Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive313

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 April 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>, <312>, <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)

Karajou learns how to alliterate...[edit]

That's a classic: Cleaningwoman Clara Clifford discovered your clean copper clappers kept in a closet were copped by Claude Cooper, the kleptomaniac from Cleveland.. --larron (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of Karajou's items are you referring to?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This wigo:

Karajou learns how to alliterateimg as the class clown.

--larron (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I hardly ever check the WIGOs anymore--"Shut up, Brx." 19:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

March Madness[edit]

Has anybody told Andy his beloved Liberty Flames lost in the first round of the tournament? (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

But they lost 73-72. I don't know doodlysquat about basketball, but that sounds respectable enough for a first time at the playoffs, surely. Phiwum (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Meh. Not really. It was a "play-in" game. Eight teams that were pretty much on the bubble. They lost to a team that was about the same level. These games are supposed to be close. Either team was bound to be destroyed by "atheist" Louisville. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact they were in is a joke, they got hot at the right time and managed to win one of the "automatic bids" that get crushed in the early round of the tournament every year. A lot, if not most auto-bids don't make it out of the first round, but the fact that they had such an appalling record for a tourney team meant they weren't going to go past the first round if they even made it that far. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that too. Fuck Andy. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy's liberal alma mater pulled off a big upset, though. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that the only thing I like about NCAA sports at all is their geographical incompetence. Only there is Harvard in the west, California in the east, Oregon in the midwest, and Michigan in the south. DickTurpis (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

He's at it again[edit]

Look at these government schools that failed to qualify for the NCAA tournament! MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

CNAV Fact Checking does it again..[edit]

Over at CNAV, Dwight Kehoe is attempting to do a compare and contrast between Sarah Palin and Tina Fey, focusing on Saint Sarah of Wasilla's appearance at CPAC.

Here's a relevant quote:

Oh, and it might be informative, and a slight indication as to why she is back doing Sarah, the long awaited movie she stared in, opened and closed on the same weekend. The name of this dismal flop of a movie? Pertinently, it was called "Admission of Defeat." Talk about prognostications.

Wait wait... what?

There's no such movie. Tina Fey is starring is a new movie called Admission, but it opens today.

What an idiot. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 13:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather like Hurlbut's response to skepticism about the existence of a White House chief of staff for the President's dog: 1) Charles Cooke says the position exists. 2) Clever accounting makes it too hard for mere mortals to prove this, as Obama is the Father of Lies. 3) Somebody else might do the work to prove me right later, which is the functional equivalent to the claim having already been proved.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Errors on Conservapedia[edit]

Their definition of 'liberal claptrap.'

What has Nick Clegg (or even his great great aunt) done to Conservapedia to warrant this viewpoing?

Also - what is the #nude statue# on the CP main page contemplating? (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew the answer to that: "where did I leave my clothes?" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Or 'why can't I be on a tasteful Wiki.'

An attempt to make CPs main page even less appropriate for minors/worksafe than usual? (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you freakin' kidding? Rodin's thinker inappropriate for minors or the workplace? Phiwum (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Someone thinking is inappropriate for conservapedia. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth a new section, but it strikes me that nothing less than the return of the Dark Ages will satisfy Ken. Is this overly harsh? Is there any aspect of the Renaissance and Age of Reason that Ken would like to preserve? Whoover (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Terry loves Vallely[edit]

Yes, this Vallely--"Shut up, Brx." 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you... MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Love the polls now at the end of those "articles", it's now always a 1) Statement of revelation that Terry's right (always at the top), 2) Abstract sort of denial, the only option of saying "no" but making it seem like a cover-up (always in the middle so from a visual perspective it will always be picked last), or 3) Admission that somehow you're confused on the stance you take. He can't lose! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 12:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The glorious conserva-future awaits.[edit]

Give it up, liberals. Say goodbye to educationimg and hello to eating squashed possums from the highwayimg. A bold, compelling vision of your slack-jawed-yokel future in the Schlafly republic. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

...If people seriously want to eat road kill, I see no reason why they shouldn't. Hell, you could probably turn it into a franchise of restaurants and it would still taste better than Taco Bell. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a big difference between accidentally hitting a deer then running out with a jackknife to capitalise on the situation and finding a dead deer of unknown provenance on the side of the road. If you were going to eat it, you'd probably want to cook it within an inch of its life to avoid exciting new parasitic opportunities to spend the next week in the lav. Serving it to other people sounds down right irresponsible. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This also might create a whole new type of poaching where people are intentionally driving through heavily wooded areas looking for that grizzly bear they've always wanted to try. Sounds like a rather dangerous precedent now that I think about it. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
In the UK you need two cars for this. The car which actually hit the animal could, technically, be charged with poaching but the following car - that's fine. I've eaten delicious pheasant this way - and, for once, it wasn't full of buckshot. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like the perfect way to get tularemia to me.--Umichcynic (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this is an urban myth but right now I can't find the link I used to have that debunked it. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, people actually do that? And here I was joking. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't, I've been veggie for 30 years or so (I can't remember exactly) but there certainly are those who quite happily dine on it and to be honest if I still ate corpses I would as well. (edit to add) Apparently badger tastes quite nice, nicer than phesant anyway. Fox isn't that tasty from what I've heard some say and I have even heard of someone eating a dead Barn owl.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It never fails to amaze me how these people carry on about the nanny state and then with the sane breath demand the government regulate what women can do with their bodies and who can marry. PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That amazes you only because you don't bother to try and understand their perspective. Ignoring the "who can marry" bit, if one honestly believes (and this isn't an obviously stupid belief) that abortion is killing a fellow person, then it's perfectly natural to want the government to protect the rights of potential victims.
I'm not in favor of abortion laws, but I hate the fact that so many pro-choice arguments deliberately obfuscate the nature of the debate by pretending their opponents hate women. The fundamental difference is, of course, that one side believes abortion kills a person and the other side doesn't. Misrepresenting your opponents as deceitful, women-hating assholes because they believe abortion kills is intellectually dishonest. Phiwum (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why leave out the who can marry bit? Or Santorum thinking states should be able to outlaw birth control? Or even, yes, extending murder to a clump of cells because blastulas have souls? The point is that they are fine in letting the Bible inspire policies that most people see as invasive, just as "judicial activism" is a vice only when it cuts one way. Of course an honest belief that abortion is murder is a rational position, but you can't pretend there is no hypocrisy in the cries for minimal government. Whoover (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I left out the "who can marry" bit because Psy has a point regarding that issue. It's the deliberate misrepresentation of the right-to-life viewpoint that gets under my skin.
So I didn't mean to imply that Psy had no point at all. Sorry for not making that clearer. And I agree that there's some hypocrisy (or at least inconsistency) in calls for minimal gov't. Phiwum (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
[EC] When a dogmatic "pro-life" stance refuses to protect the life of an independently breathing woman with a long-standing heartbeat, because it would mean ending the development of an embryo (or even interfere with the implantation of a zygote) then it may be accurately characterized as deceitful, woman-hating, and anal. Not saying what fraction of reproductive interventions fall in that category, but the attempts to pull the line back and forth make it difficult to assume pure good faith.
I can also testify that roadkill pheasant is tasty. In other news, the deer on Martha's Vineyard are plentiful, and plenty of them get hit on the road. The fire department then calls the next number on their list of volunteers, and someone gets to fill their freezer with home-butchered venison. The driver with the dented car doesn't get the deer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers make an exception for cases threatening the life of the mother, and reasonably so. Those who don't make that exception avoid it because they draw a moral distinction between killing and letting die and judge that killing the fetus is morally worse than letting the mother die. We can, of course, say that this is bad reasoning, but even in this case, it is not woman-hating to say that, while it is unfortunate that either the fetus or woman dies, it is wrong to kill and so the woman must die.
So, even in these cases, no, I don't admit that the so-called extreme pro-life position (no exception to save the mother's life) is necessarily misogynistic. (The Catholic church draws the line a little more complicated using their "doctrine of double effect".) Phiwum (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
If people want to harvest road-kill I cannot see any compelling reason not to allow them. They want to risk any potential dangers of harvesting such meat that is their risk to take; I don't see why there is this need by the government to paternally coddle everyone from potential risk.
I also will agree with those above who state those who are "pro-life" don't do it for misogynistic reasons in order to "punish women"; they sincerely believe it is murder, just like shooting a five year old kid is murder; for many pro-life people there is little, if any, distinction between the two. Once you understand this, you understand their fanatical dedication to the "pro-life" cause.
Of course in our sound bite, rapid fire media world of mostly low-information voters, it is far easier for politicians and pundits to say "they hate dee wimmez" than actually explain their real motivations, because to do so may humanize them as something other than simple bigots. I may not agree with the "pro-lifers" but I do at least understand why they believe what they believe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) This is a rather unintentionally bizarre two-themed thread!--Transitional FormStill Durbinating 03:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken's latest imaginary opponent[edit]

Why has Ken decided to issue phony challenges to Reddit atheists? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Did he actually post his "Challenge" to Reddit, or just on his little blog and actually believed Reddit would notice?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find it on Reddit but I'm just a public school educated atheist. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Oh, Andy...

What was that about church schools vs state run schools?

Catholic Georgetown loses to public Florida Gulf Coast.

Catholic Gonzaga loses to public Wichita State. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but he left himself an escape hatch. The public schools are overfunded!--"Shut up, Brx." 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually shocked that he hasn't referred to the Tournament as socialist or liberal or whatever. After all, the NFL playoffs are "liberal-style". Teams getting automatic bids even though they haven't had a good season sounds exactly like something Stalin/Lenin/Hitler/Marx/Darwin would do. If not for Liberty needing that bullshit rule for getting their bid, we probably would have heard that complaint. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading Andy way more closely than he probably merits (reflections on climate change)[edit]

It's snowing, so global warming isn't real. On the face of it, not even worth a commentary, as we've been through this a hundred times or more (a thousand internets if you see what I did there). But Andy says something that caught my eye: "This isn't a crisis of global warming as claimed by liberals." He's acknowledging that there is a weather/climate (he doesn't know the difference between the two, so I'm lumping them together) crisis, but that it's not one of global warming. So then, what kind of crisis is it? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ohmigosh is that a Four Strong Winds reference? With the snow flying and the winds blowing cold way out there?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Only 84 more days until the O2. Yippeee. I've not looked forward to a gig this much in years. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait, the Chad Mitchell Trio is going on tour again?;)--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Benny and Bjorn have reformed The Hep Stars?London Grump (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Way overanalyzing. It's not a crisis, it's a hoax. Whoover (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Those dern libruls have it backwards -- it's all about global cooling, not global warming. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Call in the FBI, part XXVII...[edit]

Not to turn this into a Talk page about Terry and CNAV, but there's enough in this post about CP to keep it relevant. Terry and his friends at CNAV have been on a roll over the past few weeks, putting out the usual bull, but falling back more & more on accusing people of fraud without evidence. The latest was in a discussion about a survey on how abstinence-only education isn't effective, and he accused the people behind the survey of fraud because it didn't come out the way he wanted it to.

I mentioned that this kind of far-fetched thinking reminded me of CP and Andy, and how he accused an archaeology team of burying evidence of Viking settlements in Canada to dig up and "discover" it, rather him just admitting they found the Americas before Columbus.

Terry's reply was to basically say, "Aha! You've just reminded me that you were thrown off of CP for being a RW vandal, so consider yourself thrown off of here, too!" Good thing I saved that, because for some reason he decided to erase that statement and others I made (unless that's what happens when you delete posting right - I'm not a WordPress guy).

So I wrote him this parting email to let him know how wounded I was over this excommunication:

On 03/23/2013 11:19 PM, [DinsdaleP] wrote:

Well now, isn't that ironic. One of my last comments on CNAV included the following:

  "Telling us instead to 'Hit the road, Jack' is equivalent to saying you don’t have an answer."

And within a few hours, you ban me from posting comments on your site. Even better, the record of the conversation's been scrubbed from the comment thread.

  "Nothing to see here, folks.  Move along"

Good thing I kept a copy then, Officer Barbrady - I mean, Hurlbut.

We both know that I'm not a cybervandal, and that having an account on Rationalwiki doesn't mean that I'm one by definition. That's just been a convenient excuse for kicking people off of sites like Conservapedia or yours when you don't have a good response to the points they're making. TK used that same BS excuse to kick me off of Conservapedia, because he never had a legitimate reason to do it instead. That's the coward's way to deal with an uncomfortable truth.

You're a coward, Terry. You can try to hide it on your own sites, but doing that just confirms it.

You associate with Conservapedia, where Andrew Schlafly hides behind 'liberal claptrap' and his '90/10 rule' to dismiss uncomfortable truths and the people who bring them up. You associate with "Conservative", who lies when he says no one accepts his debate offers, and erases the replies that show he's the one running from them instead. I know this first-hand, because I've accepted his offers and he's erased the trail, followed by posts on his part calling people cowards for not accepting his challenge. A coward and liar cloaking himself in Christian righteousness - give me a break.

I've offered to attend any of your Tea Party or NJ conservative group meetings, and have an open discussion about any issues you'd like. You never took me up on that, and I'd imagine it's because you uncomfortable things can happen when you're not sitting with a finger on a delete button, and people are there to see it.

I've called you out on your bluster about Obama seeking to be dictator-for-life, working to stay in power after 2016 by any number of crackpot conspiracy tales you & Roseann promoted on CNAV. If you were right, I'd spend a day in Times square wearing a dunce cap and sign, which would have been a joy to you, Schlafly and the actual conservative media to photograph and make a mockery of all your stereotypes. I put it on the line, and if I weaseled out, it would be to my shame and embarrassment for all your readers to see.

Except it was you who weaseled out, because you don't have the courage or integrity to stand behind your tough talk, and wear the cap and sign for a day if you were the one who was wrong. You could play word games and pretend that Obama being an invisible puppet master would still make you right even when the rest of the world sees you were wrong, but the reality is that you weaseled around the challenge and chickened out. That's the coward's way.

And just in case you think that I'm writing this out of rage and fury, rest assured that I'm not. I'm having a pleasant evening at home with my family, and writing this final note to remind you of something important.

You are a liar, a bully and a coward. You don't have the wits or integrity to deal with someone who calls you on your BS in an intelligent, rational manner, and your ego is so damned fragile you have to just erase them from your playground like the playground bully you are. Your only satisfaction comes from preaching to the choir in your echo chambers, but you're not convincing anyone with an open mind. You're not even fooling anyone with the brains to read the comment threads and see how you dodge, distort and deny the facts & truths you don't want to accept.

It doesn't matter what people find on CNAV, or if you wipe every trace of my comments from there. The people who read them knew they were there, and that you were the one who erased them. More important is that you and I both know who stayed civil and held to his convictions, and who it was who lied, insulted, denied, and in the end, used a keyboard command to slink away and hide in his echo chamber.

That's the coward's way, and that makes you a coward, Terry - not because I say so, but because your own choices and actions make you so. Whether you will ever be able to admit that to yourself and do something about it is up to you.

I don't hold out much hope for that, but nothing you've said or done hurts me, so there's no ill will on my part. I wish you well in any case.


And here's Terry's reply this morning:


You're entitled to your own opinion. You are perhaps, in your own twisted mind, entitled to your own construction of your association with a cabal of cybervandals and cyberterrorists, your refusal ever to dissociate from them when cybervandalism was their primary purpose, and the records of the Conservapedia administration that prominently mention your name.

Now get out of my e-mail inbox and stay out, or I'll file an abuse complaint against you with, and maybe even with your ISP. And if I have to, with the FBI.

Understand this:

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you CEASE AND DESIST from any and all communication with the e-mail addresses [redacted for privacy], [redacted for privacy], [redacted for privacy], [redacted for privacy], and any other e-mail address that I might from time to time have, if by dint of shady research you happen to discover same.

If you persist, I shall take effectual means to ENJOIN YOU from said communication.

Let that suffice.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Got to love their consistency, if nothing else. --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful Dinsdale. Them capital letters make it legally binding. You're just lucky he didn't refer to himself as WE THE PEOPLE, because then you'd be in it deep. The FBI would be all over a thing like this. StarFish (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the caps means that I've been served with an official writ of "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, NOW GO AWAY..." --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
10/10, would read again. This is a coward at his best. First lie, then bully, then censor, then threaten. He learned well from CP. Terry and his ilk never realize that making end-game threats like that eventually lures in more trolls to push his buttons. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminded me of this classic. Vulpius (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
sirrah |ˈsirə| noun archaic used as a term of address for a man or boy, esp. one younger or of lower status than the speaker. (OED)
sir·rah (sr) n. Obsolete Mister; fellow. Used as a contemptuous form of address. [Alteration of sir.] (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
Wow. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)r
FORTH WITH lol--"Shut up, Brx." 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're not going to stop emailing him. Send him at least 2 or 3 polite inquiries a week and see if he does call the FBI. I hope he does. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The funny thing is he seems to assume he call laws into existence (and have the FBI enforce them!) by using what he imagines to be legalistic language. Problem is he learned everything he knows about the law from watching scooby-doo. StarFish (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's as if he thinks Habeus Corpus is a spell from the Harry Potter books. I'm not going to bother emailing him, though. It's not that I take his threat seriously, but that he's really just not that important as a person or a 'cause' - he doesn't deserve the attention. What I will be doing is putting my comments on CNAV on my own blog, beyond the reach of his delete key, and this email exchange will be one of the next posts. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Where's your blog? I'm going to miss you at CNAV, though. It was nice to have someone else sane there.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's here. Not my best writing by any measure, but part of my motivation for using a blog at all is to improve through practice. -DinsdaleP (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, looks like tossy is feeling persecuted by your continued existence despite his desperate prayers/demands (with threats of generator withholding attatched no doubt) to god to strike you and all your kin down. Though it is amusing to see he thinks its an infidelity more worthy use of government money to send the FBI to ruthlessly hunt down and persecute people who disagree with him online than it is to try and give basic life saving healthcare to it's citizens. Still, I guess I should not be surprised that a dictator wannabe fundie shitstain is acting inconsistently.Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Also... when he says "cyberterrorists" is he refering to Rationalwiki? because..... wow that would be pathetic even for hi..what am I saying, it would be perfectly in character for him Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That label was first used by TK against me, despite the fact that I hadn't actually done anything. He also told me to "go join you friends at RationalWiki" before I even knew that this site existed. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess its no far leap of logic for peltsphincter. The guy already thinks that god is his personal butler, that he himself is destined for arch dukedom of the jersey wasteland after obamageddon, and is the sole arbiter of all that is holy and realtruemurican. Anyone who opposes or questions him is clearly a terrorist on the level of bin laden and the 9/11 hijackers and must be exterminated and thrown into hell by his divine valet. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, Judge, right after you're told Terry didn't use that term, you reply, "Ah, just as well. He totally could've used it so, same thing." Well, if you're happy with that sort of reasoning, have at it, man. Phiwum (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally happy to see that Dinsdale does not plan on emailing and annoying Terry. Not because Terry is a worthwhile individual, nor because Terry's threats are plausible but just because Terry said that he doesn't want to receive email and nothing Terry has done excuses ignoring that fact. (Sure, Terry is an asshole, but so what?) Phiwum (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh... where was I told terry didnt use that term? I assume the text at the start of this thread is a direct copy of the email Hurly sent and saw no mention of it before in the thread, nor any mention of him not using it in reply, so what exactly are you referring to? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 03:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. My misreading. Sorry for that. Phiwum (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Phiwum, you're right about the emailing Terry point. Even if he was worth the time, a pompous request is still a request, and we're all entitled to be left alone if that's what we want. --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Posting to CNAV[edit]

How can anyone post to CNAV anymore, anyway? The captcha box just doesn't show up. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 10:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The captcha box is there- it just doesn't render as a visible box anymore for some reason. If you click In the whitespace just above the top-left corner of the comment box itself you'll find it. -DinsdaleP (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It's still there, just with the border width of the input box set to zero. I question whether he's trying to be sneaky since I think he has to use the same interface for his comments. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain it was a deliberate change to try and discourage comments on CNAV stories, since they're almost always criticisms. -DinsdaleP (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative movies... not[edit]

The Seventh Seal is stated to be 'a Conservative' movie.

The main character has lost his faith in God; his sidekick never believed - and berates the man who led the knight into going away; there is a religious group practicing flagellation... and Death neither cares nor knows anything. There is a nihilistic/downbeat tone.

While it is probably a classic movie, is it promoting conservatism? 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an afterlife. Therefore God. Therefore conservativeTM. Voilá. DickTurpis (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Eh, it's an old movie, it's considered a classic, therefore it's conservative. You must know by now that what andy considers "conservative" doesn't actually have any logical basis to it, it's just what andy likes and/or thinks sounds good. Especially when it comes to these lists. X Stickman (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It has to be remembered that Andy hasn't seen the majority of films he claims are 'conservative', nor those he deems 'liberal'. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 20:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it difficult to imagine Andy watching any movie or sports match in its entirety; it just doesn't jibe with his worldview. I mean he could be reading the Bible or praying rather than wasting his time watching pointless liberal pastimes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Didn't Andy once say a movie he was especially fond of was Trading Places? Let's see, it's got capitalist antagonists, tits, a poor black protagonist who pretends to be a veteran, and Al Franken. Doesn't really seem up Andy's alley. DickTurpis (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ya, but Capitalism is more the engine of the movie then anything approaching the source of the antagonism. Hell, the ending is about as pure capitalism as you can get, para-phrasing Winthorpe. --Revolverman (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably have a point there. It's been a while since I've seen it. Still, doesn't really strike me as a movie that would be right up Andy's alley. I mean, he thinks It's a Wonderful Life is liberal claptrap. DickTurpis (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would hazard a guess that, if Andy has seen Trading Places at all and didn't just pick it at random when trying to think of an example of the kind of funny comedy that didn't exist before Jesus' time, he has only seen it in an edited for TV version. A version minus Jamie-Lee's knockers and the few rude words that Eddie Murphy uttered. --Spud (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Prop 8 prop bets[edit]

My money is on the SC not deciding the case, which Andy will claim as a huge victory over the homosexual agenda. Anyone care to wager? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a no-brainer. Anything short of banning "opposite marriage" will be declared a huge victory. Whoover (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
They'll have to decide something, right? Either way Andy will "win". Either Prop 8 will stand, and he'll win, or it won't, because of Roberts or someone, and he'll get another reason to whine about liberals, which is what he really wants to do anyway. Though even if Prop 8 isn't overturned, I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be a referendum on it again in 2016 (or sooner), in which case the voters will overturn it directly. DickTurpis (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
They will decide something, but that doesn't mean the majority opinion will be based on the merit's of the case. Before any US court can decide an issue, there must be an analysis of "standing", "ripeness", and "mootness", among other things. The hardest one to overcome will likely be standing, which basically requires that the plaintiff in the case be the "right" person to be arguing the position. For instance, if someone punches you, and you want to sue for assault/battery, you have the standing, not me. Poht (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Technically they don't even need to decide something. The court could split 4-3-2, or some other combination that doesn't yield a majority, and so no decision would be reached and the decision made in the Ninth Circuit would stand. I can see that being the most likely outcome as it allows the Supreme Court to avoid setting some potentially tricky precedence, especially the precedent that could be set by saying that the Prop 8 supporters don't have standing to bring the case in the first place. That ruling would just give too much power to each State Governor and Attorney General to ignore or not support voter initiatives that they don't agree with but have been voted into law; as long as ignoring or not supporting that law doesn't harm the supporters of the initial initiative then the supporters would find it impossible to argue in front of a court that the law should be upheld.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Overated Tiger Woods[edit]

Is world No. 1 again. Andy seems to have miised that. Bevo74 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you not noticed the whole list is a load of bullshit? Lebron James is hands down the best player in the NBA (much as I am loathe to admit it), Manning is amazing, Agassi was a world number one, Magic Johnson was, well Magic Johnson, the only one who is even slightly justified is Lance Armstrong. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
All those kinds of articles just boil down to slightly more adult versions of "I don't like these people, their butts smell and their face is a butt and they're not so great but a butt". I love 'm, you can really taste the tears of impotent rage and jealousy in them. -GTac (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you hiding kenny boy[edit]

Archiving andy's talk pageimg and oversighting all intermediate revisions. Oh dear, back to the bunny hole kenny baby. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but totally off topic coopting your thread: hey Kenny what does your bible say about pridefulness and gloating? What about lying and boastfulness? Name-calling? Face it, Kenny. You're a disgusting person to your core, whatever mental health issues aside. You claim to have a source of objective morality, yet flagrantly ignore it. Typical of your own behavior for nearly decade and exactly what I'd expect from a cultist like yourself. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually he's hiding quite a lot. For example I found this in one of his blog posts:

"Fergus wants me to believe that he cannot get in contact with Shockofgod/VivaYehshua to set up a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists."

As it happens I have been in contact with VivaYashua - in fact he's one of my Skype contacts and I chat to him occasionally - and guess what? He doesn't like the 15 questions. He doesn't think they're a good argument against evolution. In fact VivaYashua himself is a creationist but acknowledges that evolution could be true, and he's nowhere near as dogmatic and ignorant as Ken is. He also told me that debating "isn't really Ken's thing" because he can't express himself very well. Damn, what a surprise!

Obviously the chances of me being able to get this point across on Ken's own blog are right about zero, because he'll hastily scrape any comment I post into his intellectual bunny hole, but the fact is I'm quite happy to debate anyone about the 15 questions just as long as it's done at a neutral venue and not Shock's travesty of a forum. However the person I most want to debate on the topic is the mysterious proprietor of the Question Evolution! blog himself. If he's not too much of a coward to accept the challenge I'm definitely up for it.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How does VivaYashua feel about Ken's constant "Let's you and him fight" declarations on the QE! Blog? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Bored, I think. He supports Ken's aims but doesn't want anything to do with the debate offer. I was actually going to debate him at one point (until I got permabanned from Shock's chatroom) and he was very keen to change the topic to evolution in general and kick the 15 questions into the long grass.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 17:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Viva doesn't care and Shock of God is the only one allowed to debate the creationist side on his channel. I would have accepted "Conservative's" offer to debate him by setting things up through Shock of God's channel but it seems impossible to make it happen. "Conservative" taunts people to accept his offer to debate him, but when they try, he's nowhere to be found. They haven't seen him for months on Shock of God's channel and it's otherwise impossible to set a debate with him up. It looks like dozens of people have tried to set debates up with him but he keeps ignoring them and then bragging about it in his intellectual bunny hole. What un-Christian behavior. What a coward. Nate Keaton (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fergus, I used to think he was telling people to debate someone else but that's too obviously cowardly that I don't believe he's stupid enough to put that in writing. The debate offer doesn't say you have to debate Viva or Shock of God. It just says set up a debate with them. I think the fairest reading of the debate challenge is that "Conservative" is the one offering to debate if you can manage to navigate the gauntlet of disinterest and impossibility on Shock of God's side. That's unfair and nobody expects anything different from "Conservative" but it is what he is offering. Nate Keaton (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, Nate. He wrote this:

"especially when Fergus is afraid (very afraid) to debate the YouTube Christian Shockofgod concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign... We told Fergus he must debate Shockofgod before we would even consider publishing blog comments of his."

Yes, he really is stupid enough to put it in writing.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 18:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll accept his offer to debate him. It's that simple. It doesn't say I have to debate Shock of God and no sane person would assume a debate challenge would be to debate another person who either won't debate you or doesn't care! I don't want to debate Shock of God on the "15 questions." They're stupid and I don't care about them. I have challenged him to debate Genesis hermeneutics. I think that's a much more interesting topic because it's at the heart of why "Conservative" gets things so wrong. He can't read. He chickened out by lying, deleting pages with challenges on them and then boasting about it. His debate challenge doesn't say what he says it says. He should rewrite it to officially change the terms instead of lying. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: ) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua"

Viva, as I said, isn't interested. Shock bans me on sight. How convenient for Ken.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 18:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ken really is a real-life Walter Mitty. He gets a vicarious pleasure through the actions of other creationists but is too timid to ever stand up and be counted himself because he's scared shitless of being defeated. He is the ultimate Internet wimp; a middle-aged virgin bachelor fantasizing about long-haired creationist ladies thinking he's made it if someone compliments him in a dancing class; he tries to make mediocre accomplishments seem as if he possesses some sort of expertise. If he was 15-years old he would be laughable, but at 50-years old he's merely pitiable. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Straight up child abuse[edit]

But what more can we expect from Bradlee Dean? I hope he doesn't have children of his own. And that people keep children away from him.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, stop giving Terry the time of day. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"I came across some scenarios that exemplify my point:" AHahahha, are you serious? The "laundry list" he is going through is part of a chain E-mail campaign. Woops. It's obvious from the entire blog post that this guy isn't exactly the best representative for the conservative cause. He talks about the efficacy of teacher-lead prayer, claiming that " All the way up until 1962, prayer was the norm for virtually every school in America and the Ten Commandments were posted in school hallways. The obvious fruit was safety and security, as well as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is all nonsensical, of course, because the entire justification for banning teacher-lead prayer was the fact that it was a threat to the religious liberties of the everyman. Even if you contend that people do not have a freedom "from" religion, even if you go so far as to contend that people merely have the freedom to choose which protestant sect they belong to, you STILL run into the problem that Christianity is not a uniform religion,and that often times students would be forced to pray for things that they do not believe in. To turn the issue on its head, should children be forced by a pacifist teacher to pray for a lasting peace with Iran? Would Bradlee approve of this? I don't think he understands the issue at all. To turn the issue COMPLETELY on its head, one must wonder whether Bradlee would approve of allowing teachers to lead students to pray that absolutist-tier gun regulations would be put in place. WilliamR (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist." Great stuff. Whoover (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy's just that stupid[edit]

I'm convinced. In the latest addition to CP proven right, we learn that space is not a true vacuum and therefore its index of refraction is not zero. Fucking groundbreaking. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Already posted as a WIGO, he is either criminally lazy or can't fucking read. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I floored that a man with an engineering degree from Harvard is so stupid. How many people, when learning about c, had it described as "the speed of light in space" rather than "the speed of light in a vacuum"? If you had the former, you probably went to a shitty school. Carlaugust (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I cannot comprehend how someone who supposedly graduated in electronic engineering doesn't understand the imaginary part of complex numbers. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if you know nothing about Einstein's theory of relativity, you should at least be able to read that the article in question says nothing about Einstein's theory and in fact goes out of its way to point out that the discovery changes no major laws of physics. That alone makes saying anything about special relativity being challenged retarded beyond words. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I do like the statement of impact this will have, from the cited article: "Very minor changes to currently accepted understandings may be required, but since the changes are so slight they might not be significant, and therefore unworthy of much modification." Take that Einstein, Al Gore and Castro! Whoover (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that Andy's source is scrambled a bit. The real story is that two papers suggest that quantum properties of vacuum may slow light, not that space is not a vacuum. More interesting than "the speed of light in a vacuum only pertains in a vacuum!" but still not strong proof that Genesis got it right after all. Whoover (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Does Andy get all his physics knowledge from misreading articles? That would explain quite a bit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where Andy plucks his knowledge from, but I would venture that it's from some place moist and dark. The thing I enjoy most about Schlafly Physics is how blissfully unaware he is of the greater implications of his *ahem* "theories". --Inquisitor (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Misread? No, that requires reading the article, he just looks at the headline, perhaps the first paragraph and forms his announcement from that; it is par for the course.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I read the actual quantum-vacuum-as-origin-of-speed-of-light paper. Clearly it's beyond my undergraduate physics classes level, but even so quite a few things stand out to me. It's obvious that Andy didn't read the paper, or even the abstract (shit, we knew that already). Some of the highlights:

1) No, the speed of light hasn't been 'proven' or 'shown' to be variable. It is not a "new scientific fact". The quantum vacuum paper proposes a model for the behavior of light in which all space, even 'hard vacuum', is a sea of particles that flicker in and out of existence due to quantum fluctuations. Photons, in this model, travel across space instantaneously, but are constantly being absorbed and reemitted by these quantum pairs. There is a finite time delay between absorption and reemission. It is this time delay that makes photons travel with a finite rather than infinite speed from place to place in this model.
2) The number of simplifying assumptions and introduced constants in the paper is pretty high - it's supposed to explain why c is what it is by producing other constants which leads to the question of why those are what they are. Ugly. If the average energy of these fermion pairs is thirty times their rest mass, for example, they can derive some physical constants that match measured values. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
3) Amusingly, the model depends on the energy of the pairs produced by quantum fluctuation - an energy which is given by, you guessed it, mc^2. Cursed liberal claptrap!
4) The authors propose that properties of vacuum like its ability to transmit magnetic force and it capacitance are due to the presence of these quantum pairs and their interaction with electromagnetic fields.
5) The interaction of photons with these pairs must be unlike the interaction of photons with other particles. For example, the absorption/reemission can't depend on photon frequency or produce Compton scattering and is proportional to charge squared (?).
6) Some astronomical events are used as evidence to place limits on possible values of introduced constants: for example, the pulse width of gamma rays from a supernova is compared with its distance from earth to suggest that the light spread out over 4 milliseconds over its 2x10^26 meter voyage. Hmm; perhaps the physical process that produced the gamma rays took place over nonzero time? Like some number of milliseconds maybe?
7) Popular media reports have stated that the speed of light is slowed by some factor 'per square meter' of distance traveled, which made no sense to me. Turns out that the speed variability goes as the square root of distance, meaning that it is less than a linear relationship. Quadrupling distance only doubles variability.
8) They propose an experiment using femtosecond laser pulses to detect the effect, if it exists. Oddly, I don't see how a laser can maintain a coherent wavefront if all its photons are taking different amounts of time to cross the same distance. Anyway, it would also be interesting to see if the speed of a laser changed when fired between Casimir plates, where some classes of vacuum fluctuations can't form.
9) The statement "This mechanism relies on the notion of an absolute frame for the vacuum at rest" caught my eye.
10) Here's a beautiful way that Andy could spin this: as we know, quantum uncertainty shit is the result of Chaos/the Devil/Satan. In this model, without quantum fluctuations giving rise to fermion pairs, photons would travel at infinite speed. So before Satan's rebellion, light would have infinite speed, only slowing down once Lucifer became Satan. Ergo, no horizon problem. More biblical scientific foreknowledge!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A "Conservapedian" on a radio show[edit]

It's probably Andyimg. I came in late to the talkshow and they're currently interviewing some guy at a protest. He claims satan causes homosexuality and its a disease or curse passed down through the family, that he has the facts, god made Adam and Eve but didn't create homosexuality, America is a republic, and he's got a thick stereotypical accent that made me smile. Oh, now he just mentioned that gays' religion is SATANISM so freedom of religion doesn't apply to them because the country is a republic and thus follows the laws of god... oh man he's a 23 year marine vet, can't be someone from CP.

Anyway, in case I forget, someone may want to take a few sips of something strong before listening to the archives and see if a "conservapedian" appeared on it. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I heard the whole thing. That was Karajou, the "Conservapedian" in question. Inspiration Move me brightly. 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't say about Karajou, but I know Andy was on. The archive is up. And he's a moron.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I was auto blocked on CP's server for accidentally scraping pages too fast :-( Mixed blessing. Where is the archive? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A dirty Russian pinko commie online radio station. "Supreme Court hears oral arguments for historic case on Prop 8" is the story archive. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"... whether two parents of the same sex can raise a child of the opposite sex. ...". ⌘W Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That station is an official organ of the Russian government. Pretty weird. Of course, Putin hates the gays. Whoover (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Did Popeye really claim to be a 23 year Marine vet? Also, American fundies are REALLY falling in love with Putin's Russia. Funny how things change. --Revolverman (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Whenever Andy says "a Conservapedian" is doing something it's always him, isn't it? I mean, he doesn't honestly give a shit what the 3 or 4 other site regulars are up to. DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to Andy, do the other Sysops give a fuck themselves? --Revolverman (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that was Karajou, but that schmuck was right on par for being just as stupid and crazy as anyone on Conservapedia. They just grabbed and interviewed someone at the protest, while Andy can easily be heard in the earlier broadcast (if that really is him, I don't see any birth certificates or college records proving it). AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"gays' religion is SATANISM so freedom of religion doesn't apply to them because the country is a republic and thus follows the laws of god". But satanism is an extension of.. and.. what does religion have to do.. argh my brain! -GTac (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't be arsed to look it up I'm sure Andy has been on that Russian station before; can you imagine CP's shrieks of indignation if some high-profile liberal had made multiple appearances on a Russian station? And Dick is correct, any mention of "a Conservapedian" is always Andy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 08:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to identify Andy's voice. He sounds like Mr Bean. London Grump (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How do we know for sure it was Andy? Could've been an impersonator. How long is Conservapedia going to cover up the fact that Andrew Schlafly died in 2010!? Vulpius (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
At least the fella they interviewed got the Republic part right; I guess that is something?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For your hearing pleasure:

--larron (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I'm going to download a "mp3" from a Russian website... I seem to recall a lengthy article in Pravda a few months back. I couldn't stomach to read it beyond a few paragraphs, but what I did read made people like Coulter, Rush and the CP parrots seem moderate. I reached the article via CPs MPR. I suspect that the reasoning is that freedom-loving Russkies know more about the evils of atheist/leftist than anybody else so they are authorities when it comes to criticising liberulz.Sokar (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, larron. And a slightly sarcastic thanks on top of the genuine one for now indirectly causing me to have half an hour of Andy and some other wingnuts in my itunes folder. I'm just thankful I never put it on shuffle. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Strangely enough Conservapedia doesn't have a page on the Yazidi [1]. (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago Bulls, best of the public?[edit]

Andy: "The best of the public Chicago Bulls end the winning streak of the Miami Heat, as Overrated Sports Star LeBron James incurs a flagrant foul in the final minutes."img

What? I know he abuses the phrase 'best of the public', but how does a professional sports team qualify? If they're so great why was Miami the one with the winning streak? And what's with his grudge against the Heat? --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As a Chicagoian I was stoked over the Bulls victory last night, and it is all the news on the local sports radio networks during this morning commute, but my elation is tempered by Andy's demonstration that there is a sport he could possibly understand even less than professional football, and that he had to demonstrate his ignorance while praising my team. I'd love one of the peons over at CP to ask Il Duce Andy how the professional basketball team made up of paid professionals, including several paid an annual salary in the millions, (and a couple in the tens of millions) the "best of the public" compared to the similarly paid and drafted Miami heat players? How is LeBron James overrated? The same LeBron James who was the MVP of the current NBA champions? The same LeBron James who is universally seen as the best player currently in the NBA? Andy understands professional sports like he understands physics, through sheer ignorance.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Merit has nothing to do with it. I seem to recall him being critical of Phil Jackson because he wasn't a Christian. Notwithstanding, that was the most successful basketball team in the history of the sport led by the best player in history. But now they're best of the public because he thinks Miami is more liberal than Chicago and he doesn't have to worry about anyone pointing out that the bulls are sweeping the playoffs? Maybe? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but Andy's "best of the public" is sounding more like a socialist mantra every time he uses it.Tacitus (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Usually, you can divine the twisted logic that Andy uses, no matter how stupid. This is a truly WTF piece of work. I swear he's getting worse. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
What will he be like when he's 80?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson or Kent Hovind or something. Completely isolated from reality. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how Chicago, a starkly blue labor-heavy city with high gun control laws and street cameras, can be more conservative than Miami. Also, Phil Jackson hasn't been Bulls' coach for years. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And the home of Obama, and who hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1931.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And high sales taxes, including luxury/"vacation" (e.g., affects out-of-towners more than citizens) taxes, where public education is extremely prevalent.... --Seth Peck (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he's just trying to troll us.Transitional FormStill Durbinating 20:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

9.25% downtown. And cigarettes are $11 a pack. That shit's for tourists. We don't have onerous gun control in Chicago anymore. You just need a permit. Technically it's the same or similar to the old system, except now the Chief of Police's office doesn't put your application in the "person of interest" file. You could always have long guns. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No, not Andy. He's the only Conservapedian who is trying to ignore our existence. Vulpius (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy's watered down 'best of the public' to mean "relatively obscure" professionalsimg. Also, he removed an item about Lebron James (along with two entries) from Conservapedia proven wrongimg. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Relatively obscure, right... I don't follow NBA at all. And I've heard of the Bulls. I know they're the team that used to sport the best player in NBA history. I have also heard of LeBron, and I know that he's on his way to being up there with the two MJs. I have also found this one from Cracked written by a guy who (definitely) knows more about basketball than me. I know that it's pretty much objective that LeBron is the best player out there right now. And I also know from that article that a 27 game streak is, to put it in a mild manner that becomes a Brit and also evokes images of Darth Vader, most impressive. So, my open question to Andy, though why I'm posing it here is a mystery to even myself being as he's never going to read it and if he does he won't answer it so if someone could carry it on that would be fantastic, is this: What do you have against LeBron? And how does the Bulls qualify as best of the public? They're professional basketballers, not some obscure underdog rag tag gang of short guys who can't jump or throw straight from Wyoming. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 16:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Gotta love that rationale--"relatively obscure", unless you follow basketball, or live in the greater Chicago area, or are a die-hard Bulls fan, or followed any of the players when they were playing college ball, as those that go pro are "relatively" elite compared to those that don't. "Relatively obscure" compared to the professional players of Miami, of which the only one Schlafly can name is LeBron James, so all of the other players on that team must be "relatively obscure"...unless (say it with me now) you follow basketball, or live in the greater Miami area, or are a die-hard Heat fan, or followed any of the players when they were playing college ball.
I bet Schlafly can't even name the starting lineup for the Knicks, and he probably thinks the Nets is still a team. And what's really "relatively obscure" compared to the Bulls' roster is Conservapedia. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The Nets are still a team, they are the Brooklyn Nets. Everyone here in Chicagoland who follows the NBA knows those Bulls players names; by declaring non-superstar but still millionaire professional basketball players for one of the most followed teams in the NBA the "best of the public", Andy just watered-down the phrase to include 90% of everyone in the NBA (and by extension, other major sports). In short his phrase is now rendered meaningless.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Dammit, typed too fast...New Jersey Nets... --Seth Peck (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Limbaugh is the latest Goldstein[edit]

So says the holder of the keys to true Conservativismimg, Il Duce Andy who now declares that Limbaugh nothing more than a backer of RINOs and a puppet of his corporate advertisers. Why? Because Limbaugh realizes what most people realize, America is becoming supportive of gay marriage as a civil right.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at El Rushbo's CP article, it seems they already threw him under the bus after the Akin incident. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly current but[edit]

I thought Schlafawanker was actually ok, for a far right christian that is, until I read his no longer updated twitter account.

He says ref earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan 2 years ago. Apparently God punished Japan because they are atheist heathens and punished New Zealand because, and I almost could not believe what I was reading, they have a strict gun control policy. What a despicable bastard that man is. I am not a violent person but I dearly want to punch and kick him so much that his own mother would not recognise him. I have read a lot about how stupid he is, I disagree, I think he is at least moderately intelligent and very well educated which in my mind makes it worse. I am so glad I am an atheist because I would rather spend eternity in hell with the Devil ramming a red hot poker up my bum then spend a minute in heaven with that TWAT.. — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs

Obviously a parodist... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think not,the style and substance has his mark all over it, and if it was a parodist using his ID don't you think he would have done everything he could to have it removed. Besides he likes Twitter because it is "conseravative" unlike the socialist Facebook — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs
It says PARODY in all caps right at the top, dummy. (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes like so ~~~~. As for the Twitter, I've never seen him express sympathy for Twitter, but more importantly, the news feeds are trying to hard. Things like "Women wanting to run a restaurant is feminism. Should be at home baking cookies and homeschooling the kids. Like my mom." and the whole bit about Japan seems a bit too...over the top. Also, the fact that it mentions Parody twice in the description seems to be a bit of clue. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why does it say "Parody"? Whoover (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point:), but i still want to punch and kick the anglophobic twat. Ref Twitter: Defiantly conservative ~~~~

There is an unofficial Conservapedia twitter account run by JPatt actually. I don't think Andy endorses it in any way, but appears to make no effort to curtail the association either (although the Twitter account gets no acknowledgement on CP). Andy appears more tempered towards the micro-blogging service; although he does appears to have a general disdain towards social networking, most of Il Duce's ire is focused on Facebook.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Love that John 'Give Peace A Chance' Lennon should have been carrying a gun. What use would that have been as he was shots as he was turning round to see who was calling to him. Bevo74 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The bullets would have bounced of the gun's handle AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No, silly. That's what the Bible you carry over your heart is for. The gun is for killing the fool who put a .22 in your only book. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that the same John "Working Class Hero who owns several apartments at the Dakota including one solely for keeping his wife's fucking fur coats chilled" Lennon? 13:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
well that was entirely relevant to the conversationAMassiveGay (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "The Old Confederacy and Even the Civil War Border States" Hate Obamacare[edit]

He really can't hear himself, can he? Whoover (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Even cows are fleeing liberal California, to find "cheaper farm land, lower taxes, fewer environmental regulations and higher prices for their milk.""img Nope, he can't... unless he think cows sell their milk and want fewer environmental regulations, which is a real possibility with him.--Night Jaguar (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I HAVE to assume that statement is just a bad joke. --Revolverman (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I love how he likes to blame "big spending liberals" when, in fact, those states that have "ben[t]" to the federal government simply did the math and realized that it was cheaper for everyone to set up exchanges than to try to manage the ACA on their own. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Watch out, evoilutionists![edit]

Ken has feedback forms! Five of them! From middle school students!

I admit it, Ken, Darwinism is an empty charade. I'm also renouncing homosexuality, voting Democratic, high fat foods, pornography and watching TV between 8:30 PM and 7:00 AM. I quit smoking last June, but if you ask nice, I'll bum a few puffs from someone out in front of the building so I can quit again. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the odds on this book turning out to be completely fictional? He's already disappeared most of the evidence that his 50/75/100 page booklet was ever a thing that was going to happen. I suspect we'll hit December without ever having seen hide nor hair of this book too, and then he'll have to disappear those posts as well. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I do love that out of 5 apparent feedbackers, which was his not at all modest target you see, the feedback has "largely been positive". So out of his amazingly high target of 5 replies it seems at least one wasn't positive. I, and I'm sure all other believers in evolution, tremble in our boots. Nay, I veritably quake in them Oldusgitus (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait. "Will followup Question Evolution! Campaign books/booklets be written by this author? I would suggest keeping an eagle eye on and the blogs of its fans!" So, we've seen exactly jack shit from "the blogs of its fans!" Does this mean that CMI is actually responsible for this non-existent booklet? Why else would we look at for followups from this non-existent author? Ken, your writing is absolute shit. And when you're cherry-picking fantasy feedback, why not choose the one that's most glowing? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Ken says that the author of the booklet is female: "she know (sic) Christian leaders throughout Canada... she has been reading material." I doubt this is part of his Conservative-is-legion-we-contain-multitudes schtick. Of course Ken didn't write a booklet. He can't focus that long, and his writing is barely comprehensible to folks who are familiar with him, much less strangers--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Erm, you are making a HUGE mistake here. You are assuming there is a booklet. There isn't, there never has been and there never will be. Ergo there can be no author, female or multitudinously kenny. The booklet exists in one place and one place only. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Five? Five? Run for the hills, we're all doomed! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If he actually submitted it to middle school students, which is questionable, you can guarantee it was at a church-run academy where the students "question evolution" as part of their daily science curriculum. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's meant to be writing this thing - snails? I'm a freelance writer and I can knock out a 50-page ebook in a week, easily, while doing other jobs at the same time. It's vapourware. Oldusgitus is absolutely right. There is no booklet and there never will be.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it sort of strange that Ken views himself as a master scholar who's created some great volume of the highest quality material that he gloats and gloats about, yet he's farming out a trivial project that's never going to happen. The truth is it took him thousands of hours of scouring quote mines and google alerts to cobble together/plagiarize those articles. This will never happen. It's wayyyy out of his wheelhouse. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey look, a shoutout! I love how insane that blog post looks like if you're not aware of this page. He doesn't link to what he's talking about, so if anyone else read that post they'd wonder what in the hell he's talking about. Cow...Hammertime! 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
CowHammer, you got there just ahead of me. I hope Mr Mason feels thoroughly rebuked and hangs his head in shame. </irony> Cardinal Fang (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Bwahaha. Orson Welles was shit-housed when he made those ads for wino-cheap swill. LOLOL. Ken, you completely missed the mark. Fergus is talking about getting paid as a professional freelance writer. That's more than you could ever say for your pathetic self. And as for all your other pronouncements, we of course have zero confidence that any of what you've promised will ever happen. You've failed to deliver dozens of times. Dozens. That makes you a boastful liar, buddy. If this long haired creationist sweetheart writer even exists, I'll bet dollars to donuts that she delivers exactly jack shit. Lol "peak of perfection." You fucking clown. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he doesn't really seem to grasp that. "The Question Evolution! Campaign authoress will publish no Question Evolution! book for middle school students before it is ready." Good for her. Well guess what? I don't turn work over to the client before it's ready either, because if I do that they don't give me any money. If they don't give me any money I can't pay the mortgage, feed the cat or buy shiny things. Just to complicate matters everything needs to be ready before the client's deadline. The quality of my writing isn't something I want feedback on from schoolchildren; it's what pays my bills.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It strikes me that QE's authoress is merely tasked with trying to polish a turd and it will take an eternity to put a shine on Ken's bullshit. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 20:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Mythbusters managed to get them pretty shiny in just a few hours. Of course they had the advantage that it was actual shit they were polishing rather than the 15 brain-dead questions. Anyway, seeing as the best they can manage from this luxuriant-haired wordsmithess of the religious right is an expectation that they'll be able to publish it in 2013, I just left a comment to inform him that if he pays me to write it for him instead he'll be able to publish it in ten days. I wonder what he'll say?--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I am sure we could put together a crack international team of people who write as the major focus of their work who would be willing to do it for a few grand. Heck, we could probably manage it in English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi for less than $10 grand. That would give Ken a reason to spend some of the stacks of grant money his highly experienced grant writer got from all those bible-believing ministers over the last year and a half. We all know how tenacious baptists are. 10 days to produce a balanced and truthful treatment of the 15 Questions for middle schoolers? Child's play. We'd require a retainer held in escrow at a national bank, Ken, so you best get over to your Question Evolution! organization's bank and get us a cashier's check for, say, $5k from your operating account. Deal? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I really love how Ken quotes Sun Tzu's advice to be mysterious --- and posts pointless updates about this "book" every four minutes. Really keeps his adversaries guessing. Phiwum (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken is such a boring and lonely character that he needs to run-around with his undershorts on his head so as to get some attention. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Christ has risen...[edit]

...and is the perfect time for partisan political point scoring. They really are shit Christians over there. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've long wondered what Andy means by "logic". Phiwum (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"That's insane troll logic." - Xander, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Sokar (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet more Kentertainment![edit]

Male homosexuals need to man-up and help spinsters out! On the highway of love filled with wonderful women to pursue, they are driving backwards! Male homosexuals, the ladies are calling! Just imagine how many Canadian "spinsters" would love for a gay man to impregnate them! (I wonder how many lovely spinsters Ken has obliged. He's an above average dancer, I hear.) Phiwum (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, someone must have told Ken you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar --Revolverman (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did I hear Phiwum's summary of Ken as if it were Bruce Springsteen singing Born to Run? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

He's still touting his debate challenge, so just to make sure there is no misunderstanding I accept the offer of a recorded oral debate with the creator of the Question Evolution! blog. I've let VivaYashua know this as well. Over to Ken...--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 21:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I love it. here (linked from MPR of course) he misuses a graph to show that web traffic drops on weekends. He should compare this to, say, Rush Limbaugh's site, which dropped to virtually nothing for Easter (most of his traffic is generated by his radio show, which doesn't air on the weekend). When I look at my (actual server side) web traffic stats, I can even see where the long weekends (and 4th of July, etc.) are. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the headline should be that God blessed Dawkins and Myers on the Feast Day of Rupert of Salzburg. (Myers's graph peaks the day before, so maybe he was blessed on the Prophet Zoroaster's birthday.) Phiwum (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So then is it onimg between dvergne and kenny boy. devergne reverted some of kens drivel, ken reverted and locked the article and talk page, devergne went to andyimg and andy agreed. Devergne then wiped kens shite and made the article something moderately intelligent. I await ken's reply with baited breath. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's not garlic. Or did you mean "bated" breath? </pedantry> Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonder what John Maynard Keynes would make of CP's article on him. (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Irrelevant. Spud (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Laugh. IT'S FUNNY. LAUGH![edit]

Andy tries his bestimg. Here's a hint Andy, if you feel the need to explain it then it isn't funny. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Every year Andy puts up his annual April Fool's mainpage headline, and every year he always ruins it with saying it's an April Fool's joke in the same line; it just goes to show how stupid Andy believes the average conservapedian is.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The funny part is that I wish someone would give Andy a fucking megaphone and set him up a soapbox on capitol hill. Microphones and TV cameras are the worst thing to happen to his brand of conservatism since empathy. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank Jesus for comedy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It's weird how some peoples' idea of free speech is "I can say whatever the fuck I want but you aren't allowed to criticize me." Nothing new, we all know about it, just sayin'--"Shut up, Brx." 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy'll show you how to do it! Vulpius (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Goddamn it, its been years and yet his laugh still freaks the fuck outta me. 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone want to add a covert link to that video somewhere on CP? It's not like anyone ever clicks through any of the links. -Lardashe

Andy has a new man-crush[edit]

Errrrr.... conservative sports star, and it's Bryce Harper of the Nats. Apparently, his conservative credentials are that he likes God and family. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude's on track to hit 324 homers. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Nah, he's a Mormon. That makes him Conservative until he becomes a RINO. Whoover (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy's okay with Mormons. And Moonies. He's had sysops who were both. I think he really doesn't understand that Mormons aren't really Christians, as far as a lot of people are concerned. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Harper's a cocky little shit. I'm sure Andy will twist that to mean he hates liberals or whatever. He'll become an "Outspoken Christian" in no time. In spite of the fact that he says little about it other than to "thank God." I love when Andy gets into sports. It's adorable. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy just polished up a few Greatest Conservative Sports Stars, including Babe Ruth ("defended Catholicism, saying that it gave him a standard for him to strive for personally"), the hand-drinking, womanizing, bigamist Democrat activist. Whoover (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Relativity v. Quantum Mechanics[edit]

Has Andy ever posited that quantum mechanics disproves relativity before? Any idea what the basis is? I know that he thinks quantum mechanics is about entropy which is Greek slang for Satan, and that Jesus's remote-control healing disproves relativity and that Jesus trumps Satan. But I can't connect the dots. Anyone? Whoover (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's built on Einstein's God playing dice thing. In Andy's head, Einstein didn't like it because it disproved relativity, obviously. London Grump (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
My guess is it's the action-at-a-distance thing of quantum entanglement again.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
My guess is that he's a fucking moron. --Revolverman (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
^^This--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 00:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The idiot mentions Diracimg, whose most important discovery was an equation reconciling quantum mechanics and special relativity. Fuckin' moron. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, he's blaming it on action-at-a-distanceimg. However, quantum non-locality cannot be used to send faster-than-light signals, thus it's compatible with special relativity. Reconciling the two theories is interesting and difficult. However, not only was it accomplished decades ago, but the reconciliation has been used construct the most accurate theory in physics and the Standard Model. Andy is bending the truth to make reality fit his ideological preconceptions, like he does with every other topic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme Ken DeMyer... 10 years later[edit]

I found this absolute gem in an idle half-hour at lunchtime today, while searching for what Ken DeMyer - alias Conservative and many other pseudonyms - might have dumped on the internet in his inglorious past. I see that his views on the digestive system of hyraxes is mentioned on his very own RW page but the link above gives you the full, unadulterated story. The Baptists clearly saw through Kenny-boy and dealt with him much more efficiently than Andy Schlafly ever has. Classics of the DeMyer style are the endless postings each clarifying (in his eyes!) the previous posting, the staggeringly pointless catechism of 42 questions, many of them asking if you understood the previous question (it makes the famous "15 Questions" look intelligent) and finally, the grovelling request to have the entire thread deleted because he realised his original assertion was completely wrong - a request dismissed in a few curt words by an admirable Baptist. Warning: read this sitting down unless you don't mind collapsing with helpless laughter. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That archive is a trove. Does this have a familiar ring? Whoover (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
He also refers his "readers" to another blog that he had infected, a trove in its own right. His final post there is immediately followed by
Any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century Ken? Yes or No? How embarrassed do you have to get before you answer a straightforward question?
Whoover (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
My favourite on the Baptist page was, "If anyone is interested in rabbit anatomy..." Not actually on my reading list at the moment...! Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly impressed that he formed a real argument there. Yes, it was tedious as hell, but it was more than disconnected quotes and bizarre ad homs. Honestly, it is striking how far the boy has deteriorated. He is literally incapable of such reasoning these days. Phiwum (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice you have not shown that Kendemeyer is the user conservative. What proof and evidence do you have that he/she/they are even/were/will-be a single person? ken miller. 15 questions. Since you have lost all credabililty there will be no further correspondence with you from this IP/construct/hive-mind174.61.148.48 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Comcast Cable user of Seattle, Waahington, You are clearly not Ken DeMyer as he is a resident of Buffalo, New York. Kindest Regards. TK XoXo GhostofTK (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of Kenneth, it seems that Dvergneimg and GregGimg areimgfedimg withimg Kenneth's constant Krapimg. If I was still back in the saddle, Kenneth would have left by now. GhostofTK (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Do fuck off. Phiwum (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Go play tennis with your penis. GhostofTK (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
His point is valid. His taste his bad. The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mr. Brain has long since departed. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 13:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just in case Ghost doesn't understand why I told him to fuck off: I find impersonating a dead man incredibly offensive. Even if the dead man was a total twat like TK. I hope he'll drop this crap. Phiwum (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Well is one of you wanks can change my username to Ghost, you will be more than welcome. TK was a twat, although not a big an asshole as you are. GhostofTK (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
ZING! You are now Ghost. Redchuck.gif Genghis WankOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 21:45, April 2013 (UTC)
Am I reading this right? Because it looks like Ken just keeps posting over and over again even though no one is responding, taking to and debating imaginary phantoms, and all right before Christmas too; that is just really sad.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That's how I read it - Kenny kept making new posts to "clarify" the previous post and every so often one of the Baptists pwn'd him. He seems to have been a pretty deluded character even 10 years ago, the big difference being that, as Phiwum said, he used to be capable of stringing together something resembling a reasoned argument (false premises notwithstanding). But several of his other postings on the Baptist bulletin board around that time were pure quote-mining. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Deflating Terry's Sails[edit]

So Woot has a gas generator up for sale today. If anyone lives in the same state as Hurlbutt, they could purchase it and end his fiefdom before it even started. (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proud To Be Loony[edit]

"About one in four Americans suspect that President Barack Obama might be the antichrist, more than a third believe that global warming is a hoax and more than half suspect that a secretive global elite is trying to set up a New World Order."

To Andy this is vindication. Sadly, his Greatest Conservative Sports Star David Icke's reptoids only get 4%. Whoover (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly -- that's something evolutionists believe! MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Very cool. This is why Conservapedians always end up eating their children. When Icke says the reptilian aliens are behind the Jews and other liberals, he's a Great Conservative. But you gotta admit it's hard to find the reptoids in Genesis, so the Great Conservative wackos are Evolutionists. But which takes precedence? Are they EINOs or GCINOs? Whoover (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The crosstables make for interesting reading here. Peter mqzp 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So much for the "liberals are more superstitious" thing they like to tout--"Shut up, Brx." 01:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the AntiChrist? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not enthused about Obama's policy to impose one world government, create a mark that we would be required to show in order to buy or sell, and declare himself a god to be worshiped, with horrific death the penalty for refusing, but at least he doesn't want to cut taxes on the wealthy! MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm surprised that Andy is declaring the shrinking minority of AGW deniers a victory. Maybe we'll soon seen his rhetoric changing from "the triumph of conservatism" to "the end is nigh, because liberals!"--"Shut up, Brx." 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That article makes for some depressing reading. Only 4% of Americans think that shape shifting reptilians control the world. Only 11% of people think that the US government conducted 911 as a false flag operation. I found the John Lennon theory interesting, I had never heard of it before, as it is a theory that I can see Schlafly agreeing with whole-heartedly. A little like the whole Fidel situation. From the article you can almost track the conspiracy spiral from thinking AGW is a hoax, to the nadir - believing in reptilian overlords. The only question is where will Andy draw the line (I personally can totally see him ending up in Icke territory). Tielec01 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
IIRC Pollsters asked about this stuff previously have said that they don't believe it reflects anything about the population. A certain proportion of people polled are just wasting the pollster's time / the poll commissioner's fee, rather than hang up/ walk away/ refuse. This isn't a psych experiment, there aren't smart people trying to figure out a way to find out what the surveyed population really believes, it's just pick one option on the list and move on to the next question. If it's a phone survey some of the answers will have been given with a giggle. "Hahaha, yeah, say I believe Obama is the Antichrist, that's brilliant".
If it was a psych experiment you'd be trying to figure out what makes someone who actually believes Obama is the Antichrist different, so that you can measure that and ignore their useless response to the direct question. For example, maybe if you think Obama is the Antichrist you would interpret extracts from a speech he gave, out of context, very differently from people who don't think he's the antichrist. So you could play people those extracts and ask them to pick explanatory options from a multiple choice list. Tialaramex (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Babelfish: The tool of Satan[edit]

Kendoll takes aimimg at his latest target: machine translation. Who knew wanting to get instant translations of speech was a tool of evilutionist evil doers (or should that be "duers", nice speeling Kendoll)? I swear, if he was doing this shit back in the 60s, he'd be castigating evil liberal JFK for wanting to usurp god's dominance over the moon. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought of commenting about Ken's post and the WIGO world ("Brain mapping proposed by Obama -- Will this bring out the cranks?") but decided that would be unfair to cranks. Whoover (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Kenny boy, "is their archaeological evidence for the Tower of Babel?" "Their" should be spelt "there". It's even spelt correctly in the link you provided. Shame you can neither read nor spell overly well my old spelling bee champ. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You have to laugh at someone who regurgitates all that bollocks but frequently uses Google Translate to pretend that he is conversant with foreign languages. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Oldusgitus, you've marked yourself as a socialist who probably contributes to poor atheist showings in sports by using "spelt," a kind of wheat, where we here in God's country use "spelled." Whoover (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ghengis, if the Babelfish wasn't Satan-spawned, then people wouldn't realize Ken uses it to pretend he can read Chinese. Duh. Phiwum (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, since Babelfish can be used to disprove the existence of God, it certainly looks like a plot by Satan. (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure it can. Sure it can. Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it can. "The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." Conclusive, I'm sure you'll agree.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Oof! I just lost veritable shitloads of geek cred there, didn't I? Thanks for explaining the joke, Fergus. Phiwum (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken has had enough...[edit]

... of mail: he decided that all this chit-chat became to distractingimg. This was the last letter he received:

On MPR, we have the sentence "Obama Is [sic] spending $100 million dollars [sic] to try to undue [sic] God's confusion of language among other things." Not only is "Is" incorrectly capitalized, there is also a redundant use of the dollar sign and the word "dollars", and "undue" is not a verb. I have no idea what is meant by this prominent sentence. GregG 08:18, 3 April 2013 (EDT)

Somehow Ken wasn't pleased. He added a oh-so-witty reply:

GregG, it seems as if that blog editor is more a political provocateur than a grammarian. :) As far as your undue/undo remark and supposedly not being able to figure out the meaning of the sentence, I will add liberal liar to the list of your many accomplishments! Conservative 11:36, 3 April 2013 (EDT)

But I assume he judged this pearls-before-swines and the debater-in-chief closed this venue of communication - and unsurprisingly deleted this clever exchange... --larron (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes! The mysterious Blog Editor is not Ken, who may also not be Ken, or he might be Ken multiple times, some of them female and anyway the Blog Editor is a political provocateur. Which is totally intellectual, but not in a gay and hence obese way, even though it's French. Phiwum (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
By the way, LArron, did you purposely misspell "too" in that first sentence? I choose to believe you did. Phiwum (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't "political provocateur" just fancy-speak for troll?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
So, basically, Ken has just run down his bunny-hole again? His machismo is jaw-dropping. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 07:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be several users circling him now and, for once, Karajou hasn't leapt to his defence. Could it be that even Conservapedia is fed up with him?--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 09:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Ken's getting North Korea's latest communique ready (3rd and 4th paragraphs). They do bear a certain strange similarity.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 10:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the opposite of paranoia where you think you've got everyone fooled called? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

...and so has VivaYashua[edit]

If anyone was thinking about contacting VivaYashua to arrange a debate (I know; unlikely) don't bother. I was chatting to him earlier and he told me that he isn't interested because he has other things to do, and that if Ken wants a debate on the 15 questions he should do it himself. I did raise this point on Ken's blog but he memory-holed my comment, as usual.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 22:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So basically, Ken is a coward of the worst sort? Who woulda thunk it. But seriously, it takes a fearful little man filled to the brim with doubt of what he's based his whole existence on for the last decade to conduct himself so dishonestly. Anyone here will debate you in a fair forum, Ken. You've been shown up over and over. Why don't you just man up and admit that you've got nothing to bring to the table? We'll continue laughing at your embarrassing mission, but you'll at least have one less thing to lie and feel such obvious shame about. Citing your own shoddy articles isn't an adequate response to any of the people you respond to with these off-topic rants - don't ignore good counsel and perhaps you'll learn something about the world, your unsupportable epistemological position, and yourself. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The only positive thing I can say about Ken is that he does research for his articles. This is largely because he hasn't an ounce of originality in his puny frame. Of course his research consists of regurgitating other people's arguments and parroting quotes. The reason that he claims there are no factual errors in his hate-drivel is because they largely comprise cut and paste jobs. He faithfully reproduces what they say, but disregards the truthfulness of their statements. Ken won't debate in an open forum because he relies on his scrapbook of clippings. A real-time public verbal debate would put him at a distinct disadvantage and not being in a position where he can memory-hole the evidence he's never going to enter the ring. All he will do is demand that other people debate his champions; not a million miles from a 5-year old kid saying that his dad's bigger than you and he will beat you up because you said horrible things about him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 19:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really get the whole debate thing anyway. It's the instant-gratification alternative to science? Why spend all that money searching for the Higgs boson when I can prove it doesn't exist with rhetoric? By appropriately defining "transitional," using my superior knowledge of Indo-European stems, I will show that all fossils must in fact be remnants of the Great Flood. The correct answer is "Go away, little man. Debates can't determine truth." Whoover (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, creationists have lost the scientific argument so to sway the great-unwashed they need to appeal to emotion rather than reason. This really only applies to the US because elsewhere even the religious (I'm only talking about the Christosphere) generally accept evolution and an old Earth. So like politics, or even a court of law, it's all about convincing a jury through rhetoric rather than forensics. Redchuck.gif ГенгисpillagingModerator 18:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Let them convince. I don't care what people think. Why should I? I have a much more optimistic view of humanity's innate quest for the truth than to worry that in the long-term science will be outlawed by plebescite or even harmed by public opinion. It's much more resilient than that. If people want to proselytize for Christ, Allah, Xenu or humans hunting dinosaurs, I say they have the right. Yeah, the part about killing resistant members of the audience kind of sucks. But beliefs aren't bad, just actions. And science has survived a lot of screwed up beliefs.
Of course it would be great if intelligent policy were supported by an intelligent public, but do you really think you will make a significant difference by getting in the gutter with the morons and arguing? Whoover (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course not, and that's why leading scientists usually refuse to get drawn into these debates. But the nutters are largely preaching to the choir and in the US states where they can command a majority then they can influence what is taught in schools, which ultimately makes it more difficult to make inroads into the general populace. Jerry Coyne's post today shows how the acceptance of evolution correlates with religiosity on a state-by-state basis. I sincerely hope that there will come a tipping point where the creationists will no longer be able to command an over-riding influence but expect that opinions will harden and become ever more determined as the biblical literalists get backed into a corner. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You're not going to make a difference, so why waste the energy? Clarence Darrow lost The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes almost 80 years ago and that society has not really changed much. Have we lost some talented scientists in Tennessee due to inferior education? Of course, and it's a damned shame. But there are plenty of kids in Tennessee who will manage to discover the truth by themselves, and there are plenty of kids who are getting a decent education in more "reasonable" states and countries. Progress will be made. No good can come of debating a Creationist. No adult who's "not sure" in the audience is going to be sold by scientific logic. I suspect the claim that Creationists always win these debates is true (as measured by polling the audience). It's a no-win situation that ultimately is of very little consequence. Whoover (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And again...[edit]

"There will be no future communication with you via this blog..." 2.5 seconds later, not just a comment, but a post: "Fergus Mason, ..." Mutant. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A long French article about Conservapedia and their denial of relativity[edit]

Here it is Alain (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right from the headline, the problem emerges: "Conservatives," or even "some conservatives" don't deny relativity. Andy Schlafly denies relativity. The idea that Conservapedia can be used as representative of anything more than the personal viewpoints of Schlafly and User: Conservative is either ignorant (more likely) or intellectually dishonest to the extreme. But we know that because we follow every move on the website. Some guy who's not in the loop ends up thinking that CP is a conservative voice ends up giving Andy way more attention and credibility than he deserves. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeesh, the comments go straight to "RELIGION IS EVIL."--"Shut up, Brx." 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So do some of the comments here. I'm surprised you'd find that noteworthy. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's also a fun game for French intellectuals or psuedo intellectuals to show how stupid the US is, as a whole. All while not really ever taking into account the fact that the US is far closer to the EU in its diversity and size, than to any one nation in Europe. Course, blogs the world over, are guilty of this. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Isnt RW just as guilt of giving them more attention than they deserve? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2013-04-04T20:20:01‎
Yes, but it's harder to quit thank codeine. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
C'mon. The notion that a bunch of French intellectuals are making discutes about how Americans think that relativity is disproved by earthquakes is up there with Jerry Lewis conferences. Le Monde is CP's greatest coup. Whoover (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been in the room for those very conversations, Whoever. It's a game. We are the best target, perhaps after the Brits. ;-) Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't giving CP more attention than it "deserves". The problem is thinking that the nonsense of CP is representative of any significant political philosophy. CP is entertaining. I've never thought it was important. Phiwum (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So does RW not feel itself is important? CP is one of the prominent front page links. Schlafly's picture often graces the front page... — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2013-04-04T22:30:39‎
Attention is great. It's a humor site for us. It's a humor site for French intellectuals. It's a humor site for pretty much everyone. Google conservapedia and try to find one positive mention. The editors are mostly parodists. Andy, a few batshit editors, AugustO and a handful of confused home-school students are the sum total of "serious" readers. Why do we feel we need to keep this to ourselves? That seems selfish and elitist. Whoover (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I can't speak for other editors, but I don't think that RW is important. I think it's an entertaining and sometimes educational site, with many topics that interest me. That's enough for me. (My apologies if others have more ambitious views for RW, but that's how I see it.) Phiwum (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you just made Trent start weeping. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to apologize for people thinking RW should be more and better than it is. I'm glad it's entertaining and sometimes educational, with many topics that interest you. You seem to get the point. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it should be more or better than it is. I like it just fine now. Phiwum (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, it's easiest to just quote Andy directly[edit]

E=mc2 is not related to nuclear energy.img MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's cut a deal. Every time Andy misrepresents any aspect of Einsteinian physics, whether intentionally or by not knowing what he's talking about (including E=mc2, attempting to posit any form of nuclear mass loss/gain reaction as being unrelated to the energy equation, relativistic effects such as time dilation and length contraction, and that one where he invoked the uncertainty principle as being what keeps GPS satellites flying), I will make a single cut, 5cm long using a straight razor, into some part of my body. We'll see how many nanoseconds it takes for me to be considered flayed, and then I'll post a picture of the result onto /b/. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You are a sick motherfucker. You've got a deal. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm incorporating that into my signature now. Though toned down slightly. --Certified Sick Bastard 18:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Statements like that from Andy convince me he's a well camouflaged /b/tard. Trolling is the only possible explanation. Whoover (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
He is genuine, although I suspect in a twist of irony he is worshiped as a troll demigod in some of the darker corners of /b/.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the CP:Nuclear Energy article begins with "The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation E=mc²." (It also claims that environmentalists despise all nuclear energy except Iran's, which they ardently support. That's how we know it's not a biased Wikipedia article.) The last editor to point out the slight inconsistency with the house policy, on the talk page, was a now-banned parodist. Whoover (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, this just keeps getting better and better. --Revolverman (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Banned because the other sysops know Andy's beliefs regarding this are insane, but they are too craven to challenge him regarding those beliefs for the sake of the integrity of CP (I really did laugh when I wrote that last part).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly it was lapdog Karajou who did the banning, protecting his lord and master without taxing any of his limited brain-cells. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 08:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

MPR Fight Club[edit]

Saw a "news" posting on MPR about an analysis of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, and assumed it was just more link spamming to CNaV by Terry to promote his buddy Walt. Instead, it's a link to another creationist site that trashes both the theory and the quality of Brown's so-called scientific rigor in his approach, and the article was posted by Ken. This could be interesting. -DinsdaleP (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, this has happened before. We goaded Ken into insulting Ayn Rand (or something else offensive to Terry) on MPR, and Terry just ignored him.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope someone brings it up on Chucky's hateblog. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The difference between Terry's support for Rand and Brown is that he acknowledges that he only agrees with her on some things, while obviously differing on religion. In the case of Walt Brown, Terry will go to all sorts of ridiculous lengths to validate his hydroplate theory as "real" science. That's nonsense of course, and to see Brown dismantled by another major creationist site underscores its flakiness. I'm with Genghis - can someone who's able to post comments on CNaV show him the link and ask for a rebuttal ? -DinsdaleP (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you guys are seriously overestimating the amount of fucks Terry gives about CP anymore. It's a one-way street. He posts links to his blog. He probably didn't even notice, let alone click it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Meh. It's the same old institutional cognitive bias. Keep in mind that Ken only selectively posts CMI stuff. So you've got Terry taking advantage of Andy's pitiful weakness and Ken shitting on both of them because he's such a vain prick. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia - better than Wikipedia, especially when stealing content illegally![edit]

Who WIGO'd this? Putting the flag of a country in an article on that country isn't "stealing content." Who is the content being "stolen" from? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth taking that down until it can be verified. That's probably libelous. --Certified Sick Bastard 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Despite the lack of attribution, they're all from WM Commons and CC by SA. Sure, he's openly flouting the license, but this is just petty. The truly abusive copyright issues are things like JM putting up photos from professional photographers' portfolios and Andy ignoring their takedown requests. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Those flags and coats were done by hand by volunteers. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
True dat. They're nice vectors made by generous people for an open project. They're also freely licensed. As bad as it gets is him steamrollering their limited rights with a big "fuck you" for the time they spent making WM Commons a better resource. So yeah, he's disrespected these people, but he's done worse. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You have to wonder at the chutzpah of those twats with their hard-ons for property rights and rule of law. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No you don't. It takes no courage to maintain a sense of entitlement that precludes any consideration of others' rights. How the fuck else can any of these people justify believing in a god who purportedly ordered his people to murder their neighbors and take their women as sex slaves? His holy book does not contain one single general prohibition against owning human beings. It requires one's brutal murder by stoning simpy for uttering a few words or touching the wrong person. That ship of taking personal responsibility for exercising one's own good judgment, rather than blindly accepting the barbaric "morality" of a desert-dwelling bronze age savage of a god, sailed long ago for fundies like Karajou. He is above your "subjective" morality because he says his god says so. Now that's objective morality for you. Wow, that was a heck of a rant. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
And a silly rant, too, since if that reasoning were valid, we would conclude that Christians generally (or at least fundamentalists) take no responsibility for their judgment and hence (?) disregard copyright law where convenient. But I don't see that there's any evidence that Fundamentalists ignore copyright law more than other persons. In fact, this sounds a bit like Ken's tortured arguments that gay men tend to be obese. Phiwum (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
And how! Olé olé olé! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Considering how much copyright violation we're hosting here, I don't think we're in a position to call anyone out. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 03:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Email me some examples? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Prolly tomorrow. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pub Quiz moment[edit]

I went to a pub quiz last night. One question began "in the equation E = mc2..." and I instantly thought "liberal claptrap!" SophieWilder 08:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Add to "How CP ruined my life". Ajkgordon (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. SophieWilder 09:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think all the regulars have had one of those "FUCK YOU, CONSERVAPEDIA!" moments by now. Welcome to the club :D --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Mine was yesterday when my first thought was, "I bet Thatcher's been dead since October." Whoover (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been waiting for a "Liberal Thatcher Dies" headline on CP. I'm disappointed. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I heard on the radio that Thatcher retired from public life in 2002. By Andy logic, she's been dead for the last eleven years.
I will add that I couldn't prevent the phrase "intellectual bunny hole" from crossing my mind a few times over Easter. Spud (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess brokering Pinochet's arms deals or lobbying against his extradition to Spain doesn't count as public life. London Grump (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
According to Taiwan's premier English-language radio station, apparently not. Spud (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's back...............[edit]

The return of the flying kittyimg. Thanks kenny, I'd missed what has to be the demonstration of the pinnacle of your, and cp's, irrelevance and insanity. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if KendalMintCake has seen this, a real flying kitty ---- CS Miller (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What about the Flying Kitty Air Force?! Page after page of flying kitties. Quite bonkers. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Someone I personally admired, and I was blocked by user Conservative on Conservapedia but defending one of the most prominent Conservatives in history. Apparantly the blocking was down to breaking a posting rule, and because I am a proud athiest liberal, for defending MARGARET THATCHER. --Patmac (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And your surprised because....? Ken is a mental midget. Acei9 23:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about a man who's made lying his stock and trade for more than a decade. It's what he does. I saw your apology. He's just a proud dick. Forget about it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
All they have on the front page is a 'RIP'. I would have imagined Andy would have leapt on 'atheistic liberal hooligans celebrate death of conservative heroine in streets' or somesuch. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 09:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hasn't Andy always been pretty iffy on whether British conservatives like Thatcher constitute true conservatives? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. He said that she wasn't a true conservative because (like all British politicians) she was in favour of strict gun control. Spud (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen there are a great many article attacking the UK in Conservapedia and I don't like that as I'm also British. You can't stop the Conservapedians having silly prejudices, they look down on anyone except right wing Americans. Fortunately no adults of average intelligence take Conservapedia seriously, you just have to get on with life and stop worrying about Conservapedia ramblings. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You`ve been unbanned. Sorry about any inconvenience. Brenden (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Conservative is closer to Aschlafly than you are, I fear you will end this wheel war bruised and battered with your faith in Conservapedia weakened. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy didn't like Thatch because she supported gun control and a woman's right to have an abortion. In his eyes, that completely outweighed all her achievements and meant she wasn't a real conservative. A fanatical, unhinged zealot (I mean Andy...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Thatcher article talk page begins with a bit of vandalism that has survived at least six years. Whoover (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


What a knob:

One of the ladies in our Question Evolution! Campaign was recently told by her boyfriend that he really likes her "French accent". Be honest atheist/evolutionist men, don't you wish you had a sweet and special lady with a French accent! What could be more romantic than that!

Il n'y a qu'un bonheur dans la vie, c'est d'aimer et d'être aimé. (There is only one happiness in life, to love and be loved) - George Sands

The creationist lady with the "French accent" has been a creation evangelists who is very excited about the campaign and has shared the campaign with her friends and family. No doubt she will be glad to hear that the campaign is going to make inroads among French speaking people. See: A Christian lady is a very excited creation evangelist. She says, "this is exciting".

Unfortunately, for atheist men, there is shortage of atheist women which is no doubt made worse by atheists/evolutionists engaging in sex selected abortions and infanticide.

I think the French accent is pretty awful to be honest. I much prefer the smooth clip of an educated English descended South African. Lucky for me I got to marry one.Acei9 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should tell him that George "Sands" was one of the French women he admires so much -- only the cross-dressing kind who slept with anyone, of either sex, who would agree to. (He can't even cut and paste without screwing up the name.) Whoover (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Mystery: Did Kendoll learn everything he knows about France from Pepe Le Pew cartoons? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If a French woman really did recently tell Ken that her boyfriend thinks she's got a sexy voice (and it's a very big IF, we all know), isn't it quite possible that she was taunting the lonely old sod who's got no "creationist sweetheart" of his own? Spud (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
He didn't say she was actually French, only that her boyfriend like her French accent. It sounds very similar to Ken being commended on his social dancing. Are such random mediocre compliments really a big thing in creationist circles? What dreadfully dull, unfulfilled lives they must lead. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 06:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ken, my wife's French. What nationality is yours? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Even by creationist standards Ken is quite pathetic, which really says something. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I could go on to talk about how he's pulling his claim that atheists commit sex-selective abortions out of thin air, and that the practice is actually more prominent in more culturally conservative parts of his beloved India and China, but it wouldn't matter at all. Also, this whole thing about a creationist lady with a french accent is ABSOLUTELY CREEPY and I can only hope that this is another one of his fabrications...if I were a girl working for alongside cons, I would feel violated by blog posts like that.WilliamR (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Conservatives don't need any of that sex-selective abortion nonsense because real conservative men only produce macho boy-babies. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring all the inherent creepiness of the post, if you boil it down to the basics it says "Man likes his girlfriend". I guess it also sorta implies that Ken knows a lady (although the wording makes it seem like he's really trying to make it seem like that, so he probably doesn't), which is sad. It's just kinda sad that, even when you take it at face value and bring no bias into the conversation, what he says is still largely pointless. X Stickman (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about French but Ken seems to be having problems with his English. e.g. "It is nice to know that our reach to college age people is very much working." "One YouTube atheists in his 20s was particularly rattled by these questions." "We received an email from a leader in French Christian leader and he is extremely excited about the Question Evolution! Campaign." PongoOrangutans are sceptical 19:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually bothered to read Ken-Boy's blog post about France. An interesting (or maybe not) example of him twisting factoids to suit his own purpose: "Evangelicalism [sic] is the fastest growing religion in France". That, Kenny, is because both Catholic and traditional Protestant churches are declining precipitously, even more than in the UK, so if evangelical churches are bumping along the bottom, they're doing better than the competition. MOAR: Have a look at his zany QE article about France; there's a head-bangingly spectacular non-sequitur from "evolution being headed for the guillotine" to the terrible state of the French economy. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC) PS