Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive314

This is an archive page, last updated 9 May 2020. 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>, <313>, <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)

Ed "I can't fucking read" Poor

Idiot^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

" too much, too fast. Please break this edit down into at least 3 separate edits, so I can read the diffs " Wow, not only do you make others do you work, you make them do it so you can understand each edit. Wonderful. --Revolverman (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Idiot? Well, I'm shocked. Ed is normally such an erudite and comprehending character. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In other news: the sun rose in the east this morning. DickTurpis (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget, he's still User 188. Burndall (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ed "Top 1%" Poor^img would appear to disagree with your assessment of his intelligence. Oh, Ed. This is actually one of his more accurate statements as it is half correct. Shakedangle (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy getting even more crazy?

I know Andy always thinks guns are the answer to everything, but this edit actually surprised me. Has he ever quite so blatantly stated that he thinks children should be allowed and encouraged to pack heat in the classroom? Even the NRA is a little too sane to advocate for this. DickTurpis (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

College students aren't children. He's talking about young adults carrying weapons. Phiwum (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC)That was at a community college. The students would all have been adults, or at least late teens. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I usually am better about reading things carefully than this. Well, it's still early here. Still, it seems the take home lesson here is not that guns might have prevented this, but the fact that the attacker didn't have a gun meant no one died. Can't expect Andy to see that though. DickTurpis (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy's take is that in the junior classes of public schools, it's the teachers who should carry guns. That will make the little bastards show some respect and learn their phonics. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Andy holster a pistol in class? I mean, isn't he doing enough damage already by "teaching"? --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no evidence either way, but I'd be surprised if Andy owned a gun at all. I'd be amazed if he carried it around with him anywhere. X Stickman (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Although no one died because he used an xacto knife, any real blade would have been much more fatal.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In Sane land wouldn't the statement be "no one died because crazed assailant didn't have access to a gun"? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if guns are the only fatal weapons in Sane land. Otherwise, BMcP's comment seems apt: if the guy had attacked with a knife better suited for killing, then the attack would have likely had more fatalities. Who could argue otherwise? Phiwum (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd still prefer my chances out running (or tackling) a loon with a knife than a speeding bulletAMassiveGay (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Granted, but is that really any better? The intent to mass murder is still there. --Revolverman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The outcome would be different however. Reminds me of an Onion article: Wayne LaPierre Goes On Harpooning Spree To Prove Some Sort Of Point. "[O]fficials reporting that the gun advocate's vicious 30-minute harpooning spree had thankfully left zero fatalities." --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that at all, I just feel that it's overlooking the real problem. The urge to do harm. --Revolverman (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 01:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's totally the 'real' problem; guns are only a minor contributing factor to gun deaths. Tielec01 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on missing my point! --Revolverman (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Right back at you; your arbitrary decision on 'real' and 'unreal' problems is very compelling. Tielec01 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Revolver man comes off much better in this exchange. His argument seems to be "yeah, guns are a problem, but I think there are other factors at play that are worth considering if you want to understand random acts of mass violence." Tieloc's argument seems to be LALALA I can't hear you unless you agree with me that mass violence is a simple phenomenon reducible to guns." Did he doubt/Or did he try? 02:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There is little, if anything, legislation can do about the will to do harm. They can make do something (admittedly not necessarily a hell of a lot) they can do about the ability to do harm. A guy with a knife, even a really awesome Rambo knife, will simply never cause as much death as a person with a gun in the same circumstance (yeah, let's not create a bunch of imaginary scenarios to prove me wrong). The whole "guns don't kill people, people do" crowd don't seem to take the same approach with Iran or North Korean and nuclear weapons. It's not like Kim Jong-Un, if he can't get his hands on a nuke, is going to single-handedly strangle every resident of Seoul, but they seem to think a homicidal maniac, if he can't get a gun, is going to kill just as many people regardless. It's true there will always be a class of criminal who will get their hands on guns no matter what laws are put in effect to stop them, but there are plenty who don't have such connections. Teenage suburban recluses would probably have great difficulty getting their hands on an assault rifle if they weren't right there in their own homes. So fuck Mrs. Lanza. That kid should have shot her and then himself and made the world a better place, and left those kids out of it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You have remarkable powers of perception Powder, given your ability to deduce whole arguments from 2 sentences. On an unrelated note, I want to know what a really awesome Rambo knife is, sound cool. Tielec01 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems more "silly" than "awesome." Did he doubt/Or did he try? 02:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@DickTurpis You are correct that direct legislation can do little to nothing about that, but I feel that a serious effort from the top and the ground floor can be done to stop these acts before they happen rather then just handcapping the damage they can do. Stronger mental health options (including forced institutionalization I feel, for those who are truly "gone" for lack of a better term), with background checks to stop the one time mass shootings, and some real work on poverty, education, and outreach to help stem urban and gang violence that tends to make up the vast bulk of gun violence in both the US and Canada. --Revolverman (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget suicide revention -- an important number of gun deaths are self-inflicted. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely neglected that. Thanks for bringing that up. --Revolverman (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the whole "fix everything from a mental health angle" solution is that while gun control is a complicated issue, it's positively simple compared to mental health. While I hate to take the approach that a proposal that wouldn't have made a difference in one specific scenario is therefore null and void, I would like to look at the mental health issue in the Lanza case. I don't know the details, but it seems like the guy was quiet and withdrawn. Does that mean he should have been locked up in an institution? I don't know of any specific violent tendencies he displayed prior to this that would have made him ineligible to own guns under any existing or proposed law. His mother evidently thought there was nothing wrong with him that couldn't be fixed by teaching him some responsibility, and the best way to do that was with guns. And mission accomplished, as he is now "responsible" for the deaths of some 30 people. Yes, we should overhaul the mental health system in the US, but don't pretend that will fix everything unless we lock up everyone who acts a bit odd. In the meantime it behooves us to try to keep guns away from people who are likely to misuse them. That, of course, is not easy either, but this idea that some people have that it isn't even a legitimate topic for discussion is disturbing. DickTurpis (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Mental-health wise, I'll see your Sandy Hook shooter and raise you a Tuscon shooter and an Aurora shooter. I have NO IDEA about the statistical relationship between perpetrators of mass violence and obvious signs of mental distress in the time before the event, but I'm damn sure the number is greater than zero, and would likely be even higher if we did a better job of evaluating people and especially of destigmatizing mental health issues. I agree with you 100% that limiting access to so-called "assault rifles", large-capacity magazines and other weapons is a necessary step in limiting mass violence. But it's by no means the whole story. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem, I feel, is that alot of people aren't looking for solutions, they are looking for political points in this debate. Mental health and poverty reform isn't sexy, but calling for "Assault Weapon" bans or Armed security for schools is. --Revolverman (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow up. I'm very much in favor of good gun control (No fully automatic weapons, or explosive ones) but too much gun control legislation is on esthetics Compare this Pistol grip to Thumbhole stock Not a big diff really, right? Yet Pistol Grips often fall under Assault weapons bans, yet thumbholes don't. --Revolverman (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That second one lookes like the small penis compensation device rifle that the Dawson College shooter used. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That was the Beretta Cx4 Storm. A pistol carbine. Likely 9mm Parabellum. That is just one of the thousands of AR-15 copies that seem to exist. 5.56 NATO rounds if I'm not mistaken. --Revolverman (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit the definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary to the point of being almost meaningless. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal (or at least so strictly regulated at the federal level as to make them effectively so), and yes calling for an assault weapons ban without really knowing what that means is basically just political posturing. This is why we need an honest debate about guns, and not one side saying "ban this thing I don't understand so I can say I've done something" while the other side says "they're coming for everyone's guns!!!!" We can have a real discussion as to why an FN FAL is a more effective killing machine than an M1 Garand, and whether limiting magazines to 10 rounds instead of 30 is going to save lives, but politicians have to be willing to actually look into these issues without worrying about how it will affect their standing with special interest groups. And we really have to look at the issues of handguns, which kill far more people than assault rifles. I'd also like to add that there is nothing quite as disingenuous as these Republicans claiming it isn;t a gun issue but a mental health issue, while simultaneously calling for cuts to all social services, including mental health. DickTurpis (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed completely with you about the Republican disingenuous posturing. Handgun control I've seen cited as the reason why Canadian gun violence is so much less then the US. I don't know enough to say I can agree, but it does seem to make sense. (If you don't know, you need a second level Firearm's permit to own a handgun, and if you want to move one, you have to inform the police of it, and basically you're only aloud to take them to a proper range and home again.) --Revolverman (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not offering any solutions to the handgun issue, I'm just saying that is you want to address gun violence in the US and look at assault rifles and not handguns, it's like addressing STDs by looking at toilet seats and not sexual intercourse. DickTurpis (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, in these debates shooting sprees and assault weapons dominate the conversation, but they only make up a small fraction of the problem. Most firearm related deaths in the US are committed with handguns and aren't a result of a mass shooting. A high percentage of them are gang or drug related. The rest of the developed world seems to have solved the problem with strict gun control and they have a fraction of the homicide rate the US does. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It shows how poisoned the debate has gotten. No talking about real issues or solutions. Just make your opponent look like a fascist Communi-nazi gun grabber, or a bloodthirsty barbarian. --Revolverman (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In it's own way, this site is as US-centric as Conservapedia. Not just in this discussion here but generally. London Grump (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that, but place no blame. The answer is to recruit more non-American editors. My goal is to fully rewrite the entire RW project with pro-Australia bias. VOX^HUMANA 08:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No blame intended, it was just an observation. But, yes, you're right. London Grump (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly no blame implied, either - apologies if it came across that way :) Let's work together to (rationally) crush evil American cultural imperialism. Or failing that, at least the Kardashians. VOX^HUMANA 10:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

what, you think you can inflict the kardashians on us and a simple 'oops, my bad' will make things right? We will have our vengeance upon on you when we saturate your airwaves with TOWIE and 'made in Chelsea' until MTV is a music channel again. Reap the whirlwind mother fuckers AMassiveGay (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Ken, a few points: 1. Alexa is far from reliable. 2. 10% of all web traffic is still bloody huge, what percentage of the worlds web traffic does conservapedia and your little blog get ? I'm sure Wikipedia probably gets more hits per second than conservapedia gets per week. 3 Of course they don't want you as an editor given that you have been blocked there so many times and continue to use sock puppets. Ghost (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Link? Scream!! (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

[1]^img Peter ^mqzp 07:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha! " ...they don't want you as an editor." another case of: "Read the headline, ignore the body" Scream!! (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia doesn't want you as an editor. Much unlike CP, who want you so much that they've blocked literally almost half their editorship. DickTurpis (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Haha! Seems teh Andy does not like your news stories! Maybe they lack machismo! Ole!^img --Ghost (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Going by Ken's own "research" tool we have from busiest to most decrepit:

• Wikipedia - Sixth in the world; seventh in the US.
• Freethoughtblogs (as Ken is obsessed with PZ) - 20,639th in the world; 6,391st in the US.
• Rationalwiki - 35,852nd in the world; 11,337th in the US.
• Conservapedia - 63,163rd in the world; 19,254 in the US.
• Creation.com (CMI) - 71,425th in the world; 19,972nd in the US (it does worse than CP??)
• Conservativenewsandviews (Terry's site) - 775,979th in the world; 104,720th in the US.
• Question Evolution Blog (Ken's site) - 4,440,199th in the world; 713,231st in the US.

--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. At least according to Alexa, we are more awesome than Kendoll's favourite website. That calls for a rousing round of olés! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else remember when Ken posted about how (and I'll screw up which websites they actually were) Creation.com had a higher rank (71,425) than RW (35,852), which meant that Creation.com was twice as good? That was one of my favorite Kenisms of all time. Carlaugust (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Given Ken is such a devious fuck I'm quite surprised he hasn't tried to claim the figures for blogspot as a who, as going by his logic the only decent stuff on there is his and other creationist loonies blogs. Although he probably enjoys some of the more risque blogs show long haired atheist pornstars. Ghost (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "devious" imply cleverness? Don't you mean dishonest? DickTurpis (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Ken, did big and mean ol' Andy tell you to take it down ?^img Ghost (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken and Digital Journal

Ken is all excited that something called Digital Journal posted a summary of the evolutionism-shattering debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg, the atheist scholar who no one has heard of until now.

Okay, well. Digital Journal seems to basically be a Wikipedia for news, being a news site taking stories from the public.

The actual story Ken links to is nothing more than a press release, and it's written in a style that's quite Ken-like. If you look at the actual release, it's even more Ken-like. It says "James Tofflemire" wrote it, and he has a web site with personal details. Interesting. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Engineer. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Ken! If you'd actually followed through with your big plan #927 from over a year ago and done a press release, paying the 20 bucks or whatever it is to get it on those stupid press release websites, you too could have been spidered by the prestigious Digital Journal. But I guess we're on to plan #5082 which is to release a book. Sometime. Let us know when that happens. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Watergate

I always thought the problem was the break-in. Apparently, it was the taping. Seriously, has anyone ever heard anyone say that Nixon's crimes including taping Democrats? I thought Democrats were kind of okay with the taping, filing it under "own petard." Whoover (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's both. You'd generally have to bug an office or whatever in order to get a recording of any conversations, which is likely illegal either way. In any case, it isn't a double standard; Watergate was a very minor news story until they linked the burglars to the White House. If they can find something linking these tapes with Obama, believe me, they'll have their story. Until then, it's some anonymous guys and their hijinks. DickTurpis (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The crime was the break-in and surveillance taping. The "tape controversy" however was about the taping Nixon did of his own conversations. Not that he made them, but that he refused to hand them over to prosecutors when subpoenaed, claiming 'executive privilege'. SCOTUS told him GFY. In the early 1990s the former head of the KGB described US vs Nixon as America's finest legal achievement - forcing everyone to be subject to the law, even the head of state. VOX^HUMANA 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There is reasonable question to ask, as to whether the tape recording was done illegally or not. Methinks Andy has heard the "Nixonian" claims and decided to go with "it's just like Watergate".

Really, he should know better. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota Twins

Dear Andy,
I know you're an idiot, but as a proud Minnesotan, I must tell you something. It's not unusual that Minnesota gets early spring snow storms. The reason that tomorrow might be the first Twins snow cancellation in decades is because from 1981 through 2010, the Minnesota Twins played baseball indoors. Kind of hard to have snow delays in an indoor stadium. Carlaugust (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned batshit partisan shot. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

On global warming, the lack of self-awareness here is something to behold^img. Why don't you say the opposite when it's a warm day, Andy?

I was thinking that in Andy's declining mental state, he probably does. There will be record hot days this summer and it will make him silently wonder if it was all true. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not likely. Back in January Australia endured a record-breaking heatwave in terms of area, duration, high temperature and average, continent-wide, temperature. While roads were literally melting in Australia, CP was crowing about it snowing in China and Chicago(?) as "proof" of the global warming hoax. Comments about this went largely ignored.Sokar (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember him snapping on Joq about some conspiracy when he was asked how he was enjoying the fall-spring winter the US had last year.--^Mikal_lakiM 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, you're so fucking stupid, I'm surprised you can walk.

But there have still been many seasons in an open stadium without a snow cancellation

Yeah, SOOO many! (Two). And, recall, last winter/spring in Minnesota was ridiculously warm.

and games in domed stadiums can be canceled if there is a snowstorm

Really? They can? Please explain, because the Minnesota Vikings play in some of the worst weather in the country, in a dome, and they have never had a game cancelled due to a snow storm. And, on an anecdotal note, I've been to several Twins games under the Metrodome on days that have had snowstorms. Carlaugust (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They can be cancelled in the Dome, but only if the roof collapses like it did back in 2011. Thanks to Andy's stupidity, however, I've decided to go to the Twins game tonight as a show of defiance. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, on Andy's initial remark, MPR wrote an article explaining the relationship between global warming and the seemingly perpetual winter in the north. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Have any games been postponed because heavy snow disrupted transport to/from the stadium? I know that it happens (very) occasionally for football (soccer) in the UK. CS Miller (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Some context here. Unlike most countries, we collectively shit our pants at the first hint of a snowflake. Most places deal with it. 14:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It would take alot of snow to phase your average Minnesotan. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never, ever heard of a game being cancelled in this state simply because a snowstorm made it hard to get to the game. It's pretty hard to imagine that scenario, actually, given the level of public transit infrastructure (bus stations, trains) around our sports facilities. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's normally happens if there is a heavy snow fall during the games, and the police are worried that the away fans will have difficulty getting home safely. CS Miller (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well this is a new development...

It would seem that the FBI aren't the only people whose time Conservapedia wastes http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AAnyaSkinn^img. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing how some small-government proponents love to report people. DMorris is an egregious example having previously threatened RationalWiki with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Of course, that was just a joke. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So what does CP trade? Aside from lies and bollocks? --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 11:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point in history (late 1990s?), FTC used to publicise the fact that unsolicited commercial email should be reported to them and they would investigate. Of course, everyone realised they were woefully underequipped to do that at that point, because the spam levels were already ridiculous and spammers were turning to foreign services. I suppose they still might investigate some of that stuff today, but since the spam problem has just kept growing, I have no idea what good it does. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Masters

I'm kinda surprised Andy hasn't posted about the Masters -- Tiger Woods has been getting a lot of pub these last few days, and literally every story I've heard on the radio has called him the favorite to win. Meanwhile, while Woods is being heavily promoted by the liberal media, there are two teenagers in the tournament, and we all know how Andy loves to promote the greatest achievements by teenagers... Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is Tiger probably won't win, then Andy will just gloat more, because if you don't win everything all the time you're overrated. That's why the only true athlete out there is Tebow, who singlehanded won the last 10 Super bowls. DickTurpis (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

He should posit some "lamestream media effect", where the media actually improves output by inflating an overrated star's ego. That'd wrap it all up in a nice little bow. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiger is looking strong today -- on the ninth hole, he's taken three strokes off his score from yesterday and is one stroke off the lead. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiger was almost disqualified and penalised 2 shots for an illegal drop, so he's clearly bought into liberal deceit. I've never heard of the guy leading, so he's clearly the best of the public. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 06:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of Angel Cabrera??? He's won 2 majors, including the Masters in 2009. If Andy has a crack at Tiger then he would be in good company. Tiger should have been disqualified, and I suspect anyone else would have been. --Damo^Hi 06:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant Snedeker. For that matter, most of the top 10 are unknown to me - Leishman, Day, Kuchar. Then again, I'm guessing most people had never heard of Immelman or Schwartzel before they won. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, my bad. I actually thought Cabrera was in the sole lead for some reason. What do you think of Tiger getting let off with a 2 stroke penalty? I have mixed emotions about it, he admitted that he deliberately went back 2 yards to make the shot easier for him, but on the other hand, golf can be a bit ridiculous in its policies of DQ'ing people for making mistakes on their card. This may well have the unintended effect of setting a precedent that people won't get DQ'ed for trivial mistakes anymore. I maintain that anyone else would have been kicked out though. Damo^Hi 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The rules of golf are a bit vague to me. Google tells me that according to the USGA rules the two shot penalty is right, but Woods only added 1 shot to his scorecard. Therefore he should have been disqualified for signing an incorrect card, but apparently the rules have been changed after 2011, so that a retrospective disqualification can't be done anymore, mostly because a player is unaware at the time that he breached a rule. That said, you'd think somebody like Tiger would know the rules, especially the playing conditions of the tournament. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You can drop as far back as you like, in line with the ball's path into the hazard. If his ball had gone straight into the water, then he would have done nothing wrong by going backwards from his original position. However, because the ball pinged off the flagstick and into the water, he could only legally go backwards along the "new" flagstick -> water line. By choosing to replay the shot from his original position / along its original line, he should have dropped as close to his OP as possible.

It's all sufficiently obscure that the match referee didn't notice the error, nor - as far as I'm aware - did any of the commentators / pundits who were watching at the time. Given that, and the risk of disqualification, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that Tiger made an honest mistake in the heat of the moment. Robledo (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For certain values of "collaboration."

Kendoll: Some Conservapedians collaborated to improve our atheism article.

Reality: Last three years of edits. All Kendoll.

That's a funny sort of collaboration you have there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note also the 'Greengrocer's apostrophe' " ... reader's ...". Excellent use of your native language there Kendoll. Scream!! (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll, nice of you to oversight that link. Why don't you just crawl down your bunnyhole and stay there. Nice of you to show such unchristian behavior. No wonder you don't have any luck with the ladies. Ghost (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh and obvious sock^img is obvious sock. How fucking thick are you ?? You even oversighted the fucking edits to hide it was you but given your fucking incompetence it is a dead give away. Ghost (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That sock's got a sock. Whoover (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Are those Rob Turkels different from the RobertTurkel who added to the Atheism Quotes article in 2008? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see Ken deleted his talkpage, thereby hiding all the love letters he wrote to a user who had quit (banned?) the project months before. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering nobody of any import, or even credibility within the creationist community, has embraced Ken's insanity, I'm confident wagering they're not JP Holding. How can someone act like this and still acuse anyone else of being an "insincere poser?!" 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that Conservative is a master parodist? The more I read his nutjobbery and think about things, the more it seems possible. He has even referred to himself as "we are legion" which I am fairly sure is the language the Book of Revelations uses to describe The Beast... and nobody at CP seems to have noticed. He certainly makes a mockery of every subject he turns his attention to... Sokar (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have deleted the entire conversation between you, yourself (sock) and another user. Why do you lack Machismo kendoll ? I'm sure Hispanic, long haired, creationist spinsters would not be impressed with such displays of machismo. Ole Ole Ole Ghost (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Is it possible that Conservative is a master parodist?". Yes, but if he is then they've been playing the long game, and you know what they say about masks worn long enough. And in the end, i would have no respect for somebody/a group of people who puts that much effort into parody, especially on some 2-bit website nobody cares about. --^Mikal_lakiM 06:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More of Conservative lately: Ed cleans up some of his shit stains from 2009, more oversighting main page talk (would love to see what he got rid of), and he calls Ames obsessed with him while quoting something from two and a half years ago. Jesus, Ken, can you do anything that isn't stupid or cowardly? lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone asked his sock if he knew what "semantic analysis" was and - poof - the whole thing disappears. London Grump (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, disappeared after a typically puerile and off-point quip. Ken's a truly deceitful and nasty prick. 19:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think he's nasty as such. His main attribute seems to be a mental age of 12 or less. Just read everything he writes with that in mind and it all makes sense. Scream!! (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He's so filled with bitter hatred of anyone who doesn't conform to expectations he can't even articulate, being the utter failure of an apologist he is, that every single, and I mean every, response he gives to anyone even asking reasonable questions shows him assuming bad faith and taunting them.12 year old's intellect or not, can you honestly say you've ever seen anything to suggest he's capable of tenderness, kindness, or being helpful to those around him? He's a dick to everyone he's sees who he's not afraid. I don't feel sorry for him anymore. 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy Really, Really Loves Putin

Congress passed the Magnitsky Act to punish Russia for killing auditors. Russia retaliates. Andy sides with Russia because somebody used the word "Russophobic," which proves it's about teh gays, even though the cited article never mentions the dreaded gay agenda. Whoover (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So any word with the suffix -phobic is automatically a reference to homophobia? Or the Russians just hate gays? I'm really confused on this line of "reasoning"... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's both. "-phobic" has been stolen by liberals to mean "you're bigoted because you hate gays." Right thinking people, like Putin and the pastor who gave Andy his Best New Conservative Word, "biblophobic," are taking it back because Jesus. Whoover (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

...So if I were to bring up my philophobia, phobophobia, and phobophilia I would be supporting the gay agenda? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

-phobias are bad but -philias are good. Except hemophilia because it's too much like homophilia. Whoover (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's something wrong with love of sameness? I thought that Andy loved conformity to his ideals open-mindedness. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Ed Poor Article

Mode.^img I love his contributions: non-political, non-religious information that's so simplistic as to be wrong. This stuff is a big reason that CP is the gem it is. Whoover (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything's difficult if you have no idea how to do it, Ed.--Spud (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You just know that this is another instance of Ed live-blogging his life. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and once again Ed goes looking for approval from Andy. Генгис^marauding 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I particularly like the irony of a glowing discussion of Intellectual Diversity at an encyclopedia that aims at providing only one political viewpoint and viewing everything (Olympic sports, modern physics, mathematics, the Bible, etc.) in purely political terms. A site that has banned a remarkable number of dissenting voices as well! Keep going, Ed! Phiwum (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A site at which Ed himself has banned users for expressing dissent. 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And, in typical Ed fashion that article comprises just three random external quotes with a different link format for each one. Генгис^pillaging 18:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh user:188 is soooo sweet in his complete incompetence isn't he. He mentions in his shite about mode that most keyboards have an escape key and then links to cp's article on escape^img. Guess what? Redlink to the non existent article about the escape key. Ed, you are a fucking moron. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel as bad when laughing at Ed as I do when laughing at Ken. It's just not right. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon: CP is beyond pathetic

Beyond a joke^img. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're only making it worse by calling attention to it. Just leave them alone, and try focus on what's important, i.e. anything you can do, even if it's a simple Red Cross donation. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The cited CNN conversation mentions Al Queda first. That, however, is appropriate. Whoover (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Rightwing Christians have a problem with considering any other adherents on the same side. Islamic extremists aren't rightwing to them. There is a kind of freudian admission of considering himself a rightwinger. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did a search and couldn't find any recent examples of leftist terrorism. Anyone? Speculating right wing motives seems perfectly reasonable to me. Violent extremism seems to be the exclusive province of the far right wing. And lol CNN and Luke Russert are hardly "leftists" anyhow. Who the heck is a real leftist that has any kind of mainstream audience? 21:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) You obviously didn't do a good job if you couldn't find couldn't find any left wing terrorist organizations. Please don't turn this into a left-right issue, let's just wait for the facts to come out. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how recently ETA, Shining Path, or that Maoist group in Nepal have pulled anything, but they would count, as might that "Real IRA" faction. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to mention: today is the observance of Patriots Day here in MA, and of course it's tax day as well. Patriots Day (the real anniversary, Apr. 19) was the day McVeigh committed his deed. It's hardly a leap to wonder whether this is an instance of right wing domestic terrorism. Phiwum (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Groan. You're right. I researched that really poorly. I said "recent." "Recent" has no concrete meaning. Sad trombone. I probably should have said "American leftist terrorism in the last 40 years." The BLA and Weathermen were before my time. 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case you have Columbia's FARC which is still active, you have the Sandinistas who were active up until 1990, you have Revolutionary People's Liberation Party in Turkey which is still active, and you have Revolutionary Organization 17 from Russia which didn't disband until 2002. Terrorism is not exclusive to any side of the spectrum, this idea that it's only right-wingers seems to be influenced by our experiences with fundamentalist Islam. As for American experiences, the BLA and WU were active up until 1985, so within the last 30 years. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, on CP there are no right-wing terrorists. Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik were liberals, a dupe of Islamic terrorists in McVeigh's case and a video gamer in Breivik's. Whoover (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The real point is that one can find terrorist groups that are considered "right" and "left" wing, and that there are also many religious terrorist groups that don't comfortably fit as either leftist or right wing; most importantly, we have no idea who is responsible yet; it is possible it wasn't even political or religious, but instead a personal vendetta.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point BMcP Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Who could argue with that? Phiwum (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Oh no, what a tragic moment to witn-" *linkspam*. Good one, Terry. Your site's reputation will shine! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And the blog post contains, not one or two but, three videos that all start playing automatically on top of each other. Niiice. Vulpius (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

CNAV's secret source "The Eagle" speculates that it is either Muslim terrorists or a false-flag operation. Генгис^unbelieving 07:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By which of course he means "OBAMA DID IT!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No one is mentioning that their headline is at odds with every other news source..^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.192.19 / talk / contribs}

And any of this is surprising to anyone who's followed CP for more then... hell, a bloody week? This is the site that claims E=MC^2 is bullshit, and that black holes cause Atheism. This is honestly small potatoes for them when it comes to stupidity. --Revolverman (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, anyway, seems that CP has it all wrapped up now. Andy says that police are looking for a foreign-accented suspect (I haven't heard a single report calling anyone a suspect), and Karajou adds that a Saudi national may be a suspect. To be sure, police did question a Saudi national, but reports today indicate that he's a local university student who was tackled as he ran away from the incident. We should all be happy that Andy hasn't run with "CP Proven Right" because the death toll has reached three, as Andy originally (mistakenly) reported. Phiwum (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Prediction

If it turns out that the police either charge someone who isn't an Arab with the crime, or if they fail to charge anyone at all, Andy will crow that the liberal media forced them to lay off the original suspect^img. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. That sounds a little extreme, even for Andy. More likely, if it's a domestic person/group responsible, Andy will start looking for evidence the guy is liberal (libertarian, if necessary), atheist and/or a video gamer. Phiwum (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "The liberal media try to deflect attention away from the Saudi student whose home was just searched."^img That, with his conspiracy theories involving Hugo Chavez's death, Castro's alleged death in 2009, Obama being a Muslim, Obama being born in Kenya, and it doesn't seem to extreme for Andy. However, he'll probably go with video gamer and liberal. Even odds on young mass murderer, regardless of age. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The "liberal media" apparently include U.S. law enforcement officials. The day after the tragedy, the cops saying he's not a suspect, and Andy's still using this event to push his liberal media bias/anti-Muslim garbage. This isn't as weird as his "relativity is a liberal plot" obsession, but in terms of pure dickishness, it's pretty extreme, even for him. Godspeed (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh! I guess PowderEtc knows his shit. Andy is on script. It's really stunning to watch Andy latch on to an idea and decide he's found a certainty. Sure, this isn't quite as stoopid as the Castro-is-dead idea, but Andy's confidence here is something. Phiwum (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Saudi officially cleared Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

...that's just liberal denial. We may never know who did this, because liberals. (EDIT -- Already linked above by Phiwum) If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 23:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's officially a liberal denial Aceⁱ⁹ 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to PowderSmokeAndLeather for the prediction. RationalWiki proven right!--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And Andy takes another step towards becoming the perfect parody of himself. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the feeling that, right now, it wouldn't take much to persuade Andy to join in a lynch mob going after every Ay-rab in town. Spud (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Would Andy claim a false flag or something similar if a Caucasian was found to have done it? The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 04:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Liberal Video Game player. He did with Brevik, and those two are peas in a pod. --Revolverman (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Uuuh, the 'suspect was tackled by an eyewitness' - isn't that just assault? If I tackle Andy do I get to claim he's guilty of something? Cos I'll do it. Worm (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Launchbooty is teetering on the edge of the conspiracy cliff, he hasn't gone Alex Jones and called it a false flag conspiracy outright, yet, but you can tell he so wishes it to be, or at least have de facto president Obama look like a failure for not having the magic eight ball to see this coming. The highlights:

• The government has no suspects yet! Why isn't it like CSI where its all done in 40 minutes? Gawd!
• Maybe cause they do know and not telling! Dun dun DUN!
• Mike Adams of Natural News tells us what is sure signs of a False Flag and what is not, because he is oh so credible.
• I have a friend who has a friend who says he heard from his friend that people were arrested in Pakistan regarding this so surely this is a credible source, right? I mean WND trusts them, so why shouldn't everyone?
• The government appeared to know an attack may happen but did nothing and thus bungled badly, because Boston marathon was such an obvious target or something. Also the US government are hopelessly outclassed against terrorists because of the bombing despite the excellent terrorism prevention record overall, cuz' Obama (and Liberals).
• And always remember, Obama isn't really the president!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, isn't it obvious? Terry sees that if bomber is someone tied with the Teabaggers, the American extreme right will be massively discredited. He's got to set up every excuse he can imagine to deal with the eventuality. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the type of bombings the FBI has prevented this year (1,000 pound bomb, car bombs, and even a 1,800 pound bomb), that these particular bombs were so low-grade and easy to produce, it wouldn't shock me if it was some lone nut with no ties to any movement who did this more for personal vendetta/gratification rather than a political or religious statement, but that is just my personal hunch.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kendollditit Ghost (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone fancy nominating Thrustbum for Massachusetts Chief of Police? The man's a genius: he can solve the most complicated murders from the safety of his own computer a thousand miles away. </irony> Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And give him the chance to order the immediate arrest of the Kennedys? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do I keep arguing with Terry?

It feels so good when I stop? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Masochism probably. Try S&M instead. Physical welts heal, but the mental scars from dealing with cokeeyes are forever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider it a victory if you can make him admit that the DI's Wedge Document is a real thing, since they copped to it and all.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Emotional cutting. 03:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Liberal media blames whites

Directly from Andy, "The liberal media had been absurdly accusing 'white supremacists' of the heinous crime [of the murder of a Texas DA]." This seems like a departure from the usual crazy, with some racial tones. What kind of day and age is this where white people are being suspected of crime? It's absurd that a violent criminal gang might be suspected of murdering a district attourney who prosecuted them for murder. Right on the back of Andy crowing about how they won't investigate brown people for the bomb in Boston. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if Andy was a racist. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I though there were suspicions that the murders were tied to a white supremacists prison gang.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There were. But only big bad liberals ever suspect radical groups with violent histories of having committed more violent acts. Good conservatives always assume complete innocence until someone is proven Muslimguilty. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy's reaction is all about denying that there are white supremacists, I think, not denying that white people should be suspects in this crime. After all, Eric Williams (and his wife?) is white. Phiwum (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is this stuff getting pasted into the MainPage header rather than MPR news? Obviously this is stuff that really irks Il Duce. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I never considered Andy to be racist. His thinking seems to simple and straightforward to be accurately described as "racist", somehow. X Stickman (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Andy is consciously racist, but he believes that the liberal media is biased against conservative white men. Hence, he thinks that any discussion of white supremacists is really meant to tar conservative white men, so is made up. Similarly, he doesn't think that it's plausible a right-wing white man is responsible in Boston, so the very first dark-skinned possible suspect must really be the culprit. Phiwum (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The implication in both stories is that they should be investigating non-whites, but the media/authorities are too biased/PC to do so. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne being a good little parodist

This^img made me chuckle. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 00:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Spamming links to external sites"—yep, sounds like Chuckarse. --_transResident Transfan^form! 02:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Rescinds the block after one minute; what was the point?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably just doing it to give himself a chuckle. Possibly a RationalWiki-style good natured ribbing block. And why hasn't Dvergne changed his name to DickV yet?--Spud (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both Schlaflys

Why does this WIGO indicate both Andy and Roger? Roger is nowhere to be seen on the linked items. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the WIGO should include that. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A legitimate reason

"No legitimate explanation^img," sayeth criminal investigations expert Andy Schlafly, "exists why the Administration has delayed asking for the public's help for info on the suspects."

Perhaps, you fucking dipshit, they were hoping to identify them without tipping them off they had an idea who they were? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy on Tuesday: "'Government pleads for help from the American public to solve the horrific crime." Andy on Thursday: "Why won't the government ask for the public's help?". If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

^ WIGO worthy shit right there. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

#facepalm# I just realized something: Andy wants this case to be solved by the best of the public. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still on the racism kick. I'm pretty sure Andy suspects that those in question are not white and the media/government is trying to cover it up. "If the bomber turns out to be [brown], then the USA might respond appropriately, and the article would rather blame white Americans." Straight from MPR. Pretty clear to me. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think Andy knows that his blog and elements of the Tea Party veer dangerously close to McVeigh territory (JPatt, Coke-eyes) and he's desperately afraid of getting painted with a big brush if the bombing turns out to to be the work of some sort of anti-government white militia types. It's not so much his own racism that's driving this as his desire to hitch onto the already-existing racist paranoia about brown folks as a way to deflect attention away from something that may end up being problematic for him. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 17:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Boston PD handling the investigation?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the FBI is running things. Phiwum (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not asking for the public's help"... Nevermind the tip hotline set up less than an hour after the bombings and announced on every news network covering the story...--Umichcynic (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

MYSTERY: Did pressure from Conservapedia force the Obama Administration to release the video? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I say it's quite to the contrary. The FBI was slow on this because their central priority was investigating vandalism on Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Still no standard composite sketch! There's always a composite sketch. Usually, it involves an eyewitness, though. Is Andy expecting the FBI to use the video to draw us some cartoons? Why is Obama blocking it? Whoover (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought video surveillance footage was far better than an artists interpretation of a harried memory...silly me. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Baghdad Blast

Liberal gun control causes explosion in....Baghdad?^img Aceⁱ⁹ 22:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I expected that to be from a parodist. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 22:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's funny to imagine Andy blaming everything on how ineffective gun control is. "Today I spilled ketchup on my nice clean shirt. Liberal obsession with gun control is no help." «-Bfa-» 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He is aware that Iraq is swimming in AK copies and other small arms, right? --Revolverman (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Outta my cold dead hands, liberals! Aceⁱ⁹ 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Iraqi kids with realistic toy guns. I helped develop a campaign warning about that in 2003. Some of the kids in Basrah decided it was hilarious to point toy guns at military vehicles. It was only a matter of time before one got shot for it, so we designed some leaflets and posters. When a society is awash in real guns you don't assume that the one being pointed at you is a toy, and it's hardly fair to ask troops to hold off on reacting until they see if it goes bang or not.--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.} 07:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeesh. I'm a sucker for photogs doing contract working (lots of them) in the Middle East. A friend of mine had all her gear blowed up and needed a completely new kit ASAP. But can you imaging having boisterous 12 year olds pointing loaded automatic weapons at you as part of your daily work? 01:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is actually more ridiculous then the E=mc2 crap.The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 02:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Even by Andy's standards, that is totally bloody ridiculous. Desperately trying to search for some twisted logic in that, this is what I've come up with. If all American civilians were happy gun owners, they could travel the world and police the planet, making sure that no bombs went off anywhere ever again. All I can say is, what a twat! Spud (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do hope Dvergne, AugustO or someone else asks him to explain his logic. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DonnyC has. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The desperate blame game

As someone who is at least vaguely aware of how the world works, it seems to me like the police are on top of this Boston bombing situation. Granted they could have done some things a bit better, but on the whole they seem to be getting the major parts right. On the other hand, in CNAV world it's a fuckup from start to finish AND OBAMA IS TO BLAME!!!!1!!!!1one! I'm kind of enjoying watching each of their angry "editorials" try to come up with new reasons why it's the the big O's fault. Even better is the dancing around the subject of whether he's actually the one who planned the bombing in the first place for his nefarious communisty reasons. Why the fuck don't they just say what they so clearly want to? They're already pretty much mini Alex Joneses, just one more inch and you're there, Chucky. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It must be a weird place in their heads. I mean, imagine living in a reality in which you already know the cause of everything bad that has ever happened and will ever happen, but no matter how much of a stretch, you have to come up with some way to draw hundreds of non-existent connections in a way that you can almost in fact believe it. Logic is a foreign shore to Terry and friends. DickTurpis (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Andy figgers that the only way to get things done is to ignore government (i.e., Obama's) orders. Never mind that the shelter-in-place order was rescinded before the discovery was made, so the individual who found the suspect did not disobey any orders. Phiwum (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Best of the Public! Whooo! Vulpius (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long

The Boston Marathon killer was "allegedly into violent video games'^img. Reuters is reporting he was a prolific user of VK, a Russian site like Facebook. Andy's got to be as happy as a pig in shit right now. Really, Andy, it's a matter of simply demographics: When a spree killer is in his late teens or 20s, he's going to have a Facebook account and play video games. If you had lived in the 19th century, you probably would have blamed Jack the Ripper on Edison's phonograph. Godspeed (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, Godspeed got there first If there's anyone from Massachusetts here, please could you ask your prosecutors and judges not to bother investigating the Boston Marathon bombings. That legal genius Mr Andrew Schlafly has discovered why both suspects did it, which is truly amazing considering that one of them is dead, the other hasn't yet been arrested and the law in the USA assumes defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Here's a hint: v*d*o g*m*s^img. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that surprises me was Andy waited till almost 11:00 Eastern to blame video games. Maybe he slept in today. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Islam, Facebook and video games. Andy's hit the trifecta. Godspeed (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And immigrants. He's going for a straight flush. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we know of anyone on CP who gets interviewed by Russian media channels? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact....If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shocked Andy isn't playing up the hinted ties to Islam part of that Reuters article yet, or are they leaving that one up to Lanuchbooty?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How urban legends get started

1. Dvergne, on Andy's talk page^img.
2. Andy shares the "Twitter reports" with the world.^img
3. Then, he doubles down.^img Godspeed (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally hate parodists on CP, since it seems redundant and it's a purer form of humor to laugh at the unadulterated nonsense Andy & Co. can come up with on their own. But I must say, if Dvergne made up the video game thing out of whole cloth, well, that's inspired. Andy will never back down from that, even though he has only Dvergne's word on it. Phiwum (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd put money on that being an accurate prediction, but then it isn't exactly a difficult one. Andy never backs down from anything.--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.} 16:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He already anticipated that there won't be much support for the video game angle by saying the liberal media won't report it. Andy is in classic conspiracy theory territory here: Lack of any evidence is simply evidence that the plotters are able to cover there tracks. Godspeed (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I love the duality of "everyone needs guns everywhere" with "people shouldn't play video games with guns". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy's logic, summed up:

• Device that simulates committing murder: BAD.
• Device that allows you to commit murder: GOOD.
• Black holes, relativity, evolution also bad. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wondered where the hell the video games thing came from as I didn't see it in any news report, even the brothers' bios. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the liberal media is covering it up, obviously. Of course it's a fairly safe bet that any male of around 20 has at some point played violent computer games, so Andy gets to be "proven right" no matter what. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy is going to bet all his chips on the "video games made them do it" angle, even going as far as ignoring the Islamic and immigrant angles to do it, dude must really hate video games.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If it was someone who wasn't completely insulated from criticism, I might guess it could have been the recent act of terrorism by a christian (i.e. the ricin letter). Occasionaluse (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"An immigrant student -- big into violent video games -- apparently caused the Boston Marathon massacre. But liberal censorship will erase and deny any connection with video games." Sheesh. Xenophobia, trying to score political points, and two of his favorite bogeymen. What a fucking creep. Pst... Andy, the press isn't going to mention video games because it didn't happen. 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Andy dishonest? Stupid? Deluded? I don't think I ever understood him. Nor Ken for that matter. Are they liars? What's wrong with these people? How can someone live in a completely separate reality? Am I asking too many stupid questions? 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that they're very, very frightened individuals. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm constantly rediscovering that fact that Andy is a sick and twisted individual. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally really don't think andy is sick and twisted. I actually think he is emotionally retarded and essentially pussy whipped by his cadaver of a mother. For whatever reason, that causes him to be utterly unable to admit to error in real life, and I know I'm supposing about things I cannot know but I doubt he EVER came close his mothers dreams for him. swabbie and terry on the other hand are sick, lying, demented, hypocritical and twisted wankers. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright Nutty, I'll take them in order. Yes. Relatively. Definitely. Again, definitely. The answer the next two questions: They're cranks. Nah. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why Andy is going for the "video games made them do it" angle rather than the more straigtforward "al-Qaeda jihadist videos made them do it"? Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because basically everybody in the bombers' demographic plays video games. So if you throw that out there then he can get away with it. I'm waiting for the Conservapedia proven right post. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 00:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Andy. Because nothing says terrorism like launching a bird at some pigs^img. I'm sure Rovio directly inspired murdering kids, they're just that kind of company. Fuck you, Andy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "UPDATE: Injured and cornered, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect refuses to surrender; in video games players lose points if captured or killed by police".^img
OMFG, even for Andy that's REALLY fuckin' stupid.
Also, let's blame public schools too^img. If these guys happen to have been gay relativists Andy would be dead from an orgasm. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That needs to be WiGOed. Sure, Andy, in video games you lose points if captured or killed by police. In real life, however, it's without any ramifications whatsoever. (Though maybe in some jurisdictions they may make you go back to "start"). DickTurpis (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be fun to parrot an Andy argument. I'd like to see what he says about correlation and causation here considering that a statistically insignificant number of video game players have committed mass shootings. I'm trying to find an example, I know there are tons of places where he says things about "99.5%" being proof of something. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One cold day proves Global Warming is a lie. One person who likes violent video games kills somebody... One example is more than enough when it proves Andy's right. Spud (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken and Colonics

I'm kinda amused by the line "Real men could care less what others do with their colons!" in Ken's new screed^img. Kinda ironic given the man's ramblings. Ayzmo (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I read that post as Ken going: "Rationalwiki isn't paying attention to me! I need to feed my ego during this whole indecent with the Boston bombers that's taking all of CP's headlines! I know, I'll make up some bogus statistics on how they suck and say it's from a friend of a friend, and then I will talk about MA-CHEESE-MO! I wish I had some friends and machismo."--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I want to know what tool has the ability to objectively say one site is better than another. Must be a hell of an algorithm. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To quote an old joke, the tool's Ken. But I don't think you can use the word objective in the same sentence, not unless you want the device-that-bears-no-name to shatter under the gross distortion of reality that would result.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 22:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Ken may have caught a case of Gay Bowel Syndrome. (Someone needs to manually redo the capturebot thingo. Don't have rights to do it apparently :() Ghost (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears we finally have some concrete numbers and names. I'm not familiar with the process of acquiring inbound links from .edu, but knowing the cut-throat business of backlinks and google rankings, I'd imagine there's a away to fake it. Case in point. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that in Ken's world, only real men and overweight pansies ever google anything. I suppose women are either too busy washing their beautiful long hair and practicing their French accents (if they're Christians) or working on being butch (if they're atheists). Spud (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So, early this morning UK time someone comes along and call ken out on his debate challenge. Karajou then blocks^img said person but allows the challenge to ken to stay on the Talk Evolution page. That is until ken wakes up when he immediately^img memory holes the entire page. Macheeeeesmo ken, so much macheeesmo. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side...

Ken's QE! book will be released "In the latter half of 2013."" How long is this book, FFS? I can write a 25-page ebook in a week without straining myself, and I can't imagine QE! taking more than that to explain. It's not as if there's a lot to it, after all.--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.} 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, when the author is an imaginary Canadian woman it is quite hard for her to write a book. I am rather looking forward to his excuses though. Will there be a sudden illness or will the book come out and be heavily promoted by his hundreds of creationist groups in project 200+ but mysteriously he'll never link to where you can buy it, or even mention the title. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No doubt she'll get a cold which will push publication back to some time in 2038. Can he really not see how pathetic all this pointless activity looks? He's just scurrying around like a hamster, digging holes for himself then frantically trying to climb out. He's already changed his last blog entry twice following critical comments (unpublished, of course) from me. Dance, little man... --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.} 18:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pedia and BryanF

This user/group of users using same proxy really seem to be getting up Karajerks nose. Ghost (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A New Low For Ken

According to everyone's favourite blog, "I was at Amazon today and I noticed PZ Myers' book The Happy Atheist has a zero Amazon star rating. The book Atheism for Dummies has a 4.5 Amazon star rating. Of course, this once again proves that atheists aren't nearly smart as atheist egotists think they are!"^img

Yes, it's true! Obese atheist PZ Myers not only can't climb on to dino dioramas because he drinks too much beer and is unattractive to Spanish ladies; his book is getting crap reviews on Amazon. Oh wait...

This item has not been released yet and is not eligible to be reviewed

Fucking moron.--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.} 06:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

He's now deleted it and posted something about how 'Atheist Paul Kurtz's book The Turbulent Universe has a zero Amazon rating. The book Atheism for Dummies has a 4.5 Amazon star rating.'^img. However, at the time of typing this, someone has actually posted a review^img for Kurtz's book, instantly making it balloon up to a five-star rating. Of course, much of the positive acclaim for 'Atheism for Dummies' is how it's a great introduction to well-known atheists, and gives great ideas as to what to go and read next, but obviously, the idea of using one book to give ideas as to which other books to go and read is lost on people who think that there is only one Book you ever need to read. 86.171.213.248 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Two things, 1) this is hardly "a new low" for ken, and for two, Were you the one to write that review?--^Mikal_lakiM 21:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably not a new low in terms of bad taste, but crowing about zero stars for a book that hasn't even been published yet does seem to be scraping the barrel in terms of stupidity. And no, I didn't write the review for the Kurtz book. Firstly my Amazon user name is Fergus W Mason, and secondly I haven't read 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.} 03:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And the new lows keep coming. "...the likelihood of someone becoming a Darwinist goes up with post high school education." Which is why we celebrate that fewer Americans attend college. Yay! We're getting stupider. Jesus rules. Whoover (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is nowhere near a new low; it's just run-of-the-mill Ken. When he starts trying to score political points off the Boston crisis like Schlafly is doing, maybe we can talk about lows. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

1 year = 360 days. True.

Warning, this^img is what happens when an apparently otherwise intelligent person - Mr T. Chuckarse - becomes a young-Earth creationist. The Earth must once have had years 360 days in length. Why? 'Coz the Bible sez so - duh. So how did it end up with 365.24 days/year? 'Coz of a fantastically drivelling fantasy involving oceans exploding from underneath the Earth's crust and zipping into Outer Space. Obvious, innit. Still, it's a ray of laughter amidst the gloom. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Christianity would be so much better if Christians treated the Bible as the word of god transcribed by men, with human transcription errors, with human historical accounts. But nooo, it all has to be literal and true.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Some do. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 03:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Brx, most of the christians I actively know treat it that way. You just dont seem to find the right ones--^Mikal_lakiM 04:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't judge most Christians by what we observe here. Half of this site's point is to be the record of the most batshit fundamentalist nuttos in the Christian faith. --Revolverman (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I gotta say in my country most Christian are of the "look after others..." persuasion as opposed to the fire/brimstone weird fucks that seem to populate the States, as Mikal says. Secondly I find, quite obscurely I admit, the idea of a perfect '360 rotation' coming from a yank rather funny. How many 10's of hogshead equal a gallon again, Terry?. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, apart from the hydroplate theory being complete drivel, I think that might be possible using pure angular momentum conservation. I'm just pumping the maths through, the Earth rotates around the sun at about 29866 metres per second now, and to do so in a 360 day year would move at 30301 metres per second. With that, the linear momentums would be 1.783x10²⁹ and 1.809x10²⁹ kgm/s respectively. So, angular momentum is the cross of the position vector from the origin and the linear momentum, which goes to 2.6745 and 2.7135, both x10⁴⁰. So, I'm going to assume that when the water magically flew away from Earth it didn't exert any force that altered angular momentum, so given that it never changed, for that angular velocity change to happen then the Earth would have to lose 1.5% of it's mass, assuming the inertia constant doesn't change by any measurable amount. So according to Tossbottom, about 8.6*10²²kg of water were thrown away. That's a lot of water. (Knowing me I have probably fucked that calculation up there somewhere).

Back in reality, though, that speed change would also alter the orbit around the sun by fair bit. The faster orbital speed would mean the Earth would be thrown into a slightly more unstable orbit that would stabilise over a period of millions of years a bit closer to the Sun than it was. Which means there's a good chance that if the moron were correct, there might have been an ice age going on during Genesis. Which can only mean that everything had to evolve to a warmer climate. Snap. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 11:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's right - the idea, as I understand it, isn't that the orbital speed changes; it's that the Earth started spinning faster, so it rotates on its axis 365 and change times instead of precisely 360 times while its orbital speed stays the same. I don't think this will work out, though it might; the rotational angular momentum of a spherical object is 4πmr²/p, where m = mass, r = radius, and p = rotational rate. If mass stays fixed, then the reduction in radius will cause the rotational rate to increase. But in hydroplate theory, mass doesn't stay fixed; according to Brown, the Earth lost enough mass to account for all the asteroids, the comets, the major impactors on the moon, and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting. The asteroid belt alone is, I think, on the order of 10²¹ kg. TOW says the Oort cloud is probably on the order of 10²⁵ kg (which, incidentally, would mean that the Earth lost the vast majority of its mass in the Flood).TallMan (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Silly TallMan, I suppose you read about that in a book. Nobody has ever seen the Oort Cloud, it's only been made up by evolutionist astronomers. You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe in something that nobody has ever seen, wouldn't you? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm. The thing is, though, if the Earth lost mass at all it would be spinning and orbiting faster anyway. So it'd have to be a mix of both. And if the Earth lost the vast majority of it's mass in the flood to account for absolutely everything out there, then, well, firstly that will never work out and secondly it's bollocks so why am I even bothering? --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia Talk:Main Page

I apologize if this has been previously pointed out, but I'm new here and couldn't find it... There's usually some good stuff going on at the "Talk:Main Page" over there that I feel is being sadly left out of this page. Usually it's people refuting Ken's posts on the Main Page and him reacting in a very predictable way. Usually involving one or more of the following. 1. Ignoring it 2. Playing with semantics to try and deflect the fact that he is wrong 3. changing the subject or 4. personal attacks.
Hope I can be helpful around here, I still have an account over there but I don't fit in so well because of my obsession with those pesky facts. lol. Pdoke2 (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. Actually, Talk:Main Page gets commented on quite a lot. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Bee

Ken, 28 Jan 2013:"I won a prize in a spelling bee. Of course, modesty prevents me from saying what prize I won."^img
Ken, 21 April 2013:"I can certainly spell and won fourth place in a spelling bee..."^img
Well done, Ken. Well done indeed. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bipolar... It's my explanation for Ken. RyanC (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The list of Ken's personal achievements seems to know no bounds. He's a veritable renaissance man. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fourth place in a spelling bee? Is that like second prize in a beauty contest? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Ken has been playing Monopoly again. Hey Ken, those cards aren't real; nor are the houses, hotels or money (just like the stories peddled at Creation.com). Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 09:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And Ken has burned the fourth place evidence. He did that to some guy on the Evolution talk page who called him out on the debate bull crap. Everytime I think he can't get any worse, he does!The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to fun:Conservative Monopoly. DickTurpis (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I once won fourth prize in a Reader's Digest spot-the-ball competition, it was a Polaroid camera. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoever is running Spielman

Serious cudos for this^img wonderful addition. Now, will andy and his sycophants undo the obvious parody and show cuckie to be the fool he is or will they let this moronic shite stand? I bow to you Speilman, that was a move of brilliance. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, kudos for spotting that collage typo though. Генгис^pillaging 18:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh, Skitts to you. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's one of his specialties. Earthquakes in Ireland remains the benchmark. Whoover (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And now Spielman has been BANHAMMERED!The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mystery: What is the Karmic Implication of Parodists Banning Parodists? Whoover (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Same person who banned him also reverted that edit, so more of the CP crew reads this site (or are just members).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A) I hardly feel it is fair to label me as a parodist - for the most part i do believe in what I say

B) I've been on RW for a long time now, and I do periodically read it. Brenden (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now they've got it

Never fear, Andy is here to get to the bottom of things. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's gone now. What did it say? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's reefer madness now. What the shit did Andy do at university for all those years? By the end of fresher's week, I'd earned an embarrassing nickname, hooked up with one woman, drunkenly showed my arse to a number of others and been exorcist sick on my bed. Andy was in various academies for years, I flat refuse to believe he never smoked a joint. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hah, I'd be surprised if Andy had ever smoked anything. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A-hem. People make it through college without illegal drugs or (much) drinking, and go on to be pretty well-adjusted adults. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Says the Bear. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Most are introduced to drugs and drinking by their friends - so Andy wasn't at risk. --larron (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, says The Bear. I went through college without any illegal drugs, and only getting drunk a couple of times. I may not have been a BMoC or wildly popular guy, but I had friends and had a reasonable social life. I'm not claiming I was typical, but I don't think it's fair to assume Andy must have smoked a joint. And as far as undergrad experiences go, remember Andy and I were both Electrical Engineering majors. Trust me, after your freshman year, if you do anything more than have a couple of wild weekends early each semester before the work load got heavy, you'd flunk out. It's a grueling amount of studying and you really don't have time to live like a character in Animal House.

A few points of disclosure, to be completely fair:

1. I have never been an outgoing person and I am not one to seek out parties. I was not, though, a friendless nerd devoted entirely to studying. (I was a nerd with friends devoted largely to studying. So there.)
2. I had an internship type position at an employer with strict anti-drug policies, and it was a place I wanted to (and did) work after graduation.
3. Since my school is a twenty minute drive from my family home, I lived with my parents, not in the dorms or apartments around campus.
4. I have smoked pot a few times since college (and leaving the aforementioned job.) It bores me. I can't strictly say I don't drink, I just practically never consume alcohol. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you cum across the long haired creationist sweethearts with french lineage ? Ghost (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of uni if not one huge blow out before you grow up? (says the man who graduated at 28 and went back for more) London Grump (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I got really really really drunk once in college. Made a complete ass of myself, decided not to do it again. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to smoke pot, snort cocaine or inject heroin to have a good time at university. I socialised with (and sometimes lived among) people who used a variety of recreational drugs, both before, during and after university. I don't even drink (I can, I'm not allergic or anything, but I don't unless it's socially necessary). It was never a problem. If anything people are glad that there's somebody who they can leave in charge of the mundane stuff while they're on a cloud talking to their hands or having sex with somebody they probably shouldn't. I'm sure having a lot of people like me would get tedious, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Tialaramex (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lumping "pot" and "heroin" together made me lol. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, I did slow down a bit when I was studying. You should have seen me a couple of months after I left home at 19! London Grump (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

They're both recreational drugs, I know people who've used both heavily in the past. Unlike the cocaine (or booze, or nitrous) they apparently don't mix well with being a successful professional and so I don't know any heavy users of either pot or heroin today. No doubt there are far fewer adults who've even tried heroin compared to marijuana, but it's not the unstoppable evil that it is sometimes portrayed as. And of course it's not really a "party drug" the way pot or some of the others are, so if one of my friends was still using it quietly from time to time I'd never know. Tialaramex (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One of my best friends is a wake and bake stoner and a senior partner at a brass hat law firm. There's a huge problem with meth and coke in tall building law firms that require associates to bill 2200+ hours a year. But they still get the job done. Or something. 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One of margaret thatchers longest standing health advisers was iirc a GP from Chetenham who was later arrested for writing himself scrips to feed his VERY long standing heroin addiction. This guy was regarded as one of the best gp's in the country and managed to combine being an adviser to the witch with being a gp. Heroin is not the way it is made out in the press. It's not a sensible lifestyle choice without question but a controlled smack addiction doesn't mean the addict can not function quite well. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to think about Stoned Andy, quietly listening to the voices in his head until he snaps. His life is a bad trip; he has the good sense not to enhance the experience. By the way, his seque from violent video games (a little FIFA soccer is all that has been cited by friends) to drug-induced madness relies on interviews with dormmates who say he used to smoke weed until a year ago, when he discovered Islam. But since "Liberal denial that Dzhohkar was almost certainly on drugs immediately before, during and/or after the bombing" is the new bugaboo, it looks like Obama got his talking points distributed in that dorm, but fast. Whoover (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

America isn't the world, part umpty zillion

Dear Kendoll, when you read about^img "colleges" and "further education" in Britain, they're talking about sixth form colleges you fucking moron. The terms you're looking for are "universities" and "higher eduction." Why do you seem entirely unable to grasp that words might mean different things in different contexts? See also "evangelicals." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

See also "socialism" London Grump (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

See also science 15:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Some collages are tertiary education collages; they tend to offer HND/HNC courses, but can offer Bachelors. In Britain, a University can award its own degrees; post-secondary collages have to be supervised by an accrediting university. BTW six-form collages don't exist in Scotland; we have 7 years of primary education, followed by 4 to 6 of secondary education. CS Miller (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell, pictures are offering degrees now? I wasted my time going to college I guess :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

They're not just ordinary pictures, they're assemblages of fabric, textures, and corrugated cardboard. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind not understanding education in Britain, I don't think the American term "liberal arts college" means what Ken thinks it means either. Spud (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anything means what Ken thinks it means. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:55, 22 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.} 06:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Debating, Kendoll style

1. User tells Ken he is wrong^img
2. Ken hits back by changing his blog^img
3. Other user ask Ken why he is being so deceitful ^img
4. Ken asks user 2 if they are an evolutionist^img
5. User 2 asks Ken if he is a homosexual with a shit haircut and then backtracks^img
6. User 3 asks Ken to debate him^img
7. Ken either deletes entire thread or tells User 3 to debate SOG

Oh Ken, please get some new material. Ghost (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC) That's nothing. Here's Ken responding this evening to a comment made almost two years ago.^img--Umichcynic (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And after all that time Ken just says "TL;DR". Still, we've learnt that if you want Ken to read something, add headings, bullet points and pictures. I don't know why anyone would bother, though. He might read your comments but he'll never respond to them in any meaningful or remotely relevant way. He'll just ask, "Are you a liberal/atheist/evolutionist/homosexual?" and trot out the same Shockofgod/15 questions/Have you seen THIS, THIS and THIS? stuff that he always does Spud (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do people care? Ken is too cowardly to debate and too insignificant to matter; so why do we pay any attention? Granted once in a while he does something entertaining, but lately all he has been doing on his little blog is pathetically begging for our attention without giving us anything significant or entertaining to pay attention to.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd feel kinda bad for Ken if even we stopped paying attention to him. X Stickman (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Creationists love oral debates

Ken, 29 Jan 2011: "I agree with JP Holding that written debates are superior debates. Why should relevant information not be offered to the public merely because the person may lack a photographic memory? This is non-negotiable."
Ken 23 April 2013: Creationists love oral debates because we love hearing timid evolutionists stammer and hearing their terrified voices quiver!^img
Ken, try to at least agree with yourself. Tell me again about your spelling bee. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is great news. Ken's position on debates has clearly -dare I say it- evolved. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Terry is demanding that the courts overrule ICE and grant asylum to a German couple who want to homeschool their child despite restrictive German laws (like a requirement that the parent know something about teaching). I'm cool with that. In fact, if Mexico then outlaws homeschooling, I think our illegal alien problem is solved. Whoover (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A major problem with the parents' case is that they can't recall what specific textbook offended them so deeply with content that drove them to homeschooling. The allegations about witchcraft aren't even based on lessons, but a game that involved moving around chairs and glasses and using a pendulum. I doubt that these parents are a danger to their kids, but they sure aren't doing a good job of convincing people that they'd do a good job of actually teaching their children at a level of competency to get by in life.

My dad teaches art classes to homeschoolers, and those parents are smart people trying to step up their kids' educational experience beyond what their county offers. The German couple just comes across as well-intentioned, but superstitious and ignorant people trying to shelter their kids from the real world because they don't k ow how to cope with it themselves. --DinsdaleP (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

More conspiracy made up out of whole cloth.

Tamerlan is being considered as a suspect in an old unsolved homicide of some of his friends. From this, Andy "reasons"^img that

Tamerlan probably murdered his friends.

Authorities probably have (and are aware they have) DNA evidence.

Hence, Obama and MA are definitely covering up the murder.

Honestly, I know that there are some lawyers who are literally deficient in critical thinking and analysis skills, but this is all a bit much. Phiwum (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That ricin guy was a liberal... oh nevermind.

After stories have shown, the ricin mailing suspect has been dropped of all charges. The angry thug Karajou was so quick to plaster it on MPR that "a liberal democrat" mailed the letters. After Andy's trim, there's no mention of ricin mailing anywhere on the site. Why? Oh, the next alleged suspect they're searching tried to run for a Republican seat. Whoops, no wonder Conservapedia dropped that whole story so fast! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a musing

Does Andy ever stop to consider whether his "best of the public" and hatred of "experts" reflects a very strikingly similar line to Mao Zedong's own hatred for the intelligentsia and the educated? I mean, would Andy so dearly cling to these ideas if he realized it made him share beliefs with the Chinese boogeyman (or would he suddenly make them conservative like he did with Orwell)? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the fact that Andrew Schlafly has a law degree from Harvard and a Bachelor's from Princeton is the best argument for questioning the value of expertise. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saloth Sar had a bit of crackdown on intellectuals. Predictably, it didn't go very well. CS Miller (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You know who else was on welfare? HITLER.

Who's the only douchebag^img bigger than Andy? Nice job, Popeye. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I fucking hate welfare-shaming, especially when it comes from people who will never, ever, ever have to consider taking welfare. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GI's in the sixties were mostly conscripts, in for a couple of years and out. Career types, or lifers, were sometimes called "beggars," since their sole means of support was slurping at the public trough, and many of them were seen as lacking the skills or motivation to make it in the civilian world. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also quite accustomed to already receiving their income from taxpayers. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make any government employee, especially one with a career track a "begger" slurping at the public trough though, including police, educators, and firefighters? People seriously felt this way, or still do? Working for that income that is taxpayer supported isn't possibly akin to accepting welfare; no matter what one may think of the latter.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as karajou is on a life gubmint pension after his making-up-the-numbers navy "career" he's a fine one to talk. Sophie^Wilder 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sophie gets it. No, BMcP, it wouldn't, not unless the obiter dicta of Vietnam-era draftees were magically able to determine Truth^TM, all shiny, everlasting and incorruptible. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that Karajerk's also attending university on the taxpayers' dime. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Going to further play devil's advocate here and ask why receiving a government pension as a benefit of a career working for and serving that government makes one less credible when it comes to making commentary on welfare? I guess I don't see how having a pension equates to collecting welfare at all, other than they both being taxpayer funded, but that fact doesn't somehow make one's commentary any less valid. We seem to pick on his navy career being entirely mundane, would he have more credibility if he happen to be in the navy at the right time and place to have been in many major battles? I just him as being fortunate in that regard.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know a few rightwing republicans who are on welfare due to general stupidity or laziness. They tell themselves that it's better they get the money than someone else (brown/liberal) who "doesn't deserve it" like they do, and I imagine that's exactly how Karajou thinks.The guvmint is sending him to college, hey, it's better than them sending another librul. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Going back to Sprockett's original point and thinking back to some squaddies I've known, the problem some career soldiers have is that they know nothing else but the military. They don't have to make the thousand little and not-so-little day-to-day decisions civilians do and sometimes struggle when they come out into normal life. Not so much to do with drawing from the public well per se, more the dependence they have on that way of life. London Grump (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm now self-employed and I'm constantly amazed at how many things I need to deal with that used to be taken care of for me. Even booking dental appointments; used to be I'd just get a letter telling me to be at the Dental Centre at whatever time. The Army is a very easy lifestyle, apart from the whole living in the mud and getting shot at thing.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 14:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Down to basics: the strength of a nation is its people. Those people do better when government provides things such as schools, roads/bridges, regulation against pollution, regulation against rapacious rent-seeking, public safety services such as law enforcement and correctional facilities, and the military means to guard against bad actors on the international scene.

That last one, the military, amounts to an enormous bureaucratic jobs program, for defense contractors, not just members in uniform. The fraction of uniformed troops or sailors at the pointy end of the organization keeps getting smaller. Last I heard, service members in combat occupation specialties were fewer than ten percent of the total head count; nowadays I bet it's a lot less than that. Most people in uniform are what the Israelis call jobniks. It's like any other job, even if they occasionally have to practise with small arms to stay qualified.

Another thing that most governments provide is assistance to people at the margins of poverty or starvation. I will argue that such spending is just as valuable as spending on the military, since it may reduce the need for people in unhappy situations to go breaking windows and stealing stuff. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ermm, is Andy finally growing a pair?

Or will kenny boy ignore this^img and just carry on shitting all over andy's blog? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that something is wrong and actively addressing that wrong when one has the power to are two completely different things.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course Ken will ignore it. I don't think I've ever seen evidence that he actually reads what other people say. He seems to acknowledge that they've made a response, then replies to what he assumes they said. X Stickman (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, I'm tweaking kennys nose because I know damn well he's reading this. And now he will go back and do something to show he regards andy with utter contempt. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The best thing that Andy could to would be to revoke Ken's sysop rights. Even from Andy's POV it must seem that Ken's productive contributions have come to an end and all that he does now is linkspam to his QE blog. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy acknowledging that Ken's not a helpful sysop would mean acknowledging that he may not have made the right choice in promoting him, which would imply that Andy was wrong about something. That's never going to happen. Ken can tear the wiki to shreds, but every plea for intervention will just make Andy double down harder. «-Bfa-» 03:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy has never faced up to the fact that changing his mind means he was wrong the first time before, I don't see why he would start now. We've always been at war with Eurasia. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That would require a huge Great Soviet Encyclopedia style rewriting of history with all reference to Ken having ever been a sysop disappearing. Anyway, Andy didn't demote Ken when he angered other users for adding all those "family friendly' articles about sheep shagging. He's not going to demote him for answering users who ask for help with "piss off" and then destroying the evidence. Spud (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What about 1984's permanently rewritten encyclopedia?

Going at a slight tangent -anyone know who actually owns the copyright on the GSE? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know but the series is continued as the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. Information from an untrustworthy website here (also has a link to GSE). Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

VivaYeshua

Finally has an article.^img Ghost (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Post high school studies," eh? Sounds like a badass. Who is this guy and why should I care? Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointless bit of crap about some bloke on the internet. Boring! Spud (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken's bum buddy who debates for him. Although when I challenged him to a debate in SOG chatroom he effectively told me to F Off and that Ken should debate me instead. Ghost (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He's told me that Ken should do his own debates, too. He also said that Ken won't do verbal debates because he's complete toilet at them. Viva is actually fine; he's just been nominated (without being asked) as Ken's Official Debater. He also doesn't have a lot of time for the 15 Questions.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

None of which is mentioned in DVergne's little article. Still, I've just noticed that the article's only reference is one of Ken's comments on CP Main Page talk. That's pretty damn sloppy by anybody's standards. Spud (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Dvergne is unhappy today. The article seems to be a present for someone: http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative/message^img--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 14:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken has expanded VivaYeshua's page a bit, added some personal attacks, and protected it. Ayzmo (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

They Make My Head Hurt

Karajou spamlinks a diatribe of his in which he bitches about the Tennessean publishing a truther who cites Alex Jones. He calls these views liberal lies. So now Alex Jones is leftist because he denies Muslims do all evil, which he reserves to the gummint. Is this called "eating your children" or "chasing your tail"? Whoover (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry versus anti-government conspiracy paranoia, and bigotry wins. Although to be honest, ranting about liberals aside, the newspaper was printing Alex Jones babble, so I guess he was kind of (maybe) sort of right in calling bullshit? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What he called bullshit on was the premise that you can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists. So no, he wasn't in the right.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess scare-quoting stereotype is probably not a sign of tolerance... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Any good point he could have made with how the Truthers are full of bull is lost in a seas of frothing at liberals. The whole post is essentially- Liberals, liberals, liberal agenda, liberal lies, liberals, Truthers are full of bull, liberals, liberal agenda, liberals.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's gone. Andy trims it in less than 24 hours. That's how much respect Karajou gets, even on CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Parodists in Charge

More lulz over at the Counterexamples to Relativity page. Brenden (who does appear sincere most of the time) deleted obvious Spielman parody^img, including the goofy Irish earthquake cluster. [I call this a parody benchmark because it cross-polinates two bugs up Andy's ass, relativity and earthquakes disproving an old earth, which predictably proved irresistable to Andy.] Wschact and SamHB proceed to have a very serious conversation on the Talk page about how Andy should be the only one to remove these because they're so complicated -- after all, we don't see what earthquakes have to do with relativity but Andy's the technical expert -- and then restore them all^img. Andy then weighs in and gives the turd a little polish.^img Whoover (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dad's Army

Yikes. I never knew Cokeeyes was so freakishly tall. Well, either that or his friends are all midgets. Also, Nick Purplepeopleeater looks like the last person in the world who should ever be nicknamed "The Eagle." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He's in great shape for an old dude. So at least he's got that. 20:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a typo with Skin Disease. His nickname should be the Beagle.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You know I usually try to refrain from insults on physical appearance when an individual like Tosser is repulsive, bigoted, and just plain stupid enough not to need such insults, but by holy hell does he look freaky in real life. God I thought his eyes alone were bad enough but now it seems he has the physical proportions of Slenderman. Hell even his legion of doom seem to be shrinking away from him in horror in that pic. As for the "black robed regiment" its pompous, self important, and delusional as always, but I have some hope that maybe having his own blackshirt movement may produce some more quality bugfuck insanity from tossy in the near future. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken needs to investigate this group - there's clearly a few atheists there, judging by the waistlines... PsyGremlin^Parlez! 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonder how long until Ken cracks

He keeps blocking them, only for other people to unblock (and new accounts to be created): 10 blocks within the last 48 hours Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

He just posted how great and unstoppable he is on Schlafly's talk page^img and then "someone" turned off editing to all non-admins... I think it's getting close. Pdoke2 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How exactly will he crack if/when he does? Will it be a shit hits the fan moment, or an implosion affecting absolutely no one else?The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 07:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And it appears that Karajerk has deleted the whole lot now. Nice one swabbie, maybe you should clean up the other messes that Ken has made. Ghost (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Insight from DonnyC

Found this^img enjoyable. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 02:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Another pointless topic on Andy's insanity

While CP Main Page Talk has a discussion over whether or not atheists are surprised that the Earth's core is as hot as the surface of the Sun, no one seems willing to point out the brain-numbingly stupid bit of Andy's "news" item. He writes:

Earth's core is proven to be as hot as the Sun, contradicting atheistic theories. Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.

What the hell? Okay, let's suppose that "Earth and heat" were created prior to the Sun. How the fuck does this entail that the core of the Earth is as hot as the surface of the Sun? What precisely is the "reasoning" (for lack of a better term)? Phiwum (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Heat before sun. There was heat before the agent which causes heat....think about that for a second...what the fuck? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not so weird. It's a creation, man. The earth was simply created with a hot core. (I don't know where Andy gets the idea that heat was created before the sun. Does Genesis say anything like that?) Phiwum (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole of Genesis makes no damned sense. There was a planet before there was a sky. Land was made by "gathering" the water that completely covered the planet into one place (which, if anyone can explain how the heck that happens, I'd love to hear it). There was light before there was a sun OR a sky. There was night and day before there was sun (which makes me wonder - how does one distinguish an earth day with no sun? Was the earth orbiting with proper tangential velocity and spin to where the sun -would- be?) Hell, there were -plants- before there was a sun. Saying that Genesis proves that the earth's core is hotter than the sun (or whatever) is one of less crazy interpretations, but that's a pretty low bar. Phiwum - I would guess Andy got it from the fact that "light" was created first, and -then- the things that produce light were created later. Carlaugust (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here where it is ridiculous, the old temperature that was theorized for the Earth's inner core was around 5,000 °C while the latest measurement estimates it to be 6,000 °C plus or minus 500 °C. That isn't that much of a difference, but media likes to make their stories sound exciting, so they say "as hot as the surface of the sun", which is true, the sun's surface is around 5,500 °C. However it isn't the surface of the Sun that provides it's warmth, but the hydrogen fusing core sitting at 15,000,000 °K. Without the Sun Earth's the surface temperature on average would fall to freezing within a week, and -100 °C in a year, as our core would not product enough heat to keep up with all the heat radiating away (only real reason it wouldn't radiate even faster is because of the atmosphere).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Genesis is such a load of mumbo-jumbo that it's years since I read it but yesterday I realized that "1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. " comes before the creation of Adam; so what happened to the women that were around before God was obliged to make another one out of Adam's rib? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That first one was Lilith. She was, by many accounts, a worthy wench, but she wanted to ride Adam like a cowgirl (yippee tie one on!) which was an abomination in their voyeur's sight, so she had to go. Eve came later, made from spare parts. Just the tip of a floating rib was enough, it seems. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if MacGyver can make wonders out of spare parts..--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy's a false prophet. We all know that heat = entropy = THE DEVIL. Just what kind of primrose path does this guy think he's leading us down???? (Schlafly style question marks) 20:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In a slight defense of Andy, there's nothing wrong with having heat before the Sun. In fact if you study the standard Big Bang model, heat existed in the universe before matter and light did. But other than that, Andy is being his usual cranktastic self. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also ours is a young star right? The Sun is far younger than the oldest stars in the galaxy, and therefore probably there were planets a long time before our sun existed, just not this planet. Isn't Andy a YEC? If so he's probably stuck in the pre-radioactivity Kelvin thinking about geology. If you're Kelvin the planet is cooling down, to be this hot today it has to have been hotter in the past, contrariwise, if it is very hot today (and "surface of the sun" sounds very hot to a layman) then it cannot be old. QED, right? If you show Andy a working RTG it would blow his tiny mind. In fact, let's send Andy on a trip to visit one of the Soviet-era RTGs dumped in the wilderness and stripped of shielding by thieves. Those provide a very "enlightening" demonstration of why the planet is actually hot in the middle. Andy can go up and poke it with a stick and see if he learns anything Tialaramex (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're all being way too "rational." Andy equates science and atheism. Except for a few innocuous disciplines like mechanical engineering, Scientist≡Evolutionist≡Atheist≡Liberal. That's why astronomers and physicists are "evolutionists" and why Andy thinks that earthquakes are a perfectly plausible argument against relativity. Ken recently added "≡Abortionist" to the evil identity and thinks it's obviously so. That's why the updating of pretty much any scientific "fact" means Einstein was wrong and the Bible was right. It's no different than Democrat-mails-ricin! -- yay! / it-was-really-a-Republican -- he was framed by Obama. Don't bother scratching the surface because they never do. Whoover (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)