Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive310

This is an archive page, last updated 24 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>, <309>, <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)

Spinelessville. Population: None Andy.

I see Andy's burst of enthusiasm for keeping spam off the front page was short lived. Kendoll, far from taking the hint, just carried on as normal posting his usual frantic masturbation over irrelevant statistics from Quantcast. Why nip the problem in the bud when you can spend forever cleaning up after the dribbling imbecile^img. That makes sense, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you're absolutely right. Like I said, I don't get it. An openly hate-filled cultist is using Andy as a doormat and he does little about it but keep his head down and await the next insult. It's sort of pathetic that so much of his "trimming" consists of removing Ken's vomitus. Just weird. 20:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Stepping back for a second, is it even possible that Andy's not trolling? We keep asking, "how can he have passed the bar and gotten a Princeton engineering degree and be so stupid?" He can't be. The "it's not a bad relay; it's rationing," and "E = mc1.999" and all the other insane crap he digs his heels in to defend. The more obviously wrong a thesis is the more he delights in supporting it. What better way to troll than deputize the most raving morons you can find? What if we're the stupid ones? Whoover (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Adams (the real one) pointed out (in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) that an old joke perfectly explains this situation.

Person #1 Uncle Henry thinks he's a chicken.

Person #2 Well why don't you take him to the doctor?

Person #1 We would, only we need the eggs.

The joke, such as it is, is that either Uncle Henry is a human producing eggs, to the net benefit of the family, or (and Adams ignores this interpretation) that he's actually a chicken and that it's Person #1 who's ill. Sticking with interpretation 1, though, gives us this:

Andy: Congratulations! You're a real asset to this site who deserves every right going!

Everyone else: He's a dribbling idiot. You need to remove his rights immediately.

Andy: I would... but his dribblings get loads of links from people coming to laugh at us and I'm unable to distinguish this from people coming to learn from my Conservative Insights.

In other words, even though everyone realises that Ken is a dribbling idiot, he's more useful to Andy as an idiot dribbling out of the tent than one dribbling into it. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

EC -- Rob said something not entirely stupid about this a while back; Robbie, correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument went something like this: it's not about Andy believing these things (relativity, earthquakes, etc), its about Andy wanting a level intellectual playing field for his faith-based ideas. He wants the ideas that rationalists accept as dogmatic (in his eyes) like an old earth or evolution to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that a young earth or creationism are subject to in the academy/on places like Wikipedia, etc. He's digging his heels in because he really believes that he's standing up for free inquiry. So maybe he gives Ken a bit of leeway because he sees that as championing a kind of intellectual freedom in which all ideas are equal. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 20:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am always amused when ken insults catholic editors as being liberal and not real Christians while Andy, a (admittedly shit) catholic looks on with his thumbs up his arse AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In the mean time, other shit Catholic JPratt hasn't bothered to turn up at CP for over a week now. He'll disappear, then Karajou, and it'll just be Andy and Ken is sweet wingnut bliss together. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Don't forget the Generalissimo of Aynistan linkwhoring. --Revolverman (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Jpatt will turn up when he's thought of something else racist to say about the Pres. Karajou will never leave - it's the only place he has any authority in his sad life Ed will be back next time he's butt-hurt at WP. PsyGremlin^Tala! 22:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, with this epic snowstorm that's supposedly happening in Hurlbuttown isn't everyone going to see Terry's generator and declare him king now? I don't see how he'll have much time to spam CP what with his colonelcy in the Galt's Gulch colonial militia to see to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need to keep an eye on the news. --Revolverman (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Polar Bear, even Wikipedia admits YEC is much more mainstream than most people realize. But to research the subject, discuss or argue, given CP's current level of development as a serious internet project, would tend to cause people to gravitate to the other camp. Burnum (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's mainstream maybe in terms of raw numbers, but there's nothing in those about class and education. You don't see a lot of people with multiple degrees who buy into it. The people Andy was frustrated with weren't JPatt and Ken; they were people of his educational and class background, and the institutions associated with them -- the people and places who are gatekeepers to credibility. That's who he's pissed at. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That language in WP probably outrages Andy:

Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.[8] As of 2012, the percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases

and views CP as the alternative to "liberal elitism". Too bad, Andy doesn't even have the uneducated rednecks he wants to give voice to. Burnum (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Trimming

It has now gotten to the point where Andy is 'trimming' nearly twice a day.^img Grow a fucking spine already. What, are you afraid of Ken or something. Jesus, it is fucking pitiful. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy will ever notice Ken can spam faster then he can trim. --Revolverman (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yes. Hence him removing multiple posts each time. But yes, Ken is a machine. A pathetic substandard intelligence frantically fighting through the crippling pain of his cognitive dissonance to fight for a belief system he instinctively knows is indefensible. I find it incredibly sad that the most fervent creationists also exude a kind of intense negative energy that at least to me indicates tremendous self loathing and shame. Any cretin would hate being Ken or Terry Hurlbut. These sad creatures must hate themselves more than they imagine those awful atheists hate their godman. 01:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I suspect their narcissism and self importance makes any conscious self hate impossible, they simply have Dalek-esque hatred of anything that does not conform to their increasingly insane dogma. Remember, the "true believers" at CP are all individuals who flocked there to gain some "status" in what they saw to be a massively important part of the conservative movement, and thus live out their dreams of leading the "great conservative revolution" in seizing control of society and government. They all honestly believe that they are "winning" and that they will soon have bloody vengeance upon all of us profligates. Were it mere self hatred keeping them going they would have folded years ago. Personally I think its a good think they decided to expend their hateful insanity online rather than taking it out on people IRL Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll's blog

You all know about this, right? https://www.teapartycommunity.com/pages/1436/ It's great for a laugh, almost as good as the massacre he has enacted on CP's main page. And mainspace. ħuman 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good find. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

oh goddess, as if I needed more proof that the TPC is a clusterfuck of epic proportions... lolo, I see men are the same everywhere. 2 socks accounts - 25 male, generic picture, anti-Obama; pro0gun posts = 0 friend requests. 25 female, generic cute picture, anti-Obama; pro0gun posts = 34 friend requests. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ooooh, she sounds nice. I should send her a request. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has noticed I'm the President of their heart yet. --Revolverman (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I love the fact the first person I see following this page is called "America Deserved911"; real quality people there.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I notice you have not shown that 'Sam the American Eagle' is conservative. Also, why nit create a fans of rational wiki page and see how many likes you get. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.16.67.15 / talk / contribs}

You mean this? Also, Sam is eagletastic. Can't get more conservative than that. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's on Facebook, which is liberal so therefore doesn't count. --Kels (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I just went to that site for the very first time, and I'm instantly greeted by a huge warning sign that tells me I have to solve a CAPTCHA just to look at it (for now - it grants me "temporary access") because "Your IP address based on the country, region or network has been flagged by the website owner." So... fuck Germany and one of its largest ISPs? *closes tab* --Sid (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Same for me - seems to be fuck-non-U.S. --larron (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine from the UK but I registered ealry doors. Then they clocked that a large number of registrations were from parodists and tried to lock down access somewhat. Do you want my account, I don't know if I can be arsed with it? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I figure I could just solve the CAPTCHA to look at stuff, but ehhhhhh, just to look at yet more of Ken's ramblings? ;) Thanks for the offer, though! --Sid (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* Comes to something when my fake account on The Chimps Tea Party site has more friends than my real account on Facebook. Ah well…-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's worth the CAPCHA for the comments. They're mostly of the form, "Conservapedia -- cool! Wait, what? Flying kitty? Rewriting the Bible? Must be parodists. Can't be; I read it's Phyllis Schlafly. Look! Joseph Farrah calls them 'stupid' and 'nothing conservative.'"

We tend to forget that the typical conservative views this crapfest pretty much like we do. Whoover (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. Ken lives in his own strange little world, that, amusingly or disgustingly, Andrew Schlafly Esq. enables. Bad Andrew. ħuman 03:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a parody account, right? 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I see Something Awful is trolling the fuck out of them. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 06:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't know whether I can be arsed to have some fun there, but I see one of Karajou's neighbors has an account. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's a classic - he has the whole Professor/Student "are you a Christian?" "the student was Einstein thing on there. When he gets schooled on the fact that Einstein was Jewish, the responses are classic:

Poster: "This falls apart - Einstein was Jewish"

Brad: "don't see where it falls apart he asked about God and Satin both of which are in the Jewish faith"

Poster: "Actually no, Jews don't believe in Satan."

Brad: "ok read over that."

So, take what I say as totslly true, except the made-up bits. Christianity in a nutshell. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the Hydroplate theory??

Flingbottom is touting his hydroplate theory again. Not only is it the reason there's ice on Mercury, but now it created asteroids too. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Its fun to see that theory stretch and stretch. I wonder how the water got fucking Lightyears away from earth then. --Revolverman (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The speed of water was much faster back then, it could easily have reached escape velocity and travelled to the further reaches of the universe. Sophie^Wilder 22:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't get the universe was smaller then too. It only expanded afterwards, and the time dilation when this happened explains the starlight problem. Sheesh, must I draw pictures for you evilutionist baby-eaters? --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 22:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But there's no time dilation, is there? Because relativity is bollocks? -جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 22:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

... God turned on the Time dilation mod on the universe for the Global Flood. --Revolverman (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry is also cranking up the end-times rhetoric, hoping that we're not here to pester him one morning. He twice uses the phrase "if the Lord tarries that long," as in The landing will happen in 2018. Then (if the Lord tarries that long), for the first time, we will find out exactly what an asteroid is made of.

It really comes from the same impulse as "God is Great," shouted as you're blowing yourself up. Whoover (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

His choice of words sums up just what kinda guy he is. He is honestly disappointed that God had delayed in throwing the 6 billion or so people who exist in a manner Hurly dislikes or believe concepts that confuse him into Satan's personal rape/torture dungeon, and wants God to hurry the fuck up and split the seals already so Tosser can watch the untermench burn and beg from the comfort of his generator throne. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was going to post something about this when I first saw it but it's so full of wrong it's difficult to know where to begin. From little things like GPS satellites flying in LEOs (they don't, they use MEOs, further away from Earth than the likely closest approach of the asteroid) to the big stuff like scientists having no idea how asteroids leave the asteroid belt (there's a dirty great planet nearby that perturbs orbits). Add in the end of days crap, implied criticism of his own god and you've got a classic Chucky post. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what he makes of extra-solar asteroids? [1] Or is that just the lieberal astronomers trying to take us from Yehowah's glory? CS Miller (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Like arguing with a parrot

No, this is actually not a section about Ken.

Andy: "Liberals promote energy rationing, and the lights went out at the Superbowl!"^img
Wschact: "Here is why it's really unlikely that this was a problem caused by regulation."^img
Andy: "Energy rationing!"^img
Greg: "Actually, it had nothing to do with energy rationing."^img
Andy: "Liberals limit the size and availability of generators!"^img
Greg: "There were generators, they did kick in immediately, but the huge-ass lights just need time to power up."^img
Official statement: "Backup generators kicked in immediately as designed."
Andy: "Energy-rationed... lights? And... the generators couldn't kick in quickly because liberals limit the size and availability of generators!"^img
Greg: *exasperated sigh*^img

I'm just waiting for Andy to wipe the entire section and drag people back to the talk page to tell them (1) that liberal energy-rationing caused this and (2) that liberals hate backup generators. But seriously... energy-rationed... lights? --Sid (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha, good summary. Looks like the generators in Andy's head failed long ago. You should WIGO it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else hear the distant shrieks of multiple fundie orgasms coming from a certain NJ crackpot as he reads this talk of "liberals hatin generators"? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I get it; "the lights go out on promoters of rationed energy at the Super Bowl". The fans sitting in the dark not only are liberals, they're activists for energy rationing. What an insight into Andy's mind. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 15:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sid, that was classic. I miss your completely compiled reports at what used to the "Best of CP". Hi Rob, hope you are well! I was lucky this weekend, generator started on second test pull, but was not needed. ħuman 03:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you've made plans to install yourself as your neighbourhood's de facto generalisimo, by disabling everybody else's generators. After all, in the land of the cold and dark, he with power has... er... power! --PsyGremlin^Tala! 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wish my power company would invest in burying their damn wires instead of mutilating every tree in sight. Although, the tree mutilation was probably part of why nemo.weather.com didn't take out our power. That and the fact that a windy cold snowstorm doesn't tend to load up trees to the breaking point. ħuman 02:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gov't final

Go have fun. I got 28/30. Missed 5 and 25. I chose "judicial review" for 5 because that's the correct answer. There have been various forms of "federalism" throughout history, although obviously not in the same sense as in the US, but I am unaware of any prior example of a court having the authority to decide what is the law (Marbury v. Madison). I chose "early voting" for 25 because none of the answers is correct and I reckoned Andy put that in there for a reason. That rascal! He thinks it's gerrymandering! Who the fuck knows. 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

26/30. Amazingly, I tried to think like Andy and decided that when he said things like "early voting" those would be right. Also got 5 wrong - I would have thought Switzerland was a federation long before the US. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

27/30. I missed 3, because I know next to nothing about the Articles of Confederation; 16 - just dunno, and 21 because I thought all of the answers were wrong. You live and learn. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed 4. One I just plain misread. I admit I had no idea what the incorporation doctrine was. And Question 5 was just a poor question. DickTurpis (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

25/30. It's rigged. 11 could have been "all of the above" about what the media wants, but plugs the self aggrandizing ERA. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Surly Dick 5 is not as poor as 19. "The U.S. Supreme Court particularly likes to decide cases involving which parts of the U.S. Constitution?" I didn't realise that the Supreme Court liked anything, but mealy judged what came before it. But how does early voting change the discrepancy between the proportion of votes cast and the final representation? The thought process behind that intrigues me. - π 08:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's a terrible question too. I just happened to guess it correctly, though. DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

29/30; just missed the one about voting and age. I am also intrigued about how early voting affects turnout among particular age groups. Blue (is useful) 08:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That is easy, old people are less mobile so early voting gives them more of a chance to vote. Also helps shift workers who might not be able to get the day off, but can take the Friday before off say. Still can't see how it effects the proportion of final representation though. - π 09:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's easy - Andy doesn't like it, because liberals, therefore it must be bad. He doesn't know why it's bad, but Obama won, so it must be the fault of early voting. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 09:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

20/30 and I know next to nothing about the US constitution or it's executive. I am getting much better at thinking like andy, although I'm not sure that is a good thing. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, there are some instances in which going with the Andy mentality can throw you off. The one about gerrymandering in Pennsylvania is such an example. It's actually a good and relevant question, and he actually got the answer right, even though the example he used isn't flattering for Republicans. I'm sure he'd rather use a good example of Democratic gerrymandering, but such examples are much harder to find in this cycle. DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it about time we posted all the correct answers here, so hundreds of random people can score 30/30 and frustrate Andy's attempts at world domination? ħuman 03:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Trolling, Andy-style.

Why should we believe liberals about E=MC²? They think Chavez is still alive! Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 05:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reph beat you to it here and here. Prodigal (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hang my head in shame. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Fuck those guys. Copllarpoartion means insdulgint people whjo otherwise say nearyl wise shit even though they're soemetimes real pussies getting the support of the "community." I'll start supporting you again when you take me up on my many offers to come sleep on your couch and tlak loudly on the phone when I['m not causing trouble in your household other than sharing drugs and maybe talking your fucking ear off before your wife makes a tough devicionsbeforeI pass out. All I remember is a cute cat sleeping in a dwawer and I need to help the hugging of the pets and wife. I'm a man of peace and restraing. Trust me. 05:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I tough decision has nothin to do with me but how far down this rabbit hole to do. It's not very deep but you can't seen the bottom. 05:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone has been on the drinkies Naca (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty close. I'm out. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

FBI 2,0!

For posterity's sake.

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/announcement/view/id_42/ I cannot wait for this to play out. --Revolverman (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But... but... aren't the FBI part of teh ebil guv'ment, who're coming for their guns and herding them into Agenda 21 ghettos?? --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 13:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What kind of official statement regarding contact with the FBI needs more than one ;) in it. That shit is ridiculous. X Stickman (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems very, very.... Kenservative? Especially the "There will be a few main stream media stories being run about this website and what they have been doing here. Their day of fame is coming soon. ;)" --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 14:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"That announcement does not exist. No announcements have been added." Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 18:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Because publicly siccing the FBI on SA goons is totally a sound and sensible approach, and announcing it in a gloating fashion, as if you're wielding the FBI as a vindictive weapon, is a superior idea on top of that. This smells like Ken. If not, dear god, it's infectious! Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my God! You're TK!

Stay classy, internet. Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrible. 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are lulz to be had on Ken's other contribution. (I don't think Ken understands the joke about his misspelling "lair" as "layer.") Some of his usual work has received likes from this guy whose avatar is Timothy McVeigh. Whoover (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"The weak, effeminate evolutionist bear has been caught by the creationist bear trap! If only he had the teeth of truth and claws of logic that creationists bears have!" Jesus, he really can't write a metaphor, can he? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I must admit to once writing something similar, when I was 13 years old. Also, Ken often gets caught out by homonyms. He thinks he's being smart with his spelling checker but doesn't have the natural reading comprehension to spot an errant word. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think most of his weirdly mangled idioms he gets from internet videos. I'm almost certain he got "peddle to meddle" from ShockofGoat. It says a lot about his literacy that he's never seem those words in print in his 50 odd years, and never bothered to think about what they mean. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So if we had teeth and claws... we'd be able to gnaw our own leg off to escape the bear trap? I'm not really sure how that results in a win. Does he think teeth and claws render bear traps ineffective? I don't understand this line of thought, Ken, help me out. X Stickman (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Are "creationist bear traps" made to trap creationist bears or are the creationist bears themselves laying these bear traps? And "weak, effeminate evolutionist bears"? Cuz everyone always goes on about how weak and puny mother bears are. Even conservatives. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dunno why he's into talking about violently and physically painful things happening to "evolutionists" or why "evolutionists" are always effeminate to him, as if an effeminate man (or woman?!), is somehow less of a person than he is. Effeminiate or not, I'm fairly sure any average sized man could beat the living shit out of Ken, as his behavior indicates that he rarely leaves the house and is so poorly socialized that the only people he formed strong relationships with were his parents and siblings. There's no way he ever learned how to duke it out like the men he idolizes. 21:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not being a brawler is nothing to be ashamed of. Not being a brawler whilst simultaneously ranting about how great it is to be a brawler is kind of weird, though. X Stickman (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, not being a brawler while insulting others for their inability to fight is, well, hypocritical comes to mind, as does stupid, but in this case, a side effect of obvious, debilitating delusions which must be accompanied by truly horrible bouts of guilt and shame. Phiwum (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken is just the role model for Walter Mitty. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Give it up, liberals.

Oh damn^img, and here was me hoping the next pope would be Jewish. Does Andy seriously think that any of us evil liebrul atheist masses gives the tiniest mouse shit about who the next pope is? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"as Conservative as Conservapedia" Christ Andy, what the hell did that guy do to you to be putting him down like that? --Revolverman (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't wait until Ouelette wins, so I can watch Andy talk about the "increasingly liberal and irrelevant Catholic Church." Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That might make him take the plunge into... I dunno what Andy convert to... Independent Bathist? --Revolverman (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I sort of care. Arinze is a creep. It's almost like he's gone the extra mile to distance himself from his Ibo background.

“”In many parts of world, the family is under siege, opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalised by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce.

02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for someone to goad Andy into saying something stupid. Yes, andy, there is a difference. For it to be "no different," football coaches would have to be diddling boys not only @ Penn State, but at Michigan (GO BLUE!!!!), Ohio State, Minnesota, MSU, Wisconsin, Indiana, Notre Dame, Illinois, etc etc. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And doing everything football coaches asked of you would have to be the key to salvation versus the pit of hell. Whoover (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that universities are not in the habit of shuffling their coaches around the country when they're found to be diddling the tight head prop (or whatever funny sounding positions they have in your weird rugby ripoff.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, Andy probably made his next entry in the Conservapedia Proven Wrong page by trying to decide who'll be the next pope. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"the Church is no worse on this issue than public institutions (such as Penn State) are" So, the infallible Church that supposedly represents God on earth is on the same moral level on this issue as a football institution? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "Penn State had worse problems than the Church".^img Really? In the US alone 4,392 priests were accused of sexual abuse of minors. As scummy as Sandusky and his protectors were, they can't match this massive scale of abuse. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It it will be a things of beauty. This was obviously a historical resignation, but it was made easier by John Paul II's last constitution limiting the age of elector cardinals to 80 and makes sence in the contenxt of this man being old as they go, a true criminal, and on the heals of the highest level political outrage there could be about a pontiff who is directotly responsivle for covering years of heinois sexual abuse against children. No wonder he's resigning. Popes lost their head over less in the dark ages. How could a catholic of conscience justify this? I will exult in finding answers. 05:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it me, or is the word "historical" being treated like a cum rag in this whole business? Of course it's a historical event, but every semi-literate news bimbo/himbo is using it instead of "unusual" or "interesting" or "good enough for us to spin out for half a fucking hour with someone who's just spent the last five minutes reading about the history of the papacy on Wikipedia, stay tuned for a skateboarding duck.". Don't get me starter on "iconic".... London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's being treated like a cum rag because every history nerd on the planet, with the slightest interest in European history, spontaneously creamed their jeans when they heard the news. It's one of those events that is guaranteed a chapter in the history books and comes along so rarely that nobody expects it to be during their lifetime. For some historians it's a career-defining day.Sokar (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's historical-significant and historical-academic. The only chapters the latter gets are in very-short-print- run-massively-overpriced-university-press books that academics get free to sell online and libraries buy but only get taken out once every couple of years. Everywhere else, it gets footnotes. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You think that's bad? I heard some idiot describe the whole thing as "very unique" last night. It's not unique, and even if it was it still wouldn't be very unique because there's no such thing. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter Turkson!!! Peter Turkson!!! Peter Turkson!!! --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you imagine how crazy the conspiracy nuts will go if the Pope is a black Pope? reichhol (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Has someone actually enlightened Andy that his 'likely' pick won't actually be participating in the conclave because he's too old? Anyone know when the last time a pope was elected from outside conclave participants? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there will be a deadlock and they'll elect Jeb Bush. Vulpius (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's prediction about no one having a majority at the Republican convention and Jeb Bush arising as the nominee^img is disappointingly not on Conservapedia proven wrong. This should be rectified. :) --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Question Evolution! Day

Hello? Ken? Is anyone there?

*tumbleweed.gif* Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 19:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hee! Scream!! (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I just looked an article 'would Jesus have gay friends?' on that site. He wouldn't. Mohammed would, apparently, but not Jesus. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"So would Christ have gay friends? No. But do you know who would? Muhammad. Muhammad, contrary to Scripture, in fact wore the clothes of his child-bride Aisha as a ritual to receive revelation from Allah."

Never has there been a stronger argument for Muslims to convert. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

He is absolutely right I reckon</sarcasm off>. Their jebus would not have a gay friend. The daughter getting her father pissed and fucking him is fine apparently, but not the gay. That is forbidden. What fucking planet do these morons live on where they can rationalise this shit? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

From the comments: "Thank you for forwarding both sides of the creation debate. I long to hear believing scientists reasonings against all that the evolutionists perpetrate. The one above is helpful!!" Both sides. I fear for your understanding of fundamental geometry, let alone critical thinking, if you think those are sides. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

AugustO's Last Stand

Surely even Andy can't ignore this^img? AugustO just called Andy a liar to his face. Time to get the popcorn and watch the final act. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see August made the mistake of calling the University of Berlin between 1933 and 1945 a "conservative university". Herr O, it is a well known fact in CPland that the Nazis were all liberal evolutionist atheists and not conservatives at all. It's also kind of intriguing that AugustO seems to have only just found out that other people on the Internet are taking the piss out of Conservapedia.--Spud (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)--Spud (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

AugustO must be the only guy there that doesn't realise the site isn't serious. It is a shame to see him getting all worked up over something as trivial as a page at Conservapedia. He really seems to care passionately about it. --Damo^Hi 10:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I bet Andy misses the old days when he had loyal sycophants who would have blocked August months ago for arguing with an admin. It's interesting to watch just how far Andy is willing to go to defend his ridiculous, evidence-free assertions. You'd think he'd eventually figure out that when an opponent offers a crushing weight of evidence and all you have in response is "NUH UH!" and "WHAT ABOUT CAKE?!?!" you're probably wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For posterity, here's that picture. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume the only reason he's still around is that the other sysops have such an incredible lack of respect for Commander Conservative that they enjoy watching AugustO pin Andy in the corner and watching him deliver jackhammer punch after jackhammer punch (intellectually speaking of course) --Revolverman (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Punches? I was thinking pelvic thrusts. Hot. :D And I made myself taste my own vomit for a sec. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I just hope AugustO finds his way here when he's done. He seems to be articulate and passionate, and way too bright for that intellectual midden. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. AugustO is far too smart and willing to give reasoned, articulate arguments to be wasting his talents in Andy's menial echo chamber. Arcane (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Is AugustO here or has anyone invited him? Aceⁱ⁹ 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, August is Sid or I - which is even less complicated because I am Sid (there aren't that many Germans apparently). But it isn't easy to contact anyone since they have abandoned their email service over there. --larron (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone feel like making a kamikaze landing on AugustO's talk page when the sysops aren't around to burn and bury the evidence before August sees it? "On behalf of a certain other wiki that starts with R, we'd like to invite you to join us. You can find us with a certain search engine beginning with G and the search term 'lenski affair'. We'll be the ones mocking Andy at the top of the search results. You're too good for this place." I'm in Canada, so for all I know, I've already been preemptively rangeblocked. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See this exchange^img - August knows where to find us, I'd say. --larron (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember that exchange. The O Man stays there to translate the Bible. Mind you, that was before Andy started insisting that some parts of it were written by the Big J himself, so August must surely see that project for the joke it is now. If our German friend wants to create yet another English translation of the New Testament, he'd really be better off doing it on Wikisource, Wikibooks or Wikilivres. Or just with a pencil and paper. Spud (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that, given my name, I might be Augusto, "Fight Club" style. Carlaugust (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy has had enough of August's shit. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 03:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

But not enough to pull the trigger. He must be wondering why the other Sysops have abandoned him. --Revolverman (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh I understand now. E doesn't equal MC² because Hugo Chavez^img. I'm so glad Andy's around to explain these things. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

AugustO, if you read this page, do yourself a favor: Leave now. Andy is incurably arrogant and stubborn about lieberals and the Theory of Relativity, and a guy called Phillp J. Rayment finally had enough of Andy's insanity and founded his own wiki to get away from that lunatic. Either go there, feel free to come here, or start your own wiki, but whatever you do, leave Andy's intellectual cesspit before his idiocy drives you crazy. You have a brain, intellectual and moral ethics, and a talent for backing up your passion with reason, and you can use those talents in a worthier venue. Arcane (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Wow... the Chavez Defence is probably the lamest thing Andy has ever done. I can just see him in court: "So, on the night in question, you claim you saw my client enter the house with a chainsaw, then leave, covered in blood, after several minutes of screams and sawing sounds were heard from within?" "That's right." "Now, do you believe that Hugo Chaves and Fidel Castro are alive?" "Objection!! Relevance, your honor?" "I'm merely pointing out that if this witness believes the liberal lamestream media and pr-abort professors that these two men are alive, then all their evidence can be questioned." --PsyGremlin^Prata! 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could this be the new Chewbacca Defense? Danoso (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Rayment is no better than Andy when it comes to anything August is interested in. There's a reason he couldn't hack it at CreationWiki, WP, CP or his own wiki: he's an arrogant, thickheaded bully. 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Compared to Andy, Rayment is downright sane and somewhat reasonable IMO, but I see your point. Arcane (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Arcane

He walks right in to these things.

Who knew creation.com^img had a high woo rank? Oh, right... Poor Kendoll can't catch a break. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This website tends to be popular amongst: males older than 65 connecting from home - is that you, Ken? Or just the ghost of TK? --larron (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, bless. More meaningless stats. Yes! Lots of people visit and link to our site! f course, 95% of those are laughing and the other 5% are Ken. Still, it's fun watching him trying to justify his OCD. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, who is the ghost of TK? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And Michelle Nobama? She had me wondering until the great Europe comment. Whoover (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yours truly. We are currently working on a strategy to rid the internet of pathetic liberal trolls once and for all. --GhostofTK (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

yeh, good luck with that AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mardi Gras? Geez, put in some effort, man.

Evidently, this French phrase is more evidence of the rate at which English is going conservative. Because, you know, a day devoted to drunkeness and debauchery just prior to Lent is exemplary of conservative values. Sheesh, he isn't even trying. Phiwum (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. VOX^HUMANA 02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Especially since it is also listed in the Secularized Language article as being a secular word... but consistency isn't exactly their strength. ^{— Unsigned, by: 97.113.113.158 / talk / contribs}

Great catch by the BoN and well WIGO-ed Psy. Nothing proves what a perfect pool of nonsense both of those pages are like this. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ssh, don't ruin it for him. He's found a 17th century phrase he can call "conservative" to start his next tier of perfect doubling by century. It probably saved him long nights of feverishly poring over the dictionary with this serendipity, poor wretch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do conservative words have to double each century? To an open mind, a multiplicative factor of 1.99 or 1.5 would be just as logical. reichhol (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

because Andy thinks it, and if Andy thinks it then it must be trueAMassiveGay (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the worst insults, AMassiveGay — it could literally be applied to anyone.^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

only if they are arrogant imbeciles. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think because Andy can't imagine any exponential functions aside from n^x where n is a natural number. Phiwum (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine one of Robert Crumb's cartoon bimbos dancing around a pole in the s-plane. Does that make me a bad person, a smart-ass, or what? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The grass roots are looking a little thin.

Darwin Day, er.. ahem, I'm sorry, QUESTION EVOLUTION DAY has now passed. How well did Kendoll mobilise his 200+ creationist organisations to petition to keep that evil Darwin out of US life? Oh. Ouch. Well, I suppose it is hard to sign a petition when you're a figment of an insane old man's imagination. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I got more votes on a petition that was nothing but the lyrics of a Louvin Brothers song. Creationists prefer sad songs about boozing to political action. 00:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How to be a wingnut: A tutorial

Moar naked conspiracism^img from Terry's nutloaf bakery. To paraphrase: "People thought I was a little crazy, but I showed them I WAS A LOT CRAZY. MWAHAHA. AHAHAHAAHAHA.", "If you aren't outraged by these selective and context free quotes, read them again and again until you are." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's RoseAnn Unsanitary, who seems to become more unhinged with each passing post of hers. Like Alex Jones, she never met a conspiracy theory she didn't like, although Jones comes across as sane compared to her. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 10:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Hurlbut banned everyone or what, but it does my heart good to see that there haven't been any comments left there in over a week. I really wanted to address that asteroid bullshit, but... stay strong, don't wrestle that pig!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not banned as far as I know but I started to realise how futile it is. Chucky redefines terms to suit himself, so "Communism" becomes "any political philosophy with which I disagree"; "Treason" is "any political action with which I disagree"; any evidence against his pet theories is dismissed. The man's an intractable moron and there's no point trying to educate him. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't remember the exact details, but Terry's "unsubscribe" feature was borked and you had to request it via email to Terry. He responds with bans. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also found that my log-ins no longer work, but when I request a new password, nothing happens. I think Terry found a way to shut down comments, without actually turning them off, so he can have another little echo chamber. PsyGremlin^Tala! 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just as likely technical incompetence. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that it's difficult to submit comments unless you know where the Captcha text field is: all states have the border set to: #social * {border: 0px none;}. Am I crazy? That's at least how the rule shows up in Webkit and Mozilla browsers. 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've unsubscribed from his Stumbleupon stuff at least twice in the past year and a half and I recently (the past month) started getting it again. How does this happen? nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 19:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've given up because of the same problem Nutty Roux had with the captcha. That, and the coding of the site is generally awful. It takes forever for the page to be rendered on my desktop. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 21:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DamianJohn

Who is he? And also, is he going to get whacked for this block? I always thought AugustO had a personal protection, from Aschlafly.Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dunno who he is, but he's been around since 2008. He'll be alright. --Damo^Hi 00:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He certainly has worked out how Andy ticks: Andy doesn't care about evidence, he is only interested in what he knows, and he physically can't know anything that contradicts his world view.^img --larron (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The concern troll is strong with that one. --Revolverman (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really WIGO-worthy...

Andy: creating a near-stampede in a crowded transit station is good, if it's so people can get dirt on their forehead! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Saint Valentine's Non Sequitur

Oscar Pistorius kills his girlfriend. Andy: Those are the wages of living in sin. Whoover (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Oops -- already been WIGOed. Sorry for redundant post.

Maybe if he didn't own a gun she'd still be alive. PsyGremlin^Snakk! 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

South Africa is one place where having guns in the home might be a good idea. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if she owned a gun she'd be alive. Maybe if we all owned guns, everybody would still be alive. what are gun laws like in Seffrica, anyways? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gun laws are on the loose side of permissive. Needless to say, the level of armed crime is absolutely hellish.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I spent four weeks in South Africa in 2001. I saw six people get shot, one in Cape Town, one in Joburg and four in Pretoria. VOX^HUMANA 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've spent more weeks than I can count in SA, my parents and siblings moved there in 1980/81. And I have never seen anyone shot there. In the past 6 years I have spent more than 25 weeks there, in the past 20 years, likely over a full year. It is a country in which the unwary are at risk. I am not unwary. My family do not carry nor have they, in general, ever felt the need to. My brother did for a while but he was hanging around the HA during their bogus years in Hillbrow and lived close to Tembisa. SA IS dangerous, without doubt, but it is not the hell-hole that some make out. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I could have been very unlucky, but I saw what I saw. The first was in Cape Town, one taxi driver shot another in the taxi rank just outside that pier with all the restaurants. The second was outside a bar in Sandtown in Joburg. The third was a single incident in Pretoria, a guy opened fire on a car load of people on a main road near the centre of town. I was several hundred metres away but I could see it happening. (I checked my diary, these incidents were actually in Feb 2001, not 2000). VOX^HUMANA 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vox, SA can be a dangerous place without doubt and my family have tended to live in nice middles class (read white) areas, barring my brother and Tembisa that is. And life can be very cheap over there, 100 Rand (about 9 UK pounds) was a quote I heard one time to end one. CIT's are very popular over there for example and all cit guards carry sub machine guns whilst delivering. But I suspect that yes, you were somewhat unlucky to be honest. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've lived here since 1975 and I've only seen 1 person shot - during the Inkhata march just before the 94 elections. Yes, we do have quite high level of violent crime here, but I doubt very much it is out of line with any major cities worldwide. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Would that tragedy have happened if they had married??? Hmmm, I wonder... Cantabrigian (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Being married didn't help the wife of an acquaintance of mine whose husband shot her when she told him she was leaving with the kids because she was afraid of their safety. In fact, studies have shown that women who live in homes with a gun present are actually less safe (at home) than than who live in homes without, at least in the USA.Tacitus (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Under the bus

But, but, He thanked god so he's a good example of the faithful over-achieving the dirty, lazy atheists in the 2012 Olympics! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh but you forget how eager andy is to dance on graves and mock peoples suffering so long as he can throw in a "librulz suffering lol" rant. Being christian, thanking jesus, or having done nothing even by andy's pathetic and schizoid standards are no defence for andy's unmeasurable spite and douchebaggery. Just goes to show how much he deserves to have his most treasured work be despoiled by a schizophrenic manchild Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy to Flip Out in 3, 2, 1...

My home state of Illinois, and of course the state that gave us Obama, has just voted in the Senate 34-21 to allow same sex couples the right to marry. I look forward to Andy's response.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Screw conservatives. HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!!!!!Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It must be hard to be on the wrong side of history, to see the world as you know it and want it to be slip away from you.Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt he will be very happy about this^img either. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Nah, I bet it's really easy...well if you're the right type of wingnut. Terry is the best example. IL legalizing gay marriage is just confirmation that we're finally on our way to the rapture and that he's been right about everything all along. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Imma go to the Manhole in Boystown the day Quinn signs it into law and take me some pictures of some bears getting married in leather for Kenny boy. God bless the right wing. 07:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realise Ken will probably wank himself to death if he sees those pics, right? --PsyGremlin^Parla! 07:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We can only hope. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Billions of Bullets

Actually, it's true. Turns out that the gummint has people with guns, and they're required to practice shooting them. Whoover (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The distance between that article's figure of 1.6 billion over 5 years and the Conservapedia approved but memory-holed figure of stockpiling 1.6 billion is every bullet shot over 5 years. But, hey, believe what you want, it's just a fact of 1000. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proof Obama Wants to Kill White People -- From His Own Lips

Obama in SOTU: “We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital,” he said. “They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.” That means rationing! Whoover (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss, or believe that? Please clarify for me, thanks Scherben (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Karajou? Please clarify. Whoover (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help me out here. I'm Australian so I don't really understand this, since we are mostly godless sodomites and all I don't really have much contact with extremist Christians. I really can't understand how right wing Christians oppose public health care. It is literally the opposite of what Jesus taught ("give me your sick, your poor, etc"). It is in direct anathema to their professed beliefs. How do they justify it at all? Surely this contradiction has occurred to them. Surely it has. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lemme help you... Here we have rational people and irrational people. We also have liberals and conservatives. Christians and non-believers, educated and ignorant, vocal and quiet, generous and selfish. Now draw yourself a Venn diagram. Where the categories irrational, conservative, Christian, ignorant, vocal, and selfish overlap... that's the "extremist Christians" you're talking about. And I know you wouldn't know it from reading the news, but there's really not that many of them. But as mentioned, they are very very vocal, and the problem is that when they're yelling and waiving signs, all of the normal Christians seem to find something else to look at. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that requires health care be a public concern. One may well see suffering in the world and become motivated to alleviate it without being committed to the idea that taxes should be levied to do the same. I honestly don't see any contradiction here. (Note: I'm not saying that I agree with the position, but only that it doesn't puzzle me.) Phiwum (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What always puzzles me is Andy's insistence that "only Christians build hospitals". If the True American Way is for healthcare to be a private commercial concern, what does Christian charity have to do with it? Cantabrigian (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Because while they view it as a private concern, they don't view it as exclusively a commercial concern. This is another mistake people make when it comes to conservative Christians. Charity hospitals, charity towards hospitals, disease prevention and medical care through money and/or volunteer work is not only acceptable but technically strongly encouraged. They feel it should not be done by government through the confiscation of earned money (i.e. taxes), but choosing to donate their ducats(and/or time) willingly of their own accord. It is only when some (like Terry) who attempt to meld Christianity with Objectivism do we get this weird concept that medical care is purely a commercial, for profit concern.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

are not tax collectors seen as being evil or generally unpleasant in the bible? Would that make tax ungodly?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They are, but that likely stems from the prevalent view in any civilized society at the time where tax collectors represented the monetary demands of an unjust and oppressive regime who placed harsh burdens on the poor, (who made up most people).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What? You mean taxes rather like Tithes? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with the 'extremist Christians' (as there are probably several groups of them): they channel an exclusionist god, who takes no account of the frailties of the creatures he has created - and they do rather more saying than doing 'By thier deeds shall you know them.' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought the main problem was that they're pushing for political and social stupidities. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now Karajou Starts Trimming Ken

Now the Swabbie can't stand Ken's dribblings^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Ken going to take this lying face down with Karajou on his back pounding away at the Question Evolution! campaign? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can Conservative prevent the tag-team pounding by Karajou and Andy at his back door to his intellectual bunnyhole?! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Karajou just doesn't like any mentioning of RationalWiki... --larron (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That was how I read it too; the wiki that must not be named or even indirectly referenced. Imagine if the peons found out about this place?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It also goes without saying that it's fucking idiotic to challenge an "atheist wiki" to debate someone else. I would also add that, while Schlockofgod "debates" are a farce, I've popped into the chatroom a dozen times over the last several weeks and never seen the people Ken demands his marks contact. Pretty illusory opportunity to redeem oneself in the eyes of a pathetic 50 year old cultist. Lol. 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well besides us and perhaps AugustO, who else even reds Ken's challenges? I wager most of Conservapedia completely ignore him and no one else even knows his blog exists.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Popeye did Kendoll a kindness. The last thing he needs is to give the impression he spent the whole of Valentine's day fantasising about ShockOfGod, er, "debating." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

While Ken fantasizes about mass-debating I notice that he fails at spelling yet again; with his link to atehism going unnoticed for three more edits. I think that he needs to thank Deborah for making a helpful redirect for that particular typo. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking the planet part II

Trimming Ken won't help; Karajou's blocked at least a million IPs in the past 9 days. And why shouldn't he? if he tried to educate himself on range blocks and becoming a nominally competent sysop, he'd have to use those commie websites, Rationalwiki & MediaWiki. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Math"

I just saw this spammed on CP. You guys remember the $250B surplus of 2007, right? No? Me neither... Carlaugust (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

2007 was a good year for car sales. So what? Those figures reflect federal, state and local income vs. spending. Because facts are the enemies of the left. Whoover (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sum of the balance sheets of all towns and states, when added to the federal balance sheet, can be interesting to analyze. It's just that the party that controls Congress is not the first variable I'll correlate. Whoover (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So, in 2007, the federal government increased their spending and did more things for the states, which allowed state governments to do (and spend) less. And this, according to Republicans, is a good thing? "Yay, the federal government is doing more so the states don't have to do anything!" Carlaugust (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at that and spreadsheeted it to get a percent spending increase each year, since spending is about the only thing Congress or the President can control to any real extent (revenue slightly, if they cut or raise taxes, but since the chart doesn't differentiate between lost revenue from tax cuts (good, presumably) or tanking economy (bad), it's not a relevant stat). Two of the lowest years were when Clinton had a fully Democratic Congress. Not surprisingly, the higher rates tended to occur during recessions. The only year spending actually decreased was under Obama and a fully Democratic Congress, but that admittedly did follow the biggest increase listed. I really like how they try to make it all about Congress (even though it's often divided), but sum up growth based on Presidential terms. Nice one. DickTurpis (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

They are talking about receipts over outlays, meaning federal tax receipts collected in 2007 were $247 billion more than federal outlays (spending went from $4.7b to 4.9b, while tax receipts went from $4.7b to 5.1 billion). That chart would show that spending & revenue were "balanced" in 2006 at $4.7b. While this is an argument that tax cuts generate faster revenue growth, it also boasts the distinctly anti-conservative argument that Republicans are responsible for taxing the American people too much. People weren't getting back from the government as much as they put in. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 01:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

IOW, revenues were growing faster than spending. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 01:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That chart is totally fucked up -- probably got the figures from OMB or the Dept. of Labor. Federal Revenues peaked in 2007 at $2.7 trillion; only in 2012 have they finally got back to the 2007 level. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Andy...

Andy: In this discussion on E=mc² why has no one answered my question about Chavez dying and being replaced by a double?^img
I love DonnyC's suggestion^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Walk into the physics department of your local university and tell them that E=mc2 is liberal claptrap because Hugo Chavez is dead and you don't get superhuman powers from eating cake. Oh, and bring a video camera with you." Best smackdown of Andy since Lenski. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Has RW ever created a refutation of Andy's "counter-examples"? I dug around but didn't find anything. VOX^HUMANA 03:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a rebuttal to some points here, though it needs to be updated. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The CP rebuttal page is quite adequate. Whoover (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now that I've seen it it's not bad. It would still be worth copying it over to RW so we can enhance it (I can't edit the CP version without getting an account there, and that isn't something I'm interesting in doing). The CP editors might find some benefit as well. VOX^HUMANA 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's answer is so tepid^img; he is like a dog whimpering in the corner with his tail between his legs after that rhetorical beat down.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy must have forgotten to leave a little something in Popeye's tip jar. The way things used to work is that somebody would slap Andy across the face, and when he was bending over to pick up his glasses, Karafool would show them the door. Then he'd dust Andy off, straighten his sweater, and say "Too bad that coward ran before you could get a hold of 'em boss. You woulda licked 'em for sure. Now let's go back inside for some cocoa..." --Inquisitor (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its a combo. Pure and utter lack of respect for Andy, and the fact its clear Sysops don't need to do their jobs. As such the Sysops only act when its them being challenged. Andy being curb stomped is entrainment for them. --Revolverman (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No surprise after TK died the number of critical editors on CP rose quickly. Now Andy can't post anything on his personal blog without someone pointing out the extreme stupidity of his assertions. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Andy doesn't really put in the efforts any more. He just repeats the same shit over and over again, not even bothering to alter it to the situation. --Damo^Hi 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And the users keep piling it on^img; no one respects Andy there anymore and everybody sees through his obfuscating cowpies.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Even for Andy this is bizarre. His questions never seemed so transparently irrelevant.

Has anyone ever speculated about some kind of injury/illness/affliction that made him this way? The guy was an evolutionist electrical engineer at Intel. Did he hit his head? Is there a tumor pressing on some part of his brain? A super high fever that baked away some cognitive functions? Alcohol? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Phyllis dropped him on his head as a baby, most likely she bounced him on it on a daily basis. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(undent)

On a semi-related note, even the YEC incubator also known as Bob Jones University teaches relativity in its third year physics program . (click on the "Modern Physics" link for the details). This indoctrination in liberal claptrap is courtesy of a *cough* university *cough* that requires all papers published by the science department to be vetted for Biblical conformity. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to speculation about Andy's mental state. The idea that Andy is quite literally descending into insanity is not a theory I completely espouse, but I do consider it a distinct possibility. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is anything like that; it is simply his ego combined with his lack of understanding of physics at this level that has caused him to be painted into a corner. He is stuck, he can't refute them, but his pride does not allow him to admit error at this point, so now he just comes up with any excuse he can think of to toss out, hoping they'll be enough until one of the sysops rescue him through the bannhammer.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, none of them (except maybe Ken) truly believe any of the shit they spit out. What they say is just their daydreams manifesting via their keyboards. Andy, Kara, Ed, JPatt....they all desperately WANT the world to be a certain way. But it isn't. So they created a place where they can share in their weird little opinions on what would make a "perfect world" (much in the same way neighborhood boys will build a treehouse with a sign "no girls allowed"). It's more a case of arrested development than anything else. BMcP, you could be right - Andy's ego got so big, he got so damn tired of people actually beating him in his arguments, that he created his own fiefdom where the sysops are his guards. Poht (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

They use to be his guards, now they just loot the treasure room and walk past the throne room to laugh at Duke Andy, knowing since Knight Captain TK died, nothing is going to stop them. --Revolverman (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty accurate. Andy is duke of his own fiefdom but has lost the respect of his petty nobility. They don't care about him or the institution, they only stay for their own petty power and will only act if they feel that power is threatened.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting to note, BMcP. Not one of Andy's sysops have come to defend him at all when it comes to E=MC², unlike talk:mainpage or other spaces. Even his talkpage has few/no defenses for him, and only parodists who try get outed pretty easily that way. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Revolverman is forgetting that back in the good old days of feudalism, people were bound by a sense of Chivalry, and so such things never happened in the Conservative, god-fearing Christian kingdoms of the day. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 10:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

They Found a Body Double

More proof that relativity is liberal claptrap. Whoover (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

quite apart from the relativity arse, I really don't understand why Andy thinks Castro or Chavez are dead and the lame stream media is covering it up. What do they gain from such a cover up? And even if they are or soon to be dead, what does that prove? Conservapedia proven right in predicting the deaths of gravely ill old men. That's some crystal ball they got over there. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that the photo is a forgery. The date on that page says "Feb. 16", but today is the 15th. Is this photo from the future? Phiwum (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's so predictable^img sometimes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's obviously a body double. Chavez isn't as pale, thin and weak as the guy lying there in the hospital bed! --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's because at some point, Andy predicted that Castro was dead. Naturally, he's alive to this day. Unwilling to admit that he was wrong, Andy began to construct an elaborate conspiracy where the liberal media is either too stupid or too ashamed to call out Cuba for not admitting that Castro has died. He's continued this with Chavez because it reinforces the idea that denying a leader's death is a thing, helping him to save face (or at least so he can keep lying to himself).--"Shut up, Brx." 18:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, exactly like the Castro thing: "The lamestream media promote a false photo of Hugo Chavez which hides the ears (Chavez's were big) and lower teeth (Chavez had a gap)"^img. He's waaaay beyond parody at this point. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, that is some next level crazy. Conservapedia was the worst thing to ever happen to Andy. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"He's waaaay beyond parody at this point." Sadly, I have to agree. For a while, I've been waiting for Andy to kick his crankness up to the next level. But I honestly can't think of any more crazy boxes he can check off and remain a functional member of society. He's pretty much hovering around Alex Jones level now. Since his family has some amount of means, I picture him going out in more of a Howard Hughes fashion, as opposed to sleeping in a refrigerator box under a bridge. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for him to say that this Chavez fraud is perpetrated in order to legitimize theory of relativity or something. Vulpius (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy has already likened credulity regarding Chavez being alive and credulity regarding relativity. In his mind it all wraps up in a nice neat little package: skeptical open minded conservatives opposed to brainwashed liberal sheeple who believe every lie from the media and academia. What really shocked me was that a couple of days ago he said that most people believe that Chavez is dead. This is truly stretching it too far. Sure maybe he's discovered a massive communist conspiracy - that's a little crazy, but to believe that the rest of the world shares your beliefs - that is truly insane. --Marlow (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even Conservative is questioning Andy^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing new. Ken is always pushing Andy's buttons, trying to see what he can get away with.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What is truly bizarre is that literally no one in the world agrees with Andy on this "Chavez is dead" theory. Even the most wingnutty of birther/truther/reptoid delusions have at least a handful of followers. I really wonder if Andy shares his belief that most people think Hugo Chavez dead with his family and fellow church members. What would mommy say? --Marlow (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I like DamianJohn recasting the Hugo Chavez article in the past tense, and Dvergne "defending" Andy. I'm not sure whether Andy's a parodist or not. I'm sure about most everybody else. Whoover (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

the idea of andy ultimately being a parodist is something I disagree on because If he was a parodist, it would jjust make him more pathetic. --^Mikal_lakiM 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When you think about it, his performance in the Menendez recall trial was very similar. It didn't matter about the mountains of evidence against Andy, the letter George Washington wrote was personal and reflected his true feelings. And he kept repeating that in the face of winning arguments. And he was basically laughed at. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

At least in the Menendez recall he had some people on his side, people who shared his fantasy. This Hugo Chavez business leaves him completely isolated. --Marlow (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on their silence, the State Department agrees with Andy!^img This is so crazy. Deserves to be WIGO'ed. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

People keep bringing up the Menendez thing as if Andy did something wrong. He made the best of a bad situation. Realistically he wasn't there to win the case, he was there to get publicity for his clients political causes. I doubt any of you would have done much better with the weak case he had. Damo^Hi 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's a Harvard-trained lawyer. He should have done much better than 'But George Washingon's letter to his nephew....". Watch the videos. The judges are literally laughing at him. Andy humiliated himself. A publicity stunt can fail. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, he just got paid handsomely to take a case that never had any prospect of success. What would you have argued?Damo^Hi 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Something much better than 'But George Washingon's letter to his nephew....". --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must impeach. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And if there was nothing better? As I recall, the NJ constitution's silence was pretty damn clear on the point. I am just prepared to give Andy a pass on this because I find myself in similar situations on an almost daily basis. I am forever being asked by clients to apply for bail/discharge without conviction/evidence to be excluded etc etc in situations where there is no chance of it happening. You still have to do it, even though everyone in the courtroom knows that you are doing it under protest. If you begin your submissions with "I am instructed [to apply for bail or whatever]" you sometimes get a more sympathetic ear from the grumpy judge, but not always. Maybe Andy was out of his depth, but frankly if your case is a loser, its a loser no matter what you argue. Besides, I'm sure his clients got their 2 minutes on the 6 O'Clock news that night, and that is all they wanted. Damo^Hi 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Isn't an advocate supposed to have a good faith belief in the case they're arguing, unless they're acting for the defence in a criminal trial? I always thought it was a breach of ethics to take a case in front of a judge that you thought had no chance of succeeding. Misleading your clients and all that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only from an NZ perspective, your first duty is as an officer of the court. The key points of this are: You may not advance any factual position that you know to be false (and knowledge here is the key word, reasonable suspicion or even wilful blindness does not count) and you must inform the court of all cases or legislation that bear upon the case even if they go against your position and there is a rule against using the legal process for an improper purpose (which tends to be narrowly defined). In this case I would say that it is unlikely any of these duties have been breached. If a client wants to advance an untenable case, the lawyer must do so, provided he has informed the client of the risk. In this case, that would probably involve telling the client that the chances of success were minimal and I have no reason to doubt Andy did this. Whatever else, there is certainly no requirement for the lawyer to have a "good faith belief" in the case. Damo^Hi 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, lawyers sometimes are forced to argue weak cases. Hazard of the profession. So what? I'm not laughing at all of them, I'm laughing at Andy. And he didn't seem to be arguing something he didn't believe in. He honestly seemed to think Washington's letter overrode everything argued at the convention. Justices Rivera-Soto and Hoens dissented with the majority opinion and their dissent had nothing to do with Washington's letter. That suggest to me there was a stronger case to be made.

I've seen admirable defenses of weak positions. This wasn't one of those. It was utterly ridiculous and the fact that the judges were laughing and facepalming seems to suggest they agreed. Again, this speaks badly about Andy, not all lawyers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked he didn't get censored for how often he talked about shit COMPLETELY unrelated to the issues at hand. Those judges have serious patience. --Revolverman (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Damo, I take your point but the fact that Andy crowed about his involvement all over CP's front page doesn't suggest he wasn't confident. The campaign had also won in a lower court, which suggests it wasn't as one-sided as you suggest. You just have to watch the videos to realise that Andy was completely out of his depth. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the videos a couple of times, and it was a bit cringe-worthy, but not as bad as you all think. He got beaten up because his case was weak. The argument around Washington's letter might have been the only thing that was worth a damn. I'm sure in his heart of hearts he felt a bit silly, but whatever. The two judges dissented, by the way, on a point that Andy did address, which was whether the court should make this decision now, or wait until the petition has enough signatures and a decision is needed. He did address that point, and it is what I understand the dissent was about. --Damo^Hi 09:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My one last defence of a fellow lawyer here, is to point out that although most of the oral submissions were focussed on the Washington letter and the discussions that took place at ratifying conventions, we don't know what the substance of the written submissions were. The only clue that we have is where Justice Rabner says "Mr. Schlafly, you've devoted your argument to the constitutional issues, and yet that's not where you start in your papers. Your argument as I understand it is, we shouldn't even discuss them. We shouldn't consider them in resolving this matter - Secretary of State had no right to go down that road. Do you want to argue the restraint point?". I imagine that this point would have taken up the majority of the written sub's and was in fact what the two dissenters went for. Always when you make oral submissions on a point of law you talk about what the judge wants to, and he will generally want to talk about things that he doesn't understand or believe from the written submissions. Clearly they zoned in on the weak part of Andy's case and gave him a hard time about it, but they were remarkably silent on the other part of the arguments. Damo^Hi 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The gauntlet is thrown again!

Ken announces that QE!^img wants a debate With Rationalwiki! --^Mikal_lakiM 19:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not this shit again. Ken, you've been called out on this crap before and this will be no different. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if someone's already addressed this, but isn't today supposed to be Intergalactic Question Evolution!!!! Day? A google search actually shows a fair number of blogs mentioning it, but nothing from el machismo him/her/themselves.Shakedangle (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole QE "15 questions" BS? I thought Ken was obsessed enough with us to know that we already did that... --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a debate with Ken - it is a debate with Shock. Anyone up for it and wanting to document Shock's dishonesty? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, although i'm not the most knowledgeable or eloquent. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We all know what will happen - 1) Arrangements will be made then changed, moderators will be argued about, times will be moved and changed on a whim followed by the Rationalwikian dropping out in disgust while Ken claims RW evolved into a chicken.

Or 2) The debate will go ahead but Shock will be overly zealous, cutting off the mic, talking over the opponent, blocking questions and will declare victory because the challenger won't answer "the question". Aceⁱ⁹ 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember speaking to SchlockofGod (ironic, what a sacrilegious username), and he couldn't create a coherent argument if his life depended on it. Brenden (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll is mighty brave volunteering other people for debates. Kendoll, my offer at Conservapedia:Debating_Kendoll still stands, though you can forget about the money. I have no interest whatsoever in debating that idiot shockofgod on the internet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So up the ante. A YouTube debate with Ken and anyone he cares to partner with, instead of punting to Shock. ---DinsdaleP (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll debate with Ken anytime. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of high school when all the trashy girls would talk smack and then follow it up with "My boyfriend is going to kick your ass." Carlaugust (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've listened to Schlock's channel. I wish I could have that time back. The only debate that occurred was some hick talking over someone having to type his answers out because the moderator decides who can talk and I've never seen it be more than one person at a time. There is NO possible way anyone trying to have an open and honest discussion about these 15 questions or anything else could ever get a fair shake in that forum. It's wouldn't even be that interesting were I a christian, as none of those guys seems to know his ass from a hole in the ground when discussing apologetics. It was just people quoting irrelevant bible verses at each when they weren't bullying someone they disagreed with. Some savior, Ken. Dunce. 00:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh. Guess who gets the first word about Schlockofgod on a certain search engine that begins with G. 00:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(I loled) Percival^{Aldridge Grainger} 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh! I once left a single (non-abusive) YouTube comment on one of his videos. Not only did he not allow it through moderation (a given) he chose to spam my own unmoderated channel with childish comments of his own. Even considering debating this buffoon is giving him more attention than he deserves.Tacitus (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Rules of engagement

Sure I only have two major stipulations, the rest of details can be worked out:

1. One question at a time, he can even pick the order he wants to work through them.
2. The debate shall be in written form, to give plenty of time to address all the salient points and to research any factual claims that are made by either side.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on the Ken, your move. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, remind him RW is not a monolith of atheists. It's a diverse community. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 04:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

When Ken was challenged to a debate he wanted $20K donated to a charity of his choice. Well, if he now wants to debate us then I think he should send a similar amount to the RationalWiki Foundation. That should help our hosting costs for a couple of years. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A counter offer with Macheeeeeesemo

Ken, I counter challenge you to a boxing match. We can meet in the ring under full Boxing USA rules, which can be perused for free right here. A few fair warnings, #1, I'm classified as a Super heavyweight, weighing in at around 235-240lbs fighting wait. #2, I have a background in boxing, having been fighting for about 5 years or so. #3, I'm in decent shape and I believe I'm much younger than you (I'm in my late 20's). If you want to select a friend to take your place, I could accept that, so long as he's available for a full weigh in (call your buddy Shock, he loves to talk about how he'd kick someone's ass. My offer is officially on the table, so show us how you're just slopping over with machismo and lets make this happen.... We can even make it a charity bout: we each put up a small amount, charge a decent admission to the fight and the winner gets to donate all profits to any charity he chooses (mine would most likely go to Planned Parenthood or the NAACP). Come on Ken, debates are for pantywaists, meet me in the ring. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that Ken's probably wanking himself ragged over the attention we're giving him, do you really want him thinking of you half naked and sweaty? London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Ken could punch his way out of a wet-paper bag, much less, fend off a heavy-weight boxer. Given the fact that he routinely cowers from honest verbal debate, I seriously doubt that he can even dream of stepping into the ring for a physical contest. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, he can dream. Just like he dreams (or am I describing masturbatory fantasies instead?) of crushing all the fat gay atheists under the cold steel tank treads of the QE! Abrahams tank of Creationism! The end result in the real world is the same in both cases. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the dreaded creationist bear trap? But as for fat gay atheists, I'm just two of the three. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken, take Chuck up on his offer. You bleet so much about "exercise science" that you're surely in good enough shape to go a few rounds with an effeminate evolutionist, right? Oh, you're not so sure you can defend the violent and hateful statements you've made against people you don't know? How would you react if someone constantly gloated only vaguely metaphorically about you meeting even metaphorically physically painful and violent ends? I would beat the shit out of someone who had the courage to persistently insult me to my face like you do. What would you do to defend your obviously shaky and superficial faith? You are the worst kind of coward to retend you're anonymous with these ridiculously transparent personae and gleefully taunt people over things that have nothing to do with the substance of the discussions you've avoided like the plague for years. Anyone here could thrash you in a written debate, but why you think anyone would want to debate a subject with a stranger like Schlockofgod who's openly and notoriously shown his inability to conduct himself according to the most basic rules of civil discourse is a true mystery. Grow a pair and debate someone yourself, Ken. This farce that they have to "bring more to the table" to interest you is the dumbest bluster an anonymous internet troll could spout. Of course no prominent evolutionary scientist or anti-creationist will waste time looking at your drivel, much less talking to someone who can't even admit he's just one person and exults in this absurd sense of "mystery" you think you're cultivating. And you know it or you wouldn't have the courage to stick your head out of your intellectual bunny hole to issue these weak "challenges" in blog posts and comments riddled with incoherent, rambling, and irrelevant bullshit. Make an actual argument. Do it. You are a perfect example of a man deeply blinded by the Dunning-Kreuger effect. You're the one who has nothing to bring to the table. Pussy. 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If Ken doesn't want to box a super heavyweight, I'll volunteer for a cage against him. FYI Ken, I haven't trained in about six years, am an out-of-shape 130-40 pounds and am in the UK. We can either use standard UFC rules or even early UFC 1 rules if you sign the necessary waivers. If you're serious and not hiding in your bunny hole, I'll reactivate my Bullshido account and we'll set it up there. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent here, but what's your preferred style? I did a little MMA for charity, but with a boxing/Judo background, I was never destined for greatness within the sport. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I started training in stand-up striking (Kempo) and then moved into standing grappling (Gendai JuJutsu) with a dash of the ground game that everyone does nowadays. Then I moved away from the actual fighting arts and into Koryu Iaido before drifting away from training altogether. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Red telephone for you, Ken, you gutless weasel

Hey Ken, I left a comment on your blog accepting your debate challenge. It never appeared. Stop issuing debate challenges that you have no intention of following through, you gutless, lying sack of cowardly shit.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

CMI silliness: OMG we've been challenged! and now we've backed down!

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

Apparently CMI has challenged us to a debate. Of course, even though they haven't contact anyone directly, we're apparently "backing down". How you "back down" when you've never been contacted is a mystery to me. Not is there really any impetus to debate CMI when they could just as well come here. Or even respond to our article. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. some of you have done great work decimating the blog, there. how do you "back down" when you've not been contacted? the same way light goes really slowly AWAY from us, but is timeless coming back... "magic". Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Same old shit. It's impossible not to swear at the dope at this point. Ken - you're a fucking moron. No sensible person thinks "debating" Slockofgod is an appropriate way to have an intellectual dialog. Why don't you go debate your mancrush, William Lane Craig. He also thinks YEC is an intellectual farce. Tell you what - you personally debate ANYONE and people might consider whether you're not just an abject coward. Seriously, come over here and debate one single tiny discrete subject with independent judging. Whatever you want. You. One discrete thing. No irrelevant jumping around. Want to debate the 15 questions? Debate a question to show that you're even capable of civilized discussion. Pussy. 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I said I would debate, just waiting to hear back on my terms. Nothing so far. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So who's the second person? Blue (pester) 17:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the full history of QE & its connection to CMI, but it seems to be effectively Ken D's blog. Ken didn't need to contact RW directly as there are always CP fans at RW watching & willing to play along in his pleas for attention. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I see this has been moved here from the bar. But this is far more than some CP issue isn't it? It's obviously connected - but it's greater than that.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Only if the debate looks anywhere near coming to fruition. This is a recurring phenomenon & never amounts to anything more than empty challenges & trash-talk. If you move this again, please move this whole section & leave a link to the new location at both CP talk & the bar. There really is no need for the CP crowd & the SB crowd to carry on separate discussions about this in two locations. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'm afraid that I didn't realise that there was already this big thread here. Don't read this bit much.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. I shoulda known. 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't we have an essayspace article on the 15 questions thingy? Never mind, it's a mainspace article, even. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still yet to hear back on my boxing challenge.... Does that mean I can claim victory cause Kenny Boy "backed down?" SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Ken likes to do it, I'm close to declaring victory on both our challenges due to Kenneth being too afraid to leave his bunny hole. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this actually constitute a debate challenge from CMI itself? Do they in fact take credit for the ramblings on that blog? - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No AND no apparently. (Or I hope for both!) sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth us just ignoring Ken and contacting CMI directly regarding this challenge? Ken's a nobody to the world, and there's no point talking to a guy who has no spine and inclination of actually taking part in a debate. Plus they might be interested to know what exactly he's doing with something they've founded in the QE Campaign. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See Conservapedia talk:Conservative - Ken's gibberings are getting notice from other people, the article on him needs to be brought up to a presentable condition (much as was successfully achieved with Terry Hurlbut) - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice from other people? From the links on that talk page it's one guy on Twitter who could very well be Schlock or Ken. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One guy is more than 0, which is the amount of notice I'd have expected, but it turns out to be someone intimately familiar with the issues - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a miracle!

This should be fun Cantabrigian (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, it's clearly a body double, cloned by liberal, atheist scientists, with funding from the lamestream media, in order to keep the myth of E=mc² alive. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 12:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Some tweets and a news report won't really challenge his dissonance--"Shut up, Brx." 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but we don't want to challenge his dissonance; we want to see just how dissonant he can get. Sophie^Wilder 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Theory: Hugo Chavez's double died, and all this hospital stuff was just an attempt by the actual Chavez to cover up his double's death. X Stickman (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It'll take more than a Twitter post to convince Andy.^img And loyal dog Karajerk agree with his master.^img E=mc² is still wrong. Give it up liberals! --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 03:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry watches South Park?!

lolwut
I guess I imagined him spending his free time brushing up on his Ayn Rand and frothing at the mouth over WND-esque websites. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he heard the term "South Park Republican" and thought he had to check it out Chaosof99 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop distracting us from the real question: Why aren't the media reporting on Obama's president-for-life power grab?? Phiwum (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what's really going to bother me? When Obama leaves the presidency in 2016 and transfers power to whoever is elected, people like Terry will claim that it was their vigilance that prevented the power mad Kenyan potentate from declaring himself Eternal Caliph. They would never admit that Obama is just another president, they will always claim, whatever the evidence, that he is the other, diametrically opposed to America and everything it stands for. Racist cognitive dissonance at its finest. --Marlow (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't ask me for sources, but I can remember the odd liberal commentator/blogger wondering out loud about whether Bush was going to relinquish power at the end of his term. I think its a common thought on both sides of the spectrum against presidents they don't like. Damo^Hi 09:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the right does not have a monopoly on people who cannot separate fantasy from reality. Nevertheless the contemporary right-wing has a particular penchant for tenaciously latching to ideologically fueled mirages. Terry is just the tip of the iceberg, it extends all the way down to Karl Rove, who as I'm sure you recall refused to acknowledge Obama's 2012 victory until Fox News shamed him into admitting it. --Marlow (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

When John Sentamu was elected Archbishop of York it was merely stated that the last foreign born AofY had been killed (during the Peasant's Revolt).

What happens if the next Pope is from outside Europe? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong sectio, BoN. And the wrong page.--Spud (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly Theology.

God; not necessarily all-seeing/all knowing^img. He's a busy guy, after all. - PowderSmokeAndLeather.

And we all know that Andy's God is busy watching sports. Vulpius (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Omniscience isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's why you need to pray: to get God's attention. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no, "God is omniscient only when He wants to be."^img Bonus points for Ed Poor shooting down^img Andy's completely idiotic reasoning behind that just two minutes after posting it. Now excuse me, Andy's redefinition of omniscience depressed me. --Sid (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We all know what happens when Andy is publicly wrong, don't we? I sense a new mystery coming on. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy would have fitted right in with medieval theology. He would know exactly how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it me, or does Andy's conception of God seem to be the classic, old bearded man in the sky, watching the Earth from a cloud? --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy's god is derived from reading the about the journeys of Thor and Loki and making a mashup of the two of them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

God is always created in the image of man - in this case, God is just an extended version of Andy: so, what would Andy do: certainly he wouldn't keep up with all the minute actions of mankind - as he cannot be bothered to keep informed about what is happening on his blog when it cannot be described in half a sentence...

--larron (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is God's omniscience subject to Schlafly skimming? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Larron got it right. Andy knows what God is thinking because, in his mind, he thinks like God. If Andy thinks something is funny then it is a case of God's sense of humor. If something makes Andy angry (liberals) then God is angry too. If Andy is too busy to catch everything then God must be too. On the other hand Andy's right. The God of the old testament is hardly omniscient or all knowing and behaves very much like a human. Mortals and lesser deities like Satan hide things from him and successfully reason with him all the time, even talking him down from murderous rampages or goading him into ruining the life of his most devoted follower. --Marlow (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

At least Andy is showing a bit of critical thinking. I can remember when I was a young believer I couldn't understand why God had to keep asking people things. Where is your brother, Abel? How many good men are there in Sodom? etc. I always felt the claim of God's omniscience to be overstated. Maybe Andy is on the way to atheism? Damo^Hi 23:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy the Atheist hurts my brain. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I ask religious people about God asking questions, they give me the old "God knew the answer, but he gave them the chance to be honest" response.... When I point out that makes no sense in some of these examples, they usually flip out. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 04:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy would be an awful atheist. At his heart he is a narcissist. If he didn't have God at the core of his ideology, and was an atheist, he'd be fueled some kind of horrible pseudoscepticism in which he knew exactly what "science" said about everything. His direct line to God would become a direct line to what he would proclaim to be the scientific consensus. He'd still say "deny this and lose all credibility." Admittedly this would be better than his current state and we wouldn't be moaning about him here, but he'd still be a prick. He'd just be more like his brother Roger - the one who isn't gay. --Marlow (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"For he beholdeth the ends of the world: and looketh on all things that are under heaven." Job 28:24 Douay-Rheims Nate Keaton (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that Andy's view of God is more akin to George Burns than some ineffable sky-daddy. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nate, can I just congratulate you on this^img slap down of kenny boy. Hope the family are well and the recovery is continuing. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bizzaro Andy (i.e, mirror universe Andy) is not only an atheist, but a hard-line communist. He writes articles about Trotskyist deceit, how Orwell was a secret communist and that Obama died in 2009, but has been replaced by a body double. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost, but mirror universe Andy actually thinks Dubya was the one who died (in 2003--his plane crashed landing on the aircraft carrier, but was covered up so as not to embolden the terrorists.) Then, because nobody willingly gives up power, the GOP--with agreement from the Democratic party--let the body double run again in 2004. It backfired when a body double of Dubya turned out to be more popular than the wooden doll that stood in for John Kerry.Jared (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Bizarro Andy rewriting Das Kapital? Vulpius (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. He wishes to remove all anti-Marxist bias. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mess with Ken

...'cos he'll fuck you up. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ya... --Revolverman (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken, it might sound Oriental, but wanking isn't a martial art. --PsyGremlin^講話 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Heck, it isn't even a marital art. Onward Christian niñas! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, if I saw Ken running towards me with his cock in his hand, I'd run away as fast as I could. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn you youngsters with your perfect eyesight. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone should really tell ken that being 300 pounds overweight does not automatically qualify him as a sumo wrestler Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken, "Karate Kid" is not a self-guided martial arts training video. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But it sure taught him to keep his car shiny. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What in God's name did you just say about me, you little liberal? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Liberty University, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Wikipedia, and I have over 300 confirmed essays about homosexuality. I am trained in destroying atheism on the internet and I'm the top apologist in the entire wiki network. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will revert your edits with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this 6,000 year-old Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying that liberal claptrap to me over the Internet? Think again, Catholic. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of good Christian spokesmen across the USA and your IP is being blocked right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your evolutionist life. You're dead, lib. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can mod you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare mouse. Not only am I extensively trained in combating liberal bias, but I have access to the entire intellectual arsenal of the Good Old Party and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable account off the face of the trusworthy encyclopedia, you little socialist. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you God-damned idiot. I will defecate fury all over your talk page and you will drown in it. Godspeed, kiddo :) :) :) :) :) Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 17:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I've been poking at Ken over at his little blog. I really wish he had an ounce of what my boxing trainer used to call "testicular fortitude" and would come out from behind his computer and show the world how tough he is.... Sadly, I know this won't happen. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Ken remotely deserves this since he's really only about words and he hasn't disrupted anything on this site, but that's not difficult to make happen. I'm mostly just talking to him here since, totally unprovoked, he frequently crosses the line by talking about physically painful consequences for people just because he doesn't agree with them and by relentlessly taunting them over divisive cultural and hurtful personal issues. Such misplaced arrogance from someone who apparently believes he's untouchable because he's anonymous. Resourceful atheists employ reason and proven strategies to get what they want. Creationist cultists embarrass themselves with laughable incompetence in a fantasy world run by a barbaric slumlord god. Olé olé olé. 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's actually kind of fun... I never got into much Ken poking, I was busy Jinx baiting before he disappeared.... and I love this quote from Ken "By the way, with the notable exception of Matt Barber, real men don't box, they are martial artists! If you doubt me, just ask the Bible believing creationist Chuck Norris." Why don't you tell Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Sugar Ray Robinson, Evander Hollyfield and Muhammad Ali that they aren't real men. In fact, please do this, I want to watch the carnage that ensues. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been training in, mainly, TMA for 22 years now. I train with some who have been training for over 50 years. Some of them used to compete with the likes of Ticky Donovan and have fought with both chucky boy norris and Bill superfoot. Kenny boy, to a man they are atheist. And to a man - and woman (my first sensei was female and I still train with her every Wednesday) - they, and I, would rip your head off were you ever to even try to step onto the tatami with us. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are Occidental methods of hitting people (say, Boxing, Fencing, Savate etc) not also "Martial Arts"? I'm not very well-versed in this topic besides swinging around a bokken -by which I mean it'd be preposterous to call my activities "Kendo". --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, boxing is generally considered a Martial Art. According to my incredibly short internet search, any codified system of combat is technically a martial art. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Since "martial" derives from "Mars", the Roman god of war, anything to do with fighting is a martial art. In a modern context, you could even argue that someone skilled in logistics is a martial artist. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat back on topic, but he's now mentioned studying martial arts^img oh jesus I hope I got that capture tag right twice in the same conversation. Has he ever mentioned this before? It's new to me, but I've been slacking off on attention lately. X Stickman (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I should have phrased my question differently, I wanted to hear the perspective of users here. But the question I did ask was answered, thank you. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember him mentioning anything about his frightening martial ability until I challenged him to a boxing match, which he quickly refused (for the record, after he said that he was martial artist. I consented to opening the rules up to allow mixed styles. No answer as of this writing.) I think I added something to the Ken Mythos. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

even if threatening anonymous people over the internet wasn't complete arse, I suspect even if ken was Bruce Lee incarnate, his mystery illness would allow most able bodied folk to snap him like a twigAMassiveGay (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Chuck, that's exactly it. If you believed any of the stuff he says, you'd have to believe he's some sort of renaissance man. He has at some time or other claimed to work in every job from bounty hunter to recruitment, and his hobbies are more or less limitless. Check out his latest, he's a great dancer^img! Are there any dance classes that actually give grades? I'd say he reminds me of Arnold Rimmer, but at least Rimmer actually had those bronze and silver swimming certificates. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy and crew have to be sitting back and laughing their asses off on the new SDG. Right? Oh. 00:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Ken and the rest of the fools just accuse Obama's skeet shooting picture of being a mock-up? And NOW the putz is trying to say he's got the MA-CHEEZ-MO to be a martial artist? I personally don't care what Obama's hobbies are (or aren't), but at least he has a freaking picture to prove a point. Just how Ken's dance partners/classmates/whatever random girl he says he interacted with was always attractive/long-haired/creationist, I'm waiting for the stories where he knocks out a Darwinist/atheist/Catholic with a round-house kick, and all of his BIBLE BELIEVING sparring partners are tough as nails. Poht (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My input: As well as SirChuckB, I've also offered to match up against Kenneth in a cage, but I'd be under 140lbs for the fight unlike SirChuck who's a heavyweight. Kenneth hasn't had the spine to accept either challenge.

Now, Kenneth, practising kata does not make you a fighter. It makes you a mime and a dancer. The key word of the term 'martial arts' is 'martial' pertaining to fighting. Painting pictures of boxers does not make you a martial artist. Boxing and the other 'western' (and sometimes not particularly western) arts such as Sombo and Savate are all martial arts. Anything that is a coherent syllabus and can consistently turn out competent fighters can be considered a martial art. The only people who would dispute that are those making money by fleecing parents by giving kids a new rainbow coloured belt every few months.

On mission: Might it be worth tackling a few articles on MA woo? Stuff like the 'death touch' rubbish? We'd be covering a lot of the same ground as Bullshido has (and would probably have to use most of their examples) but it might add another string to our bow. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We already do. --Revolverman (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right... I just looked over our MA article and the only thing named in our 'What is a good MA?' section was Krav Maga. Really? You want to tell me that doesn't need a complete fucking overhaul? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"An above average grade in a social dance class" I don't think I've ever said ROFL, but... ROFL. He is boasting about getting a B in social dance, he'd obviously say "excellent grade" if he got an A. There aren't words for how pathetic that is. --Marlow (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I love how Ken's blatant lies attempts to justify himself always make him look an even bigger fool. 'You say my grammar are bad? Somebody pays me to write for them!" "You say my spellign is bad? I once won a spelling bee!" "You query my martial arts prowess? I once got a B in a social dance class!" BTW, WTF is "social dance?" Does that mean you get anti-social dancing? What's that - the mosh pit? --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 07:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Social Dance is class offered at many American Universities. They teach a variety of partner dances: ballroom, swing etc. Getting a B in it requires little more than a pulse. --Marlow (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting a B in it at least requires you to be more than a socially mal-adapted mutant who nobody would get anywhere near the second they heard him open his mouth. The classes themselves are quite social. Dancing with lots of different partners is encouraged, so it's a really nice way to meet new people. Does anyone think that's in Ken's wheelhouse? I don't know if people in other countries do the dance styles they teach in social dance classes. At least in the US being able to dance passably is a good skill to have. Growing up in Texas, I escorted girls to cotillions and had a lot of fun. Good stuff. 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody go ask why Ken uses such PC language; social dance is not necessarily wp:heteronormative. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My alma mater also had a social dance class, if by alma mater we mean third-grade recess. It was exactly one class, quickly assembled in a teachers' lounge because it was too rainy to go outside and they were fumigating the gym, our regular indoor venue. We didn't get graded. The definition of "social dance" is "a gathering of dancers, none of whom expect the event to be followed by sex." Whoover (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I challenge that definition. As one of the (student) instructors of a college swing dance extracurricular during the gap-khakis swing dance uptick, I pulled outrageous tail. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't third grade. You can get all kinds of ass dancing. Go to a country show at a hipster bar and watch. Some dipshit with high waters, a string tie, black wing tips with white athletic socks, and a 3 inch long waxed mustache is going to clean up because he can two step. 15:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Social Dance" sounds like a really adorable euphemism for sex. Potentially group sex. X Stickman (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)