Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive315

This is an archive page, last updated 20 May 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <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)

Andy slaps down User:Conservative.

"Not newsworthy"^img She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 02:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Conservative's sudden shift in tone^img gives me the feeling that there was some private slapping before the public one. Pdoke2 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Ken, you finally made Andy act. --Revolverman (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet this stuff is "newsworthy":

• The atheist community and internet atheism is still a hostile wasteland.
• Michael Shermer is reprimanded for giving poor advice on how to debate a creationist
• One more chapter to go before the newly revised Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students is sent to a second group of student reviewers.

No one will forget where they were when they first heard the news that only one chapter remained before some book for middle schoolers was sent to a second groups of student reviewers . --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few things that are occurring in my off wiki activities that will be taking up more and more of my time. As a result, I think I will be making less main page citations to the Question evolution! campaign blog. - that is the sound of Ken running down his intellectual bunny-hole. Whenever Ken loses he is always mysteriously very busy elsewhere. Генгис^marauding 07:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Karajou saves ruins the day!

Blocks AlanE for accusing Koward of being a... coward. Then he blows up another user, and not content with his daily hypocrisy intake, replaces his talk page and bullies him about being bullied. Jolly good censorship! While ignoring the greater threat entirely. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the irony of Karajou banning Fnarrow for harassing Conservative, what's with the British spelling of "behaviour"?

It's one of the default blocking choices see here --Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Threat" means there is anything left to threaten; CP is already destroyed from the inside.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For all Ken's and Andy's antics, the final nail in CP's coffin was driven in the day Andy re-promoted TK to admin. After that it was only a matter of time before the we get the current situation - a nearly dead wiki, devoid of community, run by a few bitter, old, white guys who have no influence anywhere else. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alex00

Poor taste parody at its finest Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

After looking though his other edits and the source he quoted, he might actually be serious...*sigh* Fucking Poe's Law Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a few alterations, to get the entry to sound a little more sane. It'll be interesting to see what happens next... Darkmind (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

An armed society is a secure society

Andy: A travesty happened!? political gain! ^img\ Because the ideal state of society is living in perpetual fear because you know they all have guns. --^Mikal_lakiM 06:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To the people who claim we need guns to make us safer, I always have the same response: Police officers hit their targets about a third of the time and they're fucking trained. Why the hell should I or anyone else trust Jeb from down the street to do better in a life or death situation. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Best of the Public. When will people learn that if police officers didn't train with their firearms they could just point them in the vague direction of their target, empty their clip as fast as possible and hit every target that they are aiming at with a 100% success rate. Everybody knows that.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 09:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand Andy's obsession with adding a body count to situations where nobody actually died and the attacker was subdued pretty much immediately. There's no way this particular scenario could have been made better by guns, but it could have been made much, much worse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) The idea that parishioners should have brought guns into Mass to worship the Prince of Peace is just funny as hell. Even in Oklahoma, where concealed carry licenses are easy to get, churches have signs that no guns are permitted on the premises. Because, without those signs, you just know that someone is coming to Church packin' heat, 'cause you just never know when the shit's going down. Those fuckin' Unitarians just don't know how to stay in their place. They been eyein' us man. They been eyein' us.

Mind you, this kinda reasoning is manly in Andy's world. But I'd wager the man doesn't shoot. Phiwum (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should say that... the Unitarian congregation in Mendon, Massachusetts once had a tradition of turning to face the meeting house's front door for the hymns. With everybody singing, it would be too hard to hear the Nipmucs sneaking up on them. I guess every householder kept his fowling piece charged and ready to hand, even in church. Somebody should tell that doofus that times have changed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Man stabs 4 choir members during Sunday mass.... The four victims suffered non-life threatening injuries." Andy sees this and thinks the solution is to make it easier for lunatics to get their hands on guns? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No doubt this reminds him of his delightful Conservative "parable". Cantabrigian (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, famished women who have deliberately starved themselves for days for Jesus should carry guns so that they can fend off big church mass murderers. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bringing a gun to a church is like bringing a pork sandwich to a synagogue. I'm reminded of when Jesus was taken from Gethsemane, and Peter stood up in his defense. Jesus, of course, said "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Except for right now. Waste that motherfucker!" Carlaugust (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A literalist can make an easy defense: Jesus was talking about swords. He didn't say a single word about guns! --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Jesus is really gonna be pissed about this attack... Knives are the closest everyday object we have to swords in modern society. Time for Knife control. Pdoke2 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm certain Andy has selectively-forgotten who Terry Ratzmann was. I also find it incredibly interesting that conservatives, including Andy, always love to show their appreciation for the taxpayer-funded, publicly employed police force (because they pepper-spray peaceniks and Occupy protesters). --Seth Peck (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about this... First, let me say that I am an amateur target shooter(long range rifle and "tactical shooting"), gun collector and CPL holder who caries on a regular basis. Anyway, I was thinking of the lay out of various churches I've been in throughout my life and based upon the descriptions in various reports, I cannot think of a way in which even the best shooter could have ended this with a better outcome than "4 non life threatening injuries". Every layout I can picture from my memory or even from pics of churches I've seen would put a significant number of people between the "good guy(shooter)" and "bad guy(stabber)" no matter where they were each positioned. Additionally, one of the major "commandments" taught to anyone who learns to be a responsible gun owner is to not never point the gun at something unless you're will to destroy(kill) it, but also to always know what is beyond that target in case you miss or the bullet passes through the target. This challenge of "over-penetration" can be minimized in a "daily carry" weapon through the use of certain types of ammunition but it is still not a guarantee. Going back to the church layouts, when you take "over-penetration" and the odds of even the best shooter in the world missing in an adrenaline charged and chaotic situation like that, no responsible gun owner would/should have fired in that situation. Pdoke2 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The NRA fantasy is that everybody has a gun at the ready. So there's never someone in the way of a good shot because the closest parishoner takes him down. Presumably after waving off the others with a cry of "I got it!" Whoover (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This guy must be a Poe. Guns in schools, guns in church. What next, guns in football stadiums? Can you imagine a bunch of Milwall fans packing a load? --Mercian (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If only her were - Andy isn't alone in thinking that a bunch of untrained amateurs letting rip in a crowded church, full of panicked people would be a good thing. I had exactly the same debate with Terry Launchbooty over at his blog, after the Aurora cinema shooting. He also couldn't understand that having a whole bunch of people firing away in a darkened cinema, full of people running for the doors could possibly end in anything other than a glorious shooting of the perpetrator with no other injuries. In their world, owning a gun gives you Hawkeye aiming abilities. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday a high school honor student in a private, all-male Catholic school pulled out a gun and shot himself in the classroom. Regrettably, my first thought was "What would Andy think? Was the kid an atheist? Did he play too many video games? Maybe he smoked a little pot?" It wasn't a good feeling. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone in that classroom had a gun, he could have shot the kid before he shot himself, thereby defusing the situation. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I figured it out. The kid probably didn't have a gun license, proving liberal gun control doesn't work. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cue Andy going apeshit

Jets release Tim Tebow. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cue "liberals would rather lose than keep Tebow on." 2 gets you 1 that's almost the exact phrase he'll use. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Tebow will be out of the NFL. Teams were willing to trade for Tebow, provided he was willing to switch positions from Quarterback to Tight End, but Tebow refused, and now he is out of the job. Still this isn't the end entirely for Tebow; I would not be shocked if he ended up in the CFL or Arena Football.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

His CFL rights belong to the Montreal Alouettes, who have the best QB in the game, but that guy is getting old and could use a good back up. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 18:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As for Andy, I expect him to ignore this for declaring Jason Collins an overrated sports star with little talent on a bad team (the last part which would be true).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

He'll live out his playing days as a religious motivational speaker before eventually starting a megachurch of his own. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the Alouettes will really enjoy having Tebow around. He will be a truly fabulous addition to the team when he learns how to run and throw. 21:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Billie Jean: you said a good back-up... T-Bone would make a much better Tight End than QB at NFL level. Does he prefer being a QB to hog the limelight? Or to get a bigger pay packet? Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Most likely because that is simply what he wants to do. Being a quarterback in itself doesn't necessarily mean you will earn more than you would be as a Tight End, it all depends on your skill level and success at each of those positions; if he is an excellent Tight End, he'll make more money than he would have as some perpetual backup QB.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True. </cynicism> Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys deliberately talking in double entendres? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In what way is Tight End a double-entendre? Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of answering that, I will leave it as one of the great mysteries of the universe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy finally got around it

The NFL is just another liberal organization who ostracizes Tebow for his Christianity^img. No Andy, he isn't ostracized for his religion, he just isn't good enough as a quarterback to get a job in the league; I though you supported marketplace capitalism, well the NFL marketplace has spoken.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love that My Religion Is Always Right(tm) shit, completely ignoring the fact that Tebow just sucks. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of the straight athletes?!

Andy laments that NBA's Jason Collins announced that he is gay, (refusing to even utter his name) and that the media finds this newsworthy; questioning why doesn't the media cover with front page news all the straight athletes out there. I guess Andy never watches ESPN, or NBCSports, or ABCSports, or CBSSports, or FoxSports, for the NFL Network, or the Big-10 Network, for the Golf Channel, and on and on and on... Straight sports stars get massive media coverage on a regular basis, what the hell is he talking about? That the media doesn't go out of their way to mention their straightness? Could it be perhaps because that is the assumed default? Could be...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

this is the same bull shit argument touted in many comment sections on this story and many similar ones. Andy is the bottom half of the internet. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Half? You are too generous. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If Andy and the Internet were around in 1947, the frontpage of Conservapedia would read "Negro agenda takes over the media, again:

Why aren't there front-page stories about how more than 99.5% of sports stars are not black?"--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I love Andy's response. Because all the articles about Collins coming out are articles about how 99.5% of professional athletes are (presumed) heterosexual. Phiwum (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I originally heard about this story from seeing it mentioned on Yo Is This Racist? where a questioner lamented how horrible everybody was being. And I thought, "Oh, that's sad, I guess I should look at a few stories to get a flavour of just how racist or maybe homophobic people are being". I read some UK news coverage, which was very slight, basically "The US didn't have openly gay sports stars, and this guy is arguably the first one to out himself" and I couldn't detect any racism in the actual stories, so I read the comments, which were mostly people saying "Yeah, that's great for this Jason guy" although I'm sure if I scrolled long enough I'd find the people saying Hitler was right or that we never should have come out of the ocean let alone the closet.

So then I was still a bit sad, but now about how presumably racist and homophobic the US media must be to cause that reaction from their stories. But then I was bored for a few minutes so I picked a random US news source, the NY Times, and read their story. And it's the same deal except that it assumes you know the various kinds of US sport (so it doesn't expand NBA, NFL etc.) and it's a lot longer because this is a big national story rather than something happening on the far side of an ocean. It quotes people representing the teams and the players and the sport itself all saying basically that this shouldn't be a big deal but it is, and there's some in-depth stuff about how as a freelancer he's not guaranteed to actually play again. No coaches saying like "If I see a gay person in my locker room I'm going to shoot them" or even fans quoting the Bible or that sort of crap. OK, so still no detectable racism and homophobia. How about the comments? I scrolled through the top 3-4 pages and they're uniformly praising Jason for having the courage to do this, and that sort of thing. No "Fags must die" crap, presumably the NY Times has a person deleting those or a self-moderation system that's keeping them at the bottom with the people who think this is the right place to advertise their theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by the Apple corporation to drive interest in their forthcoming iPod device.

And thus in the end I don't get it. Obviously people like Andy are going to foam at the mouth, but Andy foams at the mouth at everything. The mature established press seemed to take as you'd expect, or as the London bus adverts put it "Some people are gay. Get over it". Tialaramex (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the New York Times and its readers are all that representative of US views regarding homosexuality. You might try a more backwater paper. The Daily Oklahoman is mighty conservative, in a mouth-breathing sort of way. Phiwum (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to find newspapers with a free online presence. The Daily Oklahoman is right out -- pay wall. Dallas Morning News, too (not that they're very conservative, as I recall). Oh well. Phiwum (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am curious to know why you would think The Daily Oklahoman is more representative of American views on homosexuality than the New York Times? It is akin to saying Oklahoma is more "real America" then the New York metro region.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the Oklahoman is more representative of American views. I really don't know what the prevailing nationwide opinion on homosexuality is. I just wanted to suggest that Tialaramex may have come away with a rather different impression if he hadn't chosen the New York Times, a paper which is fairly erudite, published in a liberal part of the country and, I'd wager, with a better educated readership than most newspapers. (Newspaper readers in general are probably not representative of the average US citizen, either.) Phiwum (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See [HERE]. Hope this helps. :) Burndall (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Kenny being stupid, part ZZZX

Does he realise that literally no one in Australia begins anything, let alone an e-mail, with G'day? I live in Australia by the way. I literally mean no one. The Iynvisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 09:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling nobody is called Bruce. PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 09:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And that no one drinks Fosters and watches Neighbours. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuck off where full! Straya Cunt! Ghost (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I was a deeply saddened when an Australian told me nobody calls anyone a flaming gallah. Its like TV has lied to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait... you mean every member of the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolloomooloo isn't named Bruce? I'm so disappointed. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

900 dollarydoos?!?!?!?! --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One of these days he's gonna get a real email & no-one's going to believe it. Wolf! wolf! Scream!! (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day you bunch of flaming galahs. You better get your shit together because I was telling my cob Bruce, over a Fosters, about the stereotypes on this site and he reckons we should feed you to the bunyip in the billabong! Fair dinkum. Tielec01 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Terry ever play professional baseball?

He's certainly a Dodger. #rimshot#

One of the CNAV columnists is a guy named Rev. Michael Bresciani. His latest column opens by declaring only one out of every three Americans are Christians, and that the real number is probably less.

Pretty much everything I've ever seen puts that number at around 70-75%. Terry refuses to explain it (and yes, I know Terry didn't write the piece, but he's the only CNAV writer that regularly responds to comments.)

I also asked Terry if he considers Bresciani to be a prophet in the sense of "someone who speaks for God". He refuses to answer that, too.

Sheesh. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Catholics aren't Christians. Unitarians aren't Christians. Mormons aren't Christians. It's pretty simple. Only people who believe exactly like Terry and his wingnut friends are Real, True Christians. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Aren't there Catholics in his "Black Robe Regiment"?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, in most of the stuff I could find, the only thing I can see that looks close is the number of Catholics. Roughly 1 in 3 Americans is raised Catholic, but even then only about 25% consider themselves 'active'. Evangelical is close as well, but by pretty much any definition that makes sense, about 75% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian. Oh wait, 'that makes sense' of course, that's where I went wrong. Worm (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the number of Catholics; Bresciani replied and said he's a former Catholic. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My guess he means actively practicing Evangelical or conservative protestants. By the broadest definition, 75% or so of America is Christian, but there is the legit question of what percent of those people are practicing Christians versus those who just profess theism and attach said theism to the Judeo-Christian god because of our generally Christian historical culture, but otherwise do not participate in religion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah something like that. The only other thing that stands out for me is that 1 in 3 is generally quoted as the proportion of Americans that would like Christianity to be the official religion of the USA. To be honest, unless he's using some weird definition that he can explain (but won't) it could easily be a typo (although an odd one) but he's probably as resistant as Andy when it comes to admitting mistakes. Of course, 1 in 3 is an incredible common description so it's hard to try and find a source that he might be relying on. Apparently something close to 1 in 3 Americans have an STI, so take from that what you will :) Worm (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Have found sources that quote one in three Americans as believing the bible is the literal word of God. Probably close to what he means. Worm (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comments I could actually understand why Terry ignored answering, the question was put in a very assumptive manner, I wouldn't be inclined to answer either. You did manage to get Bresciani to answer though, although when he was talking about "submitting to autority", he doesn't mean his authority but his god's authority. Submission to the authority of God is a common theme in Christian theology as a requirement for a believer.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thou Shalt Not Criticize a Scotsman

In the same article, Bresciani also says, "Accusing Christians of Terrorism is Very Close to Blasphemy." Wow. Just wow. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken's Trolling

He really doesn't know the importance of subtlety to a good troll. -Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 16:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I don't understand any of what he just wrote. 2/3 of latinos are Catholic. By 2030 that number may be closer to 1/2. Yet Catholics aren't likely to be creationists. How is "Hispanic American creationism" winning "mucho battles?" And does he seriously think that there's a causal connection between anything he does and anything in the world outside his basement other than people laughing at him or cocking their heads in bewilderment? What does this mean: "Evolutionists, you will have a lot of splainin' to do on why you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign. - especially after we translate the campaign into Spanish! Olé! Olé! Olé!" I don't get it. 03:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's his brand of mentally deranged trolling. I don't think most people can get much out of it. Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 04:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what group he'll stereotype next. Perhaps we'll see, "Me so solly, Mr. Evorutionist. Support for Bibrical Cleationism is glowing amongst Asian Americans", or, "What it is, bro'! African Americans dig superbad Biblical Creationism." Spud (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he'll even use online jive translators in the same fashion he uses Google Translate...--"Shut up, Brx." 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Zee Qooesshun Ifulooshun! Cempeeegn, noo veet un edded serfeeng ooff Svedeesh Cheff!

EVOLUTIONIST,S AL7 YOR BASES AR BELONG TO THE QUEESTIONN EVOL;UTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!105:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ccamp4iGn Ghost (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken trolling, this veiled barb at Andy got me good: "when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side". Occasionaluse (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Was it just me or were parts of this reminiscent of Ken's style? Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's you, I'm afraid. Ken's style is that of a competent 12 year old. This, with its fluidity, its structure at sentence, paragrapha and text level, and its punctuation is way above Ken's crap. London Grump (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he meant the KKK guy's dialogue, not the article itself.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Give it up, liberals!

The full faith and credit of your country is liberal claptrap, I guess. Let my inspiration flow/In token token lines suggesting rhythm. 03:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am personally fine with it actually; they should be legal tender along with the dollar.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain what it means to be 'legal tender'? It is voluntary on the part of the retailer, according to the story. Can a retailer not already accept anything they wanted in exchange? Are used cars legal tender for instance, since car dealers can accept them instead of cash? ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.192.95 / talk / contribs}

The difference is that people are obliged to accept legal tender to settle debts. You can offer to pay your bar tab in chickens but the landlord has the right to refuse, they can't refuse cash. It seems a bloody stupid idea to make precious metals legal tender. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like I need to get 10 pounds of pyrite and head to Arizona. DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's better than being paid in Bitcoins, I guess. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll be sorry when Bitcoins eventually catch on and you've not spent enough time or money mining them. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jeeves, The story clearly says it is voluntary though - and it would have to be; you couldn't expect every retailer to have the necessary equipment and expertise to be able to assay the quality of gold. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.192.95 / talk / contribs}

Then it's completely meaningless. Nobody needs legal permission to accept things other than money in exchange for goods. Unless they're actually pegging an exchange rate and mandating it as currency it doesn't mean a damn thing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point, Jeeves. "Voluntary" and "legal tender" are mutually exclusive. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the UK at least, "legal tender" has a much wider meaning than whether you can pay in cash. The actual nature of that cash is controlled, depending on the size of the transaction. For example, if you are buying a £250K house you couldn't demand that the vendor accept the money in copper coin. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The obsession with using gold as a currency is strange. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't want the value of our currency to be so dependent on trends in cosmetic dentistry. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had some gold fillings and when I had an implant one of the gold crowns was extracted. It was given to me in an acrylic specimen jar and, quite frankly, the gold content is minimal, it is apparently overlaid on a base metal substrate. A pure gold molar would probably be too soft for long-term use. I think that gold in dentistry is actually a very small percentage of gold usage, most of it ends up in bank vaults. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IIRC some places (France rings a bell) have a different legal framework for retail where there's a presumption that you can buy things which are offered for sale in a store. In the English system you can treat the presence of these items in the store as almost a coincidence, the seller always has discretion (modulo various anti-discrimination rules) as to whether to accept every individual offer by a "customer" but in the (let's call it French) system if there are some goods for sale then you can definitely buy them. In this approach you can have rules (which are not called legal tender) that legally specify how a person can pay for such goods, because the seller no longer has discretion to choose whether to accept each individual transaction. It could makes sense if you have such rules to add a new denomination, entirely new currency, or a non-currency that's widely accepted as a medium of exchange, to the rules. But again, that wouldn't be "legal tender" because it's not about debts. Tialaramex (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess it really hinges on how things are priced. If something sells for, say, .8 ounce of gold and you give them an ounce, how do you take your change? If the only option is .2 ounce (weigh out gold dust?) then gold is the currency. If the vendor looks up the price of gold that day and gives you 20% of the price of an ounce of gold in dollars, then it's no different than a check. Any pricing in dollars or converting the value of gold makes "dual currency" useless. If these tea party types want to make their statement they had better be prepared to unpeg from the dollar completely, transact only in weight measures of gold and accept any volatility with a smile. Lots of luck. Whoover (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better article about it: http://azstarnet.com/business/local/bill-would-redefine-legal-tender/article_b9b0f2c3-6ca6-536f-8e8e-aa6772405328.html

Science? Yuk!

Andy is wetting himself over the possibility that the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party in Congress (tautology?) might prohibit curiosity-driven, fundamental research.^img They won't stop research being done elsewhere, of course, but if it's 'Murcan, I guess it doesn't count. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, America. This is why I have no intention in staying in your country.Let my inspiration flow/In token token lines suggesting rhythm. 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One of those moments when Andy Schlafly makes me genuinely angry, and not just pretend-angry-but-really-laughing-at-him.

THIS odious piece of poverty-shaming tripe from a personal failure of a man cruising on his daddy's money and his mommy's name. I so wish he was reading this page. Let my inspiration flow/In token token lines suggesting rhythm. 02:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not welfare when its your family's money it seems. --Revolverman (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that despite what his Mommy says about women staying at home and being rapable breeding machines (ironically said while she was out on the road, having a career), I'm guessing that a big chunk of the Schlafly's household expenses are covered by his wife, the doctor. Imagine marrying a cum laude Harvard graduate, only to watch him "teaching" children in a church basement and spending every night hanging out with dribbling idiots on a failed vanity project. Not to mention her colleagues' reaction whenever her hubby is trashed in a science magazine... "Hey, isn't this your husband?" "No, never seen him before." --PsyGremlin^Tal! 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 03:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think his wife and kids just lock him in the basement of their house when they get home so they can live their lives normally. --Revolverman (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I nodded in agreement. I'm frankly not sure Theresa exists, however, as weird as that sounds. 05:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm picturing Andy, running up the stairs, and breathlessly asking his wife (in his muppet-like voice): "Abortions cause breast cancer, right?" She pats him on on the arm and says, "Yes, if that's what you want to hear, then of course..." He then pumps his fist in the air, shouting "YES!!!", then scampers down to the basement to post his latest insight. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

His wife went to medical school, but did not go into medical practice. He is on a $65,000 a year retainer for his mommies eagle forum, and probably has several other such groups paying him. Additionally he does "homeschool" history classes, 50 kids a semester at $400 a kid is $40,000 a year, and the church basement probably lets him do his once a week class there for a song. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This makes me want to take up heavy drinking

Ken quotes Weird Al Yankovic. (And one of my favorite of his songs, too!) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true, Atheists have a sexism problem. In Christianity, there's sexism, and they don't see it as a problem.

Goodness, what a miserable wretch. I don't know how you guys can read this everyday, I wouldn't have the strength. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is he honestly trying to shame people with that? That was practically an anthem for my social group back in high school... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You were in high school for White & Nerdy? Thanks, you just gave me about twenty more grey hairs. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If editing Wikipedia makes you a nerd, what does editing Conservapedia make you? Spud (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentally ill, demonstrably. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say a parodist, but I'll think I'll switch my answer to Jeeves' response. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We know who Ken is. We know where he's been. As much as he yammers about being a man of mystery, it was never difficult to put the pieces together from evidence he left out in open. The only thing we lack is details I don't think anyone really wants to know. We've seen his schtick progress to where it is and his mental health steadily deteriorate over the course of a decade. He's been aggressively quote mining on forum to forum until people just tell him to fuck off. Having found refuge among other inmate at the asylum, things have only been getting worse. There is zero possibility he's a parodist. It would take a conspiracy of Manchurian Candidate proportions run by a central authority of Stephen Hawking level geniuses. 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Ken ever got the notice that "nerd" is no longer a pejorative. -Lardashe

Karajou disprovesYoung Earth Creationism...

...with an article on Extinct rhinoceros.^img Ghost (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well he does say that "Brontotheres are claimed by evolution (sic) to have first evolved from Eotitanops during the late Paleocene 56 million years ago, and reached their peak in the late Eocene, 33.9 million years ago" which gives him a handy out. He'll just claim they all drowned in the Flood. How this knucklehead can be studying archeology at taxpayers' expense is beyond me. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 07:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Archaeology is a "special" branch of the field where the rules and evidence don't matter, as has been demonstrated time and time and time again. It is the only field I know of where people make things up that completely ignore the evidence and still get published in peer reviewed journals. Sokar (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

When your "peers" are all fellow crackpots who are funded by institutions invested in the same bad science with zero public or stakeholder accountability, that's what you get... Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of confusing Biblical Archaeology with what may be termed the "creation science of biblical archaeology". One is a legitimate field within the discipline, while the other is only concerned with things like finding Noah's Ark. Biblical Archaeology is not the domain of crackpots but actual academics who are answerable to the public and the stakeholders in the universities who fund them... especially in Israel. That doesn't mean that they don't play by the rules, because they often don't, it just means that they cherry-pick some data while ignoring evidence that says something different to what they want to hear. Two good examples that come immediately to mind are a) the complete lack of evidence for Jerusalem being anything more than a tiny village at the time of Solomon and b) the abundant evidence for the Israelites being polytheists and worshiping idols at least until the time of Hezekiah. And then there's the prickly subject of who the Israelites actually were in the first place, especially since it is extremely difficult to tell them apart from "the natives" at many sites. Saying that these subjects have immense political and economic significance would be an understatement of biblical proportions. Sokar (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Conservation status: Extinct" Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Welcome to Biblical Archaeology where everything is made up and the points don't matter!"--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No mention of which baramin it belongs to.

Countdown to Christie not being a RINO anymore...

Soon? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope he is no longer considered a RINO by CP starting right about mid-2016 when Christie is named the Republican Presidential Candidate. I think most of us can agree that Christie would make a great potential President, atleast compared to some others.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For Christie to not be a RINO by Andy's standards, he would have to take on positions that the overwhelming majority of American voters would find repulsive and weird. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have this feeling that regardless of his positions, Andy would say he is a great Republican in the vein of Reagan, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Washington if he was the 2016 RNC candidate.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Until the day after he lost. Andy is nothing if not traitorous and disloyal. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And why do you assume he would lose?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You assume someone who worked with Obama without ringing his hands in anger and praised his efforts could get elected in the GOP primary? --Revolverman (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

'…wringing his hands in anger' — This morning's pedantry is brought to you by → ^{Jabba de Chops} 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If the GOP is smart enough to push someone who could actually win the general election, Christie is probably the best candidate.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If Christie makes a serious bid, the wingnut brigade of the GOP and the hateful talk radio goons who lead them will make him Huntsman 2.0. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Christie is going to be more well known than Huntsman going into the primary, and have more support in several states on the East Coast. I doubt he would he be as brutalized as Huntsman, even if he does lose the primary. --Token Conservative (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy oversights embarrassing disregard for facts

This used to refer to Harvey Weinstein as a hate-filled atheist (or something like that). I pointed out that Weinstein is Jewish on Talk:Main Page, and instead of addressing his mistake Schlafly hides it away.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you can see how the edit shows up in recent changes as only adding six characters, despite showing a larger size difference in the file history--"Shut up, Brx." 01:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He will have just oversighted his previous version, that's all. Peter ^mqzp 07:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rose Garden

The White House Rose Garden, designed for Obama's teleprompters.^img Idiot. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I know Andy is basically the paragon of petty, hateful, insanely stupid, and just plain pathetic spite against all things he judges to not fit in with his ever more inane worldview, but Obama must have done something mighty personal to warrent such a level of balls to the wall hysterical fury from the schlafster. Sometimes I do wonder just what Obama did while andy's boss at the Harvard Law review to earn such special hatred? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Obama is a former colleague who has literally risen as far as a person can go in American society, while Andy, who had a HUGE social head start, is a public laughing-stock and an insignificant nobody who relies on the charity of the family name to put bread on the table. No wonder he's bitter. Combine bitter and stupid, and you get entertaining. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reallly, why on earth do you need parodists with comic gold like this? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe its just envy over a colleague, and maybe its just my overactive imagination but I get the feeling he had some deeper grudge against Obama, especially given that while a certified loony during the early years of CP, after Barack HUSAAAAAAAAAIN Obama got elected he pretty much took a leap over the insanity event horizon with the wingnuttery to a place where black holes are an anti biblical conspiracy, the word Christian is a "liberal distortion", and Barack Obama is simultaneously ever evil that ever has or will exist. Personally I think he already detested his guts before he was even in the runnings for president. I cant imagine a young(er) andy at the height of his hubris (i.e. when Mommy was still famous..ish and his dreams of entering politics were still fresh) taking being the underling of a younger liberal "foreigner" with a funny name very well. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No deep analysis is required. Andy is a crank to his core. "This is great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy! You see how clever this part is? How it doesn't require a shred of proof? Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant!" --Inquisitor (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Aww, but I like trying to make deep analysis :( (nice Terminator ref by the way). It just seems that my brain is incapable of accepting that such.... stupid can exist without a proper explanation. And given how far andy has fallen from an already rock bottom position since 2008 it does seem that Hussein's illegal election did unhinge him more than just another democrat would have. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want to go really deep with the analysis, try this: Andy seems to blame public school, Obama, marijuana, homosexuality and video games for all the evils in the world. I keep imagining there was some single event in his childhood which turned him against all of these at once, but then I start laughing too hard at the mental pictures I come up with. Pdoke2 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think its fairly clear what single event made him like that. His mother's "15 minutes of fame" in which mamma schalfly was able to screw over millions of innocent people (or "clueless liberals" as she may well have referred to them) just by spewing hideously deceitful far right propaganda in the right places and at the right time clearly left a mark on his ambitions, as no doubt did her own personal indoctrination of him through his life.

As much of an irredeemably hateful arsewipe he may be, he was put on that path by a greater evil. The fact he and the Pestilential Muslim Usurper actually worked together and likely knew eachother to some extent is the thing that makes me think maybe they had some kind of personal rivalry or emnity in their history (or more likely Andy had an exclusively one sided rivalry against Obama who was likely just puzzled as to why one of his team acted so weird around him) that would explain why he went from run of the mill creationist whackjob to the genuinely unhinged crazy he has degenerated into Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this analysis. To riff: his mother is basically talentless at any everything but rhetoric. The Schlaflys may not actually be very smart people at all. What young Andy saw is that it's possible to make something up that superficially resonates with a version of the truth, but is at base a truly hateful lie being peddled by a truly hateful hypocrite. It instilled in him this notion that one need not put any particularly deep thought into conceiving of and developing an idea as long as it's possible to label it in some way that you think it might be attractive to whatever group you're pandering to. The problem is that his mother, despite being an odious crone even at the time, was simply at the right place at the right time hoodwinking the right people - keep in mind that it's incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution. And in my opinion the ERA wasn't necessarily such a good idea when Congress and the Supreme Court were developing an abysmal record of protecting women under existing law - that should have been a priority since 1964, or even since women, black folks, and native people were finally recognized as human beings, though it appears to have been an afterthought to the point that there are any number of colorable objections to Congress' remedial power under the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause is a horseshit way to implement civil rights legislation. So all you have to do is latch onto the start of a non-frivolous argument and everything flows from there - wingnuts and fundies will extrapolate to no end regardless of the facts. But Andy was never anything but a good student: he was apparently unable to commit to a career in engineering, he is a poor lawyer despite graduating with honors from a remarkable law school, and now he's a poor demagogue, lacking the ability to do anything but emulate his mother, yet also lacking charisma and simple simple wisdom enough to change his tune when it's clear he's not just failing to appeal to mainstream conservatives, but only attracts fringe players like Hurlbut, who one might reasonably worry could become violent. Dang I just wrote some long sentences there. 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I imagine, Pdoke2, that it went something like this: http://i.imgur.com/BRQwU6J.jpg . Thanks, by the way. Now in my fucked up headcanon Obama is the world's greatest Donkey Kong player, but only while stoned. --Sasayaki (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy's Obama Derangement Syndrome is no worse than Terry's or Beck's or Alex Jones's or any of the other "intellectuals" of today's right. Occam's Razor says it has nothing to do with Harvard. If you want to do some group therapy I suggest you start with the being-led-by-a-black-guy thing. Whoover (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy dislikes Obama, but there's really no evidence he's racist and racial issues were probably not a big part of dinnertime conversation. Occam's razor, to me, suggests simple plain jealousy that someone he knew personally, who smoked weed, partied, voted Democrat and started out far "below" him in perceived social status, actually went on to marry a hot chick, be well liked, run the Harvard Law Review and ultimately become POTUS instead of being a dismal failure, laughing stock and generally terribly unhappy man. Andy spends as lot of time thinking about Barack Obama but Barry probably doesn't remember Andy's name. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy's journey to the Dark Side full on Rimmernisation is complete.

“”Hello. This video pays homage to a man who fell short of greatness by a gnat's wing… …and if it hadn't been for those people who kept dragging him down, pulling him down, pulling him back… …if you put Napoleon in quarters with Lister, he'd still be in Corsica, peeling spuds.

-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoah. My head just asploded. The teleprompter was (co-) invented by Hubert Schlafly Worm (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's been mentioned here before. I don't have the family tree but it's probable that he's related, although not too closely. Apparently the original Schlafly brothers were Swiss immigrants in the mid-1800s. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, just checked. Previously mentioned as you say. According to brother Rog he is a 'distant relative' Worm (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has it been a long time since Ken has given us an Alexa update?

That international (wo)man of mystery used to throw up webstats all the time, but not anymore. Sad day. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he figured out Lower = Better and realized what he was doing. --Revolverman (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's why: Rationalwiki and Conservapedia. Heh, bad luck Ken. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

HAH your silly obese evolutionist wiki has a number only half the size of the machismo filled conservapedia blog! much like something "else" you have which is only half the size of it's conservative creationist counterpart, and which explains why attractive long-haired latina women love macho conservatives far more! Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

anyone interested in getting Andy to attend this?

Webinar on Managing wikis. I am sure the process of getting him sign up and attend is more fun than whether he learns anything from it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, someone show Ed. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and signed Andy up for that webinar. I hope he appreciates the gesture. – Nick Heer 05:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear User: Conservative.

I'm afraid you took down that last "FYI Gentlemen" page too quickly for any of us to actually read it. Could you please oblige and re-post it? Hugs and kisses, Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's actually not terribly interesting. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to give the jist of it to those of us who didn't happen to be looking at CP during the five seconds kendoll has his shoutout up? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's actually possible to summarize it... but GregG was able to grab the pages here^img If you can figure out what it means, please let me know... lol. Pdoke2 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of import: a link to his blog. Which linked to a Google web page, which linked to another Google web page, which had a message about how we really don't know who writes his blog posts. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Conservative TV shows

What would Sir Humphrey and Jeremy Clarkson make of their respective mentions on [2]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh for the love of...... one of the single biggest running jokes in the show is trash talking america and during one of their visits they directly tried to bait and humiliate fundies like andy. Andy's stupidity is actually painful these days Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I love how Andy is convinced The Office is a conservative show. Though I am a bit disturbed that we both seem to have one similar interest. DickTurpis (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

LMAO at Legends of the Hidden Temple. Stupid liberals and their archaeology. I also like how Bill-O fails the purity test. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I just love that the third listed is a well known parody of American Conservatism.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the characterisation of Yes Minister is fair enough in the limited respect that it shows a Minister battling against a bloated bureaucracy to get through popular reforms. Unfortunately for the thesis it paints other aspects of Conservatism in a bad light, particularly religion. --Damo^Hi 00:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Shorter DTSavage: "You're dumb."

Brilliant F-you to Swabbie.^img Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird and epic battle going down...

Don't have time to get links, but DVergne and Jo-Mar are having an epic block battle. Weird. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of his long standing love of despots. What is with Joaquin? It seems like he never met a dictator he didn't like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the religious right secretly love the shit out of dictators and any criticism is just envy. --Sasayaki (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lunatics Category^img is a rather entertaining read. And those two are merrily filling up the Recent Changes with their block/unblock antics... --Sid (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"I think that the religious right secretly love the shit out of dictators and any criticism is just envy." Only if they're our bastards. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

JoMar loves dictators because he has an anti-imperialist mentality, and sees criticism of figures such as Gadafi as propaganda by colonialist powers. Remember, he's not your run-of-the-mill US jingo fundie conservative. He's from Mexico. Schools of thought (although in this particular case, the words school and thought have very little meaning) are different in different countries.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm from Mexico, and I assure you, JoMar's love for dictators make him a fundie here also.Danoso (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

JoMar already loves the ultimate dictator, God. Генгис^unbelieving 07:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And Andy has stripped DVergne of his block rights forever "pending review." Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I love Andy's reviews. I wonder how the inquiry in to Jinx's misconduct is going? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And now he blocks him for an infinite period again, nice work Jo-Mar, the Mexican justice system is alive and well on CP. Wonder whether someone like brenden or AlanE will try and unblock him Ghost (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The review is complete and the verdict delivered. In some ways it is surprising this didn't happen months ago, when we were all calling him a parodist. Still, sad to see another one fall. --Damo^Hi 22:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my favorite CP-sysop behavior, though usually it's Kajagoogoo who does it:salting the earth^img by reverting the now-non-person's edits, even if that means re-inserting grammatical errors. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne - you can take off the mask and tell us about your experience now. 23:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no point in holding back now. You have no chance of being reinstated so you may as well reveal yourself. Damo^Hi 00:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised we haven't heard from Dvergne sooner. Whoever it is, they seem to have gotten bored with the mask quite a while ago. Come forward and accept your prize. It's an MTV Video Music Award. I stole it from Jamiroquai, because fuck those guys.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

He did appear to lose interest recently. For a while there he was the most insufferable suckup to Andy and an extremely overzealous blocker who enjoyed causing trouble with the lesser lights. About a month or so ago he started picking subtle fights with the admins and from the point he had not long to live. --Damo^Hi 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A Liar Emerges

I/we was/is Dvergne, although seeing as I/we still have a number of other socks with a range of different user rights that I/we can use to cause a bit more uproar on CP (See Ken, speaking like that really does make you sound like a cunt, also hot tip, even though you are paying for some of the hosting fees). I/we have a number of other juicy morsels of information that I/we will slowly be releasing over the course of time. (Oh and a little note to Jo-Mar, fuck you, I hope you enjoy my little present :) I/we know you like it, but don't tell Ken lol cum suck me bro) Ghost (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

End game was going to block every IP for inf, but couldn't get the bot fully working. Ghost (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sysop me now biatches. Ghost (talk)

Yeah... that last bit about unleashing a bot to block every IP is definitely a few steps beyond too far. I can only speak for myself, but CP should flail, fail, and fall due to its own foolishness, not because of deliberate acts of sabotage. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify myself, I was going to start off with countries like China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan and Central Europe and work my up to the more 'highly valued' countries. Of course there would have been a bit of collateral damage to proxies though. CP is going to get a flood of spammers soon once all my rangeblocks wear off again. Oh and yes we are actually a group of people, a few have left their separate ways to continue their own paths (2 still have block, edit, skipcatcha, ect rights and will most likely be coming to their end games soon as well). I have quite a few interesting tidbits from some personal communication with various members that I will be releasing over the next few months, once/if my other mates decided to end their game as well as wouldn't want lessen the blow. Ghost (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

... cool?--^Mikal_lakiM 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's actually fairly cool. I salute thee. It'd be interesting to see the world blocked, not sure how Andy would handle having the USA blocked though, with a tiny pinhole for him to edit. Also, LOL at Ken trying to get laid. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My aim re the blocks was the basically wipe out large chunks of China with some added Canada and California thrown in to see what would happen. Which would have most likely been me getting banned, but Andy, the lazy fuck that he is not doing anything. Phase 2 would have been somewhere like Afria, Isreal, Middle East + Florida and NY/NJ.

This needs to stop, and now

Ghost, please stop using our website to discuss the personal lives of real people who have nothing to do with us, or with the topic of this page. Also, while individual editors may be interested in or even encouraging of your vandalism, as an institution, RW does not condone such activities. Take it somewhere else. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 12:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Redacted some things. And yet you hold Icewedge + Ames in high regard ?

Do I? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Some here do. RW is essentially a Vandal site, wikipedia says so, so it must be true lol. Ghost (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys really are gullible, I am not Dvernge and have just made all the above up. Goes to show that if one wants to believe something then they will. Good little lesson for you all, demand proof and don't assume anything. Ghost (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then again msybe I/me am Dvergne and my most recent comment was bullshit lol ole ole ole ! Ghost (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So you both claimed to be a douchebag and you are a douchebag. Nice. You can fuck off now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

One douchebag to rule them all. 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally also Dvergne and Karajou. 15:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I read this thread 3 times, and still cant figure out what the fuck is going on. Can someone give me the short version of it? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghost posted a bunch of probably-made-up-but-still-totally-inappropriate things about somebody's daughter (which he has since redacted, thus the tread doesn't really make sense...). Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok... but what does that have to do with Ken being a belieber? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. I used the developer console in Chrome to edit HTML on Ken's page in my browser (not on CP, Karajou) to make it appear as it he likes some gay bars and has Bieberfever. It's easy as pie. I'm hope Karajou was on the phone to the FBI within minutes and that Ken frantically changed his password to something a public school educated evolutionist couldn't figure out. 19:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The password is wanker, try it out - ghost of dvergne

Confirmed. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you look at some chemical articles, lots of lulz in them :) - Ricky Smartin

Problem with that is you can't tell parody from honest conservative "expertise." Like where Andy himself teaches us that physical chemistry is the opposite of organic chemistry. Whoover (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is some nice references to Karajou in one of the elements :) Tubbytelly

How will it all end?

Its been a good 7 or so years since Conservapedia was created, and since then it has lost the homeschool kids who were once it's foundation, lost all competent members once the owner's authoritarian insanity became apparent, lost all media interest after the lulz of a fundie wiki wore off, and lost all possibility of growth and reform once the junta of Andy, Kara, Jpatt, Hurlbut, Poor, and Ken became apparent in it's intolerance for anyone muscling in on their "turf".

Hell, at the moment Conservapedia ranks behind metapedia in terms of global alexa rankings, and when a neo-nazi wiki is outperforming you by a fairly wide margin, you know you are in serious trouble, especially if you advertise yourself as one of THE premier wikis that is having a massive effect on american and global socity, politics, and culture.

What I am curious of however is how it, and by extension all of it's parasitical spin offs (question evolution and CNAV) will eventually end. Personally I doubt it will last for another 7 years, or even another 5. Maybe should a republican win in 2016 they might get a second wind of sorts, but even then I dont see them surviving past the turn of the decade.

But will it end with a proverbial "bang" with Andy and co deciding to end it with as much drama and pomposity as possible? (fr example, in the case of another Democrat win in 2016 they react by proclaiming they will start some IRL protest movement that never materialises and use this as an excuse to end the website), or will it literally go on until andy permanently runs out of bandwidth allowance, or the "big name" members simply get to the age where they are incapable of performing their sysop duties?

(TLDR how do you think CP gonna die?) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not with a bang but a whimper. CP's demise has been predicted for years, yet it still keeps limping on. That will remain the case for as long as Andy doesn't have anything better to do with his free time. Vulpius (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, hes getting old himself, and I cant imagine being in a state of insane paranoia and hatred is comfortable, even when you are sitting pretty on family money in the lap of luxary while doing it. Unless he is as much a lunatic as Ken I think he may call some excuse in the near future to claim either "Mission accomplished" or "We have done all we can online, time to take our cause IRL", especially if his "arch nemesis" is stepping down in 3 years (Hell, I wouldnt put it past him when Obama steps down to declare that it was only due to conservapedia that he didnt run fr a third term) and after that, unless another old associate of Andy's replaces him I dont see him being able to muster up enough fury to keep slogging on. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Three words: President Hilary Clinton. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

aSoK still limps on with just one editor. I easily see it devolving to just Andy and the spammers. They've lost JPratt so far this year, and I can't see Karajou sticking it out much longer. Other than Ed's drive by idiocy, that's pretty much the last of the loyal cadre. I wonder if Andy'll still plod on with his pet articles once there's no real people left? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How will it end? Shit, I already thought it was over. It's just Andy, spam bots, and a handful of hecklers over there. Almost no new content is being generated, and most of that is by parodists trying to maintain their 90/10 stats. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize Johnny Sedition has been largely absent for a few months. Too early to call him gone yet, though. Speaking of which, where's LArron with his active users update? Haven't had one ins months. DickTurpis (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I set up my sock over there a few years ago but to be honest I simply couldn't drag myself down to the level of idiocy required to fit in. I generally restrict myself to reverting the more moronic vandalism on the occasional time I can be bothered to actually log in. Thing is, I GENUINELY am unable to make myself think in the way that andy does. I am completely unable to see the world through the eyes of chucky and swabbie. Kenny I can handle, he is just a slightly ill person and goat knows I've known enough of them in my life I can handle them. Fuck, I can even understand where the bitch thatcher came from in her politics much as I hated her. But the utter insanity of the right wing in America is beyond me. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The money won't dry up any time soon. He's already predicted that activity on his wiki would dry up and that it would prove CP right. Andy is basically a raconteur. Lenski was a win. He went on the Colbert Report, for chrissakes. He will find a way to "lash out" when he feels the need. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's purely on the whims of Andy. If he finally gets bored and wants to stop, it'll die. If not, it'll continue. Even if Terry, Ken, and Karajou quit (which, at least in the former two cases, is unlikely to happen anytime soon), Andy will still plug away like he has been. I'm honestly pretty surprised it hasn't happened yet. As mentioned at the top, the homeschoolers are all gone, so I'm not sure why he feels the need to keep at it. I'm guessing he just doesn't have anything better to do with his time? Cow...Hammer^time! 22:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It'll probably happen after 2016 when Andy realizes he's the only one editting, and we're the only ones reading. RW will probably die shortly after.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ending Conservapedia would be admitting defeat. Does anyone see Andy doing that? I say CP goes to the grave with Andy. Even if there's only spammers and Andy left he'll be saying that the site is growing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Admit defeat? never. Declare "I WIN! MY WORK IS DONE NAO!!" and then claiming that conservapedia has fulflled it's mission thus closing it down? I think that may be how it ends. As much as we joke, Andy has an IRL life... sad and pathetic as it may be, and eventually push will come to shove and he may decide to ditch the wiki while concentrating on something else. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Did he at least die painlessly?

To sheds you say^img.... How's his wife holding up? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The WIGO (about "metamorphosizing") is so-so, but the article itself is a hoot. Beyond sealing the image of dogs pupating and emerging from their chrysalides as dire wolves, we learn from Ken that, "This month I will be working out 6 days a week for most of the month." Buff Ken and dire wolf cocoons are two wonderful mental images on which to meditate, don't you think? Finally, we learn that he got one of his all-important communications from a lady (whom we are told Ken has made happy -- even prior to his Occupy Gym project) and that this came at "9am Greenwich Meantime." This is undoubtedly the origin of the phrase "in the meantime." Whoover (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really want to think about buff Ken making any women happy. If I didn't know it was all made up, I'd be quite ill. (Also, what's his weird obsession with giving times in GMT? Do we need to teach him about UTC or something?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

GMT is a conservative term, UTC is liberal. Surely you know that, Jeeves? As for "metamorphosizing", I had to look twice at Ken's spelling; both on CP and QE! What alternative spellchecker is he using at the moment that let through? His credentials as a tutor of English look even weaker. I also like his use of creationist numeracy:

The 4 keys to good dog/wolf predators are:

1. A large jaw

2. Endurance and persistence

3/4. Speed and weight of the predator

So "speed and weight" count as individual characteristics but "endurance and persistence " are magically combined. If there was any logical consistency to loony creationist thought that should either be 3 or 5 key features; never is it 4. But of course there is no logical consistency, so 4 is the correct number! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

One thing Ken seems to be forgetting while raving on about what perfect predators Dire Wolves are:

They went extinct.--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} 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking for a shed lately, and I think next time I walk into one I'm going to ask: "Hmmm, how big do you think this evolutionist was before the creationist dog ripped him up?" I wonder if they'd give a discount just to make me buy it and leave. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, dire wolves went extinct, but not because they weren't effective predators. They went extinct after the Great Flood. Like lots of other animals. All of which, the omniscient God told Noah to save from the flood, even though God must have known that many of those species would die out right after the flood, so why did they have to take up room on the ark to begin with? Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"You know nothing, Ken Snow..."--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, well you see, there was a terrible irony at work. Having successfully survived the flood Noah et al decided to throw the biggest foam party the world has every seen. Unfortunately it turned out that an awful lot of kinds were allergic to foam and copped it. But good news - after the foam reached the top of the mountains and Noah was allegedly mistakenly about to shag a sheep, believing it to be his wife, or at least a human relative (sailors, I tell you, they'll shag anything!), God whisked the foam away in an even larger bukkake explosion than the one that created the asteroid belt and so created the Oort cloud. It's obvious if you have an open mind. ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fergus Mason, why have you not debated Vivayeshua or ShockofGod on the 15 questions of evolution yet ? Is it because you are afraid you will loose ? Us creationists love to hear the screems and wimpers of pathetic atheists Olë Olë Olë

Seriously though, how does Ken keep himself from posting here? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I also enjoy the glimpse into the fundie universe, where we learn "the dire wolf [which lived until 10,000 years ago] died in the Flood -- see Permian extinction [of 250 million years ago]." 96% of marine taxa went extinct at the end of the Permian, from drowning? "My God is a God of willful ignorance." Whoover (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Geez, 96%? That ark was a total failure, wasn't it? Phiwum (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How does he keep himself from posting here? Well, he doesn't post here because unlike at Conservapedia, he can't block/oversight when things don't go his way. Not only that, but he'd also have to deal with a critical mass of people all too familiar with his bullshit. He doesn't post here because his ego won't let him.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're fuckin' kidding, right? Err, I would never have been able to articulate the obvious so clearly. Kudos, dipshit. 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

reek...reek.... it rhymes with creationist-fucktard-freak. You have to know your name kenny boy Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken reading A Song of Ice and Fire watching Game of Thrones would likely spoil my enjoyment of the series. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just pretend hes Theon, and come Season 3 and beyond suddenly you have yourself a comedy.... nah, even for ken thats too mean. He reminds me more of Viserys, given his pompous bluster and insanity combined with a statling lack of spine, testicular fortitude, or even basic self awareness. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I imagine him more as a Joffrey. Jared (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

HODOR. That is to say, if HODOR and Joffrey fused in some unholy flash of dark light. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

AugustO finally spelled out the "sheds" typo and Ken fixed it. Looking back, I strongly suspect he thought the phrase is "ripped to sheds." It fits with his weird dyslexia/learning disorder symptoms. It wouldn't be the first idiom he mangled. It would explain his weird "I'm not going to fix the typo until you spell it out for me" response to AugustO. Whoover (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

is a liberal^img, according to Andy. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Once you understand that "liberal" is a synonym for words like "incorrect," "wrong," and "bad"... Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also people, places, and things Andy doesn't like. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Liberal is just anything that Andy doesn't like or agree with, because he defines conservative. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Did they do something wrong or otherwise incorrect?

No -- Conservative

Yes -- Are they in sports?

Yes -- Overrated Sports Star (and thus Liberal and lacks MA-CHEESE-MO)

No -- Are they a Republican?

Yes -- RINO (and thus secret Liberal)*

No -- Liberal

*Special exception: Is a true conservative even if they are immoral, criminal, or otherwise corrupt but still prevented a Liberal from winning office; besides Jesus will forgive them as long as they don't go Liberal.

--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BEGIN

IF ANDY{ANDY}=TRUE THEN CONSERVATIVE;

IF ANDY{CRUSH}=TRUE THEN CONSERVATIVE;

ELSE

LIBERAL;

END;

END.

^{Jabba de Chops} 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You left out the RINO Backers, like Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Coulter, Romney, Malkin, Krauthammer and McConnell. They're not full-fledged liberals yet, but because they won't support the stupidest of drivel to come from the mouths of True Conservatives, they might as well be. Whoover (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DonnyC We Hardly Knew Ye

Kenny boy has given Donny boy a three month timeout, to be followed by three months of no posting on MPR talk. Oh yes, and no CBP or Debate editing to count towards his 90/10 rule. His crime was not responding to Ken's "rejoinder", which cites Ernst Mayr as the "dean of living evolutionists." Mayr, of course, died in 2005. Ken is the dean of living dicks. Whoover (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, and less than two hours between warning and block. That's Ed Poor level dickishness right there. But then, it's pretty certain he didn't actually want a real response. --Kels (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when have any of them actually behaved in reasonable manner? They know that as sysops Andy will either have to back them whatever they do or be considered wrong, and Andy is never wrong. So every one of them acts like petty internet bullies because they are totally useless in the real-world. Machismo? My arse! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And he took a swipe at Andy's Bible too! Good work Ken. Guessing he isn't a fan of the Game of Thrones references that have been slowly creeping in then. There where a few Bieber references a whilst ago as well, although most of those got removed by teh assfly and donnyC --DickyV

Also don't know if u already knew this but Andy has been using kik to communicate with various CP members. Chatted to him a few times on there. Kara and Ed on there too. Reason didn't get sysopship was couldn't provide enough proof. He wanted social security (Ie medicare card for me), Licence, Proof of degree and facebook profile link. Was surprised he didn't want a full medical as well. DickyV

There's no way Ken would ever get to be a sysop nowadays. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He's basically hit rock bottom intellectually. His mental state fluctuates but I honestly haven't seen him employ critical reasoning for years now, to the extent he was able to fit any in between quote mines back in the day.

I'm thinking it would be sort of cathartic for us to collaborate on a legit Ken article that goes through his history on various fora and documents his madness up to this "you must debate this other guy who doesn't want to debate you before I will read your comments (that I thrive on reading)." Any takers? 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is something that I have been thinking about over recent weeks, particularly in the light of the discussions over the Andy article. We should have a serious article highlighting all his of buffoonery and weird shoutouts rather than just lampooning him. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a serious analytic article on the guy who used to live down the corner from me who used to hang out in front of the subway station in either a Napoleon outfit or a Pope costume? How about an article on the guy I saw coming from the pub just now who was running down the street flapping his arms and making airplane sounds with his mouth? Why should having internet access make one nut any more remarkable? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the internet is a medium that allows him to be read. Not by many, I grant you. But it's on mission to point out and counter the flaws in what he says. If it helps one child from being taken in by Ken (or more likely reading what he says in passing alongside other fundie exposure), then that's a good thing. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also absolutely delicious that he uses CMI's "good name" so frequently. I would be delighted to see that such a shamefully discrediting association for an already shamefully dishonest organization spread far and wide. Having a crank come up higher than you do on Google ... precious. 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I believe that if there's a crank individual or crackpot idea, and someone does an internet search for it... RW should pop up first. The problem with rebutting Ken's foolishness is that none of it's original. It's just all cribbed material from CMI. No garden variety internet creationist ever offers anything new. They all rely on CMI, AiG, and other charlatans for their info. I think we should cap the well, instead of fixing individual drips. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Weiland, Sarfati, and Batten are liars. I want them to own having a tragic crank as one of their loudest mouthpieces. 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It's sort of like trying make a band take ownership of some crazy groupie. BTW I just got a response from CMI about Ken's blog. Pretty much just generic boilerplate. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is like trying to force creator of a show to own those few fantastical, crazy fans. Like making Paramount own having some people dress in Star Fleet uniforms for jury duty or drive around in Pike's life support or the like, just because they produce entertainment television.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's fun to stay at the YMCA!

Hey Ken, If you wanted to add weight to^img the theory that you constantly bash gays because you're a closet case, you're doing it right. Enjoy those trips to the Y, eh? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC) (Also, DamianJohn demonstrates trolling at its finest. He'd probably have a date with a banhammer if Ken wasn't so stupid.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, the links he includes in that ended in me discovering they have three articles to say "atheists are fat therefore creationism." I...does...what? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, a Young Man Christian Association - that's just Ken isn't it? And "I have been thinking of working out twice in a day" - priceless, classic Ken never to be fulfilled. Ken darling, please upload pictures when your abs are ripped (to sheds). Генгис^marauding 10:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Abs ripped to sheds? Some men have washboard abs, Ken has clapboard siding abs. Also, wasn't Young Man the name of the guy The Village People were singing about? They probably named the institution after him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably what Ken will look like after he loses some weight. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

GAH! Not safe for anyone who wants to sleep ever again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In that original link, why is Ken in the second paragraph referring to himself in the second person? He is just nuts or does he honestly believe people will think he quoted someone else despite the person being quoted is obviously him? Of all of this, that is the only noteworthy part.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The same reason he refers to himself as I/we/us --^Mikal_lakiM 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In a ridiculous charade to divert attention from the man behind the curtain, Ken has opened a Pandora's box of metaphors and tied himself in a Gordian knot of deceit that can only be cut through by a Sword of Damocles. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Coolant is no longer conservative.

Aw, man. August pointed out^img that Andy's count was off, and there were more words listed than he thought. As a result, the "perfect doubling" was all screwed up. The natural conclusion is, of course, that some "recent"^img additions weren't high quality and so Andy did the intellectually honest thing: removed just enough words to almost finagle the perfect doubling and salvage his important "theory" (yeah, yeah, I know that these occasional announcements of a perfect doubling really provide no evidence for his theory, but Andy thinks otherwise).

Anyway, as a result, we lose^img one of the all-time great conservative words: "Coolant". This word has been reliably conservative since August, 2010^img -- added by Andy himself!

Say, does this mean that all those previously announced perfect doublings were imperfect and hence don't count as "evidence"? Phiwum (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, JPatt lost his "recent" contribution of "Den Mother"^img (April 2011), too. Phiwum (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if he's even fooling himself with his "perfect doubling" spiel these days. At this point, even he must realise he's cherrypicking. I think we've witnessed another example of Andy is never wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's my favorite of Andy's pet "theories" because it is so utterly blatantly obvious, to anyone, that he is overtly manipulating the data to produce the result that he wants. He basically breaks all the rules of good science in an attempt to prove his assertion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And AugustO spanks^img andy by pointing out that he himself had added coolant and that means that everything since was, to say the least, slightly dubious. I like AugustO, I really don't think he's a parodist but he is so rigorous in his humilitation of andy that I can only applaud his every contribution. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I like AugustO because he is the only decent, intelligent, well-meaning conservative on that entire site.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean I like AugustO because he is the only decent, intelligent, well-meaning human being on that entire site. But don't let me put words in your mouth. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

By this point, everyone at CP must be a reject from Wikipedia, or a parodist (who may or may not also be a reject from Wikipedia). What's AugustO's deal that he's at CP at all? Is he a religious fanatic who's at least self-aware? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BMcP, not only does he break all the rules, but the doubling effect that he works so hard to attain is completely irrelevant to whether the growth is actually exponential! Even assuming, of course, that there was a clear definition of "exponential", this sort of observed pattern would be somewhat relevant if the words chosen were truly randomly selected -- but even then, of course, no one would expect an exact doubling. The whole thing is not only dishonest, it's just plumb stupid.

Which is why this is one of my favorite pages on CP. Phiwum (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Even worse, Andy is the sole arbitrator of what words are accepted or rejected; there is no way this whole thing can't be seen by people other than the product of ego.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

How did I miss this? Some time ago, in defending^img the word "galvanize" as properly conservative, he wrote, "Though not strongly conservative, 'galvanize' has usage with respect to the grassroots, as in 'galvanize the grassroots.'" "Galvanize the grassroots?" He is just as good at metaphores as Ken. I like the idea of goldplating the roots using electricity, in any case. You could make jewelry. Phiwum (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You stubborn atheists. Why are you criticizing someone for blatant attempts to make facts fit an insane theory "making an improvement"^img? --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

forever alone dot jpeg

Never has one man cried out so much for that image macro^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Give me Alice Roberts any day, rather than some air-headed beauty queen. Генгис^evolving 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, he is spamming the main page again with all these "five reasons why" and "seven reasons why" links. Well I will save you all the trouble of even bothering to look, it is all complete retread; nothing but links to his old posts, which in themselves are nothing but retreads of what Ken repeats ad nauseam on CP because he has no argument. Ken is feeling lonely, so he posts all this stuff in hopes we here on Rationalwiki (his only audience), will pay him attention and talk about him, then he can feel wanted and "persecuted for Jesus", and whatever. So. Boring.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Because those people have a spectacular track record of being the sort of people you want to listen to on the subject. ^pathetic 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This proves it. All the atheists over there just to cause trouble are the ones getting trolled when they respond to him on the main talk page. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping we could ignore him this time. It is just too pathetic. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

More Liberal Denial

Conservapedia proven right that Tamerlan killed his friends and the liberal authorities continue with the coverup. I get that. Makes perfect sense. Except the bit about Boston area police forces being part of the liberal establishment. How the hell did Obama get them all to cover for a Muslim murderer? We know Obama wants to because he's the ranking head of the League of Muslim Murderers. I get that. But no Boston Blue is willing to blow the whistle on the coercion he's using? I am so impressed. If only he could use some of that mojo on Congress.

On the same subject, can anyone also explain why the Obama Administration should be declaring guilt in a Boston murder case? Beside the fact that nobody's been charged, I mean. And the fact that Andy's perp is dead. A conservative administration would have twisted the screws some more and had the local police declare the case solved? What is he talking about? Has he ever won a case? Really. Whoover (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Because all conspiracy theories are so well run that nobody ever involved blows them unless they are disgraced and soon to be assassinated, so they found the local tin hat association to tell the secret to. & obama should be declaring guilt because Obama is a fucking Kenyan lying bastard who is always at fault always. You have to remember, they can never win- either obama isnt doing enough to do something or hes overstepping the bounds of his power, there is no middle--^Mikal_lakiM 04:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck you, Andy, for making me pay attention to golf

But it was worth it.[1]^img[3]--"Shut up, Brx." 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's obvious that conservative wunderkind Garcia was put off by all the liberal media bullying after he expressed his First Amendment right to call Woods a douchebag. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I heard the groundskeepers were liberals and pot smokers who spent hours playing Tiger's video games at the direct order of Obama and used this knowledge to mow the fairways and greens into specific shapes which would unfairly benefit Woods while messing up Garcia... Or something like that and i can prove it because shockofgod. Anyway, I'll delete this, replace it with the new information and deny this version ever existed as soon as the official explanation makes its inevitable appearance on CP's Main Page. Pdoke2 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken attempts to back this site by showing a graph of this site growing

I am not sure what Ken is trying to achieve here. He basically says Rationalwiki is struggling because we are just too atheist and nerdy, and then posts a graph where our site's traffic is shown to be on a long term upward swing over the last two years^img. Worse, looking at Ken's second favorite site, we have the following:

• Rationalwiki - Alexa Traffic Rank: 36,464 United States Traffic Rank in US: 12,452
• Creation.com (CMI) Alexa Traffic Rank: 68,730 United States Traffic Rank in US: 22,752
• Conservapedia - Alexa Traffic Rank: 69,714 Traffic Rank in US: 19,144
• Ken's QE Blog - Alexa Traffic Rank: 3,418,874 United States Traffic Rank in US: 494,937

Yeeeeah, and we suck. ^{— Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs}

Didn't Ken think high ranks were better than low ranks? Or did I dream that? Whoover (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't dream it. But he did memory hole that shit at speed when we laughed at him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Amazing but true: the top hit for 'colonic' on Google USA is indeed our very own rationalwiki. Ken has made an accurate statement!!! Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We're only the second hit for me, but I'm in the Boston area and the top hit is for an alternative healthcare office around here. Phiwum (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we need to do an improvement drive on the colonic article? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What we need to do is show him we really are bigger ass-men and take over Google rankings for Homosexuality and Anal Cancer, Gay Bowl Syndrome, Fecal Incontinence, and Proctitis. 18:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We could always add a specific section on the dangers of electrolyte imbalance and one on coffee enemas. Also, what's up with the section?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Phiwum: Ken's statement, while true, is actually a bit weird. When I used google.co.uk, the top hits for 'colonic' were all for colonic irrigation services in towns around where I live (I had no idea that so many English colons needed irrigating). The weird thing is that searching on google.com also found a whole lot of colonic irrigators somewhere in the USA (I can't remember where exactly). To replicate Ken-boy's top hit, I first had to google for 'Google USA', then go to a mirror site for Google USA that doesn't seem to be specific to any particular locality in the USA, and search for 'colonic' there. Kenny must have been sitting in front of his computer for hours and hours and hours trying to find some - any! - vaguely indecent word which came top in some - any! - kind of Google search. I almost feel sorry for the little git. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexa has a list of top google hits for the site. --Token Conservative (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see - so not so weird after all, maybe. But I guess Ken is a bit obsessed with Alexa rankings and the like. I went to Alexa for the very first time just now - there was an advert for dating "pretty Ukrainian ladies". Is that where Ken gets his fantasies about sweet creationist women? Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As we all know Google records stuff about you and then presents the links it thinks will interest you most. If you spend a lot of time on RW it will put relevant RW links at or near the top of your search. So saying that "X" is high on a Google search list for you is meaningless.

Try it on duck and go instead. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Or just open up an incognito/private browsing window and make sure you're signed out of your Google account (if you have one), and Google's results won't be tailored on any sort of search history. At most, it could be tailoring results for geographic area, which is vague at best. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 07:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a common misconception and you see it all over the place with people claiming that their site is still the number one for X. But it's wrong. Google keeps filtering you even when you are signed out.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 09:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could just ignore the ads and move on with your life. Fuck, most of my ads are directed at Limbaughists and Vulgar Libertarians.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There are ads on the internet now? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Google's personalisation of search results is not the same thing as the ads they try to get you to read. Do any search with google and then do exactly the same search at duckduckgo.com or startpage.com Google doesn't only profile with cookies, it also uses your browser's uniqueness.

Kendoll: I'm Batman and Superman

No, really. Well I suppose, like those two, his heroic exploits are completely fictional. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

He strikes me more as 'Mazing Man. Well, except ol 'Maze is humble and lovable. Ken is neither. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken Doll has only ever been, and shall only ever be one character from the DC Universe. Professor Pyg. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sun Tzu said "Be ineffectual, even to the point of irrelevance" so Ken's ad-libbing a bit in practice. --Kels (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't know what superhero Ken would be. I can't think of one that goes around punching himself in the face and thinks he's winning. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's deleted now. Did he really say he's superman and batman or something similar to that? You can't be both. They're very different people. And if he's talking about physically, just say superman. X Stickman (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kenny as a superhero? Gotta be Mothman in Maine.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Stickman, what he said was drivel about nobody knew the true extant of his powers, because he keeps them seekrit like Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. Or something equally as stupid. Anyway, I guess he's coming down off of high now, because he's going around cleaning up some edits, deleting others and oversighting the rest. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The true extent of his power of being inconsequential? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Help! Help! Burn-The-Evidence Man, please help! Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my comment as JimmyDykes to Ken before it was oversighted was, "And look who's talking about socially challenged, oversized egos. Did you mistake your own reflection for their website?" 24.186.48.29 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ken. You were so close - the thing is, Superman and Batman wear their undies outside their tights, while you wear yours on your head. PsyGremlin^Tala! 13:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be claiming he might be more than one person. Surely only one person can have his writing 'style'. Bevo74 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken, Ken, Ken you really think you're fooling anyone with your "I'm Superman, no wait I'm Batman" shtick? Here at the League of Atheist Super-Geniuses we all know your super identity is Captain Oblivious. You don't have hide it. Just like don't have to hide being um, "roommates" with Barely-Repressed Man or all your computer passwords being "Password". Speaking of which you should really change those. I mean thanks for the free money but someone malicious could do some real damage you know? Instead of just getting half ownership of a MacDonalds kids meal and telling the bank they can finally throw out those magic beans. 99.248.242.120 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

01:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Semi MindFuck

B4 KD Deletes it^img

Anyone else like reading the question evolution blog for a good laugh?

(Moved from Talk:Main Page)

Im new here, or to use A.M. Radio lingo, long time reader first time typer. Anyhow i love checking out the question evolution blog that always gets linked to conservapedia, but today to my surprise rationalwikis existence was acknowledged, and apparently, this is a nerd website that puts people off with their obsession with colonics? I find it funny that these so called christians can break so many commandments in the name of their god, its almost enough to make me wish i was wrong and their god was real, just so i could see the look on their face when he casts them into hell....for their sinfull pride ^{— Unsigned, by: SmittyGreen / talk / contribs}

Welcome to RW! I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to merge your topic with this conversation here on CP:Talk, since this is sort of the home for all CP-related loonery if it doesn't have anywhere else to go, and QE! is a Kenterprise. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll quickly find that the QE blog is probably *the* most tedious blogs you'll ever have the misfortune to come across. Ken's writing is tortuous, unimaginative, and extremely repetitive, and the layout of his posts is a complete mess. I guess it can be fun to watch for a while in a train-wreck sort of way, but in the end it all just gets to be a little sad and depressing.Tacitus (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks im sorry you had to waste your time moving my silly tripe to the conservapedia page, I recently came across this wiki right after i came across the sillyness that is conservapedia, and beyond the making fun of sill YEC, i apreciate all the anti-wooness of this website and hope to be able to get drunk and add to it in as constructive a manner as possible. Also thanks for the warm welcome, i went to CP as a christian, went on about how silly evolution was, but the second i told them they were going to hell for their pridefull essays making fun of athiests and then old men for needing help climbing a dinosaur they blocked me, cunts...anyhow im pretty shit faced so i wont make much an ass of myself right away, all ill say is thank you all for the welcome, and i apologize for the mispellings, but my spell check isnt working properly with this site, but when i make real entries in proper articles ill make sure all spelling and grammer is correct..,and before i go ill say, ive gotten more than a few laughs from this wiki, and and...not to be to corny ive been inspired by this wiki because the asflys of this world would mean shit, if they haddnt happened to take over the republican party,via the tea baggers, and you folks are one of the few places ive seen my true political and idealogical ideals in "print" i just hope im able to add even the slightest bit to what you a,ready have here.......again im drunk real drunk..and stonded, so i hope i havnt seemed too silly good nigh bitches! ^{— Unsigned, by: SmittyGreen / talk / contribs}

For the record, if the current state of your user page, with holocaust denialism and antisemitism, reflects your true political and ideological ideals, you belong on Metapedia, not here, and you'll probably be swiftly shown the door, because we do not put up with that shit. However, we'll see how you do when you're sober. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

so your some kinda bad ass RW sheriff now, OP? "Swiftly shown the door"? Why not wait until the guy actually does something before whipping your e-dick out. Aceⁱ⁹|

Are we sure that guy wasn't Ken Doll? I understood almost none of what he had to say. Just like Ken. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He has done something, Ace. Look at his user page. I hope he's just taking the piss (although I find it really bad taste, even if he is). And Ken's never gone off on an anti-Semitic rant, not yet anyway. I think it's more likely to be Mel Gibson. Spud (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

His user page offends me! BAN HIM!. We don't just "show people the door". Aceⁱ⁹ 07:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you see me banning anyone (other than sysop joke bans)? Do you see me dragging anyone to the Coop? I'm hoping he's nicer when he's sober. I'm just predicting how this is going to go if he isn't. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 07:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm warning you now, I'll show you the door if you aren't careful, OP. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok last try, if you find a long string of words else where, it was ment to be here, ill explain when im sober, but as drunk as i am...i have yet to write anything on my talk page...i just checked it and it was full of shit, now thanks to who ever took the time to write how they thought i might have felt but you missed...alot, anyhow,ima now watch TNG,on bbc and sleep, ill straiten this all out in tge morning, but i garentee, im not a racist or and semetic...i just really like star trek the next generation so im out and we can figure this all out tomorrow ^{— Unsigned, by: SmittyGreen / talk / contribs}

Next time I have a run in with the Thin Blue Line I'll say, "i garentee, im not a racist or and semetic...i just really like star trek the next generation so im out and we can figure this all out tomorrow " Aceⁱ⁹ 07:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you like hip hop and movies starring black folks like Brxbrx? He's totally not a racist. Ask his black friend. We don't ban users, but some it's appropriate to harass and beg to leave. 13:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can guarantee one and all that i am not a racist, im quite sorry that i didnt present a better first impression, but i fixed my user page, and i shall ass more info about myself in the coming days, and i hope to start writing, editing and hopefuly get to know everyone a bit, Ive admired this wiki for a few months and and I'm excited to become a part of it.SmittyGreen (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken hacked your user page? Don't ass any more on my account. Whoover (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like someone needs more practice at trolling. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah he did, but what do you mean about ass on your account? And i did troll a bit on CP but i came here to actually contribute, SmittyGreen (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What fun, i had some fun with ken on conservapedia, after showing his writting to a few of my close friends, who happen to be a nun a priest, who agreed that much if what he wrote was extreamly rude, and downright sinfull, they agreed a man of his type will most likley find themselves suprised when god casts them out of heaven...anyhow, after that and hacking my account, he even included me in the newist QE blog, funSmittyGreen (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright... lemme see if I got all this straight. You joined RW; and while you were drunk, Ken hacked your account and left a drunken incoherent racist rant. Which you've since deleted. Now you've taken to this talk page with a marginally more coherent defense. Do I have it right so far? Because if I do, you'll have to forgive me if I remain skeptical. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok so, i joined rational wiki a few weeks ago, sober and didnt have much to say, so i didnt post anything, i got buzzed and started fucking with conservapedia, and the QE blog, i really just wanted to point out all of thier unchristian behavior , and they quickly blocked me and i thought that was the end of it, soo i got drunk and had a few friends over to watched star trek, and when i checked back to see if anyone said anything, i found that my user page was filled with anti semetic crap, look at the latest QE blog, im the lame atheist that Threatened him with hell fire... I only did so after checking with my religious family members ( one who's a nun, one who's a priest) to see if i was right in my thinking that the QE blogs slandering of RW, and the articles making fun of atheists and gays for being fat, stupid and unable to find women...plus the article making fun of poor old PZ for needing help climbing the Triceratops, were in fact sinfull, and they agreed that they were not only pridefull, but even the verses they use to condem gays, say slanderers, will not make it to heaven, so i told them that, and they got mad. Its cool if you're skeptical, but i know what happened, and ill do whatever i can to prove it, i'd really like to become part of this website, it shares much of my own world view..plus its funny, soo just let me know what i can do to prove it to you, and try giving me a chance....SmittyGreen (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're still claiming that someone decided to hack some random yahoo with L337 haxorz skills because...conservatives? And this happened after a priest and a nun blessed your trolling the QE blog with hellfire? Right. Yeah, I think you're going to need to come up with a better story my friend. Heavy Metal Jesus (\m/ \m/) 06:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoover (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think people would accept you far more if you just admitted you were stupid in posting that anti-Semitic crap, realized it was wrong, and did the right thing by erasing it and apologizing rather that this ridiculous story.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What's more amazing than conservative spoofing his IP address? That he made the post in a single edit! There is another possibility; he left his account logged in and his startrek friends did it.

I don't admit to things i didn't do, id rather pack my bags,yes it may not have been ken, but there were reference in the post to things i said to him on CP and the QE blog, I'm not new at being offensive, and anything i do to offend people i tend to proudly own up to, this i didn't do, if no one believes me its fine, i know what i did and did not do, and my friends didn't use my iPad or my computer,soo how ever it happened in the end, Idk, I'm no expert, all i know is like I've repeated i didn't write any of that, so we can either believe me or simply move on and after getting to know me, maybe you'll understand that such writing is simply not my style, or if I'm not accepted, i can return to lurking and simply enjoying the website, i only joined because I've enjoyed the site, and thought the least i can do i help add to it, expand it, and better itSmittyGreen (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But since it did somehow make it onto my page i would like to apologize to anyone it offended. Im hoping to close the whole thing and move onto working on edits, page creation, and debate, i hope i can prove myself capable through timeSmittyGreen (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You crazy atheist, Smitty. Welcome aboard. We look forward to reading your pieces on the best way to obey Obama, how to kill babies without getting viscera on your kaftan and the best way to get stoned. London Grump (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man, I have a busy few days comin up, I'm my mothers care taker and she has a few important apointments coming up, but i promise once i really get a chance to edit and post more, they will be of quality and non anti-semetic....SmittyGreen (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

CP borken (Andy has now got a more conservative hamster)

Seems to be giving errors and not loading pages for last 4 hours. Wonder if they will loose a whole week again ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.119.18.167 / talk / contribs} 07:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Same for me. The week that never was really was a hoot. It would be too much to hope for such fun again. StarFish (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Downforeveryoneorjustme is reporting cp as down for everyone. Oh the joys if they do manage to lose an entire week again. Which one of them do you think installed the mediawiki update this time? And could this be the time when AugustO steps in to save the day again and regains some of his rights? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Will this mean that all the unpersons Ken has made this week will now be un unpersons again ? Ken will be spitting chips btw. Isn't 15th at 5pm GMT meant to another phone hookup with some random the end of internet evolution ? DickV

I think several Very Important Dates have passed.

Dude. CP being down makes me really sad for Ken for some reason. At least in years past he was slightly more capable of interacting with people. Now he's a broken record, literally repeating the same sneering shit over and over to anyone who will talk to him. He was just challenging someone to find his other blogs - I've got numerous Google alerts set up - there are no other blogs. He views himself as a literal warrior struck in the image of Sun Tzu, but doesn't it strike you as incredibly sad that he can't even bear using his own name on the internet? He basically has no independent existence without his "anonymous" appearances. Several of us have seen his weird correspondence with someone's actual creationist family members inquiring in good faith about QE thinking he had something to do with CMI. They weren't willing to send him a note from their pastor or whatever weird intrusive shit he asked for. I just cannot fathom what kind of sad life this man must lead when his greatest triumphs are trolling people who would just as soon forget about him with tales of non-existent victories in a non-existent battle. There is no grand QE movement. There are no volunteers - at most a few people have been willing to humor him, or are working on their own while Ken implies that he's involved by reposting their pictures. Ken is not responsible for any upticks or downticks in internet traffic on any site but his blog, for which he shouldn't be proud. Ugh, Ken. Move on. More importantly, ugh Andy: you're a disgusting person for enabling this guy's self-destruction on your blog. 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And what of us, who poke, prod, torment and pull each of his strings at every opportunity?Tielec01 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to stop doing it. It's hard and I'm not doing great. I can't blame you, but it's not right. 12:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Got to agree. To have Conservapedia listed as a great accomplishment when it's been called the place where knowledge goes to die on the internet is just beyond depressing. Maybe that's why Andy lets him stay? I just wish other users there would stop beating around the damn bush about his trolling and rule violations (I think that Petmac guy asked something about spamming links is OK for Conservative but being the ONLY one). DonnyC gets blocked for 3 months on wrongful grounds and only August brings it up, and as nice a guy he is he's a pushover, but users with block rights seem to roll over when he reverts them for removing personal remarks. Guess I'm tired of the same old shit. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is. I'm holding on to the slim hope that when Andy wakes up and notices his pet wiki has gone titsup he throws up his hands and finally says bollocks to it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Ken does have one other blog, Conservative Triumph, or something like that, but he very rarely posts to it; other than that all he has is his QE blog, although doesn't he have a British and Australian URL that points right back to his QE blog? And that he counts those as separate blogs even though it is the same one?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I was told be Kara and Andy a number of times to lay off Ken as they said he is a bit "unstable". They are not completely oblivious but certainly like to turn a blind eye and don't want him to start chucking piles of fecal material at everyone. From what I gathered Kara personally detests Ken and would love to eradicated him. DickV

Our daily lulz are back on the air! StarFish (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Such as it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly challenges obamacare

http://coffeeandmarkets.com/2013/05/09/a-novel-challenge-to-obamacare/ Surprising this isn't in their news section. I guess it was less important than Darwinism being ripped to sheds.

Death penalty for causing miscarriage

(Moved to Saloon Bar [4])

Writing Assignment

Haven't seen one of these for a while.^img And it's not from Eddy Poo, rather from parodist lite Brenden. Having a bit of fun are we ? Naca (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How is that entry "sketchy"? Oh, wait, it's bringing facts into things. Nevermind... unless he's talking about the edit where paedophilia was linked as a "liberal trait", which is all kinds of sketchy. Sokar (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DanAP deleted the 'Second Life' article as spam. I think Brenden is right to be concerned

Go Brenden! We always knew you were a bully at heart. --Damo^Hi 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A bully? I am giving him the chance to respond, and to redeem himself. My accusations are grounded in fact - his edits were somewhat suspicious, and asking him to explain himself, and his future edits, seems reasonable to me. 172.218.49.11 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If that helps you sleep at night buddy, then OK. I see a jumped up smarmy little prefect telling the naughty kid that he has to do what he says - because he's the prefect and the teacher said he could. --Damo^Hi 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

On the point of writing plans I can't see this^img going well for AugustO. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And Ken Finally admits that the QE! blog

Is his.^img Maybe it is also time to admit that the question evolution booklet ain't going to happen and that your entire campaign is a failure. You can't even man up to debate the fine Mr Mason yourself. What does that show about your machismo Ken ??? Naca (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not really he hasn't. Everything he wrote on that talk page is in inverted commas. If anyone asks Ken, he'll say that he was just quoting the anonymous man/woman/collective/Thomson's gazelle which writes the QE! blog. He'll still deny that it's his. Spud (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, who cares if he never admits it, we all know it's Ken; Conservapedia all knows it's Ken; ShockofGoat and his crew all know it is Ken; no matter how much "attempted mystery" he tries, the writing style and stream of consciousness is too distinct, and too familiar.

Lately he has been getting really obsessed with us, hoping for attention, going so far as to inadvertently showing the site doing well in an ass-backwards attempt to insult us, not to mention his weird personal obsession with Fergus. The only person I pity in all of this is VivaYehshua, who may be a decent guy for all I know, but has become Ken's "goto" poster-child for debate; no doubt to the fella's chagrin.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Viva is indeed a decent guy. He's a creationist, but not a dogmatic one, and from all my dealings with him he seems just fine. He also says Ken sucks at verbal debates, but is anyone really surprised?--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} 03:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to debate "Conservative" but I not been able to get on the chat site 90% of the time and when I do nobody knows who "Conservative" is or doesn't care. I am trying to get on during the day because I am working nights lately. I have not seen "Viva Yeshua" in 2 months. When is he supposed to be on the chat site to arrange these debates? What gives? Also I listened to one of "Shock of God's" "debates" and they're canned. He's a phony. He's reading a script that sounds very much like a William Lane Craig lecture. Does anyone know where he got this material? Nate Keaton (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The guy's been jumping up and down screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" at us for the last couple of days. It's just getting sad at this point. I wish one of his compadres at CP or the shockofgoat chatroom would have an intervention for him, he really seems like he needs it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we just kind of ignore Kenny? Like, whatever he does we just ignore him? He'll either go off the rails or go away. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he'll likely do neither. He'll just start gloating about how his superior creationist intellect has defeat the combined hordes of darkness that is RW, or something like that -- Tacitus (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but so what? No one believes him, not even on Conservapedia, if the talkpage is any indication; so let him claim victory all alone against his imaginary opponents. He is too cowardly to debate anyone in reality so why should he be afforded any attention? I am all for ignoring the QE blog posts and his spam references to them on CP, as they are just cries for our loving attention anyway. Granted this is a purely voluntary request, and I don't know how much people here will agree to it, but why bother feeding his ego?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This. The most effective thing RW could do is ignore Ken. He'll just keep going on and on and get mad at all the CP editors who wish he'd just shut up. He is a massive liability to Conservapedia and ultimately his own worst enemy. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It is a good idea but... You have to realize Ken is like a bizarre version of Schrödinger's cat. While the cat is both alive and dead until the observation is made, we know Ken is going to be writing incoherent nonsense regardless if we're watching or not. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken is like some kind of self-correcting system; the less attention he receives the stranger and attention demanding his behavior, thus an equilibrium is maintained. If we were to boycott discussion of Ken or QE, he'd just do something so bizarre that we'd be forced to bring it up. --Marlow (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Ken would do something so bizarre he'd get the attention of someone capable of helping him. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe then it be so bizarre he'd actually be interesting again, until then, he isn't worth the effort, even for lutz.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's more likely. However Ken acts online, he's not a danger to himself or others in the real world. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I normally do not get into the whole boycott thing with CP but the sheer fact that Conservative is a complete coward when it comes to debating makes me not want to give him any attention whatsoever (apart from this post :P) I have more respect for the crazy guy spouting nonsense on the street corner than I do for Conservative. If he just said, "You know what guys, I am just not that good at it. Try these more articulate people", I would have no problem. After all we aren't all good at debating. No, instead he puffs himself up, tries to antagonize, makes stipulations he knows nobody would agree to since he is a nobody on the internet and not say, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham etc. and when called on his stuff retreats to his bunny hole. I have zero respect for people that can dish it but cannot take it. He really is a pathetic excuse for a human being, at least on the internet. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"I have zero respect for people that can dish it but cannot take it.". Shit. I'd be impressed if he ever got good at the "dishing out part". Every time he tries to open the proverbial can of Whoop-Ass, he just ends up spilling it all over himself. The guy's a joke from start to finish. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)