to be an admin you need to provide private information about yourself, including facebook pages etc. It is apparent that he is keen to get in Andy's good books. I had noticed a slightly friendlier and more tolerant (relatively speaking) atmosphere at CP lately, that now appears to have been blown away. --Damo^Hi 02:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

He is a parodist, trying to delete as many pages as possible. I think he felt left out at Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive308#Who will kill August? --larron (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You would have been active when DouglasA earnt his stripes right LArron?. What was his claim to fame. Someone with such a parodist sounding name must have done well to become an Admin. --Damo^Hi 09:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

He made numerous contributions to the Conservapedia Bible Project - like this^img. He doesn't know Greek, though... Interesting observation: after his promotion to admin his lost all interest in the project!--larron (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't knock it. I think his translations from the King James Version into modern English are seriously passable. I doubt any of the translators could speak Greek, AugustO claims to, but I wouldn't know either way. --Damo^Hi 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (being a bloody foreigner), his paraphrases of the King James Version are not worse than those of any other "translator". Andy claims to know Greek (and the most torturous edits are his.) AugustO at least seems to be able to spot missing or added words. I always wanted to learn Classical Greek (I enjoyed Latin very much) - it's a project for my older age: If Conservapedia still exists - and my block is lifted - I'll start to contribute to the C.B.P. in perhaps 30 years! --larron (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If RationalWiki and Conservapedia are still going in thirty years, and the CBP is still a thing, I will happily give you the mercy of a pillow-smothering, LArron, if you have not moved on to something more intellectually fulfilling. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And you would rightly do so :-)

Back to now: I'll lose the rest of my interest when AugustO is chased away. But the cheering of the parodists and the critique by someone more normal have the same effect on Andy: he just becomes more ardent in his convictions. I just prefer the attacking kind of parodists who throw his own statements back on him and his ilk (like AugustO did with the funny line "Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals")

--larron (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy only knows Greek (or claims to) when he can make something he googled agree with what he wanted to say anyway. Otherwise the Best Of The Public knows what the text really means. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why waste time learning when you can immediately start teaching, LArron? Andy can't even recite the Greek alphabet, yet he's translating the most logical book in the history of creation, the very word of his god. It always makes me smile smugly to see how badly AugustO clowns him so very often. My favorite examples are of him asking Andy questions that would require him to actually be able to read Koine. No answer. No matter how long August pursues it, it's Andy's standard practice of clamming up when he's outgunned while still reflexively reverting in order to protect his pet batshittery. But what's it matter? You going to be following in the footsteps of an ostensibly extremely well-educated man. What could possibly go wrong? 21:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Bee

Conservative once won a prize in a spelling Bee!^img Amazing! Of course he can't tell us what the prize was - though I suspect it was a "thanks for participating- we are all winners!" sort of prize given to people who have mittens pinned to their shirts all year round. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus. That update is full of sad. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

English can't be his first language, can it? Whoover (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Ken seriously bragging about how he once one a spelling bee? --108.180.91.182 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Won!!one!won!! Генгис^pillaging 08:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, unless the "Bible believing lady" [hyphens are liberal] who shared the glory was in fifth grade, this was an adult spelling bee. I never knew there was such a thing. Whoover (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm betting he won the "Buster Bluth Trophy" for "Saddest." Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What strikes me as odd, is that misspelling "Napoleon", is a rather petty thing, to bring up winning a spelling bee, as a red herring. If he stayed silent, we could have believed that it was a simple typo, but now, he wants us to know, that it was caused by insomnia, and he is looking into ways to treat it. Going off track, much, Ken? Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Ken has responded: Lastly, to the gentlemen at a certain website, the spelling bee prize I won was most certainly not a "Thank you for participating. We are all winners prize". :) It was based on God given talent, hard work and achievement! :) Say that's great - but why a 40 something year old man is trumpeting the 'success' of his spelling ability at grade school I don't know. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it was his last achievement of note.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you implying that promotion to sysop at Conservapedia isn't a noteworthy achievement?Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just took a break to mess around with Conservapedia's API after I saw that gentlemen message. Wrote a quick script that goes through all his deletions, narrows them to those in his userspace, and finds all unique instances of "gentlemen," "fyi," "operation," and the like. The guy has deleted a staggering number of files. Some of them over and over again hundreds and hundreds of times. Not sure if seeing his entire oeuvre of shoutouts is funny or depressing. It's definitely a walk down memory lane. 06:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

oh FFS, is Ken still bleating about his insomnia? He's been doing that since at least 2007 - it's in the SDG and ZB posts. Every time he fucked something up, or said something that even made the other sysops go "WTF?" he blamed his inability to sleep. And his teeth too. probably from eating all those Cheetos while lurking in his mom's basement. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 07:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that just like evolution, his insomnia is FINALLY going to be defeated in 2̶0̶0̶8̶ ̶2̶0̶0̶9̶ ̶2̶0̶1̶0̶ ̶2̶0̶1̶1̶ ̶2̶0̶1̶2̶ 2013. This time it's different. Olé! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way Ken, you do not spell 'expect' S-U-S-P-E-C-T. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken, with regards to your insomnia, an excellent way of fighting insomnia is to drink lots of whisky, which will certainly help with your insomnia. Not a great long-term solution but it definitely helps in the short term. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Insomnia is caused by a guilty conscience. He needs to turn to Jesus. Burnum (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes it even sadder is that this is by far not the first time he brought out the spelling bee trophy he won as a child to show the world how good he used to be at spelling, regardless the dozens of edits he now takes to make incorrect posts.. --GTac (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have seen a spelling bee held for adults; it was done as a charity fund-raising event. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Unedited Ken is distinctive, not so much for spelling, but for using the wrong word and for grammar problems. "Suspect" for "expect" and "venue" for "avenue" are examples from this short sample. Missing commas ("are a number of venues I will be pursuing to alleviate the situation some of which ...") and hyphens (which he admits to disliking today) are other diagnostics. Is anyone qualified to interpret these characteristics? I would guess (although with no real knowledge on the subject) it speaks to less reading and more alternate sources of information. After all, it's easier to mishear how a word is used than to misread it. It would be fascinating to have an expert in learning disorders deconstruct some of his prose. Whoover (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

.... Well, that was more than a bit sad. Unedited Ken, oh my. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ken does make those distinctive mistakes - and, like many people's, the syntax and word choices in his unedited writing are distinctive - but it's sometimes hard to tell the output of a shit writer from the writing of someone with learning difficulties. His cack handedness could be more Dunning-Kruger than SLD. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. He reads more like a guy with fingers way too small for that piano, though he's definitely sitting at the keyboard. 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Karajou deletes his masters work

Nonsense, Karajou?^img That's an Andy masterpiece. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done, sailor boy. Well done. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the most Wanted page on CP now, 293 red links. Burnum (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done, sailor boy. Well done. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a link between CPs current unreachability and Sailor Boy trying to memory-hole his error. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no troubles reaching it. Phiwum (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's back. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Was that the page that claimed godless liberals were unable to feel love? I hope not, because that was a classic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Google cached copy^img

David Clark. Wow. That's this guy me & ToP discussed earlier today. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Small world. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd a thunk they'd be headlining that guy. Not a word. I guess nobody over there even reads mainstream conservative media. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First and Last Revision
A liberal friendship is a friendship on cp:liberal terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of cp:liberal values. It is often the product of cp:peer pressure. Someone in a liberal friendship can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the cp:liberal values. A liberal friendship can occur wherever cp:liberals apply cp:peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace. In contrast, cp:conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of cp:conservative principles as a condition of friendship. See also cp:liberal grading
That's Andy's creation way back on 25 Feb 2008. Titled by him as "a good start", it really high-lights his early struggles with the concept of a wiki
Liberals often make approval of cp:liberal values a condition of cp:friendship. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the cp:liberal values. For example, Nobel laureate cp:Ronald Coase described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his cp:conservative economic positions. Princeton University professor Robert George observed, "If [a conservative] kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he's likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He's going to face pressure to conform or he'll be the victim of discrimination. It's a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad." A liberal friendship can occur wherever cp:liberals apply cp:peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace. Until exposed and criticized by this entry, there was even a website entitled "Ostracize a Republican," which justified the practice by comparing Republicans to Nazis using a parody of the famous "I did not speak up" speech. David Brooks of the cp:New York Times published advice from prominent professors which said that conservative graduate students in humanities and social sciences are better off if they keep their conservative views in the closet. Brooks wrote: "The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: 'You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet.'" Darryn Beckstrom, a graduate student at cp:liberal cp:University of Wisconsin, confirmed it: Mr. George is right. It is indeed harder to hide your political ideology. Not because of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 button on the ol’ backpack, but because your fellow graduate students — and future colleagues — expect you to be liberal. It’s as if these students have gone through their entire educational careers using the liberals’ edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the definition for “intelligent” specifically forbids any association with conservativism. I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror. (Disclosure: This column was written with a notebook purchased from the Texas-based, Dubya-supporting, capitalistic leviathan Dell Corporation.) Though my monologue most likely fell on deaf ears, a familiar response came afterward: “Well, at least you aren’t one of those social conservatives, are you?” Indeed I am. Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy described this phenomenon, without endorsing it, in reference to cp:conservative Justice cp:Clarence Thomas: "among professional blacks, especially lawyers, he is widely ostracized." Renowned cp:conservative physicist cp:Edward Teller described how cp:liberals terminated their friendship with him and his wife for political reasons. "By old friends we were practically ostracized," he said, adding that his wife "was very badly hurt" and even fell ill from it. cp:Michael Medved observed that in Hollywood, "There are no movies in the recent past that send overt unapologetic conservative messages. Why? Because anybody who attempted to do that would be criticized [and] ostracized socially, if not commercially, in the Hollywood community." Attorney David Bernstein described his experience at the very cp:liberal cp:Yale law school: [A] classmate of mine told me ... that a significant number of my Yale classmates shunned me [first semester] because of "what you said in [first semester] Contracts class." I responded that I don't remember saying anything all that controversial--after all, we didn't discuss abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, or any other especially hot button issues in Contracts class, and my views on such issues were not especially out of the mainstream at Yale, anyway. My classmate responded, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "yes, but you kept saying that contracts should be enforced." right|thumb|Sheriff David Clarke African American sheriff David Clarke explains how cp:liberals ostracize black cp:conservatives: Clarke argues — plausibly — that President Bush should give him and other black conservatives a platform to boost their credibility and exposure. Black ministers call him furtively to express support but explain that they can't do so publicly. "People are watching what will happen to me; they want assurance that they can survive. It's going to require individuals to develop courage to buck the plantation politics, because it's not fun to be ostracized by one's own people." One college student in relatively neutral cp:Pennsylvania observed: I think a lot of young Republicans are afraid of being ostracized by fellow classmates and professors if they are open about their political opinions, since most people regard the majority of college students and professors as being liberal. In contrast, there are many instances of cp:conservatives not requiring acceptance of cp:conservative principles as a condition of friendship. For example, cp:Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker cp:Tip O'Neill and Senator cp:Ted Kennedy. These liberals were friends with Reagan although they knew he was a conservative. On the other hand, there have also been a few cases of cp:liberals not requiring acceptance of cp:liberal principles as a condition of friendship. For example, cp:Tip O'Neill and Senator cp:Ted Kennedy were both friends of cp:Ronald Reagan. Reagan was friends with these liberals although he knew they were liberals. Besides the loss of a friendship if you display disapproval of the liberal cp:belief system, if a liberal knows you are a well known cp:conservative, they may wish you bad luck. However, if you change by discounting and betraying your past conservative relationships/principles/friends, they would embrace and reward you with liberal friendship. e.g. Press Secretary cp:Scott McClellan of the Bush administration was hated by liberals just for working in the administration. After leaving his position and writing a book publicly criticizing President Bush, the typical left leaning media sources, being they don't revere concepts like honor and loyalty and see disloyalty and backbiting as virtues, actually defended him. References See also cp:Liberal bias in grading cp:Liberal tricks cp:Liberal deceit cp:Professor values cp:Category:Liberalism
Some 100 edits later, we get this masterpiece. TOP editors were Andrew Schlafly (20 edits) and Ed Poor (12 edits).

--larron (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone get in there and get a conversation going on that. Could be interesting. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 11:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The talk page still exists.^img Good reading. People blasting Andy's idiocy and his last post literally includes this: There are no conservative vandals on Wikipedia or here. Liberal denial is rampant. Can't make that shit up. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And "This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one". Classic. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

God, this article explains so much about Andy's past. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! What is this? --Colonel Sanders 20:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty impressed how many red names are on that talk page. Including a couple of classics, like HelpJazz. --Kels (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)