Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive312

This is an archive page, last updated 25 March 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>, <310>, <311>, <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)

The 1950s called and they want their slang back

Honestly, does anyone (apart from you-know-who) still talk about "commies"? Cantabrigian (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll tend to find that the world is a much simpler place when you can blame all of life's problems on a particular group of nameless faceless people. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy and Chavez

Looks like Chavez may be ready to cash his cheque. I am curious to see how Andy would spin it. The death of a body double? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah. He'll skip the details and jump directly to "Conservapedia proven correct." Whoover (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

EC"Conservapedia proven right! Today Venezuela announced the death of Hugo Chavez, something this website knew long ago. Mystery: Did Venezuela give up on the body-double ploy because of pressure from Conservapedia? Also: Further proof that abortion causes cancer: Chavez wanted to loosen abortion laws, but he got cancer!" Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystery: Did Venezuela give up on the body-double ploy because of pressure from Conservapedia? Bahahahaha. That'd be gold. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Check cashed, bucket kicked. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow - and there it is. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And the prize goes to...PowderSmokeAndLeather^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't even feel bad about it at this point.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It was so obvious that it's not even exciting. The fun used to be poking Andy about this shit, but he's almost completley insulated himself from it. It's his own personal echo chamber. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The winner was Whoover actually^img. Andy, what a fucking idiot. Even if Chavez died 3 years from now he'd still proclaim he was right. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hell, he'll probably do that with Castro. You know you're lame when predicting somebody's mortality is something to brag about.--Night Jaguar (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If Venezuela was covering up his death why say he's dead now? Why not hide it for years like he thinks Cuba did with Castro? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

^^^ The South American Dictator body double recruitment and training center has been indefinitely closed due to budget cuts. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I'd really have no problem with Andy's line of "reasoning" if he was bit more consistant with it. Example: St. Reagan's last public appearance was in 1994. The last staged photo released of Reagan was Feb. 11, 2000. His death, as reported by the lamestream media was in 2004. That's 10 years without a "public appearance with speaking", as Andy likes to call it. That means Ronnie had been dead for a decade and the media covered it up! Perhaps the CP article on him should be updated to include these insights. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

cp proved right in their predicting the death of a very I'll man. Psychic I tell ya AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Has Andy ever explained WHY they would pretend that they are still alive, if they aren't. Or why they would end it now, then any other time? --Revolverman (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Because liberals", probably. «-Bfa-» 23:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Man, I sure love those "Just because"\\ Conspiracies --Revolverman (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the Regimes they headed, in andys terms, are so weak that announcing the death of a leader (or in castros case, mostly former) leader would cause a mass public uprising and collapse. --^Mikal_lakiM 02:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And we still haven't seen Andy in public since 2010. Admit that he's dead already so that CP can finally collapse and become Kenapedia. Vulpius (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's on the Castro page. It doesn't make any sense, but there it is in all its glory. The commies need time to decide who the next leader will be. Apparently it takes 6 years. 02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Bullshit! Chavez is STILL ALIVE people. It's the oldest trick in the book and you (and the lamestream media) have fallen for it hook line and sinker. The man is going to be pulling the strings from the deck of his luxury yacht for years to come. Sipping on his Cuba Libre and laughing at the gullibility of the West. No more CIA plots to kill him because he is already "dead". Don't you see? It is a stroke of genius. Genius! (See Andy? Two can play at this game). --Horace (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I’m going with Quantum Chavez. He’s both alive and dead until you look in the box and collapse his wave function. JumboWhales (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You crack me up. --Horace (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And with two simple posts, Andy displays to the world that he's finally completely lost touch with reality. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 06:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps he's finally realized that instead of an encyclopedia, he's created a comedy site. --Umichcynic (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] 101.161.75.196 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Conservapedia proven right" with all the precision of a stopped clock. ^{— Unsigned, by: White Rabbit / talk / contribs}

Except it wasn't proven right at all. Saying that somebody who is still alive is already dead doesn't mean you're proven right when that person finally dies. I'm looking forward to the day in a few months or a few years time when a well-intentioned new user, unfamiliar with the extent of Andy's craziness, shows up at Conservapedia and corrects the date of death on the Chavez page. I'm sure that trying to put that article right will lead to a few unfortunates getting blocked for being stooges of the liberal lamestream media. Spud (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Homegirl can rap

Wow. I'm with the mysterious QE blog writer on this one. What a fine display of skill and a totally wicked rap on the evils of homosexuality. I can honestly say that I've never seen a rap like this. (She's obviously a product of the Bob Dylan School of Syllable Counting.) Phiwum (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, disabled ratings and comments. Bet this comes back to bite her in the ass ten years from now. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did I even watch it? Why? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 00:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good god, you didn't, did you? Twelve seconds was all I managed. Scream!! (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was curious to see if Ken's long haired creationist sweetheart used any other rhyme than "-ate". She didn't. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 00:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That completely satiate-ed my desire to torment myself with any QE videos. That video completely fellates. She can't even formulate a decent argument. My sensibilities are not delicate, but enough is enough. Next I want to numb my brain that much, I'll take a barbiturate. At least there's always Lenski and his e-coli that digest citrate. I wonder if Ken wants to debate... --Shagie (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone scroll down far enough to see the inane pictures of woman reading Quesiton Evolution on their iPhones? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Amusingly it appears to be the same phone in each picture. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that downblouse photography is Ken's hobby, and that he even fails at that? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Proof and evidence?" I don't think so. All I see are a bunch of girls who've been photographed after somebody - I assume SchlongoGod - has stuck a phone under their noses. They certainly all look pretty bemused. PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

True. I could easily be photographed looking at some QE! related shite but that wouldn't be proof and evidence that I love it. Spud (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I like how she says she can't judge who is who's soul mate, and then the next line denounces homosexual relationships as not the real thing--"Shut up, Brx." 07:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

cp:Atheism and the suppression of science

Anyone noticed this article includes "another product of atheism is the rejection of relativity." Doesn't this make Conservapedia atheist? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I read it more as a slap in the face to Andy. What will win more, Andy's hate of atheists or his hate of Relativity? I say the former as it would offer him a way out when it comes to him not doing anything.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazing -- nearly a year since that page was last edited, we mention it, Ken edits it. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Naah, timing reversed there. I saw him edit it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken is like a monkey at the zoo. He only flings his poo when the visitors arrive. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious...

I wonder how Dvergne, who doesn't have Checkuser, can run around blocking IPs? If I was TK or Rob (thank goddess I'm not), I'd be asking questions in the soopah seekrit forum. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 14:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere, and I'll see if I can find it, her recently said that all he does is trawl wikipedia's block pages and then bolcks those ip ranges. I think it was during his argument with markman Oldusgitus (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Here you go^img, thought I'd read it recently. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Except one range was only blocked for a year in 2008, and the other was never blocked. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken tosses a gauntlet again

We've been challenged. Again.^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken. Ken. Ken. When will you learn that it's YOU we want to debate. In a public forum, outside the control of Schlock, who blocks people the minute he loses. Why don't YOU man up, agree to a debate and we'll set up a Google hangout or something. That way, ALL the people of mystery who comprise the internet entity known as Ken can take part. You can even bring your sweet creationist evangelical ladies. What do you say Ken? Or are you going to run away? Again. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I went to the Shock forum to ask about debating "Conservative" and neither the moderator Mega nor any of the Christian users knew anything about all these debates. Mega didn't seem to even know who "Conservative" is. This looks like the equivalent of some random guy on the Internet getting challenged to debate and demanding that his challenger to debate someone else who doesn't care. And then he pridefully gloats when his challengers state the obvious. Also, I've been to that forum a dozen or more times and never seen the moderators "Conservative" demands people contact. What is this rubbish about? Nate Keaton (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I love how Ken posts an Alexa graph that basically shows this website surging into 2013 and then claims this place is struggling.

Yeah, but is it a 68,867 ranked site which means it is the 68,867th most popular website in the world according to Alexa, like creation.com? Cantabrigian (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, yeah, we would love to debate Ken, any public forum where the replies are not censored or deleted because they suddenly make too much sense. Heck, I'd wager we'd all be willing to debate Shock in the same neutral setting where both sides have a fair chance to present their case. We know Ken and Shock won't do that because they know they lose on a level playing field. Cowards.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Ken in Shlock's chat room. He is a moderator (of course) and I have seen him use both the names "John 316" and "Patrick". He behaves as much of a pussy in the chat room as he does elsewhere. --Horace (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm amazed that he doesn't call himself "Chatroom". --Inquisitor (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see we've made CP's front page again.^img Dance for us, little man, dance! We are your only audience, after all. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, he's plagiarising Comfort 'n' Cameron now. Good one, Kendoll. Tell us when you come up with an original thought. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, he had to cite a six month old article to get us mentioned on the front page again; he is so very desperate for our attention. Keep them bullshit debate offers coming Kenny, maybe one day you'll offer us a serious one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I love that Kenny keeps adding "There will be no further blah blah blah", yet creates blog post after blog post addressed to us Darwinist monkeys. He's so adorable. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My challenge to a boxing match/MMA contest is also unanswered. A shame really, I would love to see Ken's prodigious martial arts ability.... SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 19:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful there Chuck. I'm sure Ken-Fu is quite entertaining and all. But seriously if he fights anything like he writes or debates... you'll end up with a manslaughter charge on your hands. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can add Terry to the list of "true conservatives" who manage to hem & haw when asked to back up their rhetoric, as in the comment thread here. At least he lets the comments go through, unlike Ken, but for all his storm and fury about dictatorships and "Soylent Green" scenarios coming true in the next 4 years, he knows Obama's going to move on just like he's supposed to. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to speak ill of the dead...

I'm trying to speak ill of CP!

Is it just me, or does their picture of Duane Gish look like it would go well with the caption, "come here, little girl, I have some candy for you..." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll speak ill of the dead. "And no valuable contributions to the nature of humanity and cosmology was lost." --Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is the picture I see of him everywhere; to me it just looks like an old grandfatherly type, but I don't think I am looking for a cheap jab.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of film critic Jay Sherman's "and nothing of value was lost" line? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Every time I see that picture I think of C. Montgomery Burns, "Exxxcellent!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I always thought he looked like Barney Rubble. And along with the Gish Gallop didn't he have something to do with the Toupee fallacy? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He reminds me of a teacher we had at school, a lovely gentle man, always smiling, nicknamed Charley Chimp London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he looks like Hans Moleman. -Lardashe

I've noticed that the majority of professional YE Creationists are a little "odd" looking. It's like their family tree doesn't have enough branches on it. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Such as Ken "Chimpy" Ham. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out we've got the same picture right here. After reading the Bear's original comment, i looked at it and saw an old perv. Now, I can't help seeing Barney Rubble heping Fred in one of his schemes by pretending to be a scientist. Spud (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking that just because someone looks a certain way, a caption "come here, little girl, I have some candy for you..." is appropriate is not cool. Ask this guy. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

fair point, I admit, but it was as much the pose as anything. I'm sure there are pictures of him that would make him look like a kindly grandfather. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you implying that CP isn't dead? Vulpius (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

schafly's pro life sentiments prevents him pulling the plugAMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@Vulpis: Duane Gish died 5 days ago Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！}

real first name last initial

This has no doubt been mentioned before, is any one else amused by the block reason of 'real first name last initial' by the likes of karajou, conservative, and now marksman? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You should know by now the rules (and the Commandments) only apply to the peons. At least crockoshite had the decency to change his name to DeanS when he implemented the rule. --PsyGremlin^講話 14:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this rule does more to run of genuine editors than any other. Think about it, most people have some semi-clever screenname they cooked up and have been using it forever. So they sign up to CP, get blocked instantly, and told that their cherished nom de plume is "silly/foul". Doesn't leave you with much enthusiasm for continuing on with the project. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it was inevitable

The world's most stupid sheep is now big in to^img the world's most stupid shepherd. Or at least the shepherd who most specializes in cynically fleecing the stupid, I'm never sure which. Either way, a match made in heaven. Probably this time next year he'll have dropped QE (because two years of promises without any results would have to be too embarrassing even for him) and he'll be asking everybody if they consider themselves a good person. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's this ultimate test business all about? A quick Google really isn't all that illuminating. --Kels (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, that test sucked. Basically, you're asked, like, five or so questions about whether you adhere to the 10 Commandments. And FYI, you're rigged for you to fail each time. At the end they tell you "By God's standards, there are no good people."--"Shut up, Brx." 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to be sure they'll scare in plenty of converts, they really stretch out the 10 Commandments. For example, Thou shalt not murder is violated by simply hating somebody.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The flash file is "Good Person Test v.11b (black background).swf" and it looks like an excuse to tell you you're going to Hell. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 05:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you mean, Jeeves. This is a Harold Camping website, right?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is actually all pretty standard fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity fare. The whole "bring people to Christ through the law" approach is a rather common one, Way of the Master uses this technique all the time. In the test you will always fail, that is the given, as the idea is to demonstrate that all people fall short of God's Law, as shown by the Ten Commandments, and thus are condemned by their action (sin). The part mentioned about "hate" counting as murder is the same as lust counting as adultery; that all comes from Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount). Surprised you all haven't seen these "tests" before; they are everywhere.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I expected people to know the works of the various idiotvangelists. I'm talking about Ray Comfort, this is his "good person" test, he has loads of these mini sites that are basically all the same shite. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Ken already a Ray Comfort fanboy?--"Shut up, Brx." 11:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that Ray's special brand of stupidity was custom made for Ken... although he does preach ID and not creation... PsyGremlin^Tala! 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy passed and will go to heaven. If I died and found myself with him, it would be hell. Bevo74 (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a special Christmas edition of the same test (which Ken put a link to on CP's main page in December) that was touted as a "Naughty or Nice" test. So, it wold tell you that not only is Santa not going to give you any prezzies but Beelzebub is going to roast your chestnuts for all eternity. And, yes, I've come across this "nobody can keep all ten commandments" stuff before, not least in the works of Jack T. Chick. Spud (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god! I'm doooomed, I'm going to a place that I don't even believe exists and.... oh, wait, what? Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one of my major problems with religion in general and xianity in particular - rather like the old Bill Hicks sketch. Their imaginary friend has made a set of rules which it is immpossible for me, or anyone else, to fully adhere to and because I can't he is going to punish me for all eternity. Except if I ask his forgivness for breaking the impossible to adhere to rules he created, and worship him, THEN he will forgive me. But if not then downstairs I go. But he LOVES me, no really he does apparently. Just not enough to forgive me unless I crawl to him. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The craziest thing about this sham of a 'test,' to me, is the fact that God himself essentially fails it all over the place, and he needs an entire -religion- full of apologists to claim that his killings, self admitted jealousy, inability to follow his own promises, etc are somehow -not- in violation of the ten commandments. Tests like these are problematic because many people re probably genuinely unsure about whether or not they are good people, and Ray Comfort's practical monopoly of search phrases like "Are you a good person" or "good person test" leads them invariably to stumble into his strange, strange world instead of actually finding an answer to their question. WilliamR (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we use RatWiki's Google juice to put up a more positive, skeptical page about being a good person, which simultaneously could also be about these stupid tests? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Question 1: "Do you think you are a good person?"

Answer 1: "Yes" — give yourself one point

Answer 2: "No"

Tally your points. If you have one or more, you are a good person. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

you've missed a third answer - 'not really all that good, but not an arsehole'AMassiveGay (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moral issues don't admit complexity or nuance. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

no complexity at all. Only massive arseholes will answer with anything other than option 3AMassiveGay (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Attention CP editors

I know that CP editors occasionally read here, so here is a genuine contribution from a liberal atheist. Someone vandalized your article here - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1036659&oldid=1033523. Please rectify it, I may completely disagree with pretty much everything you say, but I don't like to see anyone try to distort your views or mess with your right to express them. VOX^HUMANA 05:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

*Wince*

"Germanic efficiency! Rouse, rouse, rouse, rouse, rouse! You swinehound!"^img. Is Kendoll's plan to kill all evolutionists with sympathetic embarrassment? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got 100 internets that says Kennedy's "contributions" to Ken's blog will either be copypastas from other writings of Kennedy's, or extracted quotes from his book, and that Kennedy doesn't even know Ken's blog exists. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 07:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Kennedy's bio at the Amazon page suggests he's a bit nutty and certainly not an impressive scholar. It's not clear to me how he received a doctorate, though perhaps it's an EdD from a Tennessee state school. Or, of course, it could be a life-lessons doctorate from a Christian diploma mill. In any case, he was driving trucks until his retirement. Phiwum (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Last one to leave, turn the lights out

On CP's MPR today^img:

• QE linkspam
• CNAV linkspam
• QE linkspam
• CNAV linkspam
• Misunderstanding sport
• Misunderstanding the Roman church
• QE linkspam
• A non-story about Dr Ben Carson making some vague statement on TV
• QE linkspam
• CNAV linkspam

Not worth clicking the scrollbar to see any further... Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. All rational function left CP long ago and forgot to turn the lights out then. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't some 'dead things' glow as they rot?

Or is it a train(wreck) coming the other way? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Any CP editors want to nudge Andy and tell him that his "overrated golfer" just won another PGA tour title, his 76th total, bringing his career win percentage to 27.36%, literally the best in PGA history (2nd place is 20.7%). That win was his 5th in his last 19 starts. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

" That win was his 5th in his last 19 starts." So what you're saying is that he basically lost just less than 80% of the tournaments he's played in lately, and has lost in about 3/4 of the tournaments he's ever played in. sounds like an Overrated Sports Star to Me. Tebow would do much better, given half a chance. Meanwhile, I've got Liberty University going all the way to the Final Four in my bracket. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberals hate our new black Pope!

Andy asked why the media hasn't lauded the conclave picking Cardinal Arinze as the Pope although he is black^img (Andy answer: Because Liberals). Of course the real answer from the very article Andy cites is that the conclave hasn't even started yet.^{— Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs}

It makes no sense for the press to talk about a Bishop who has little interest in being Pope, who agrees he is not a strong candidate, and who would be older than any Pope elected since 1406. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As Arinze is aged over 80, he won't be in the Conclave so he's extremely unlikely to be elected. In any case, it's very widely thought that the cardinals who are metropolitan archbishops rather than life-long bureaucrats want a Pope who'll be around long enough to "sort out" the Curia - i.e. kick the shit out of the corrupt, egotistical, not-at-all spiritual creeps who tried very hard to stop Benny XVI sorting them out. This probably means someone who'll be there for 10-15 years, i.e. aged about 70. Hot tips: Marc Ouellet or Robert Sarah. Or Gabriel Zubeir Wako if you fancy a long-shot. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I googled "Arinze pope," and it seems a lot of bookies are favoring his odds--"Shut up, Brx." 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That probably just means someone put a big bet on him. Probably some hopelessly optimistic ultra-conservative individual who hasn't bothered to understand the rules of the Conclave. I wonder who...? Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody know when the last time was that they picked a Pope who was not at the Conclave? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Urban VI, 1378: even longer ago than the last time a Pope resigned. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They could always pick a pope who they expect to die soon enough for them to find somebody they actually want to be pope. --^Mikal_lakiM 21:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Urban was the last Pope not to be a Cardinal. My reading of Canon Law is that it permits any priest (non deacon) over an age I forget to be elected because the law requires that he be made a bishop if he is not already. So it is entirely legal for a Pope to be elected who was not at conclave. I have no idea why people are saying its unlikely one will be. That would require a historical analysis of attendance I have never seen and I don't think would be that easy to do except for modern elections if at all. Where is this analysis Cardinal Fang? Mikal, that's not necessary or proper. It's just weird. Who does that? Conclave goes for as long as required to elect a Pope. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Urban VI was indeed the last Pope elected who wasn't a Cardinal but in practice that means he was the last Pope not to be an elector, i.e. not in the Conclave. All Cardinals were entitled to vote until Paul VI (I think; 1964-1978) decreed that Cardinal-electors had to be under 80. It's perfectly legitimate for a non-member of the Conclave to be elected Pope but it's extremely unlikely because almost all those with the requisite experience would be a Cardinal already. I agree it's extremely unlikely that the Cardinals will elect a stop-gap Pope. Although, in contrast to 1964 or 2005, there's no obvious candidate, there are plenty of very good candidates. As in 1959 and both occasions in 1978, the new Pope may well be someone who wasn't considered a leading candidate before the Conclave. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"in practice that means he was the last Pope not to be an elector, i.e. not in the Conclave" - no it doesn't. What I'm asking is why do you say "in practice" and it is unlikely. I'm curious whether Cardinals have missed it, whether ill or for some other reason. I can't find any historical info on that. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What Andy means to say is why aren't the media clamouring for Arinze to be elected. As most people said - he's over 80, not at the conclave, so it won't happen. However, I'm willing to bet we get a "Mystery: Did the Cardinals cave in to media bullying by the lamestrem media in not electing Cardinal Arinze as Pope?" PsyGremlin^Speak! 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nate, I don't know if any Pope since Urban VI was absent from the Conclave which elected him because of illness etc. But Urban VI was the last Pope to be elected who wasn't a Cardinal-elector, i.e. a member of the College of Cardinals who was entitled to vote. I say it's extremely unlikely that the new Pope will be elected from outside the Conclave because there's no particular reason why they won't elect one of the several very capable men inside the Conclave. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Psygremlin, I'm sure you're right. One of the many things that Andy doesn't understand about this process is that if the media clamoured for a particular person to be elected, that would ruin his chances. That might already have happened with Peter Turkson (of Ghana) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And of course, he's just setting up a sucker-punch for "Conservapedia proved right". Francis Arinze is elected (v.unlikely): CP predicts F.A. will be Pope! He isn't elected (probability=99.9%): CP predicts lib'ruls will prevent F.A. from being Pope! Andy wins. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If they pick a pope who, for Popey standards is liberal, will we get catholic-in-name-only? AMassiveGay (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that already describes Andy. PsyGremlin^Tala! 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced Andy even considers himself a practicing Catholic anymore -- his views differ widely from the church on a number of issues. My Spider-Senses tell me that he's either a supporter of one of the off-shoot "traditionalist" Catholic sects, or he's jumped ship completely and become an evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The best part about this will be Andy publically furthering the distance between himself and the catholic church. He'll then have more reason to start disagreeing with the church and speaking on behalf of the church's true positions/beliefs. A few careful parodists and I'm confident we can get Andy to start a sect (or really a full blown cult of personality with religious overtones). Occasionaluse (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the new spin^img: he won't be a liberal. So we can expect Conservapedia to be Proven Right no matter who gets elected now. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that this has been brought up a few times (or, Conclave Craziness, Redux)

Andy keeps doubling down on a prediction that's not even wrong. This guy will not be Pope, and the liberal media aren't petrified at the possibility. Because there isn't one, and because, hey, they're liberals and are probably not that invested in the whole process. This is going to be the biggest Conservapedia Proven Wrong ever. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 23:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that's still going to be predicting a Romney landslide. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy is right about this much

One of the oldest and most conservative organizations in human history, hidebound and deeply steeped in tradition, run by men who are mostly past the age of 60, won't elect a liberal to run the show. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm now a CP editor

I just registered at CP, using the same name as here. I'm going to fight vandalism. Seriously.

Sure I disagree with pretty everything they believe, but allowing people to vandalize their site is just wrong. (I know there are people here who have done that).

And no this isn't a clever ruse, or subtle plan to damage their site by first gaining their trust - my user page on CP states exactly who I am and what I believe. I actually want CP to be free to do exactly what they set out to do, and I'm going to help them if needs be.

So just be advised, if anyone gets comes on RW bragging about how they've messed up CP, I'll be the first one to go there and undo it. VOX^HUMANA 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you define "vandalism" as "pointing out that you predicted that that African guy would be Pope and really dropped the ball" or "correcting your sorry-assed evaluation of Tim Tebow's worth as a football player" or "describing what E=MC2 actually means"? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I regard vandalism as altering articles from the pure CP perspective to any other perspective. So yes, if someone modifies the viewpoint of Andy or one of his cohorts to something more akin with how we (ie. editors of RW) would see the world, that constitutes vandalism. I want CP to focus on what they do best. VOX^HUMANA 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"How we would see the world." Are you then taking a weird pomo position that all truth claims are equally valid? There's CP's take on Relativity, there's "our" take on Relativity, and they are both worthy of equal consideration? Also, what, exactly, does CP do "best"? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What CP does best is present the viewpoint of Conservative Christians. Nowhere did I say that the viewpoints were worthy of equal consideration, or all that all "truths" are equally valid. My views on the viewpoints of CP are fairly well laid out. I'm merely trying to ensure that their viewpoint is accurately presented according to their beliefs - I cannot fairly critique a vandalized viewpoint. VOX^HUMANA 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. What CP does best is provide an outlet for the personal musings of Andrew Schlafly, which sometimes border on the heretical, and a few of his cronies, one of whom is not a Christian, but a Moonie. The fact that not a single prominent conservative Christian who did not give birth to Andrew Schlafly, something there is no shortage of in the US, has associated himself prominently with the project, and that after 7 years of existence, its userbase is made up entirely of cronies and trolls, and not a vibrant community of like-minded people, puts the lie to your analysis. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, but whatever. From my own research, Schlafly is not THAT far removed from the main body of Conservative Christian thinking. Still I'm not saying no-one can vandalize the project, merely noting what I intend to do in response. Everyone is free to act as they see fit. VOX^HUMANA 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't really do vandalism anymore, although some people here still do parody--"Shut up, Brx." 01:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

EC. "I don't agree, but whatever." No, no. This is interesting. Show me where there is a "main body" of conservative Christians who believe the Bible should be re-translated to reflect political values; show me a body of mainstream conservative Christians who think the liberal media is cowering at the idea of that Ghanaian guy becoming pope. Show me where I can find a substantial number of mainstream conservative Christians who believe that the increasing number of earthquakes proves an young earth, or that E=MC2 is "liberal claptrap," or that boys and girls should take separate exams. And if these people exist, why aren't they on CP after nearly a decade? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 01:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

EC "From my own research, Schlafly is not THAT far removed from the main body of Conservative Christian thinking. Oh really? Andy's views, when taken individually, do share some level of support from other people who aren't named Andy Schlafly. But taken as a whole, he's definitely out there where the buses don't run. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ - I've got no inclination to sit and try to defend every view Andy has from a CC perspective (a perspective I don't share, obviously). But from spending time at sites like AIG, ICR, carm.org or WND, I'm really struggling to see how to conclude Andy is "out there where the buses don't run". He has plenty of company as far as I can tell. VOX^HUMANA 03:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well then, "do what you gotta do". As I stated, Andy has "plenty of company" for many of his views... if taken one-at-a-time. But, I have yet to encounter another single person who accepts the bulk of his assertions en masse. Yet, if you think Schlafly's views represent the bulk of Conservative Christians in America, then your course of action is obvious. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the low level of contributions to CP you will probably have a lot of free time, so you could probably help out at Metapedia as well. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking Metapedia, we have a visitor over at Talk:Race. BoN's already triggered the drinking game. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand Sophie's shown him the door already. Wheeeeeeee. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) You do realise, of course, that the minute Karajerk spots you over there, you're blocked right. Not matter what your best intentions are. Because you're dealing with morons. And I'm not even sure what your intention are, besides enabling Andy to keep spreading his lies and bullshit, and making him look stupid. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 07:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You've already broken the 90/10 rule. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You could also be blocked for not using your real first name and last initial. Spud (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm... 1 measly revert and the rest has been talk talk talk. Not off to a good start at CP, are you? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor - why don't you look at my RW contribution log. I just had the displeasure of looking at yours, and realised that you're pretty useless around here. So, I'm done regarding your opinion as worth responding to. VOX^HUMANA 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now you're starting to sound like a CP editor. I'm impressed. Yes, sadly my edits of CP far outpace my edits here. Say, that's a good way for you to earn some brownie points... if you ever get blocking rights over there you can block my latest sock. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

From the sounds of it you seem to be more of a CP editor in your outlook than a RW one. Good luck with your new career. I'm sure you will go far. --Damo^Hi 21:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To me, this^img sums up your attitude. You know damn fucking well that vandalism is discouraged by RW so why post that shite? I've been socking over there for 2 years now, no vandalism from me but I have been quietly reverting the more overt vandalism and leaving the the rest for andy to agree with, as he almost always does. I don't see the need to shout it out, I have no desire for the attention as you seem to. Enjoy your stint, you will be blocked very shortly. My sock will carry on, doing as I have done for 2 years. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends upon your definition of vandalism but it has long been frowned upon here because the actions of just a few individuals has besmirched our reputation. So charging into CP like some knight errant to clean up vandalism and implicating our name to boot is not going to raise your status here. CP is pretty much dead nowadays and I doubt that many regulars here actually vandalise CP. It's more the case that lurkers do something and then boast about it here. RW has generally moved on from CP - whose regular editors and sysops do more to drive it into the ground than any vandal - and any attempts at discourse are doomed to failure. The whole point of the RW Foundation is that there is a life for this site after CP. For me, Conservapedia is nothing more than an amusing ant-farm in the corner of the room. We don't really need someone poking it with a stick. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment GK - my only intent was to try to keep the CP people happy, as they tend to have a wild over-reaction to any mention of RW. If I appeared to be criticizing RW, that was definitely not my intention, and for that I definitely apologize. This whole exercise was motivated because vandalism of CP articles was interfering with my ability to cite their statements in my writing here. The only reason I posted a comment here was because I know they check here, and I wanted to be transparent. VOX^HUMANA 22:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why someone would profess to want to keep CP people happy because of any strong reaction they have. To some small extent, their strong reaction to any mention of RW is warranted. There is literally nothing in the world a new editor could possibly do to change the way Karajou, Jpatt, or TerryH feel about RW. Do you try to make other people happy when they have what you think are wild over-reactions to things you like? How does that work out for you? Ghostface Editah (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Do you try to make other people happy when they have what you think are wild over-reactions to things you like?" - Yes, if keeping them happy suits a personal objective of mine. I want to be able to cite CP positions at times, and twice I have encountered a vandalised article on CP which messed up what I was trying to do on RW. That is the ONLY reason for this. VOX^HUMANA 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point - you can cite diffs to go right to the source - but as long as it's not just because you're a nice guy... (formerly Ghostface Editah) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is for articles I'm writing outside of RW - IMO linking to a diff is a bit too unfamiliar for readers unaccustomed to editing a wiki. (But that is just my opinion.) But I'm glad you understand this isn't motivated by altruism. Cheers VOX^HUMANA 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll's new imaginary friend

This is going way beyond pathetic now^img. I don't have the words to describe it. He's actually conjuring up fake accounts to post on his blog. Hey Ken, while you're imagining QE! campaign members, why not summon up your sweet, long-haired creationist girlfriend and your hard-as-nails. green beret martial arts sensei to post too? I'm sure they'd make wonderful additions to the team. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not Conservative. We all know just how transparent his writing is. That writing was simple and unimpressive, but not nearly as awkward as Conservative's scribbling. Phiwum (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Oh wow.... I had always considered QE to be a big joke, but now that they've received the major weight of an endorsement from The unknown professor at X university, I now see the error of my ways. Evolution is a sham, God magicked the world into existence. Come join me in our native dance of the Questioning Evolution! SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll can be more or less cogent when he really puts his mind to it (see his crap he actually published under his own name before the flying kitty years.) This however has all the hallmarks of a Kendoll fake. Vague, no personality behind it, no actual agenda or motive behind the writing, and no action proposed. Compare and contrast the early days of QE! when real people other than Kendoll posted to his blog. Even with Ken himself, you can tell the difference. When he's talking about a real person (as with Mariano) he gives their full name, what they do and links to them. When he's talking about an imaginary person (e.g. his long-haired creationist sweetheart, his Swiss miss, his Wayne Gretzky of creationism, etc.) he's vague, never links, never gives names and never produces any concrete thing they've done. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely it cannot be Ken, because he has wrote "pseodoscience" and Ken has perfect spelling skills. However, if it is Ken then he will correct it proving that it was typed directly into the blog instead of being copied and pasted from "Jerry's" email. Jerry must be a pretty high-powered professor if he once took coursework at Notre Dame (a Catholic university). Of course anyone can take coursework at a multitude of American universities under the Coursera scheme, but I'm sure Jerry's coursework at ND was special. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's typical Ken - who can write quite lucidly at times. Fact remains - we have an unknown professor, in an unknown field at an unknown university, telling us that evolution is "sham philosophy and pseodoscience." Either the guy is too ashamed to have his name linked to the endorsement of Ken's blog, or he's a figment of their imagination. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 08:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's pure Ken. He probably got the name Jerry from the tub of ice cream he'd raided from his mum's freezer. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If it were anyone other than Ken, there would have been half a dozen blog posts leading up to this one announcing something along the lines of "Is a professor at a private university who has taken coursework at the University of Notre Dame about to write a special guest post for this Question Evolution! blog and stick the final nail in the coffin of evolutionism?" --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In which I attempt to create raving paranoia in Ken

Ken, how do you know that your correspondent, if he's not something you made up, is not trolling you? He could be someone just trying to convince you he's on your side, and is laughing at your willingness to post any sympathetic message you receive. Your "professor" could actually be the same as your "sweet creationist woman". They might both even be someone here at RW. They might even be... an evolutionist homosexual bear from Maryland. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It can't be the bear - he was totally crushed in Ken's beartrap. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Like the staff at the QE! blog, there may be more than one of us! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it's even an evolutionist homosexual socialist bear from Canada. *scare chord* Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Watch out, Ken, the International Evolutionist Bear Conspiracy is on the lookout for you! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Multicultural Bear Boners for Dawkins is GO. We expect to have a seat at the UN by next Tuesday. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest E=mc² WIGO

Ok, Jpatt blocked an editor for "Violation of Commandments and/or CP Guidelines" because what? Arguing with a crazy person? Gryfin is so clearly unhinged that even Andy recognized it and quietly backed out his edit. Since Gryfin was the only editor other than Markman to agree with Andy's position, I'm sure that tossing his ravings overboard didn't come easy. So how is arguing with this loon in a talk page a Violation? A waste of time, yes. But what Commandment? Whoover (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

the commandment of "you talk to much and dont say what we like, go away"--^Mikal_lakiM 03:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

After two edits? Whoover (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy at CP is block first and Don't you DARE ASK A QUESTION ABOUT WHY! Even the admins have long given up on the idea that anyone is truly editing in good faith. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The first Commandment is only visible to the CP SYsop group and states "A CP sysop does not need any reason to block someone. Pick your reason at random and block yourself silly". DogP (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was "rtard" so s/he'll have been blocked for incivility. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure the other sysops know Andy's stance on E=mc² is lunacy; they just aren't brave enough to come out and say so (with the probable exception of Ken), but they are at least astute enough to know that anyone else who agrees with Andy is safely a vandal or a parodist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a no-win situation. If you disagree with Andy (like most sane people are apt to), then you're a vandal/troll. But if you agree with him, then you're a parodist/troll. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The black unpopable pope

Judging from the head on their main page, Conservapedia seems to be quite arrogantly sure that black Catholic cardinal Francis Arinze will become pope. Well, not to ruin their dreams, but Arinze can't become pope as he's older than 80 years... and cardinals older than 80 cannot partecipate to the conclave and, thus, will not be elected (even if it's theoretically possible to be elected for any baptized Catholic man, it's not gonna happen any soon and hasn't happened for really many centuries). I suggest to keep a screenshot of the page now, just to remember them that, well, they shall not be proven right. --2.228.141.122 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Whooooops! Just looked above! Sorry, didn't see that you already knew this. Keep up the good work, anyway! --2.228.141.122 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Andy's latest chirp on the conclave "un along, liberal media and atheists, so that real work can be done." Yes Andy, because an exclusive boys club, voting for the next overseer of their massive fortune and sex scandals is "real work." Also, Andy's fixation with Arinze is so typical of Andy's weird mindset: he's decided that Arinze is the most conservative cardinal, therefore he must be the One True Conservative and must become Pope. If he doesn't, then it's some liberal conspiracy.

Also, isn't this Pope supposed to be the anti-Christ or something, that destroys Rome, according to Malachy. So Andy's rooting for the anti-Christ? --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kind of funny (and telling) that Andy doesn't realise the rather large difference between a turd-coloured Spielberg character and what everybody else refers to as CET or Central European Time.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy Lecture

Look here^img. Why is Andy deleting five thousand bytes in his own lecture? Most students probably saw it already. What's the point?--Seonookim (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Students? There are students? Aceⁱ⁹ 08:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder where...

I wonder where Ken stole this image from? There's a small clue in the image. StarFish (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Which image, there's 4 on that page? Link to the image, please. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 13:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume StarFish means the "Look Inside" book cover, pretty clearly stolen from Amazon. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken will use that image until Amazon debates ShockOfGod on the "Fifteen Questions Copyright Attorneys Cannot Answer!" MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he is indeed a fascinating man. Check out his bio at Amazon. Evidently, he was a budding sadist at age seven! And a romance novelist in high school! That is a precocious youngster! Phiwum (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

More of the ultra-boring "what-we-are-going-to-do"-but-never-gets-done bullshit. And surely we've heard about both Germanic efficiency (even though Germans "certainly have their faults") and Alabama bee-eating mules before. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I like how he can't figure out that blowing up a picture to twice its size doesn't look good, and makes the text almost unintelligible. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 15:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Eek Ken, if that's your hand you might consider going to the doctor. Or keep up with your insulin. Or whatever. You know. Ghostface Editah (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I only see three images and no book. He must have deleted the picture he had stolen from Amazon. The little man has danced for us again! Spud (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"My dear atheist and evolutionist friends, if you thought the Christian blogger Mariano Grinbank was a thorn in your side, you haven't seen anything yet!" Er, if we thought who was what? Were we evolutionists supposed to be cursing the name Mariano Grinbank or something? Who the hell is that? Phiwum (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good God. Apparently, it is a blogger who "excoriated" Euthyphro's dilemma. I teach that dilemma every semester. I can't possibly watch, but if you have the stomach, it's here. (Why should any theist complain about that dilemma? The minor, controversial point is that God loves the good because it is good, rather than God's love making something good. Kant says the same damned thing, when he says that we must have a prior notion of good before we judge God to be good. The major point is that the term "pious" cannot be defined by "god-loved", since God loves the pious because it is pious, while the god-loved is god-loved because God loves it, but I sincerely doubt that this is what this fearsomely intelligent blogger is on about.)

I think the parenthetical remark/manifesto makes clear why I can't watch the video. Phiwum (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was sort of tuning in and out as I worked, but I think the gist of his excoriation is that Christianity trumps Euthyphro because God is a triune deity. Each aspect is a separate, eternal being that has relationships with the other parts, and from that, ethical behavior is established along the same lines as in naturalistic explanations. However, since the Trinity is also a single being, that makes the Christian God the wellspring of all ethics and morality, which is objective and both loved by God because it is good and good because it is loved by aspects and the entirety of God. It sounds like the sort of retcon a fan-fiction author would come up with to explain how the universe's magic allows both omnipotence and incompetence as the story necessitates. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait. So, ethics comes from the fact that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost want each other to play nice and share? And the difference between this situation and the Greek gods is that also, these three are one and so... oh, fuck it. I won't think about it. I won't, I won't, I won't. Phiwum (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

He spends a little time discussing how the ancient gods were petty and cruel, and they plagued mankind with suffering. He seemed to wander away from that to make a left turn into YHWH. Basically, he thought they weren't the source of Ethics because they were often capricious, and tended to be born or created by earlier gods. He never quite worked back to primordial gods like, say, Chaos or Gaia, though. That, and I guess he feels he can judge gods by the ethical standards he's already decided are perfect. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The minor, controversial point is that God loves the good because it is good, rather than God's love making something good." This isn't a 'minor, controversial point'. The idea that God loves the world and all the people in it, whether they're good or bad, is the whole basis of Christian ethics. If Mariano Grinbank thinks otherwise, he should either make it clear that he isn't a Bible-believing Christian or go and read the new Testament properly. However, God loving only things that are good - or that humans define as good (Kant) - fits better with the conservative extremist scumbag viewpoint of hating gayz etc etc etc, i.e. anyone except conservative extremist scumbags. If anyone here does know about Christian ethics, this might be a debate worth having because it sounds as though Mariano might be out of his depth. Cardinal Fang (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia prophecies

... include the decline of intelligence and an increase in premature greying [2]. What is the correlation between these two statements in particular and 'reading Conservapedia'? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The stress of the collective staff of CP being stupid and reading any one page being equivalent to a genocide on the scale of a minor crime against humanity against your brain cells? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All the bozo sysops at CP are middle-aged men. Wanna bet that most of them have some grey hairs? After all, they all show signs of diminished intelligence. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Ken is as young, strong, and virile as Putin himself!--Durbinator^Durbinating 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that Putin exists; he visited a boat I was working on. I'm not sure that Ken is anything more than a will-o'-the-creationist-wisp. Генгис^marauding 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally jealous, GK. I would give anything to work on a research ship doing anything. Scrubbing toilets would be better than my job sometimes. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, that ship has that modern bow design. What do they call that? Fantastic performance in rough seas as I understand it. --Horace (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's called an X-bow and while they may be good in rough seas they have some drawbacks. One being the reduced living accommodation/workspace - the decks above the water line get smaller rather than larger. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But why is the article accompanied by a map of Moscow? Is the boat merely the plaything of an oligarch's bathtub? I think we should be told. Sophie^Wilder 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ken, Yes...

... Richard Dawkins is going to embrace young earth creationism.^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned that Ken didn't try and claim that QE! was directly responsible. It's time to get started on phase two of Operation Multicultural Bear Boners for Dawkins. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Add "cultural Christian" to the list of things Ken doesn't understand. That said, what the fuck is Dawkins doing, saying shit like this? --PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does actually mean something in CoE-saturated middle England, and is distinct from "Christian". But is open to misinterpretation - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly many in the UK, and I guess most other western countries, are cultural Christians because that is our heritage. We are more familiar with biblical stories (even if we don't necessarily believe them) than those of Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism and our musical legacy has largely been forged from church music. When Dawkins appeared on Desert Island Discs he actually chose a piece of religious music as one of his eight tracks. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He actually chose two religious pieces: from Fauré's Requiem and Bach's St Matthew Passion. Of course you don't have to be a Christian to appreciate and be moved by works like these; and Handel's Messiah, Verdi's Requiem, religious paintings and sculpture, cathedrals, etc, purely as immense human achievements. It probably helps if you grew up in a society where these things and their underlying mythology were part of the cultural furniture. Cantabrigian (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It also could mean he's fine with getting Christmas presents. He might even like plum pudding more than goat once a year. I don't believe Ken has trouble with the concept. He doesn't think he has trouble with it. His explanation: The point remains. Christian culture is superior to "atheist culture". Atheism has a poisonous culture and is low class. Whatever the hell that means. Whoover (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually remember reading a book by him saying exactly that.. I think it was The Ancestor's Tale, so this is nothing new. Like the time he said that god's existence could not be disproven and the fundies made a big deal about it... only he had been saying it for decades. Danoso (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice of Ken to finish that entry with a Betteridge's Law candidate. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Real work"?

It's the surest sign^img that Andy has never done any in his life that he considers a bunch of ancient men sitting around god-bothering and politicking over which one of them gets to wear a particularly funny hat "real work." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine him growing up listening to his mother complain about the help, and his parents' conversations about how union laborers are just ungrateful--"Shut up, Brx." 02:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they need to work smarter, not harder, since the Roman faithful are still Popeless. Funny, if some democratic congressmen were to make a publicly known decision, their discussions would be called claptrap, and their decision instantly derided. But since this is something Andy likes, it's REAL WORK. Nothing against the Papacy, but if you don't get blisters from doing it, it's not real work. Poht (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Really — you have nothing against it? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against the institution of the Papacy, in the same way I have nothing against the Dalai Lama, or any other "office" in a religious or spiritual institution. With all offices, it's the person in the chair with whom I usually have a bone to pick, not with the existence of the position. Leaders are often helpful for large groups and are inherent to bureaucracies. You disagree? Poht (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable about papacy, but giving somebody that much power and pretending they're inerrant seems like a bad to me. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pope is not inerrant by Church doctrine. He's a man. A Pope may speak ex-cathedra as to theological matters but that has nothing to do with his voice as a man in any other aspect of his life. He is referred to as the Vicar of Christ. "Of Christ" is an honorific. I agree with Poht. The Pope is a man who occupies an office. Jeeves, I don't really understand or give a shit about what a lot of people do at work, but there's a whole system for them to deal with, it's important to their organization, and they're there to deal with it. That's work. Funny hats and all. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 05:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I eye-rolled more about him mentioning "historic doors". rpeh •T•C•E• 05:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I really want them to pick a black guy so I can hear evangelicals rant about the affirmative action pope. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 05:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be lucky: many of the best-qualified candidates are black, brown or yellow. Four African cardinals are considered 'papabile' - Robert Sarah (Guinea) is one of the leading runners and there's also Peter Turkson (Ghana), Laurent Monswego (Congo) and Gabriel Zubeir Wako (Sudan). All of them much blacker than B. Hussein Obama. Cardinal Fang (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pope isn't inerrant, however the Catholic Church does hold to the concept of Papal Infallibility; this means that the Pope is exempt from the possibility of error. Although the idea has been around for a while, it wasn't made official dogma until the First Vatican Council.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Andy approves of a small group of so-called elite "experts" choosing one of their own to be the next Pope. The Best Of The Public approach should select a new one instead. Come to think of it, that may be the spin from Andy if he's disappointed in whomever is selected. --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you select the pope via best of the public, this happens. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

One of my work colleagues is a relative of Pope Pius XI (seriously!) We just elected him as Pius XIII and he's telling us his policies: contraception is okay, no more celibacy for priests, and you ought to hear about the new costumes he's designed for nuns. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Any pictures of the nuns' outfits? Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Alas no. Not outside his foul and depraved mind. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did Ken revert his own MPR entry?

Ken added the following entry:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance.” See: CP:Homosexuality and obesity

It was pointed out that the article is not about homosexual (men), but lesbians. So, Ken (in a rare display) replied that he would remove it because the evidence wasn't "conclusive" and "due to space limitations", which is obviously a deep concern for Ken.

So, out of curiosity, I followed the links to the original source, a conservative news source ("The Right News. Right Now."). What do we find?

“In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.”

Why, it's almost as if Ken is being deceitful here and burying facts he doesn't like. Phiwum (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even read that part. Lol. Brenden (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how he reacts to this if someone brings it up. After all it's a conservative source. Phiwum (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Telephone for Ken

Hey, mysterious collective that goes by "User:Conservative", I thought I'd take fifteen minutes to find actual data on obesity and homosexuality for you. After all, you currently have a very long article suggesting that gay men are more likely to be obese, but you haven't any actual statistics on obesity in gay men. So, I found you some.

There's a paper titled Sexual Orientation and Body Weight at this site. The site seems down the past two days, but you can get a cached copy at Google.

On p.23, they summarize the results of the study. Here they are:

	Gay men	Straight men	Lesbian women	Straight women
Pct obese	13.4	26.0	36.9	24.7

So, there you go! Obesity among lesbians is a real problem, but not among gay men. No more guessing about what factors suggest that gay men tend to be obese because they don't tend to be obese as much as heterosexual men. A fair-minded Christian like yourself would never overlook clear evidence that his pet hypothesis is false, so I imagine you'll be fixing (or deleting) the article soon.

Sorry to ruin your eve of the ides of March, but I'm sure that you'd prefer to dwell in enlightenment rather than continue in ignorance. Phiwum (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church hates our new black Pope!

As a spin on "Liberals hate our new black Pope!" the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to elect our new black Pope means quite clearly that the Roman Catholic Church (or atleast the Papal Conclave) is horribly infested with godless liberals who hate our new black Pope! Conclusion: ANTI-POPE time!

I'm all doped up on cough syrup, yeah!--Token Conservative (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, how will Andy spin this in to Conservapedia Proven Right^TM? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic church is conservative and Arinze was the most conservative choice. Any other choice means that the church is being affected by liberalism, which is exactly why we need people like Andy with places like Conservapedia to speak on behalf of the church's true intentions. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How will Andy spin this as Conservapedia Proven Right? He'll claim he "predicted" that it would be a conservative pope, happily ignoring the fact that there wasn't any other kind of candidate (is anybody else happy that we won't have to remember which # francis this guy is?)--"Shut up, Brx." 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well he's now taken longer to come up with his spin than the Vatican did to announce the name... rpeh •T•C•E• 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He sounds a right type - didn't join the priests opposing the Argentinean dictators, gay marriage is the "machination of the Father of Lies," gay parents adopting is "discrimination against children" (like the Church has any room to pronounce on children) and Argentina;s Pres said that under him the Catholic Church was reminiscent of "medieval times and the inquisition." So, seems the Catholic Church is still rooted firmly in the 14th century. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven wrong has already been updated. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good show, whoever did that. Now Andy will be forced to come up with some rationale as to how he's secretly right. He can never let Proven Wrong entries stand unchallenged. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that he'll either pounce all over the word "likely" in his original prediction to claim that it wasn't actually a real prediction and therefor shouldn't be included. Or... he'll claim that the new Pope is even more conservative than the Black Pope in Exhile, so in spirit, he's still right. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Previous mentions of the new black Pope will be quietly memory holed with all users who bring up the subject suspended if not outright banned.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For those wondering about the "black pope" of prophecy, the Jesuit cassock is traditionally black, and most Jesuits wear the black dress of priests. The Truth in Andy's words may not always be immediately evident, but He is always right. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And didn't Loyola give up his arms and devote his life to God at the feet of the Black Madonna at Montserrat? (She's worth a visit if you're in the area) London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Willing to trade someone else's left nut to see Andy rabidly and vapidly support Arinze as an antipope. ---Seth Peck (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a well-informed article about Pope Francis. He doesn't sound like Andy's type at all. Fairly conservative on morality (not quite as conservative as some cardinals, though) but much less conservative on poverty and justice. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Andy guessed a black guy named Francis and it turned out to be a Latino who became Pope Francis. Close enough. Conservapedia Proven Right! --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did Andy keep trumpeting the "black" part of his prediction as if that's the part that liberals will hate. It just plain didn't make sense. Why emphasise the "black" part as much as/more than the "conservative" part. X Stickman (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Because, in andys world (and numerous other peoples), Liberals secretly hate All minorities and all freedom. --^Mikal_lakiM 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But he's constantly on about affirmative action and the ERA and liberals generally trying to treat everyone the same. It must be wonderful to have a brain that can do a complete 180 on demand. X Stickman (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy was on about the guy's race to show a distinction between how liberals treat black people based on their political stances. In his mind, liberals trumpeted and supported Obama because he was black, therefore why would they not endorse this other black guy? Why, because he is a conservative. Double standard, blah blah blah.

Plus, he did make a response on the Conservapedia Proven Wrong page. "The selection of another conservative was similar to what Conservapedia predicted, and just as surprising to the liberal "experts" http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_wrong&diff=1040618&oldid=1040613 Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised Andy hasn't yet made the connection to Francis coming from the Jesuits - the leader of the Jesuits is commonly known as the "Black Pope". VOX^HUMANA 03:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Who the fuck said the pope would be a liberal, anyways?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pie in the sky idealists.--^Mikal_lakiM 03:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki bravely predicted the winner of the 2012 US Presidential election would be either a Democrat or a Republican and not a member of the Communist party. RationalWiki Proven Right! --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Andy

The following is an open letter from RationalWiki user Hamilton to the owner of Conservapedia: Andrew "something or other, I don't really care", hereafter referred to as "Andy"

Dear Andy,

Firstly, as a religious Catholic I would like to wish you a happy New Pope Day, happy New Pope Day to all! Anyways, for some time you have been predicting that the new Pope would be a Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, and today it was announced that it was instead an Argentinian, now named Francis I. Hey, no big deal, we all get things wrong every now and then. Live and learn, right?

Oh, no, you didn't do that.

Instead on Conservapedia's page "Conservapedia proven wrong" at the mention of the error you state "The selection of another conservative was similar to what Conservapedia predicted, and just as surprising to the liberal "experts"". This I feel is so incredibly insane that I need to do a line-by-line explination of where you fucked up.

1. "The selection of another conservative..."

Um, what exactly were the alternatives? We're talking about the head of the Roman Catholic Church, this is not generally an organization associated with wild liberal values involving masses of cocaine, hookers, and all night gay orgies followed by all day mass abortions. Seriously, what were you thinking when you said this? You may have well have said "The selection of another Catholic" for all the intelligence this comment comes off with. Frankly, the odds of a liberal getting elected Pope are about the same odds as me shitting out a fully functional Buick.

Having said that, Pope Francis I is probably about the most liberal of the choices, considering he has (so far) done damn near everything in his power to ignore the traditional privileges of Catholics in his power (such as not wearing the intricate gold cross, advising people not to go to Rome when he was made Bishop, not living in the Bishop's quarters the Church had for him, etc). Not to mention, his habit of being left wing should be a bit of an issue for you.

1. "...was similar to what Conservapedia predicted..."

Um, what? We don't much care about what is similar to truth, we care about truth. If a mathematician were to develop a theorem relating the slope of an equation to the slope of its inverse and it's similar to the truth, no one will care, just like no one should care that you got caught with your pants down because you decided to declare the winner before the Conclave even really started, despite knowing that the last time a Pope was elected who wasn't at the Conclave was in the 1300s. And why does no one care that your prediction was similar to the truth? Well, as the kids these days are saying "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades"

1. "...just as surprising to the liberal "experts""

Who cares? If the article this comment came from was called "Liberal "experts" proven wrong" I might give half a shit, but I don't. Why? Because this isn't about 'Liberal "experts"' fucking up, this is about you fucking up. Just admit it: you done fucked up, you got caught jerking it like a 12 year old boy that just discovered youporn, and now you're trying to defer the blame. "No, I didn't fuck up, I was close, and the "liberals" were wrong too!" "No, I wasn't touching myself, it was the evil internet that did it!" Please Andy, grow up.

And who are these "liberals" anyways? The betting sites? Because I don't know any Liberals that even gave a shit until after the election, compared to you, who was declaring the next Pope pretty much the minute Pope Benedict retired.

In summation: Andy, what the fuck man?

Thank you for your time,

User:Hamilton

FYI, Schlafly doesn't follow RW. Just Ken and Karajou, and occasionally JPatt and Ed Poor. If you want him to see this letter, you'll probably have to post it on CP, where you'll likely be reverted and blocked (or ignored)--"Shut up, Brx." 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy may not, but the four other members of CP do, so he'll probably atleast hear about it. And if nothing else, I still enjoyed writing it.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what matters--"Shut up, Brx." 06:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The liberal "experts" that Andy speaks of will remain forever ill-defined and un-named as what exactly they were proven wrong about.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone predict this guy getting the job? He might have been on few lists of "possibles", but I don't think anyone had him as a favorite. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Last night the BBC interviewed somebody (sorry, I can't recall the name) who had predicted this guy the night before. His theory was that after a couple of tied votes, the Any-Non-European crowd would decide they were fine with a South American; the Italian crowd would be satisfied with his Italian ancestry and there'd be enough votes to put him over the line. I don't think there were many people talking about him a few weeks ago though. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The very well-informed National Catholic Reporter had him on its Top 20 Papabile but not very high on that list because he came second in the 2005 Conclave and (NCR claims), it's very rare for a cardinal who was well-supported in one Conclave to be elected the next time. I suspect the cardinals wanted someone will kick the shit out of the Curia, be very conservative on morality, left/liberal on social justice and not likely to be there for more than 8-10 years. (If he tries seriously to reform the Vatican Bank, I hope he survives longer than the last Pope who tried, John Paul I - 33 days...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Las Vegas oddsmakers had (Italian) Scola at 2:1 as the favorite. Francis paid out 25:1. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do people actually bet on that!?--Durbinator^Durbinating 18:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do, although I prefer to go for the outsiders...
DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘People bet on shit so you sure they bet on this. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Beware the ides of Ken

Ken is rabbiting on about some "ides of March promotion special or something stating

“”Of course, when our Question Evolution! group found out about this "Ides of March" special, we immediately let an internet evangelism organization know about this matter. And when they found out about this sale, they were very excited.

Having a quick look around the web I found this. Yeah, really fucking exciting. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit, he gets Spam and all of a sudden that's a sign atheism is about to get buttfucked? That actually makes me sad for him. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am shocked that Ken didn't alter the text of the spam email he was sent to change the godless liberal "44 BCE" to a good Christian "44 B.C." Andy would have deleted the email the moment that he saw that and he would have had a huge hissy fit too. Spud (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus saves... at SaveMart! Damn, Ken. So spam and coupons have become newsworthy material at the QE! HQ. Next, you'll be telling us all about interesting articles and youtube videos you've seen. Oh, wait... you've done that already. Well then, carry on, and keep us posted... --Inquisitor (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow... so Ken's gone from inventing imaginary creationist ladies, to imaginary professors, to getting a hard-on over spam. All in the space of a week. Clearly he needs to up his prescription. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX Ken XXXXX XXXXX promising XX XXXXXX bear trap XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX. Andy XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX correct XXXX GhostofTK (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that a major Internet Pharmaceutical company is offering cheap Viagra! Imagine what will happen when Christian internet evangelism takes advantage of this offer! Our giant Christian evangelical penises will shame all atheist men into submission while giving extra pleasure to sweet Christian ladies! Olé, olé, olé!!!!! rpeh •T•C•E• 10:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Ace's find is what Ken is on about. Ace found a sale on script editors, while Ken is talking about a sale on marketing courses. Apparently, two different companies have come up with the same bizarre idea of an ides of March sale. (But the idea of being thrilled about receiving spam and posting about it as a victory is truly sad.) Phiwum (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Smells fishy. This "excerpt from an abridged copy of the email" (how does that differ from an excerpt of the entire email?) sounds fake to me. I'm no marketer but I wouldn't go with the "like Caesar, this offer dies on Friday" metaphor myself. I think the point of the post is to have us quaking at the prospect that Ken is taking a 12-week course in web promotion. I take it that's supposed to be a classroom course since web-based training is at-your-own-pace. Maybe at the Buffalo YMCA. Whoover (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The writing does seem oddly consistent with Ken's own bizarre attempts at communication. But if he's reduced to making up spam in order to seem important, well, that's just too sad for words. Phiwum (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got a little experience in interactive and graphic design, to the extent user experience is a kind of approach to fostering an emotional relationship between the product and the user. Whatever. That sounded better when I thought of it. Anyway, I can't imagine a responsible marketing outfit presenting the Ides of March as an attractive message to embrace. And in fact a cursory look on the web reflects that the concept is only embraces by scrub ass design late 90's design sites that don't have broad appeal and certainly couldn't effectively reach the broader christian community. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Julius Caesar Assassination Day Sale" is only the beginning! We could also have sales for each of the major assassination days, with Martin Luther King Assassination Day being a particularly attractive option. And why not sales commemorating Pearl Harbor day, the opening of Auschwitz and of course 9/11? In fact, tragedy and discount are a match made in heaven. I'm totally on board. Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Whoever on this one. It's a bit too much of a coincidence that a chance marketing campaign would combine two of Kendoll's exceptionally narrow interests in one mailshot. Plus, what possible reason would there be to hide the identity of a company that is marketing to the general public? It's another of Kendoll's fake emails. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Devil is in the Entropy

Andy's latest MP headline is about how the Pope hates the gays (really the only thing Andy can use for Conservapedia Proven Right since this Pope was the moderate alternative who lost to the conservative last time) but it's a good opportunity to follow the link to Devil if you haven't been there lately. Andy and his familiar, Markman, translate "devil" as "bringer of chaos" in order to prove the Bible knew about quantum mechanics (which Andy conflates with entropy for some reason). The talk page is one of those touching vignettes, like a letter from the battlefield in a Ken Burns series, in which AugustO howls in the wind. That talk page is the distilled essence of CP. Whoover (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

<aside>If you're a pantheist, the devil as entropy actually makes perfect sense.</aside>--Token Conservative (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to be a pantheist willing to make stuff up to say that "devil" comes from the Greek word for "chaos." That's AugustO's point about translation vs. exegesis. Whoover (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all, just that if you're a pantheist, the idea of entropy being the devil would make perfect sense.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A nice example of Andy trimming annoying edits^img... --larron (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think διαβολος (diábolos) does means 'the one who throws things around' so Andy's probably right (for once). Why the Greeks used this word to translate Satan (a malevolent joker) or Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies) is a quite another question. Well, maybe going from a malevolent joker to a kind of poltergeist isn't too big a jump... Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AugustO seems to disagree with you^img. --larron (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Read AugustO's notes in the talk page. It was a wrestling term that idiomatically meant "slander," which came to be its meaning in Greek. Even in classical times that etymology was as distant as bos (Latin for cow) is from "butter" for us. It's like Andy saying that butter literally means "cow product," with the figurative meaning of "bullshit." Whoover (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In which creepy uncle Ed gets a lesson in wikifu

I really can't see this^img ending well for SamHb. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy, giving us the news Nobody can read

making some shot I assume has to do with how Obama isn't an american nor did he go to University^img, Andy links us to an article that you gotta pay to read. I'm hoping he does this more.--^Mikal_lakiM 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Next is Andy going to question whether Obama was Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review despite the fact that Andy was a fucking editor there at the time? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that 25 students "now living in Israel" would not associate with black students on a campus with 4,000 undergraduates, right? It's more likely that Bill Ayres didn't do a very good job managing his Manchurian candidate. Whoover (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone hates Terry

This is kind of extraordinary^img. Ms. Salanitri, Chucky's co-editor over at the Crazypants Times, won't even talk to him about her favourite subject and Andy doesn't answer his calls. At least he has his generator for company. Good ol' smoky, he'll never leave you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if even they find something tremendously creepy about how blithely Hurlbut is accusing Menendez of soliciting underaged prostitutes when the only source for that claim doesn't support it. Terry is vile. I wouldn't want to be mentioned in his blog posts whether positively or negatively. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's too amusing that he's citing Schlafly and Salanitri as though he were a real journalist and they were real sources--"Shut up, Brx." 22:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Flingbooty is a blogger for a digital rag that nobody reads. He's got all of eternity to wait for Andy to return his call. And here he is pretending he's got deadline pressures to meet. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, I feel dirty every time I click a CNAV link. Can we please capture them to peruse on site? DickTurpis (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

More mindless Obama bashing.

So, Andypants is wondering why "Barack and Michelle" - because being conservative means not respecting the position or the man - don't pay their hotel bills like the Pope. For that matter why didn't Bush 1 & 2, Clinton, Reagan, Carter or any other Yank President pay their own hotel bills? --PsyGremlin^Tal! 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Or any other Pope, for that matter. Whoover (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the current Pope is incredibly left wing.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it humility myself. Apparently he's so far eschewed the papal throne and the limo he was offered to go to his residence, instead going on the bus with the cardinals. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 18:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I call it PR. I can also see him eschewing helicopters, but that could be because his friends used them as a cheap method of execution in the 70s London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Judging by my Facebook feed and other social media and internet communities over the last 24 hours or so, I have dozens of friends who, unbeknownst to me, had a long and expert interest in Argentine history and were deeply concerned about justice for victims of the Dirty War. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NationalCatholicism in all its forms is one of my favourite subjects. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Although to be perfectly honest, would you trade places with the guy? I mean, hell, he might have disappeared too, it wasn't something the Videla forces were shy about doing. Obviously, he's alive, so if he had criticism's of the government, he wasn't vocal about them in the least, so he's obviously going to be open to these types of charges no matter what position he took. Kind of a rock and hard place if you don't want to be a martyr. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

.That's a mere jesuitical whisker away from "I was just following orders". The Catholic Church is up to its elbows in Spanish and Latin American blood, from the priests who chose which prisoners disapperared during the night to the nuns who stole the babies of political activists. There's not much a bog standard street level priest could do but a senior priest? To rise in the church in a fascist country he would not only have known about what was going on, he would have exploited it. London Grump (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair isn't it? Demanding that he do something that would ultimately probably get him killed? There hasn't been anything proven conclusively (granted, that's not surprising considering the nature of the junta, but still), and he at least attempted to get people released. I think the image that comes out of this is a man who was afraid for his life amidst a government that was making people disappear. Also, he didn't "rise in the church" he never changed positions beyond where he already was. He was in his position from three years before the junta arrived and left it before the junta disintegrated for a lower position. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the accusation against Bergoglio is that he didn't specifically tell the Argentine military that he approved of the work of these two particularly priests. Do the people making these accusations really think that a quiet word from a left-wing Jesuit prelate in the ear of an Air Force thug would have helped those priests? In any case, Bergoglio has categorically denied the story It all sounds pretty thin to me. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Flippity, flippity flop.

Rand Paul is Andy's new darling, and Jeb Bush can suck it!^img--"Shut up, Brx." 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Andy - looking at the Fundie Facebook, there's a lot of people down on Jeb (and Christie) - especially since Jeb seems to favour common core. In fact it seems most of them on there are as fed up with the GOP as they are with the Dems. Hopefully the Tea Party will register as a separate party - nothing like splitting the fundie vote, and it might restore some sanity to the GOP. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 16:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, he recently defended his crazy old theory that the RNC in 2012 would be a deadlock and Jeb would arise as the nominee^img (even though he wasn't running). --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what the other headline is supposed to mean. "Conservative Rand Paul "arrived on the stage to Metallica's 'Enter Sandman'" at CPAC." So, is Rand Paul suddenly awesome in the eyes of these people because he came on stage to Enter Sandman, or is he indicative of the devil's work in the GOP since Metallica are a bunch of evil Satanists that have been corrupting youth and encouraging suicide since the 1980s? Nonsense makes no sense.Sokar (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What's Enter Sandman about? Is it a flattering song?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The chorus is:

"Exit light

Enter night

Take my hand

We're off to Never Never Land"

Make of that what you will. London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This lot come from just up the road from me. Enjoy. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good thing they didn't play anything from ...And Justice For All. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they're calling Paul a naive idealist. That was what the link he linked was about, I think. Ideological divides at CPAC.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking about this...given that Lars Ulrich's testimony during the Napster hearings coincides with libertarian/Randian views on copyrights for intellectual property, the use of his music isn't entirely inappropriate...assuming they got permission from the band, first (which was a huge bone picked over by many musicians during the Republican primaries and the presidential election in 2011/2012). --Seth Peck (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the music was chosen is easy to guess. It's a classic song from a classic album likely owned by maybe a quarter of the antendees aged between 30 and 45, and certainly well known to almost all of them. It makes perfect sense to use it to appeal to the target audience. What is strange is that the whackjobs at CP appear to have forgotten that 25 years ago Metallica, and heavy metal in general, was the devil's band playing devil's music and destroying youth. Sokar (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What? Me Read?

Andy's MP Headline is about "liberal censorship," by which he means "some politicians actually complain that a Federal Reserve Bank official is speaking at CPAC." (No, I have no clue why that's censorship.)

But when you read the read the cited article, the only concerns are expressed by two senators (one Democrat and one Republican) and what sounds like a financial lobbyist ("Fisher’s stance on the banking industry has not won him many fans on Wall Street.") It also says that Sherrod Brown, a Democratic senator they really hate, is working on a bipartisan bill to implement Fisher's ideas.

Does Andy really not read his citations, and thus has no clue that says the opposite of his delusion? Or is his delusion so strong that he doesn't care? Whoover (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He does the Schlafly skim and fills in the gaps. Remember Lenski? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy on March Madness

Atheists beat Christians, 9 to 1! It's because public schools are rolling in money, unlike Catholic schools like Notre Dame. I can't wait for Ken's web-traffic analysis. Whoover (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the athletics programs don't get public funding. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 03:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The athletes sure as hell don't. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Most D1 schools give scholarships to a good portion of their (especially football and basketball) athletes.--Durbinator^Durbinating 04:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the whole, revenue raised for schools versus paying athletes debate, actually. Full ride scholarships aren't what they are cracked up to be, especially since the students are generating money for the university and yet still somehow end up in debt. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoever is playing "BenCG"

You disgust me^img. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 19:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling Poe. But it's still pretty nasty. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's a Poe -- but it still crosses the line into "using a really nasty tragedy to score political points," by trying to hang that attitude on someone. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 01:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I could tell this one wasn't from Andy

because in covers the awarding of a prestigious international honor and it doesn't include a demand to know why a conservative didn't receive the award. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It will probably get edited so that it does. Or Ken will add something about how Christianity and creationism are rising in Japan and gorgeous long-haired Japanese ladies love the Question Evolution campaign.--Spud (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Joaquin has added interesting information about a notable recent event in a way which makes the casual reader want to find out more: he's dead meat at CP. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

But his entry is now getting getting smothered in QE and CNAV linkspam so - phew! - the world is made safe for pig-headed bigotry once more. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (Apologies to any pigs who're reading this.)

Gentlemen

...this probably won't go over well.^img I imagine some ranting about Dawkins & the "15 questions". No less than 8 blog posts whining about atheists and I bet he calls himself a blues-ninja ready to bloody the nose of Darwinistics Atheists Evolutionists lack-o-machismoists (because typing correctly is fuck you!^img Ole! . Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That awful "rapper" Ken admired... the "ate"rhymer...

She made Tosh.0 (they have straight white teeth because they use Colgate... men should be allowed to stimulate each others' prostate") ħuman 06:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The latest addition to Ken's résumé

Bluesman. No, really. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 10:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he is on a mission from God. Vulpius (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

From his own description, it's pretty clear he doesn't know a damned thing about the blues and thinks that all blues songs are self-pitying and sad. Phiwum (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And apparently unchristian. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to hear him play and sing the blues, I've gotta say. I don't have a very static mental picture of Ken, but every image I come up with is fairly far removed from a blues man. Phiwum (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

He always seems more lucid when he's talking about anything other than his usual crap... --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The contrast between him talking about evolution, atheism, etc. and other topics is astounding. I just can't wrap my head around it. --Durbinator^Durbinating 21:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All Kendoll's mannerisms are stolen verbatim from others. If you want to know why Kendoll is like he is on creationism, you don't have to look much further than Shockofgod. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Jeeves, Ken just parrots other loonies on his pet hobby-horses of creationism , homosexuality, atheism and evolution but when it comes to more mundane topics he just copies other prominent commentators. One thing that I have learned during 5 years of Kenithology is that he doesn't have a single bone of originality in his body. The reason that he will never debate anyone in person and is only prepared to engage in protracted online debates is so that he can Google his research and copy it from other sources. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind we are talking about a committee of evolution debunkers and lovely Christian woman dancers. The enigmatic KenDoll probably exploded on the internet on the 15th, without warning, this time! ħuman 07:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one love blues music, and all its offshoots. So come on Ken, dig out the bottleneck and let's see a video of you on the old gee-tar. (Although I can't say I share Kenny's passion for hoping people lose their jobs) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is Andy on about now?

For example, an astoundingly large percentage of doctoral students are never awarded a PhD despite earning one. Never mind how irrelevant that is to the conversation. Is he just clueless enough to think that ABDs (All But Dissertation) have "earned" a PhD? As if the thesis isn't all that essential? Or what? Phiwum (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

One more page in the chapter called "Andy's big butthurt". ħuman 06:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I love how Ken calls PhD's in the biological sciences "evolutionary biologists," not even pretending that you can be a biologist and not believe in evolution. Andy "corrected" that to "Evolution PhD." These guys honestly believe the world would be a better place without biology. Actually, they honestly believe the world would be a better place without science. Other than the scripture they venerate, it's hard to see a difference between them and the Taliban. Whoover (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Ken never seems to get the message that he's not supposed to appear anti-intellectual while seeking to abolish schooling. Perhaps one of his creationist buddies should take him aside and explain the subtleties to him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The transcripts of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial are fascinating (and relevant) reading. The judge makes it clear that he believed the motives of the various "Christian science" agencies at work here were explicitly "anti-science"...

• ...{defense witness) Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.
• ...{defense witness) Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. VOX^HUMANA 03:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I liked this observation by Judge Jones:

• It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The entire summary is fantastic reading. Regardless of one's political views, Jones seems to be about as good a judge as you could ever hope to have in any case. VOX^HUMANA 03:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this on CP and knew it was WIGO gold! Seriously, Ken is pretty blatantly inventing facts here--he ignores the very data he cites. This is beyond basic ignorance and confirmation bias, it's pure psychosis.--Umichcynic (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That, sadly, is basically a fairly concise description of KenDoll. ħuman 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just...*head desk*

http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/03/attention-atheists-and-evolutionists.html

I think I sprained my brain on this one...not on the tests mind you, but trying to comprehend Ken's inanity... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

" Now bow your knees to an all-powerful and all-knowing God who is able to effortlessly pass the most difficult mental aptitude tests every single time! In fact, He is able to take multiple mental aptitude tests at the same time and pass them all with perfect scores!" What an appalling lack of imagination. For Ken, omniscience means doing really well on online tests. Phiwum (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Add basic psychology to the incredibly long list of things Ken doesn't understand. Stroop is not a test of cognitive ability. Yeesh. StarFish (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"If you refuse to debate, you're obviously a stubborn and closed-minded evolutionists"... he says while refusing to debate. Sigh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

More grammar fail from our self-proclaimed, college English-language tutor. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonder what that will make the 8 to 10% of religious people who are colour blind and simply cannot do these idiotic tests. I took one look at it and knew that I canont distinguish between many of the different colours. My brother would be truely f'd. If you show him a green bush with red flowers on it he cannot tell the difference between the leaves and the flowers. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vision test either. It's diagnostic for a number of "wiring" anomalies, including schizophrenia and some forms of depression. A recent 60 Minutes episode discussed its possible value in predicting mass murder. Don't tell Ken or we'll have Atheism and Reaction Time. Whoover (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI evilutionists^img GhostofTK (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gone now, so thanks for the capture. And I note this: "Gentlemen: Dr. Ellen Weber. The woman is a doctor!"

First, is Ken assuming she's a medical doctor vs. a standard PhD?

Second, does he think we'll be especially impressed by the fact a woman wrote the article?

Third... please don't tell me Ken is actually surprised to learn that women can earn advanced degrees now. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 10:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken's exponentially increasing descent into madness

His grammar and spelling are f**ked now. Any idea what next? L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

He stays awake for 36 hours, his minders intervene and he disappears for a while, then he returns back to his old self with a new medication regime and all's well. --Sasayaki (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

When half of the last six topics are about Ken, we know Conservapedia is in a dead boring phase, because we are putting actual effort into discussing about some lonely guy with insomnia's poor grammar skills.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering Andy is a whore for pageviews, wouldn't you think he'd figure out that drama and his insane statements keep him in business? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally. "Ken? Ken Ken Ken. Ken Ken! Ken, Ken Ken Ken: Ken. Ken Ken Ken? Ken Ken Ken Ken Ken, Ken Ken Ken." 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Malkovich! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Markman is silent for days now, nothing new of AugustO, the only mildly amusing thing was Andy's stand on the user-name policy^img: If you haven't been called out on it, you won't be called out.... --larron (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's potentially interesting. DVergne wants to be DickV. Is that the start of him unmasking himself as a parodist by asking for a user name that refers to five pricks (Andy, Ken, Karajou, Ed Poor and Hurlbut, perhaps)? I googled "dick v" to see if that turned up anything that revealed DVergne's dark intent but it just started to show results for Dick Van Dyke.--Spud (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You googled the word "dick" and that's the best thing that came... errr... showed up in the search results? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I googled "dick v". The most interesting result was "Dick Vet", which turned out to be the name of veterinary clinic in Edinburgh.--Spud (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dick Vet" is much more than a clinic, it's The Royal (Dick) the veterinary school of the University of Edinburgh. Named after William Dick (no sniggering at the back) Worm (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Avast behind?

Haven't seen Karajou around for a few days, do you think he's found a new deck to swab? If even he's getting bored of CP, it'll be just Andy and Kendoll locked in a room staring with ill-concealed loathing at each other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and the parodists goading them on--"Shut up, Brx." 01:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I bet AmesG is taking over the website as we speak.--Durbinator^Durbinating 03:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have heard from a reliable source that AmesG is Conservative. One of the users anyway. --Damo^Hi 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have heard from reliable sources that I am they and they are me and we are all together. Goo goo goo joob. ħuman 06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know the password for the Icewedge account ? All those blocked after the MexMax incident are now free to edit. GhostofTK (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the same as the usual password for the other accounts. I'll repost it in the cabal forum. 23:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Bro. Nice bonus from Soros this month, time to get a new car I think. GhostofTK (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

--"Shut up, Brx." 10:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Terry is being creepy again

"Watch the prices of gold, silver – and lead."^img Vulpius (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find it so much creepy as I did... odd. Kind of like "the nation that controls _______ controls the world!" MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good old Terry, always thinking that the rest of the world has the same hardon for shooting government officials as he has. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait. Lead. I get it now. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's less creepy than his war on hate crime. For our socialist readers, the American right hates the concept of extra punishment for crimes against minorities or gays, known as hate crime enhancements. The war on hate crime is actually pro-hate. These are the only legal sanctions fought by the right, who love all other punishment. Terry's thesis is that "all crime is motivated by hate" (I presume that greed, for instance, is hating not having all the money) and extra time for hating people who should be hated is tyranny.

His Malkin link shows how they justify hate speech. By her own citation, the Oberlin College experience was

This was followed three days later with a note found in the Multicultural Resource Center that read “Nigger + Faggot Center”. A “Whites Only” notice was written above a water fountain and a swastika was drawn on a window, the college newspaper also reported.

But this could have been students commenting on free speech. Since you can't distinguish between free speech and hate speech, it's Oberlin's fault. The sad thing is that Scalia would undoubtedly agree. Whoover (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily keen on hate crime laws either. It's not clear to me that the government should decide which opinions make a crime worse and who is guilty of those opinions. Nor is it clear to me that crimes motivated by terrible ideologies are fundamentally worse than crimes motivated by nothing at all.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm supporting any of Malkin's "arguments". Phiwum (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference between manslaughter and murder, intent, is a state of mind. It seems that motivation is a reasonable factor when considering punishment. That's why Terry argues that hatred is the universal motivation, not that motivation is unimportant. But these are reasonable points to debate. Terry and Michelle are instead lobbying for an open season on people they don't like. Whoover (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely unfair! I think Malkin is a despicable human being, but I don't think you can claim that she's honestly arguing that it should be open season on people she doesn't like. Let's not go overboard here. Phiwum (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The superior argument for Terry would be that intent is not the same thing as motivation (fairly obvious you might have thought). I mention it because I too am troubled by the idea of hate crimes. The whole concept is a morass and lawmakers would do well to steer well clear. --Horace (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with idiots like Terry when it comes to hate crimes is that they're idiots and have no idea what they're talking about. They think "hate crime" means making hate a crime, because their brains are too small to grasp anything beyond the literal term itself. Then they use "hate crime" to describe anything critical of Christianity, and act like people are hypocrites for tolerating "hate crimes" against Christians, despite the fact the operative word, "crime", is irrelevant in their argument because none has been committed. They also act like they're special protections for particular people, when anyone can be a victim of a hate crime (though certainly minorities are more likely to be). As stated earlier, hate crimes deal with motive or intent, which is always a factor when ascertaining the seriousness of a crime. When a white guy stabs a black guy because both of them are hot-headed assholes who got in a heated argument which escalated too far, that's a crime against the black guy. When a white guy stabs a black guy because he's black, that also an attack (or at least a threat) to all black people in the area, and therefore a more serious crime, at least in the eyes of many. DickTurpis (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I heard it argued once, there is a difference between painting "Die Orioles" on the Camden Yards Stadium, and "Die Jews" at Temple Beth Israel. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ At the risk of appearing pedantic, motive and intent are two separate and distinct concepts at law. Generally speaking, the prosecution needs to prove intent in all criminal prosecutions. The prosecution does not, however, need to prove motive except in the case of hate crimes. That is the distinction between hate crimes and other crimes. The reason that hate crimes are (on balance) a bad idea is that motive is a morass as a quantifier of criminality. If (to borrow from the classic Johnny Cash song) I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, then I am presumably a danger to all men in the vicinity and mankind generally but I have not committed a hate crime and will not receive the added punishment. Would my crime be worse if I had shot a man in Reno because he was gay? I don't really think so. There are a myriad of potential motives for committing crimes. Some are worse than others but listing the bad ones in legislation in a logical and fair way is an utterly impossible task. --Horace (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how "state of mind" and "motivation" are so different. The former determines if a homicide is justifiable, manslaughter or murder, for instance. A sudden intent to kill is different than a premeditated intent to kill. Isn't that opening the door to motivation? (This is a serious question, I'm not selling anything.) Hate crime enhancement also seem to be a reaction to a history (and perhaps current tendency) to not punish acts against the target groups. It's tied into crimes being excused because the victim is not considered as "innocent" as a white or straight victim is presumed to be. I don't think this is something you can "adjust" with an enhancement, but I do think such calibration is why many people feel that hate-crime enhancements are reasonable. Whoover (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all let me say that the concept of hate crimes is not illogical, nor is it necessarily unjust. I just take the view that the complexities tend to lead to outcomes that are potentially iniquitous and which cause a justified questioning of the legal process. I do not say that it is a black and white situation. There is plenty of room for reasonable minds to disagree.

As to motive and intent, allow me to explain in more detail. Generally speaking the prosecution must prove the intent of the accused (I say "generally" because there are crimes of strict liability where intent is not an element - but they do not concern us here). Intent is about whether an act was done deliberately as opposed to accidentally, for example. And there are a various types of intent (for example acting intentionally is one form of intent; acting recklessly is another - the required intent depends on the alleged offence).

Motive is an entirely different question. Excepting for "hate crimes" the prosecution NEVER has to prove the motive in order to prove the commission of the offence. Motive is not an "element" of the offence (an element being one of the essential ingredients required to prove a given offence). However, it can be useful for the prosecution to prove the motive at trial because that might help convince a jury that this particular accused was the person who committed the crime ("Members of the jury, the ONLY person with a motive to push Professor Bottomly into the industrial cheese grater was the accused man!")- but it does not need to be proved in order to determine guilt or innocence.

Motive may well be relevant when it comes to sentencing an accused who has been convicted. If I kill someone just to watch them die I suspect that the sentencing judge will take a dim view of my behaviour. If, on the other hand I kill the man who raped and murdered my daughter I imagine that I might garner some sympathy from the court, having been blinded by rage, as I was. In one sense hate crime legislation removes the judge's role in assessing the relevance and seriousness of an individual's motive. It mandates a more severe punishment for certain motives.

In one sense that's fine. If we all agree that certain motives are particularly loathsome then it is logical. And if certain groups are being targeted as victims then hate crime legislation might counter that (or, on the other hand, it might cause resentment). I take the view that the mechanism was already in place for a judge to deal with particularly loathsome motives as a part of his/her sentencing function. Furthermore, the number of potential different motives in this world is myriad and assessing a select few as particularly bad is absurd. For every hate crime motive on the books I could name another different motive that is just as bad, if not worse. For that reason it doesn't seem fair that these few motives get singled out and I think that as a result, the concept brings the law into disrepute in the end. The murdered man is just as dead whether he was killed because he was gay or because I just wanted to watch him die. I don't think either case merits a higher penalty on its face. --Horace (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but in your example killing the man who killed your daughter is a different crime (probably second-degree murder) than just killing him (first degree). That's why I question the premise that motivation never determines the offense. Whoover (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No. That example constitutes first degree murder so long as I intended to kill him (and the defence of provocation (or equivalent) is not available). That is a question of intent, not motivation. The motivation remains (as always) irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. (As an aside: in the jurisdiction in which I work there is no separate crime of first and second degree murder and the defence of provocation has been abolished). --Horace (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)