Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive309

This is an archive page, last updated 12 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>, <308>, <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)

What on Earth is Karajou saying?

What is Kara saying here^img? Is he suggesting that evolutionary theory has animals consciously designing their own offspring? Or am I missing something? (Which, I confess, is quite possible). --Horace (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 1 is incoherent but I think he's suggesting that these animals are intentionally taking advantage of their good camouflage, which is sort of interesting but irrelevant. 02:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Working backwards, Option 2 is God so Option 1 has to be evolution. I guess that's his take on the theory of evolution, that "the animals involved knew exactly what they were doing." Whoover (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

He seemed to miss Option 3: animals that are able camouflage to their environment have an advantage and are more likely to survive and reproductive. They pass this characteristic to their offspring, with some variation. The better the camouflage the better the chances at surviving and reproducing. Thus we expect the camouflage to improve over generations. Not as simple as 'goddidit', but it has the advantage of being right. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's just going for the 'look at how perfectly designed the butterfly is for its environment therefore god' argument. I guess he's one of those people who thinks god made butterflies with fancy predator evasion camouflage to keep them alive without asking why a god that didn't want butterflies being eaten couldn't just figure out how to make predators not eat the butterflies in the first place. But it's not as if he's ever been cursed with an over-abundance of intelligence. Ego (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Kara is going for Option 1 = intelligent design and Option 2 = creation. He handily ignores Option 3 = genes. No wonder this guy never mentions his navy rank, he probably thought his radar screen was a game of Pong. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to learn how lions and tigers survived on grass and leaves with those carnivorous teeth. Were they intelligently designed like that, or did they evolve after the fall? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Could penguins fly when they all lived in the Garden of Eden? (I bet that's something creationists have debated in the past). Spud (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Everybody knows penguins are from the cormorant baramin, who drifted to the Antarctic on mats of vegetation after the Flood. The vast amount of radiation they were exposed to, due to the magnitude 12 earthquakes, which shot water onto Mercury, mutated them into penguins, and also cut their lifespans from 900 years to a few years. Deny this and lose all credibility. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was so stupid I assumed it was Ken. This false dilemma is responsible for a great deal of religious belief, and it is probably their best bet to getting more converts. Get them while they're uneducated and hope they stay that way. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Won't be asked to follow KJ's link, but a butterfly with the appearance of a snake's head is a clear example of Batesian mimicry. A more commonly seen example is the way hoverflies (Syrphidae) have yellow stripes on their abdomens, easily mistaken at a quick glance for a hornet or bee. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservative drift...

... or "Sanity didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left sanity."

Apparently even Antonin fucking Scalia^img fails the purity test these days. It's like they never, ever want to be elected again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I gotta tell my buddy, who's the Chicago Tribune's only guy on Mayor Emanuel 24/7, to run for fucking governor. Liberal media! That will totally bump up the quality of our cookouts and shit. 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How can anybody claim that about Scalia with a straight face? What kind of rabid wingnut would be suitable? Would even Roy Moore pass the purity test? rpeh •T•C•E• 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Reagan? Nowait, he did a gun control bill once.

What I love about these lunatics is how they seem to be under the impression that their conservative party of choice loses to the more liberal party because they aren't conservative enough. No idea how that works, mind. I mean, the whole reason the really conservative people are never going to get into power, at least on a national level, is because they have to get past the primaries first, and as I understand it that's everyone's opportunity to, if they're pining for the party in question, say who they want in, but it's also the other party's supporters' second choice. Last year, it was a case of the Democratic voters going "OK, out of these four frothing mouthed morons, which will be the smallest disaster?" "True conservatives" just won't get past the primaries.

Or maybe I've misunderstood completely. I don't know. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a grandfather clause in the Official Republican Purity Test that allows Reagan to forever be declared a True Conservative, despite having raised taxes, supported gun control, and passing amnesty for illegal aliens. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

During the last GOP presidential primary campaign, I opined that "Any candidate capable of winning the GOP primary is, ipso facto, incapable of winning the General." I see nothing to disabuse me of that opinion. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems the "lieberal" media just gave Andy more Tebow white knighting material.

Andy is most likely going to enjoy this "liberal news gaffe" and knowing him, will probably use it as conclusive evidence his crush hero is a victim of librul liars. Arcane (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

I notice Andy has totally forgotten that other persecuted greatest conservative sports star - Jeremy Lin. I'm guessing that once Tebow doesn't get a contract anywhere next season, that'll be the last we of him from Andy. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 07:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Such an innocuous conversation. Hard to take anything out of it really. Not to say that Andy won't. --Damo^Hi 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a completely innocuous conversation. It is no different then what fans or sports commentators talk about all the time, yet this is somehow a gaff?

Andy at the moment is too busy singing the praises of the Christian virtue of Randy Moss^img. Sorry Andy, Randy Moss didn't lead the 49ers to the Superbowl - 434 yards and three touchdowns (and one fumble) for the season is contributing, but it definitely not leading; stop talking about things you don't actually understand. Yet again, that means Andy wouldn't really get to talk about anything. Why do JPatt and the others worship this man?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy is also hosting the platform they use to spread their mental droppings around the place, or at least, Andy's hosting a linkfarm that occasionally gets "trimmed for grammar". One does not bite the hand that feeds them. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"bite the hand that feeds them"; nah, morelike parasites not killing the host which supports them. Генгис^evolving 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Emk again

(Bill & Ted reference happens. *air guitar*) So only "liberal, second-tier colleges" claim e=mc² is used for anything. Of course, by Andy's definition ALL colleges, including those his mommy paid for him to attend are "liberal, second-tier colleges." At least Andy isn't too far from Big Brother Roger on this - he's also down on relativity IIRC and called Einstein a "poster boy for relativity" or something. There really is nothing too dumb for Andy to say to back up his position.

Maybe we can convince Andy to submit a paper to PNAS, proving that relativity is wrong. He seems to have all the proof. Oh, wait, evil peer reviewers... --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What I love about that article is how it opens with Andy's dribbling insanity, then goes on to provide examples of how it can be deduced. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 12:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the way that whenever he says anything about the equation he proves he doesn't understand it. The comment about eating a pound of cake not causing an energy increase of c² is beyond brilliant. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When AugustO cited UPitt's very well respected History and Philosophy of Science department and their discussion of liberal claptrap E=mc^2, Andy dismissed it^img and referred to UPitt as a liberal, second-tier college.

Now, I don't know what schools he likes, but I decided to google Oral Roberts University (a school opened by a televangelist in my home state) to see their treatment of relativity. Not surprisingly, they have no problem with it. A physics syllabus includes a discussion of relativity, and a quick glance at the required textbook (at Amazon or Google) shows a perfectly traditional treatment. In fact, an ORU grad has a book trying to show how modern physics is compatible with the Bible. And the author must know physics, because he, like Andy, is an attorney.

I imagine that one can find similar results at other evangelical Christian schools.

Though, to be fair, ORU may be a little special. A couple decades ago, I visited the campus and found a small textbook devoted to discussing the cognitive dissonance in evolution and creationism. It seemed, from a brief glance, that ORU (which included a medical school) taught traditional biology, despite their more or less literal biblical interpretation -- at the same visit, I went to their "Walk through the Old Testament" exhibit which recreated Edenic scences, the deluge, etc. Phiwum (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How did I overlook that section above? I don't think it was there when I sat down to write this. Phiwum (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's cool; I just combined the two sections.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This relativity thing is one of his more bizarre behaviours, in my opinion, since he's literally the only person in the world I've ever seen make these claims. Is there anyone else who says the same thing about relativity? Not just random crazy timecube-type people, but a person who takes a moral stance against it for whatever reason? X Stickman (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are the folks who dismissed it as "Jewish Science," right? Edit: with a few tweaks, this opening pgph could be made to fit Andy's position Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Roger Schlafly's How Einstein Ruined Physics is beloved of antisemitic observers. He avoids dirtying himself, but a google search on the title shows how loud the dog whistle is. Whoover (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The saddest part is the pair them doubtless consider themselves wonderfully open-minded and independent thinkers for daring to question Einsteinian dogma. Even a blockheaded contrarian you can grudgingly respect if they know what they're talking about, those two are just idiots who think they're smarter than every working scientist for the last three quarters of century.--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

<-- There are important differences between Roger and Andy:

• Roger thinks that the theory of relativity is true. But he don't think that it has anything to do with Einstein, but was developed by others: Poincare, Planck, etc.
• Andrew thinks that the whole theory is nonsense - and therefore was developed by Einstein.

--larron (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Parable of the Marxist Squirrel ["A Children's Morality Play"]

It's even got a gay-Obama punchline. Hussein wants your nuts. Whoover (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

JPatt outpoes Poe

Gabby Giffords "We must do something." You're right, everybody must be issued a firearm. Say good bye to mass murders.. No comment! Scream!! (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to ask him who would pay for them all; certainly he isn't suggesting the government do it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So many errors in one little sentence.

CP still has only a one-sentence entry^img for Newtown, CT, and it's a doozy.

Nwtown, Connecticut, is a wealthy small town that was the location of a massacre by a video game player of 26 people, 18 of them young children, at a public elementary school.

There's the weird dangling modifier ("a video game player of 26 people"), the fascination with the only salient detail (Lanza played video games, at least according to Andy) and finally the fact that he reports the wrong number of children killed (twenty, according to every account I've seen).

No references, of course.

Andy's a fine writer and educator. Phiwum (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So few words and so many of Andy's bogeymen. Wealth. Young Mass Murderers. Video games. Public School. The only thing that's missing is liberals. I think? Thanks J. 05:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait, wealth is one of Andy's bogeymen? I thought he was (sort of) loaded. And, to be honest, it is pretty unlikely Lanza didn't play a video game at some point because, let's face it, everyone does that these days. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for someone of his age it's a bit like describing him as a water-drinker, food-eater and air-breather. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement", and I suppose the same thing goes for wealthy people now. --Yukabacera (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This made me laugh

The second law of thermodynamics apparently predicts typos^img. I know I'm not the first person to ask this but why does Andy seem more and more like a parodist every day?--Umichcynic (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier and had a wee chuckle. Ho ho ho. Really Andy, really? Aceⁱ⁹

Wait... WTF does Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle have to do with spelling (or entropy for that matter). Is Andy implying that either I can spell a word, or read a word, and by doing the one, I don't know how to do the other? Suddenly, most of his edits are explained! --PsyGremlin^Hable! 10:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did someone buy Andy a 8th hand science textbook that's pages have been rebound in the wrong order, and Andy hasn't noticed that? --Revolverman (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the way he seems to imply Murphy's Law is related to Heisenberg. Perhaps this all explains one thing though: the way you can either agree with Andy or know what the fuck he's talking about, but not both. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

When Andy makes a typo, it's not Andy's fault; it's the universe's fault. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's only logical: Conservatives don't make errors - Andy is a Conservative (he and his mother are the only living true Conservatives. There may be two dead ones: G. Orwell and - to a certain extant - Jesus) - therefore, it has to be the universe's fault. --larron (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A notable anniversary

Mark your calendars. The saturday after next will mark the first anniversary of the legendary Question Evolution booklet. I wonder if Kendoll will ever invent a tale to explain its continued non-existence at some point. Perhaps the author came down with a sudden illness, or because Project 200+ totally destroyed atheism on the internets it was no longer necessary to publish it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't wait to get my hands on this imaginary book. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're in luck Ace, I imagined you did so there you go. Now, please write a review of it. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagined a totally awesome review. It really shredded every little detail of the QE! booklet's pathetic arguments. Does that count? I posted it up in imaginaryspace for all to imagine on their own. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what Ken's website would look like if he somehow ended up with a court order banning him from ever using Clip Art ever again. --Revolverman (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright free/pseudo-copyright free images and pictures of people. maybe badly photoshopped pictures of posters in out of the way locations along roads again. --^Mikal 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry Hurlbutt has lost his mind

This does not even amount to an expression of extremist or fringe political views. These are the ravings of a madman. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I read that post a little earlier. His paranoid delusions are getting worse. Chuckarse could find treason in a note from Obama to his milkman. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't he, just post election, talking about how he wants his own coup to "Take the White House Back!"? Terry baby, consistency! --Revolverman (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that he doesn't know what a coup d'etat is (does he really think the POTUS is planning to overthrow the President, or that government agencies are planning to overthrow the POTUS in order to put his policies into law?), I have actually thought for quite a while that some kind of rebellion, coup or civil war was slowly building in America, long before Obama came to power. They can hide behind freedom of speech all they like, but the bile and vitriol that conservatives have been spewing for a while now is very disturbing. Whether they know it or not, and most of these bloggers and pundits don't have a clue (about anything), they are using classic propaganda techniques to demonise a group within society. Just like what a certain group of people did to a certain other group of people in the 1930s. It isn't the evil, lying, spiteful, immoral, homosexual, baby-killing, atheist God-hating, mentally retarded, freedom-loathing, Commo-Nazi liberals that are manoeuvering into position to overthrow the government, it's the (self-)righteous conservatives that have to act now to defeat this disease of liberalism that has infected the government. Sokar (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Terry is only months away from becoming another McVie. The kind of sustained insanity him and Insanitary are spouting can't been sustained indefinitely - one or both of them is going to crack. It'll only take something like the GOP getting thumped in the next House election, or Christie winning, and he'll be ready to martyr himself for We The People. Also, I see he's got a clever way of stifling comment on his blog. Suddenly my password no longer works, and requests to reset the password are met with silence, from what should be an automated system. Very clever, Hurlbut. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 09:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me with the comments. I can't believe he'd do that, because we have to account for a large portion of his traffic. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite Chuckie's style. More likely he'd try to organise a militia (with him as leader, obviously) and then call everybody traitors when they don't show up.

"he doesn't know what a coup d'etat is": the list of things Terry doesn't understand is huge and growing rapidly. He doesn't know about physics, biology (especially evolution), geology, the constitution, or almost any of the things he rants about. His latest fixation with sheriffs is amusing, for instance. Given the teabaggers' usual hard-on for the constitution it's odd that he's claiming that sheriffs are above federal law despite the word "sheriff" not appearing anywhere in the document. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah. It'll just be more impotent foaming. Lots of people are like that, if they all went murderous the global population would have been on a steep decline since the 19th century--"Shut up, Brx." 11:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry will become another McVie? You mean he'll be a perfectly attractive and talented singer relegated to Stevie Nicks's shadow? Hell, serve him right. Phiwum (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Does he share a tree-house with Ken, where they can plot and lay out plans? --larron (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I gotta give it to Terry, he is the only one with the guts to come right out and say what JPatt and Kara also appear to believe but waffled on when confronted: Sandy Hook was a government setup. Except Terry takes this all one step further, he believes it isn't merely to push gun-control, he thinks its the first stage of a government coup against America.

Honestly I feel the reason terry comes up with these conspiracy theories is because this is what he wants to happen. Terry wants America to plunge into a bloody civil war, into chaos. The idea that Obama may simply work to achieve his goals within the system and then successfully retire in January 2017 is too much to people like Terry to handle, because that would mean that Obama wasn't a monster after all and likely remembered as just another president, and millions dead in a terrible internal conflict is preferable.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Terry. You have to remember that plenty of right-wing nutters wanted the US economy to crash, for no other reason than it would make Obama look bad. They are so twisted by the image of the Black Man in the White House, that they'd happily see millions of their countrymen suffer, to get him out. But yeah, wishing for a new civil war is taking it to new lows. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, him and his ilk have spent decades feverishly praying for Jesus to come to earth and send all their personal enemies along with billions of people who were born and exist in a manner that displeases them to God's personal Sex/torture dungeon, so praying for a civil war is hardly a shock.

As for tosser's latest treason, I maintain that for all his bombastic and self righteous ranting, he remains too much a lily livered coward to do anything drastic unless he is 1000% sure there will be no one capable of opposing him. This is why he is so desperate for the government to fall, because he honestly thinks once their out of the way it will be easy for Il Douche Hurlbut and his generator fueled merry militia to seize control of New Jersey and lead the extermination of all dirty liberals and heathens from his domain. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

hahahaha, that conversation about the generator was one of my favourite Terry moments. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye, it just shows how for all his bombast and pathetic attempts to play up his "grizzled and badass survivalist" credentials, he really is just a boneheaded, impotent, and astronomically fucking clueless little man with no idea of how to survive in the absense of modern civilization, and who has nothing but hatefulness and an especially delusional god complex to back him up Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

People will respect me for I and I alone will have the generator! Aceⁱ⁹ 23:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before he starts to believe that he is personally being targeted somehow. Some run-in with the state/county/law, his hosting provider, a random tragedy, etc... I don't see how he can become better without some kind of intervention (which would also probably set him off). Ultimately, I think he's a coward, so he probably isn't physically dangerous. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And here's Insanitary with a concurrence, including her complaints about "A complicit and ideologically driven media". She probably believes that Fox is "fair and balanced". rpeh •T•C•E• 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the second sentence, the coup has already happened. Quick, to the generator! London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder what happens if theres a powercut in his town. I cant imagine his neighbors will be too happy to be woken at 6 in the morning by some fascist on a megaphone proclaiming his dominion over the township based on divine right of generators, and reading out a list of "Known liberals" to be apprehended by his loyal subjects. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That genuinely made me LOL! rpeh •T•C•E• 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ja, me too. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would pay movie theatre extortion prices to watch that in HD. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 21:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly enough im about 80% sure he has some kind of "list of local enemies" ferreted away somewhere for a very rainy day, and the moment he thinks the government is dead i;m 100% certain he will try to have all of them put on trial for treason. As for a movie adaptation of his "glorious revolution" I would also pay my middle kidney to see that in a cinema. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have little doubt Terry will actually do anything. For all the bluster on CNAV for a revolution against tyranny, blah, blah, bah, they certainly do little other than preach to the true believers. I doubt any of these people are willing to surrender their creature comforts, let alone more, to attempt any sort of radical change, even within the law.

That part mentioned by Judge Holden about the Second Coming is spot on. They don't desire for the Rapture so much for their own personal salvation and glorification in heaven, but are motivated by the desire to see all their enemies, real and perceived, punished for opposing their beliefs. That punsihment being no less than eternal tourture because that is what people deserve for opposing Godthem; it is the ultimate ego stroke.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I really, REALLY hope someone else on his block would step foward and say "You, know I got a generator too... you can use mine". Lo, and the fall of Aynstan. --Revolverman (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that in the event of "rival" generator owners coming forward and offering to help people without forcing them to swear blood loyalty to them, tosser would try to smear them all as marxist insurgants, before simply attempting to sabotage them with a sledgehammer. Theres no way in hell he will let his most cherished dream be stolen from him by a bunch of queer liberal collectivists. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the ambiguity over what pitchrump would sabotage with the sledgehammer: The queer liberal commies' generators, or their skulls. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 15:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A propos to this discussion

"A “survivalist” with ties to the anti-government movement" does something horrible. There but for the grace of God, as they say.... Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If this happened in the UK, it would be international news...London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken takes on Andy

... I think I'm actually impressed^img! Ruddager (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy will ignore, Ken will vaporize. It's not the first time he's had a go at Andy, but nothing ever comes of it and Ken always runs back to his rabbit hole to lick his wounds. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 13:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

you have to recognize the full scope of the problem and not claim victory where there is no victory. Thanks for this, Ken! --larron (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugger. Where can I get a new irony meter? How can Ken come out with something like that given his own Atheism Is Dead nonsense? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been mentioned many, many times before (by himself once too in a FYI), get him on the economy, and he's sane and actually has a valid argument. On creationism or homosexuality, he's a fucking nutter. Shame that he often attempts to argue the former with the latter. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 14:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that many times. He's still an extremist in a lot of regards. He's just not urging armed insurrection or living in whatever Andy's reality is. But THIS?! Don't claim victory where there is no victory? Now I must post highlights of Ken's shoutouts crowing about all kinds of victories and secret projects that never were. 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaaand from the sublime back to the ridiculous^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Most recent victory: Scott Rohter vs. liberals - conservatives won again! Liberals are afraid to try to write a better article. They know they cannot do it! I am afraid conservatives are going to have to declare victory! Again! Conservative 23:54, 23 January 2013 (EST) ^img - reminding me of Hitler's victory at Stalingrad and Napoleon'v victory at Waterloo! --larron (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"That doesn't give me a license to construct a false reality in the meantime." Brilliant. Phiwum (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because, you know, those Question Evolution booklets. Totally real. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And because the reality is that English is losing out, conservatively speaking, to increasingly Christian Chinese. China is also at an advantage because we have abortion. Whoover (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken continues to poke the passive-aggressive bear^img. I lol'd. Ken, keep this up and I promise I will spam 3 evolution blogs with links to QE! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy. I so want them to get in to one of those repressed Christian slap fights. You know, the ones where the first one to actually say what they think of the other loses, and in the mean time they passive-aggressively quote the Bible at each other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy might get another jab in, but he will ultimately rely on his best skill: evasion. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy has already given an answer. If you are not able to follow the perfect logic in his reply and change your position accordingly, you are closed minded. If you want him to explain his answer, you are a leftist, using bully tactics. Case closed. --larron (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not confirmation bias, it's confirmation. Jesus Christ, I can't believe he's actually that stupid, but he is. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What goes on in Andy's mind? He actively fixes his "perfect doubling" by denying other peoples' words that would ruin his pattern and scrabbling around for words in the right century to finish another "layer", but somehow he seems unaware that he's fixing the data. If he realised he wss bullshitting, surely he'd quietly abandon the thing rather than keep it going for months, but I can't imagine how he's couldn't be aware that what he's doing is bullshit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been around fundies long, have you? The intensity and pervasiveness of the cognitive dissonance among the extreme right is a Wonder of the 21st Century. Only Lieberals practice deceit. Andy is following divine guidance (or some other justification for his willful manipulation that doesn't amount to another way of describing deceit). Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the data was part of the plan as soon as the idea of "conservative words" was conceptualized. The entire concept is absurd, but Andy had to take it one step further to "prove" his personal beliefs was "The Truth", so he developed this entire bogus concept of said words doubling every century and then just wrote whatever he wanted to make sure the "data" fit his belief. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows it is complete bullshit, but on CP, only Ken can say so and get away with it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the Conservative Best Words project, it shows Andy's delusions in a nutshell (nut's shell?) He is so convinced of his ideas that he was willing to participate in a test - and naturally, he failed miserably. August reiterates a point I made earlier: as long as there are four bins of "conservative words", one for each century, and as long none of those is empty, you can get any distribution you wish: Of course, Andy won't address this argument^img. --larron (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I love AugustO, he is the lone voice of reason there that gets away with demonstrating how preposterous Andy's beliefs are when exposed to the light of logic and science, (well Ken does too once in a while, but he has his own level of crazy).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right..on something it never predicted

Can anyone remember where Andy ever predicated Fox News declining in viewership? Or is he just going to make it up?^img Aceⁱ⁹ 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If asked, he'll probably just point to something he said about how people don't want to hear lamestream liberal claptrap, and that Fox is somehow drifting in that direction. Of course, he'll probably forget about how "liberal" Fox is within the month week. «-Bfa-» 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"...driving young voters to Obama." That's a new kind of loony. Torn between the Scylla and Charybdis of Megyn Kelly and Hussein, youth at second-tier colleges finally have the spell broken by the visage of Charles Krauthammer. Whoover (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can recall him saying it. Can't remember where or when, but he definitely said it. I think it was related to Fox News becoming liberal and losing viewers as a result. Damo^Hi 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it started during the election, or when they started dropping people like Palin. Because clearly on a twue conservative is as batshit insane as the Big Moose. poor old Andy is running out of conservative news sources - Fox is Libull, WND thinks he's insane - but that doesn't stop Andy hanging on their every word. I'm just surprised there aren't more links to Infowars stories on MPR. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And the award for mangling the English language goes to...

Kendoll^img for using a three word idiom and managing to get two of those words wrong. "Peddle to meddle" sounds like a gypsy's mission statement. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

B-E-E! I win!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's improved it to "peddle to metal" so far. Just a few more edits and he's there. Gomer (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When I sold knives in the mall, I used to "peddle metal," but I don't see what my employment history has to do with anything... Maybe Ken is trying to tell us he got a new job. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 18:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a four-word idiom ("pedal to the metal"), so he's inched from 25% to 50% with that edit. I still say there's a language processing issue, not mere stupidity. At least I hope so, for Ken's sake. Whoover (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair (i seem to always want to defend User:Conservative when it comes to language), why would he have to exactly follow the standard form of an idiom, especially in keeping a nonuseful like "the"? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Poetry maybe. Whoover (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'the' isn't non-useful. In this case it denotes the nouns of the sentence (pedal and metal). Without it the idiom contains a verb and a non-specific term, in other words you have to pedal until either you find metal, or something turns to metal. And remember, the full idiom reads 'put the pedal to the metal' .-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ten-four, good buddy. Never thought I'd ever need that bit of seventies lingo again. Watch out for bears. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They've even got a bear in the air! --Kels (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the idiom is "push the pedal to the metal"? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@Stunteddwarf: What semantic information is lost with the loss of "the"? "Put the pedal to metal", or even "put pedal to metal", still conveys the exact same thing — or something so similar there's no practical difference —, even if it sounds weird or isn't technically "correct".

@Genghis Khant: That can't be, because there's only one version of any idiom. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 23:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's cold, so people are using more energy.

But using more energy is supposed to make it warmer^img. Global warming is a lie. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Boss must have had a word in Kenny's ear

Interesting to note that his incredibly exciting QE! blog posts seem to now be routinely appearing on MPR, and MPL still remains topped by the Popular Article at CP section. Bet he's itching to get back over on the left though, and spurt his blog jizz all over the whole thing again. But for now it appears he's been reined in. DogP (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gods... I really do NOT need that mental image. Please, make it stop... the horror... --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

His posts are also routinely disappearing in regular bouts of trimming. If only Andy could summon enough of a spine to head the problem off at its source rather than constantly treating the symptoms, he'd have a happier blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is likely true. It typically takes Andy four to six months to a year to respond to any crisis/criticism. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll just put this right here

Gentlemen! Behold! A canonical list of all operations and shoutouts from Ken's userspace! Probably only interesting for its historical value. I apologize for the formatting. Generated from the only droppings he can't oversight: the deletion logs themselves. 21:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame so few of them have captures associated, except the generic ones like gentlemen or FYI. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that we haven't been Gentlemened now in a good while. I need a good gentlemening, me. DogP (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. To make an omelette you gotta use some toilet paper, I guess. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we all played our part in ruining the conservative version of Wikipedia....

...so now it's time to sock up accounts here. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I registered an account under the clever name "Joe Plumber". ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you all really ruined CP, to be honest. I know this is silly, but RW's relationship to CP reminds me of an episode of Batman: The Animated Series, where Batman's villains put him on "trial" and blame him for their life of crime. His "defender" (A DA who thinks Batman is part of the problem) concludes that the villains would have been fucked up all the same, Batman or no. Childish as your actions were, CP is the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy and would have turned into a shitty site with or without any antagonists. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This FB-alike is slower than Raplh Wiggum. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 02:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of when I pretended to be a reactionary teenager on Marcus' wiki writing about crappy hip-hop bands. I feel I'm going to have fun, reposting from my old copypasta folder.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"In an open relationship" is available as an option under relationship status... They may want to rethink wholesale copying other sites--"Shut up, Brx." 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here I am, by the way--"Shut up, Brx." 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's somebody named "Michelle Nobama" on there. That is awesome. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 03:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"You've received an error page because TPC's servers are currently overloaded. Please refresh the page to try again." THIS SITE IS GROWING RAPIDLY!!11!!1!! Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See also: the alternate "Twitter" by ex UK (Tory) MP Louise Mensch. Scream!! (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets be honest here - there was nothing we did to ruin CP that Andy didn't do himself. Just sayin'...Aceⁱ⁹ 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TK. That is all. Sophie^Wilder 10:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Holy nutjobs batman, one of the pictures in that article is truly disturbing. this one The one on the left looks like she's trying to hypnotise a rock. Do you think she ever blinks? Worm (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't look away...caan'ttt loook awwaaayyyy....I'M SAVED! PRAISE THE LORD!!! Sophie^Wilder 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

oh man - I read some of their posts. They're as batshit insane as they look. A kind of shaggable Launchbooty. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 11:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that mental image. Not sure about the shaggable, but they make hurlbut look restrained by comparison. This is pure gold. How many of us are on there (I am)? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 12:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm on there - more to use it to collect blogging material. When you can study the creatures in their natural habitat, surrounded by their own kind, then you really get to see their best behaviour. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 14:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I'm watching for the lawsuit that begins the process of removing this straight-across Facebook ripoff from sight forever. But until then, I'm buying stock in popcorn futures. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In general, you can't copyright a user interface. FB might have grounds to sue on impersonation claims, but that's more likely to just force a change. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that any legal action would be based on trademark/trade dress claims (user confusion) as opposed to copyright (wholesale asset theft), yes. And, it'd force a change, but I wonder how much money is actually in the kitty for the server tab, let alone a legal defense fund. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's crashing Safari on 3 mobile devices. Watch out Facebook! 14:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm on. Using an old name I used to troll Chuckarse with. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Add me! Srsly. Percival^Lowell 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

From the sign-in page: "It's free and always will be." Sounds horribly socialistic to me. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's only be socialistic if the government was running the website for free. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My account. None of the information is real, incase you were wondering. This rather reminds me of the Randian dating site.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You son of a bitch, I was planning on using that name! Hmmm... You think anyone on that site would reconise John Henry Eden, or Andrew Ryan? --Revolverman (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hit me up! Barikada (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yo Did anyone notice that 1776 is the earliest age available when making an account? --Revolverman (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if they will notice that John Stuart Mill wrote the seminal work On Liberty? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is Truth in advertising error message?. 86.186.139.252 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
And they've already gone to invite only. I wonder how long their temporary measures are going to remain in place. It all has a depressing cycle of inevitability to it really.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep: this is will happen when you create a social-networking site solely around extreme American right-wing politics. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Subtly is such a lost art form now. --Revolverman (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As in: using subtlety effectively is a skill either unacquired or underutilized by those of modern times. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If anybody wants an invite, my account is still good--"Shut up, Brx." 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry Hurlbutt calls a sitting US senator a pedophile.

Wow? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Lawdy lawdy, this is some straight up psycho scumbag behavior here. Just further proof of how this freak's mind works. You oppose or exist in contradiction to his insanely stupid and stupidly insane dogma you are subhuman untermench who is fair game for any insult, slander, or attack. If it ends up being proven true its another "conservative victory" and if its refuted he will keep on spewing it like its gospel truth. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does he call him a pedophile? It's almost as if he's carefully avoiding making his own allegations because he knows this goes way beyond Sullivan v. New York Times. Is anyone aware of any sitting member of congress filing suit for defamation? I do love that he refers to himself as a journalist and CNAV as if it were a legit bureau instead of an impossibly angry old man using blogging software to spew venom at anyone he disagrees with. 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Menendez, according to CNN, indignantly denies everything – the improper travel, and especially consorting with under-age girls" is a typical Chuckarse line. It's the Lamestream Media (and you can't believe them) and he'll just repeat the accusations while he's here. There's no definite accusation but the dog whistle just burst from constant blowing. All this from Chucky, who has accused people of libel when all they did was point out that Skin Disease has been called on his abusive and vexatious lawsuits. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I missed the innocent-until-proven-guilty "But they shouldn’t wait until their Senator turns out to like little girls a little too well.". He really is an asshole. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial source for the contention seems to be Breitbart's website(and, apparently, this allegation came from an unidentified source, akin to the sort of "detective" who claimed that Osama's death was the result of a high level coup within the US intelligence system.) Not at all an unbiased, trustworthy source...but didn't the website also break the story about Weiner? I think it's premature to be jumping to conclusions here, though there does seem to be some sleazyness going on here.WilliamR (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, somebody has thoroughly scrubbed Terry's CP-MPR linkwhoring of the story. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy at least doesn't like the statement at his main-page: he changed cp:Liberal Senator cp:Robert Menendez of cp:New Jersey might have gotten caught out as a cp:pedophile to cp:Liberal Senator cp:Robert Menendez of cp:New Jersey has much to explain. and oversights the original... --larron (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Have we reached a singularity here? Andy finds a right-wing opinion that goes too far??? rpeh •T•C•E• 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh shit... reality just started crumbling around me. The sky has turned mauv, its raining bronies, and the assembled works of lovecraft are attacking my dorm with the leaders of WW2. Brb after I fight off Shub Niggurth and Winston Churchill from stealing my beer bong and raiding my fridge for Brie.

Honestly though, it may just be because andy at least has the vague sense of "calling someone a pedophile publicly is rather problematic legally", even if he wishes it to be true Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it a crime, say, to wonder in a public forum such as this if Judge Holden is really a pedophile like I'm pretty sure thought I overheard somebody say when I was near the watercooler a couple weeks ago? I thought Terry was very careful with his slurs. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the deal? Let him deny it in civil court under cross examination when he sues Terry Hurlbutt for damages and defamation. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 23:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

CNAV doubles down

"There are many pedophiles and deviants that are appear to be “nice” people and may be charming to some extent; however, they are incompetent, either legislatively or morally to represent the citizens of this country....While the people of NJ gasp in horror about the embarrassment of electing such a deviant to public office, all America should be re-assessing their standards for choosing representatives....Menendez may have finally been exposed, but his recent re-election as a Senator should also expose the regular crimes committed against the Constitution by an ill-informed and complacent electorate." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad I've never been brought before the court of CNAV. --Revolverman (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait.... is he really making the arguement that not agreeing with his certifiably insane delusions regarding the constitution is worse than being a child molester!? I... I honestly did not think even he would bethat fucked up. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The voters of New Jersey are 0-3; first there was Torricelli who quit to avoid a perp walk prior to the elction; then Lautenberg who only got on the ballot cause the New Jersey Supremes decided to ignore the State constitution; now Menendez who, allegedly, has a penchant for the pretty pink panties of young girls. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Conceptual Dyslexia?

I know we just hashed over the Best Conservative Words insanity, but I didn't see any comment on this specific new BCW. Inattentive is just begging to come out. First, it's conservative because it foreshadows all of quantum mechanics, which we know is the basis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Second, it warns against not observing, which will prevent instability of state. Only by being attentive can we cause entropy, and thus prevent tyranny.

Whatever Ken has with words, Andy has with concepts. Please savor this entry:

inattentive -- 1741 -- more than 150 years before the discovery in physics of the connection between attentiveness/observation and uncertainty/chaos, this conservative word cautioned against inattentiveness Whoover (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He's taking this whole "typos are an act of god" thing and running with it--"Shut up, Brx." 00:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How the fuck did this man get a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering? From Princeton, no less. Seriously, we should a 'Schlafly Physics' article describing his odd worldview built on misunderstandings/rejections of modern science. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what his classes were like, but I imagine that he probably just memorized the answers without understanding them. --"Shut up, Brx." 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think sending Princeton a copy of his "articles" would convince them to rescind his degree? Ayzmo (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that they would care. There would need to be a media frenzy or a bunch of offended alums for that to happen--"Shut up, Brx." 06:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So can we go offend a bunch of alumni with it? Ruddager (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sirs and Madams of the Princeton University Physics Department... Occasionaluse (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Note Andy's latest thought on E=mc²: Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil. Add dimensional analysis to the topics that Princeton's engineering school doesn't teach. Whoover (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He had exactly the same "thought" about gravitational attraction a couple of years back. It seems to be a recurring trope with him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As a minor exercise in brainwarp- a reality TV series involving Schafley, David Icke, Richard Dawkins and who else? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

TK memorial blocking

--larron (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I get weepy when I see this; truth is, I miss the 'ol boy. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 14:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whats with the sudden wall at the end of 2012?--^Mikal_lakiM 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne, parodist and bully. 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RIP TK. He's blocking and bullying in heaven now. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When he got to the Pearly Gates, St. Peter probably blocked him and said, "Please recreate your account with an acceptable username." nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 23:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that was actually pretty good, Rob. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fan of Rob --> 00:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RIP? Nah, there's no rest for the wicked. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland

Does Kenny really think that 30% rejection evolution is a plus for his "side?"^img According to his own statistics, evolutionists (I hate that word) greatly outnumber creationists. And I haven't even bothered to check if that statistic is true.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

But brx, this in the stronghold of godlessness! Even a 10% would be a slap to the face of atheism there! and it will ONLY BE GROWING!--^Mikal_lakiM 18:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming his number is legit: If I was an advocate for a completely fringe position that involved challenging scientific doctrine that had massive amounts of evidence to support it, and if that scientific doctrine were basically universally accepted among experts as the only viable way to explain something, and I got 30% of the people to reject that science? I'd be in heaven. If I was able to get 30% of Americans to reject capitalism and liberal democracy, they would lock me up. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

70% is very high. The countries that are off this chart are mostly Muslim. For instance, Egypt has an 8% belief in evolution. Ken should work towards universal Sharia. It would be much more effective than his current activities. One fatwa and you can behead evolutionists. Whoover (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did anybody catch that FYI? A shame he deletes them so quickly. Cheats us out of our hard-earned lulz--"Shut up, Brx." 08:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It only lasted 5 minutes. I think we'd have to run a bot to catch shoutouts like that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Who the fuck cares about his impotent shoutouts. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, they might be funny.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I checked about that statistic: It is from late 2002, has been ordered by Pro Genesis, a Swiss creationist group. It has one single question ("In your opinion how did life, earth and the univerese originate?") and four predefined answers to this question. Of those four answers, one is Darwin diddit, one is don't know and the other two say Godditit with variable involvement. So all in all, it seems rather shoddy to me.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

BOTP Came up short

I usually don't like the "Ooooo, how will Andy react to X" type posts, but I was laughing during the entire Superbowl. His Best of the public quarterback lost, and he even had a homophobic Pro-traditional values teammate with him. I'd say he'd fall back on liberal San Francisco, but Maryland allows Gay Marriage..... I hope we get as good an explanation as I'm built up in my head. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 04:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, we all know, silence for a week, then some micro post proving that he was still right and a link that has nothing to do with his claim. --Revolverman (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy must be a Niners fan. Czolgolz (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a ret con, where he claims that liberal San Fransisco lost to conservative Maryland. Meanwhile, Andy blames a power shortage on political correctness^img--"Shut up, Brx." 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's things like this that show Andy as the petty, small-minded idiot that he really is. Every news report on the Super Bowl is talking about what a fantastic game it was and how great the half-time show was. Evidently it's that pesky liberal bias to reality again. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What's politically correct about a nearly naked smoking hot black woman with blonde hair? Now that's some retconning. 06:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. My team lost^img so the whole thing was rubbish. I wholeheartedly concur with your description of Beyonce as "smoking hot". rpeh •T•C•E• 06:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andy, it wasn't a power outage, it was an overload. Dumbass. --Revolverman (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All men have one thing in common: our penises are apolitical color blind creeps. Why is he talking about the lights?! 06:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the winning team has an outspoken (to use Andy's fave word) player in favour of same-sex marriage. Seems God took the night off when it comes to fixing results in her favour. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The only reason Andy wrote the post the way he did he that be both blames and has not forgiven the NFL for Tebow's trade to the Jets and subsequent lack of playing time, (and possibility he may be released soon with no one interested in trading for Tebow or picking him up).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly is he whaling on the half time show, anyway? I have a BBC article, a WashPo article, New York Daily, LA Times, and a USA Today one, and they all agree that the show kicked arse. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the lights went out was God mocking liberals over global warming^img. I love how Andy's Jesus is some sort of quantum superhero and his God is some sort of lesser trickster deity. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Phiwum (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Another example of a total lack of imagination. God has to be dragged down to human scale. They don't or can't imagine what an actual deity would be like. Oh, they can trot out comforting little sayings like "God is outside time" to handwave away all sorts of gaps between reality and a literal interpretation of Genesis. But they really do imagine God as some sort of father figure with a long flowing beard and robes and lightning coming out of his fingers. There's no theology in any of their religion. It's just cheap parlour tricks, righteous indignation and threats of eternal hellfire if you look at a member of the same sex funny. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In their eyes, God is Gandalf. Генгис^mutating 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's odd that Andy, a man with a degree in Electrical Engineering from m'f'ing PRINCETON (!), doesn't seem to understand the difference between a power outage (lack of power) and a power overload (too much power)? Carlaugust (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See E=mc2 for the reason why the answer is 'no'. It isn't that he doesn't understand, it's that it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't fit his narrative, and so gets trimmed and archived.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to figure out why who he means when her refers to "promoters of rationed energy"? Is it the NFL? No, they don't have any such agenda. Is it the owners of the Superdome, which is the state of Louisiana? Well Bobby Jindal seems to be all about more energy including more drilling. Is it the sponsors? Mercedes-Benz (who pays for their name on the stadium), Toyota, Audi, Chrysler, Budweiser? So God hates Republicans and corporate sponsorship, is that what we are supposed to take from this?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH They won't let my beloved Tim Tebow play!!" is what you should take away. --Revolverman (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it boils down to.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I recorded the SB, fast-forwarded over the half-time show, and deleted the recording before I read the stuff above about Beyonce being smoking hot. Goddammit. Cardinal Fang (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Karajou's ham-handed blocking

I notice Karajou has been blocking a lot of /16 blocks lately. Out of curiosity, I started browsing MX records within some of them and It's hilarious some of the shit he's unknowningly(?) blocking. I know Karajou is basically retarded, but how does Andy not notice this shit? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not noticing shit is pretty much Andy's stock-in-trade. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The plot thickens

This whole comment thread is paranoia gold, but this comment in particular stands out. In Terry's mind, Obama is an evil marxist who is angling to be maximum dictator for life of the entire world. What short circuit in his perception of reality could possibly cause this view to form I can't fathom. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there are religious undertones to what he is saying. I would argue that Launchbooty is just stopping short of outright calling Obama the Antichrist, who according to Biblical eschatology is to become the de facto, if not outright, dictator of the entire planet with people worshiping him as a god.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that there's a testable hypothesis, the question is - when Obama ends his term and steps down from the presidency on Friday January 20, 2017, will he accept his wrongness? Signs point to no! Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

lol, no. He'll just say that conservatives managed to hold the beast at bay. Remember, the country was supposed to have collapsed into a black radical theocracy by now. People like Terry have been end times masturbating over Obama for quite some time--"Shut up, Brx." 21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

He may be an evil Marxist pretending to be a Muslim pretending to be a Christian pretending to be an American pretending to be President, but according to Roseanne Unsanitary the real villains are the American public: "Menendez may have finally been exposed, but his recent re-election as a Senator should also expose the regular crimes committed against the Constitution by an ill-informed and complacent electorate."[2] London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The best part of CNAV is that Terry's the sanest one there. Even if you were writing a comedy show, you couldn't script this shit. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder if it is actually possible to Poe Terry. I mean, the only thing left is to out-and-out call for the extermination of blacks, atheists and liberals in a literal, actual, concentration-camp style extermination. That's the only line left. The final frontier of crazy. --Sasayaki (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll need a strong stomach, but digging through the morass that's rooted in Bickel's link is quite entertaining. For instance, from his blog we get to Actors in Sandy Hook hoax are identified (Photos) with this gem: Maurice Greenberg, the father of Jennifer, was a baseball player and later, the CEO of American International Group, ir AIG, from 1967-2005. This is a composite of Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the financier, and "Hammering Hank" Greenberg, who famously wouldn't play in a playoff game on Yom Kippur. (The latter is the only one of these Hank Greenbergs who's dead.)

This composite is the father of Jennifer Greenberg (in the fact-based world, neither Hank had a daughter Jennifer), who plays one of the grieving Sandy Hook parents. We know that there are no dead children because Obama used the same child actors in a photo-op for gun grabbing at the White House, stupid man. Anyway, Jennifer's husband takes time from his Trilateral Commission duties to play her screen husband in Sandy Hook interviews. Interestingly, she also played Gabby Giffords and the Aurora shooter's lawyer. Believe me, this is the tip of a paranoid iceberg that's well worth the dive. I'd WIGO it but it really deserves its own WIGO category that transcends fuck-all. Whoover (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

they all want Obama to be the Antichrist so so bad because it means soon they can personally meet and fellate Jesus AMassiveGay (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit that is crazy. I am actually disturbed by that and I've been on the internet since modems made that KKSSSSHHH noise when you connected. --Sasayaki (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what it is about; glorification in heaven with Jesus is just a secondary benefit, and eternal vacation for all their "hard work". No, they want Obama to be the Antichrist so that everyone else, and especially their enemies and mockers, real and supposed, can suffer through the nightmare of the Tribulation, and best of all, suffer eternal torment in the Lake of Fire. It is the ultimate dream of ego, showing everyone else they were right all along and those who did not follow, did not believe, well they can all burn.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"showing everyone else they were right all along" -- yup, that's it in a nutshell. Dying and going to heaven just doesn't cut it in that regard.Tacitus (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I like to say that fundamentalist heaven is really just a window to hell--"Shut up, Brx." 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A religious teacher of mine once put it "Their personal hell would be them on Cloud 9, and everyone on Cloud 8." --Revolverman (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry's comment forces me to send everyone to this link. Carlaugust (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ian Paisley has his own view as to who the Antichrist is. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So? Sophie^Wilder 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely there should be only one Antichrist? Or does 'the beast with seven heads' mean that there are seven representatives? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. There was a theory that the seven heads and ten horns represented the EU somehow. Sophie^Wilder 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Andy.

I know SamHB just handed you your arse on a plate^img and effectively tore apart every weak argument you had, but when you reply "Would the supporters of E=mc² be OK with E=mc^1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil."^img you really do come across as an ignorant, close-minded moron. Don't ever change. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The fuck? Thats like asking "Would supporters of 2+2=4 be ok with 2+2=3?".--Revolverman (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be, but i realize i don't speak for all supporters of "2+2=4". ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This kind of thing is half funny, half-WTF until you remember that Andy is a teacher who passes it on to the kids in his classes. At that point it becomes something much more sinister. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A neat demonstration there of the standard Schlafly tactic of "When thou art served up with a point by point refutation of thy ludicrous and borderline retarded viewpoint, thou shalt stick thy fingers in thy ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALALA!". --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 08:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That was from a while back. Although you are right to point out Andy's stupidity and stubbornness over this, a word has to go against those who keep going on and on about it on the talkpage. I should have thought it pretty obvious by now that the focus of the article will never be changed, and really AugustO and SamHB and a few others are really wasting their time and effort. Time to move on methinks. There are plenty of other things to poke Andy about. Damo^Hi 09:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an old meme on a new subject. The previous "Why not 2.01?" was about gravity, wasn't it? rpeh •T•C•E• 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, dimensional analysis alone would show that if E=mc^x, then x has to equal 2. This is something high school students taking physics should be able to see. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm...what would Andy actually be measuring with J/sqrt(m/s)? Does that have any physical meaning? I say again; does a man who have a DEGREE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FROM PRINCETON really not understand what a joule is??? Or at least it's dimensions?? It is just completely mind boggling. Carlaugust (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) Would Andy understand that #both# 2+2=10 #and# 2+2=11 make as much sense as 2+2=4? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

After 5 years of this, does anyone believe that any attempts to calmly and sensibly discuss these batshit insane positions has ever resulted in a single concession by any CP sysop? Trying to get Andy to engage an argument in good faith is as pointless as trying to get Ken to admit being wrong. 18:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I still enjoy it when he gets taken to school properly and thoroughly, as SamHB did. I never find the "ur dumb lol" or "you're wrong andy" parts very interesting, but when someone breaks down in excruciating detail exactly why he's wrong (like the Lenski thing), seeing his responses always makes me laugh. There's absolutely no way he read that argument and didn't understand it; he either didn't read it or he's digging his heels in worse than a stubborn child because he can't accept he was wrong even in the face of literally the entire world disagreeing with him. Either way, he's a tosser, and it's amusing to watch. X Stickman (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how he reacts to such criticism in the real world AMassiveGay (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Yes Sir" "Yes Ma'am" "Yes Dear". Thats why he takes it out on the Internet. --Revolverman (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"...in the face of literally the entire world disagreeing with him." Don't forget reality, too. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another gem trimmed

I'm just a little sorry to see that Andy trimmed^img a bit more of User:Conservative's eloquent prose. I know he's addle-brained, at best, but the phrase "Darwinism higher education indoctrination bubble evolutionist weasels" deserves some sort of acknowledgment. That's style, man. Phiwum (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh but that's every kind of great. Writing doesn't get much better than that. DogP (talk)

Richard III

Can anyone identify where the humour is?^img Aceⁱ⁹ 20:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

He had a play by Shakespeare about him, and Shakespeare was a liberal. Trust me, it all makes sense. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the main joke is that he was power-hungry and was found under cars. "My kingdom for more horsepower." Don't you get it? Secondary joke is that his descendants don't know how to say "parking lot." What, do the cars go to a car park for recreation? Stupid atheists. Final ironic humor is that he was power-hungry, thus a liberal, and is still dead. Whoover (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

God's sense of humour seems to swing from "He he he! I'm going to turn the lights out at the Superbowl! That'll show the liberals!" to abstruse pranks like burying Kings under "car parks" (parking lots). How odd. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It really speaks to the small mindedness of Andy when things like this happen. An all knowing, all caring, all loving God couldn't be fucked about the really big issues, quite happy to let millions die pointless deaths all around the world for rhyme or reason whatsoever, but fucks with the light switch at Superbowl because that's something Andy watches and is interested in. It's almost like Andy thinks God is only interested in him! ... (soft, eureka moment voice) Andy thinks God is only interested in him... --Sasayaki (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard III was homeschooled. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Andy's link to the cp article contains no mention of Richard Aye-aye-aye (he was a Geordie). And yes, Andy's God would appear to be Puck on acid. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

putting dick 3 under a car park is a kin to putting fossils around to fuck with us. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy has always struck me as -what is clinically known as- a humorless dick. And what little delight he gleans from his miserable existence seems to come as a misfortune to others (preferably liberals). So basically Andy believes that God is routinely performing practical jokes for Andy's own personal amusement. Jesus, he's such an asshole. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I live in a world where if god did happen to exist, he isn't Andy's god. --Revolverman (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to think that God's sense of humor is a little simpler than "evil monarch dishonored by burial location". He's under a parking lot. A parKING lot. Oh, ho ho, now that's funny! That's PAR for the KING. Man. Maybe I've been reading too much of Godlike Productions. Carpark has seven letters, and so does Richard, and when you take three from seven, you get four, which, with the extra seven, means we have 7/4, and so July 4! You heard it here first! Phiwum (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Would be safer 'for the person in the street' (not being creators of dubious ditties and general nuisances) to encounter Richard III than two of his near contemporaries - Vlad Dracula and Caesare Borgia. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What? In Leicester? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost anywhere (but it might depend upon your taste in cheese). Vlad Tepes and the Borgias might be an interesting face-off. (The other reference is to William Colyngbourne.)

As Richard (and the monastery) were there first, the council owe #him or the monks# a share of the takings, rather than the other way round. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Meeting them? Probably safe, though I might think otherwise about Vlad if I was a Turk. None of those three are noted for random (as opposed to motivated and carefully considered) violence, unlike (say) Charles VI "the Mad" of France. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Bishop Bert"

I just noticed in Andy's latest bit of trimming that Schlossberg has taken to billing himself as "Bishop Bert". What the hell religion/cult is he a "bishop" of? Has Ay inadvertently widened the circle of conservative Christian admins to encompass not only a Mormon (Crocoite/Dean for you n00bs) and a Moonie, but some guy who started his own religion? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's Karajerk doing that. I'd wondered about it too - a bit of Googling around Schlossy's name didn't turn anything up so I was going to ask here, but you beat me to it. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you check the Trussworthy Encyclopedia? Whoover (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And also Bert's user page, which came up when I googled "Bishop Bert Schlossberg". Phiwum (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bert himself doesn't even bother editing CP since he has a blog of his own now. I wonder why Karajou thinks it's important to keep spamming his KAL 007 crap for him? Also, I wonder if Popeye will ever figure out permalinks? I know that appalling javascript heavy blogspot skin Bertie is using doesn't make it easy, but you'd think he'd get it at some point. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe Bishop Bert has also referred to himself as Jewish, which I believe he was before he became a kind of Jew for Jesus. His Church refers to itself as Evangelical Catholic. Is it usual for members of this cult to consider themselves Jews? I thought that was still sort of an uncommon occurrence among evangelicals. 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic Churches are just those churches that believe in apostolic succession, i.e. an unbroken continuous succession going back to the apostles, usually through bishops. These can be either protestant, orthodox, or catholic.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm so embarrassed. I can't think why I didn't consult the Internet's #1 source of trustworthy information before posting. I can only assume ToP is equally humiliated. We shall have to rub gravel into each others' hair. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's always the gravel with you. I think you have an unhealthy yen for gravel-rubbing. Knock it off. Phiwum (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's so good for the scalp... rpeh •T•C•E• 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Bishop" is because he's a knob-head. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

^I lolled Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 10:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Are [www.bishopsfinger.co.uk] or [3] involved? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy has his cake and eats it too

Andy: "liberals refuse to admit that they are liberals"
Andy: "Gallup: Conservatives Outnumber Liberals in 47 Out of 50 States!"
Occasionaluse (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yah butt those conservatives don't meet Andy's definition of conservative; they're mostly RINO's & neocons. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hats off to OU for that one. It's a perfect example of Andy's thought process. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama's skeet shooting

Conservative just linked to this piece from American Thinker and it has to be the most asinine pile of shit I have ever read. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. All that work and they forgot to dye the body double's hair right. It's as stupid as using the same child actors to play dead first graders and props at the White House. Whoover (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama is left handed??? Why hasn't this been made into a big issue. Surely left handedness is a sign of the devil. --Damo^Hi 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sinister. --Horace (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird article. 1. "Shoulder guard" is the recoil pad on the butt of the gun. It's also a semi auto and ported. I've never had any special equipment to pad recoil. Is this common? 2. Who cares about sunglasses. Wear whatever's safe. 3. His stance is a little vertical but maybe he's shooting an 18 gauge. Not all that meaningful. 4. Maybe he's not ... shooting skeet in that picture. In any event, be very surprised if his shooting party wasn't using an automatic skeet thrower. None of the rest of these are worth reading, let alone answering. Some top 10 list. 02:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

4. I've seen skeet ranges that had a trap house in between the towers. Trapshooting has the birds (little frisbees, clay pigeons, whatever) flying at random angles away from the shooter, lower to the ground than skeet.

11. Who gives a flying fuck? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The singles funniest line is "they couldn't find anyone to train him". um... hello, secret service guys, you woudln't know anyone who knows how to hold a riffle, would you? and by the way, being president gives you nifty shit tactical eyewareGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand why the even bothered listing the other 9 if they are just going to say "It's a body double". Aceⁱ⁹ 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow... talk about a train of thought getting derailed. Right after jaxing about is it a body double, he goes on to rant about how Obama gave info on the killing of Osama... which, if I read the post correctly, was a Bad Thing (the killing) - presumably because Obama. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 07:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I took it to mean that he asked Katheryn Bigelow to arrange for the body double because Hollywood. Whoover (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If the article wasn't from American Stinker, I'd think it was a parody of birth certificate analysis. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy Fails Reading Comprehension, part a million and six

Andy: VICTORY: the Boy Scouts reject the homosexual agenda, withstanding the liberal pressure^img.

Reality: from Andy's own damn link: The Boy Scouts said "we need more time to think about this." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a victory like getting to punt the ball on fourth down is a victory, which is in essence what the Boy Scouts did.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The dilemma facing the Boy Scouts is actually a very good example of the dilemma facing the whole of the US right. If they pander to their base support then they become increasingly marginalised, if they try to become more inclusive they alienate those they rely on for their survival. In the last election, to a significant extent, Republican candidates had to sail between the scylla of alienating the tea party or the charybdis of alienating the floating voter. Similarly the Boy Scouts, if they continue on their present course, will continue to shed members but, if they move into the 21st century, then they risk alienating the church groups they rely on for survival. It's no wonder they don't know what to do. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As a filthy foreigner I have not really observed the debate surrounding this issue. However, I intend to put my two cents in thusly: Isn't allowing gay males to become scout leaders (if that's the right term) equivalent to allowing straight males to become girl guide leaders? The latter, as I understand it, do not exist. Why should the former? On the other hand I am totally in favour of allowing lesbians to become scout leaders and gay males to become girl guide leaders. --Horace (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What does sexuality have to do with gender identity? Or am I missing your point? 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender is crucial if you assume that most people are pedophiles. Not so much otherwise. Whoover (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following, but I admit gender and sexuality discussions are usually hard to follow. What does gender have to do with pedophilia? 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is that when it comes to these youth groups we have always "assumed that most people are paedophiles". We do not accept it as appropriate for men to take groups of girl guides into the forrest for camping trips. We restrict it to women. Why do we do that? Are we assuming that all such men would be paedophiles? Or are we recognising that there is no bright line between children and adults and no bright line between paedophilia and normal sexual attraction? Sexual orientation and the potential for sexual attraction is the major issue and always has been. --Horace (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's a possible answer. It's sort of morbid. I always just assumed it was grounded in another kind of bias - that these are men's activities best led by men. I can see there being a serious question in the minds of wingers of whether gay men are men at all. 23:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't mean to suggest that. Although now that you mention it I note that the concept does fit in rather well with Ken's narative about "girly men" as opposed to macho Christian young Earth believers and their attractive and fucund wives. As to being morbid, well, perhaps it is my years in the criminal law prosecuting people (men) who were, in fact, attracted to those many years their junior. I do not mean to suggest for a second that gay men are any more likely to be paedophiles. I suspect all men equally. --Horace (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

in the UK gays and most of Europe, gays are welcome in the scouts and the world hasn't ended in a torrent of paedophilia. Its atheists who aren't welcome over here AMassiveGay (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

British spellings are morbid. If I wish to confuse a pedophile with a bicycle enthusiast, I am so enabled. No wonder you're all atheists. Whoover (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:C and Star Trek

Is it just me, or has my friendly christian neighbour been making a lot of Star Trek references lately?Brenden (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything in that post that might make you wonder whether he's capable of self-reflection? Anything? 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Kind of funny really, since he's talking about the ultra-socialist economy where they literally have no money and are peaceful explorers, have men in uniform wearing skirts (see first episode TNG), that value pacifism and use force as a last resort, where everyone is almost completely atheistic but where religions of all kinds are tolerated (the Hindu Day of Lights is celebrated on the Enterprise-D) and viewed as behavioural or cultural oddities (in most series) or downright dangerous and viewed fairly negatively (DS9 and the Bajoran faith, Klingons killed their gods for being more trouble than they were worth). People who crave money, the Ferengi, are seen as evil, duplicitous, treacherous, vain, shortsighted and extremely stupid. It basically is the antithesis of Conservative ideology except that they are the heroes therefore Conservative. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy thought Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative"^img on the Greatest Conservative TV Shows page. (I have to provide links to everything Andy says cuz otherwise the uninitiated would think I'm making this shit up.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Kenneth is describing himself and other creationists correctly with this analogy, bit part villains who can easily be beaten in under 42 minutes. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I actually missed that irony. (I never watched Star Trek myself though) Brenden (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek was only part of the fun yesterday. I've been chuckling to myself about Ken's complete inability to self-reflect. First, as Iscariot points out, it's this hilarious reference to baddies who are described as baddies doing bad stuff whose skullduggery the good for nothing liberals thwart through teamwork. Not a very complimentary analogy to whatever it is Ken thinks he's doing. Then he includes an ironic taunt to "evolutionist nerds"^img while referring to a 40 + year old science fiction show with a culture of nerd followers so well-known they have a name. Then poor Nate chimes in^img to say there's no point in AugustO complaining about Ken's truly embarrassing post about Maryland Bear unless (1) he likes being personally attacked and (2) having his church insulted because he's not the right kind of christian. Ken^img is too happy to oblige. His only response is to (1) personally attack Nate and (2) dog the catholic church because Nate isn't the right kind of christian. Just wow. I love it. 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The video game thing

Thanks to a link I followed from Right Wing Watch I suspect that we now know where it is that andy gets his video game lunacy. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost everything Andy says can be traced back to Mumsy Dearest. The old bat screwed him up something rotten. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - it was Mama S who came up with the "Affirmative Action President" thing, we already know her attitude towards women and women's lib. I'm sure if we dig deep enough we'll find her saying something bad about relativity too. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 11:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• How Einstein Ruined Physics - an interview with Roger in 2009!!! --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 11:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I also laugh how every post trashing Andy's position on relativity refers to him as "he son of Phyllis Schlafly." She must be so proud, and also so good to see that Andy is own man. Guess all that Ivy League education paid off... --PsyGremlin^講話 11:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy grows a pair.

Karajou brings the hate.^img No thanks, Swabbie.^img Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed that. I imagine Andy probably has to reassure him when he does stuff like this. Looking at his recent actions, Karajou is the new TK. Revert, block, rangeblock. Bully, revert, block, rangeblock. Random hatepiece on mainpage. Revert, block, rangeblock... TK would be proud. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And with his rage issues, he will likely soon be even more like TK: dead. DickTurpis (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comparison works. TK was very clever and seemed, at first glance, to be a nice guy. When I first started here I wondered why this guy was getting such a hard time and it wasn't until I saw his treachery at first hand that I understood. Swabby uses the same tools but he hasn't got the finesse to be the new TK. What's more, I believe that TK did things to stir up trouble, swabbie actually believes in what he is doing. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The amount of range blocking he's doing makes me wonder, because I know it was brought up in the seekret mail group and I'm pretty sure swabbie saw it. I honestly don't believe the swabbie is stupid enough to believe that these rangeblocks apply to what he's saying they apply to (like /16 blocks for a community college), but I tend to want to underestimate people's stupidity. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is typical of Andy's management style; something goes on for years and one day Andy wishes to make a change of course (it was probably me that gave as an edit summary "liberal bigot" which Karajou mimed and institutionalized) and puts his foot down. But Andy doesn't send out a memo, solicit input, have a discussion, or want clearly defined policy pages. He "leads by example" (such that it is an example), thus everyone (Sysops & vandals) constantly read the tea leaves to see what minor little quirk becomes a new major new policy shift. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Having a hard time putting together "Andy" and "lead by example" in my mind, probably because I can't imagine him in any sort of leadership role, at least over other adults.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"it was probably me that gave as an edit summary "liberal bigot" which Karajou mimed and institutionalized." Except Sailor-boy made that change byesterday and you haven't edited there in months. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But it was Rob, man. Surely, they still go over his edit summaries in order to emulate his wisdom. I know I would. Phiwum (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This goes back to the time of the Night of the Blunt Knives; then I awarded Karajou the Banhammer barnster, and he became more aggresive. But now he probably throws around the charge of "racist" as much as liberals do, so its become meaningless.

Incidentally, I was digging around in what's left of CP early days, and I almost forgot User:Conservative had to run for Admin to get sysoped, although no election process was ever formalized or put in place. He was active before I was, yet Andy only sysoped him when he needed vandal fighters, despite his large content contribs and/or the traffic he generated. There's even comments somewhere in the early discussion groups where ALL of US -- TK, DanH, Ed, Phil Rayment, me, and others all thought Ken was a little strange and maybe even a parodist. No one defended him, not even Andy. But Andy was amused by his engagements with vandals. He didn't get sysoped by the quality of his work, he only got sysoped as a foil for vandals (whom we later discovered to be rationalwikians). nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 08:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're handing out CP awards now? Well, aren't you a special little snow flake? And Karaprick throws around the "charge of 'racist" because he's a racist asshole. He hates everyone, including you. Fuck him, and fuck you too Rob. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"...he hasn't got the finesse to be the new TK" - Now that is a line which will live forever in my memory --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 22:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think anyone even on Conservapedia takes him seriously anymore?

Andy's latest demonstration of his (possibly willful) ignorance of science is on display on the front page again^img. This time it is that canard that earthquakes are suddenly more frequent and somehow "disprove" an old Earth. The question though is, whether it is about Andy's insistence that the Earth is geologically unstable, or the universe may only have a diameter of 12,000 light years, or that he can write his own "superior" Bible, or his believe that both Relativity and E=mc² are false, if anyone on Conservapedia believes his views are (even partially) correct? Even among his fellow administrators? I often wonder when he writes this stuff, if the rest of the staff and contributors do a collective face-palm, (but only the peons, and occasionally Ken, having the courage to actually challenge Andy on his bullshit)? We all seen this demonstrated in the debacle that is CP's E=mc² talk page where it is literally Andy versus everyone else who has any knowledge of physics whatsoever. I wonder if it is just accepted that Andy's insights in science, politics, and Biblical translation are crap by everyone within the CP "community" but Il Duce's "contributions" have to be tolerated because of Andy's position at the apex of CP's ideologically driven authoritarian hierarchy?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no other serious editors at CP. Andy, Ken, and Terry are responsible for the batshit content generation. While Jpatt and Karajou serve as the two useful idiots. After that it's parodists, pranksters and socks all the way down. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The rightwing thought process is rooted in cognitive dissonance, and it applies to working together, also. There's a quid pro quo. I'll ignore your belief in Unificationism so long as you're a creationist. I'll ignore your belief that E=mc² so long as you let me linkspam my blog on your blog. I'll let you rant on about increasing earthquakes so long as you let me ban and bully people. Etc... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would counter that with AugustO as my prime example. I believe he is a serious editor who tries to make the site better; however I would also state that his efforts are futile, but none the less sincere. Most of the admins have symbolically abandoned the site as any sort of encyclopedia and only use it to spam their own little off-site projects.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that AugustO is the exception that proves the rule. He doesn't have something to offer that everyone can ignore and that's the reason he is not long for this world (or at least he'll never be a "respected editor"). Occasionaluse (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a few others, like SamHB, but I will have to concede that you are right for the vast majority in the fact they are not sincere encyclopedic editors no matter how you look at it. I will also agree with your assessment that they overlook disagreements with each other (even ones otherwise viewed as heretical) as long as it serves to help push forwards their individual agendas. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no way that AugustO and/or SamHB honestly think there's anything to be done at CP. They can't possibly believe that Andy or the other sysops can be made to see any form of reason. And even if they could, there's no way Conservapedia can be turned around at this point; even if all the sysops suddenly became intelligent and lucid, the Conservapedia name has been tarnished too much. They'd have to start over from scratch with a new project and probably new names, and August and Sam have to know that, they seem too smart to miss it. They're just there to have fun demolishing Andy's arguments, or maybe just to practice their argument forming/debate skills on a non-standard opponent. X Stickman (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

his belie[f] that both Relativity and E=mc2 are false. Andy doesn't necessarily believe that; he is questioning or mocking those who take as an article of faith the infalibilty of science. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Rob. The nonsense he talks is consistent with what he's been talking since he first appeared on the internet more than 10 years ago. He's definitely not sincere in the way he approaches debate, but I don't doubt he's insincere in expressing his most basic beliefs. Why wouldn't you take him at his word? 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps; this is a key distinction between people of faith and rational atheists. Rock hard science is not something with immutable moral laws, such as "Thou shalt do no murder". Science keeps changing; not long ago there were 8 planets, then in 1949 they discoverd a 9th; then a few years ago Pluto got de-frocked and there's only 8 again. But you can bet your bottom dollar it is a scientific fact there's only 8, or maybe 9, no wait a minute I guess only 8. Truthfully, I'm a sceptic like Andy. I have no faith in E=Mc2 cause I'm not really qualified to speak on it nor do I give a fuck. And I sure as fuck ain't gonna take a few eggheads opinion of the day that will be radically changed tomorrow. Remember, it wasn't long ago homosexuality was treated by science and medicine as a disease. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 08:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Pluto exists. And relativity works whether you believe in it or not. --Gulik (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, remember Jesus inventing comedy? I thought in the seekret group it came out that Andy was just trolling. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Occasional, I agree that admins at CP overlook some of the opinions of fellow admins. But, frankly, I do the same here. Many folks here are fairly adamant that religious belief is irrational and a sign of weakmindedness. I happen to be Christian, but don't really care to discuss this issue in this context, so ignore those bits and enjoy the areas of common interest and agreement. I see nothing irrational or shameful in overlooking disagreements that you don't want to discuss, for the sake of otherwise enjoyable interactions. Phiwum (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's just a different perspective. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Come now, a post like that is a departure from the time-honoured tradition of taking everything Andy says in the worst possible light. Standards are slipping. Damo^Hi 22:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But does Phiwum block non-admins for the same things he ignores when admins do them? If not, that's a rather significant difference. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Rob? Are you are telling me that Andy is prepared to vandalise his own trusworthy encyclopaedia in order to do a bit of mocking? I don't think that puts him in a better light than if he is just plain ignorant about physics. --Horace (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they take him seriously or not - Andy has merely become an means to an end for the remaining sysops. As long as they don't openly challenge Andy's running of CP, Karajou gets to masturabate over his authoritarian fantasies; Terry and Ken get to linkwhore their blogs, Jpatt gets to post his latest racist screed against the Black Man in the White House and Ed can ease his butthurt after getting spanked at WP. They don't care what Andy says - if Andy came out and was in favour of raping babies to cue AIDS (which sadly is a thing) none of them would say a word, lest they lose the only outlet for their insecurities and insanity that they have. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 00:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sad, but true. Speaking of screeds, I just read these two. Taken together, they amount to what might be called "The Conservapedia Manifesto". If they gain any followers, the conservative movement and Republican party is headed for the long Dark Ages. Burnum (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait for it...

Can't wait to see what they do with this one Poht (talk)

One of his charges was interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition. Is that against the law? Phiwum (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

EC -- Seeing as the event in question happened back in August, you might dig back through the archives and see. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Phiwum - my guess is that's a paraphrase of one of the many restrictions of the Brady Act. ToP - My bad Poht (talk)

"10,000 websites now tell people about Creation.com"

Yes, Ken, but how many of those do it while laughing and pointing? [1]^img --PsyGremlin^Parla! 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

His graph of related websites (if you can even read the dern thing) included Objective: Ministries. I'm surprised Landover Baptist Church isn't there, too. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

is that you caught in a bear trap?AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If off-topic rambling and gibberish about logical fallacies is a "creationist bear trap," those guys are in deep trouble.

Hey has anyone inquired of CMI whether they're even aware of Ken and his earth shaking project? He's taking credit for what I'd imagine they pay a LOT of money for. Their site isn't high design but it's a slick enough custom CMS for thousands of pages of content. I wonder if they'd approve of his polished presentation of the creationist position with classics like his "cold fish" series. 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I did once. I inquired whether CMI supported their logos on the page of one of Ken's more nasty pieces (about evolutionist woman I think). Ken mysteriously disappeared it a little while later. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that "whores" and "cold fish" didn't return any results on a search of his blog. Interesting. So, he's basically a completely unprincipled and amoral savage in every aspect of his life I'm aware of but he obeys his cult master. Good for you CMI. You've got a toothless and mildly retarded^img attack dog. 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see "Mystery -- User:Conservative. Bear or Twink?" I'm not qualified, I'm afraid, but I think it could be fun. He's clearly obsessed, and not in a good way. Whoover (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC

I'm not necessarily qualified, per se, but I do live close enough to Boys Town in Chicago to make an educated guess. Ken is what is commonly referred to as a "fuck-stick". Though he would certainly be a "bottom" if he was allowed out amongst the general public. Either way, he's a mentally ill asshole. So, happy Mardi Gras! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. I live pretty close to Boys Town too. We should meet at the Manhole. I'm not gay but I enjoy watching leather clad bears standing around looking tough. 19:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

MDB gets his own blog post

How DARE you question Ken's logic!^img

Andy grows a sack

The Master has spoken...^img Aceⁱ⁹ 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Anonymous User", you've fallen for the liberal deceit, and I encourage you to revisit the issue with an open mind. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions which are full of spleling errors, so anyone with an open mind can see that you're hearing this for the first time. Like all liberals, you deny that preaching about Hell prevents violence. The answer to your silly question is this: London is atheistic. Deny this and lose credibility. Make substantive contributions to this encyclopedia or your account will be blocked without further notice.--Andy Schlafly 03:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. He appears marginally, or at least tangentially taking steps to reduce lightening rods of criticism. It's almost as if over the past months he's beginning to take his own efforts and project seriously. But that would take some radical housecleaning of personal and delegation of powers to others than the old guard to come up with policies and processes to make the project workable. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The test will be if he actually persists in enforcing his news not spam edict. If it's just a one off thing then Kendoll will just roll right over him and carry on with his usual behaviour. On the other hand, it'd be interesting to see what happens if Ken can't use CP to pimp his fantasy project. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, will he be consistent? Will Hurlbut and Bishop Bert's blogs also bite the dust? --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Um... huh?Sokar (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I botched posting my last comment and the one from aschlaffy has changed three or four times since then.Sokar (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe next time your edit your comment, take a look at the source of his. Whoover (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I did look at the source. I assumed it is some sort of auto-quote, spouting "Andyisms". What is perplexing, and more than a little worrying, is why something apparently addressed to me, someone that has made about four edits, would suddenly appear out of nowhere with no apparent relevance to anything. I have had PC problems in the last few days and the list of bounced emails in my inbox would suggest I have been infected with something... and this is the only place I have signed up to in quite a while.Sokar (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see how it appears a little worrying to someone not used to this site's little ways. 'assquote' contains a macro which makes it appear to be directed to whomever is reading it. I'm pretty sure it's not the source of your PC problems. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jeeves, the test will also be if he cleans up MPL cause Ken can just roll it over there. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Andy periodically trims this and that, but it only took Ken 21 minutes to get more not-remotely-news CMI spam up there as a big "fuck you"^img to dear leader. I honestly don't know the "old guard," as Rob puts it, can stand being openly disrespected by this guy for years. It can't simply be a matter of each of them taking a "live and let live" approach to each others' particular brand of crazy in exchange for unlimited power over people who, ironically, have no incentive to give a shit one way or the other because they're never allowed to meaningfully contribute. Ken has taken a giant shit on the wiki. There is no possible way Karajou and JPatt are so unbelievably stupid that they actually believe the holy trifecta of atheism, homosexuality, and evolution are appropriately encyclopedic articles, is there? Gay Bowel Disease? Atheism, pederasty, and NABLA? Atheism and bestiality? Homosexuality and Anal Cancer? Parasites? Polygamy? Murder? Gonorrhea? Syphilis. Pederasty? Jesus christ. Karajou correctly expressed wariness of Ken's trolling from the start. He had Ken's number before he was even sysopped. They all agreed Ken has a serious problem cooperating with others and basically rams his view through no matter what. They know CP has been consistently ignored by any of the conservatives they admire. They must also be aware that there are two camps of people who even refer to CP: people who are laughing at it, and cranks. I don't get it. Cognitive bias? Self-deception? They don't care that much because they never had much of a dog in the fight? 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

From a certain perspective, you might even call it secret genius. If you squint at it right you can see the outline of the plan. 1) Build batshit insane site. 2) Have people come gawk at it, people who then link to it by way of pointing and laughing. 3) Exploit the google juice by linking to your other site from that site. 4) Profit! If I actually believed Terry had that in mind when he started at CP, I'd think he's Machiavellian mastermind rather than an angry racist looking for any community that can tolerate him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

" I don't get it. Cognitive bias? Self-deception? They don't care that much because they never had much of a dog in the fight?" If the question you're answering is "why doesn't Andy turf Ken/why doesn't Karajou convince Andy to turf Ken," I'm pretty sure the answer lies in Andy's inability to cop to a mistake, especially one that's festered for more than 5 years now. Besides, Andy really believes that people come to CP in good faith -- or he doesn't care why they come there, just so long as he can calim more and more unique views -- and Ken gives him those numbers. Theory of Practice Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

People supposedly are sysoped on merit. They're not. Look as FOIA for example. volumnious contributor but oblivious to revert wars, doesn't even have upload rights. And Ken never got sysoped for his contributions, only help out on the Night of the Blunt Knives. Andy loves a partisan food fight, so long as he and his goons can use the banhammer to have the last word, cause that's the way he thinks Wikipedia works. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's my memory, but I thought Ken was sysopped before that, specifically so he could continue editing the Evolution article after it had been locked. I recall something about it being intended to be a temporary measure, to be changed back once the article was unlocked again, but of course it never was. Of course at the time Ken was just this weird guy who opposed evolution and argued badly, not yet being revealed as a powerhouse destined to bring down evolutionary nonsense on a global scale. --Kels (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ħuman 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's right. Of coarse, Ken and Andy still haven't figured out Ken's high traffic pages, then and now, are only read by Rationalwikians. Ken owes his success as an admin and contributor entirely to Rationalwiki. What an ingrate. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ħuman 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Countdown to Bluster

"Liberal global warming deceit proven wrong again as New Jersey gets hit with Top Ten Storm". DogP (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mystery: Why does god hate New Jersey? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Who wouldn't? Sophie^Wilder 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Right on schedule.^img 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I win the internet. DogP (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Andy, let's see, here it's been in the high 20s most of the day. I mean, temperatures that cold? In February? In the Northeast? Unheard of! I mean, that's only, well, right around average. Absolute proof the Earth is getting colder. DickTurpis (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing that really pisses me off about this is how these fucktards ignore heatwaves, or write them off as "natural". Back in January they used a single day in a single city in China that had a record low temperature as "proof" that there was no global warming. That same week, and a few days before and after that week, Australia was under the influence of a record heat wave and half the country was on fire. One of those days saw an average continent-wide temperature of 36C, with highs that reached 48C (I think that's around 120F). If you were to draw a triangle from LA to New York to Miami, that is the size of the area that was over 40C that week. It was so hot that roads literally melted. Even the cities topped 45C that week. One night, the temperature was 35C at 1am. People died from heat exposure. Animals, native and farmed, died en masse from the heat (there's thousands of dead Flying Foxes five minutes drive from my house, accompanied by an unbelievable stench). And they have the temerity to say "people in hot places won't even notice an increase in temperature", and "people like hot weather".Sokar (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But did any Flying Kitties die? No? I thought not. Now cut out this liberal claptrap, Darwinism is dying rapidly, Ole! Ole! Ole! ħuman 03:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)