Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive317

This is an archive page, last updated 29 June 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>, <315>, <316>, <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)

Terry Doesn't Hear Himself

Why moderates leave an acrid taste in a conservative's mouth. Not enough pineapple juice? Whoover (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman's Back

I was beginning to miss Markman, the uber-dick. He's the guy that, to suck up to Andy, changed every reference of "children of Israel" to "sons of Israel" in the Conservative Bible. Including the one that is followed with "every man and woman." His specialty is blocking people for the 90/10 rule, like he did today to an editor whose last 7 edits were to articles or his user page, and had 6 total edits to talk pages proper, out of 23. Everytime I hear myself saying "nobody can be that stupid so he must be a parodist," Andy says something even stupider. It's all so confusing. Dick or parodist? Can we ever know? Whoover (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He's definitely a parodist, and a not very entertaining one at that. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Parodist obviously. Andy likes him though and will back him to the hilt. At the end of the day he is just a nasty piece of work. He picked on AlanE (a fairly harmless and productive editor) in a particularly vicious way just because he knew he could count on the support of the sysops which Karajou and JM promptly gave him. --Damo^Hi 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He did block Kendoll's sock for 90/10, which is at least chuckle-worthy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So the consensus is parodist and dick. No wonder I was confused. Whoover (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember him ever blocking one of Ken's socks. But I do remember he had quite the hard on for DonnyC. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would guess it's this guy that the speculation is about. There is also this rather odd exchange^img including a post by Ken signed Rafael addressing Zeta but responding to Ryancsh, the guy blocked by Markman. Occam's Razor would have them all be the same guy, including Conservative. Short of that, I have no idea what's going on. But it feels that ZetaSonic is trying a bit too hard, which implies strategy, which rules out Ken. Whoover (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Now I see Conservative's undo brought back Rafael's comment. It's still a rat's nest of parodists, for certain. Whoover (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Brenden is taking Markman on over the Ryansch block by unblocking and telling him why. If I know Markman (and I think I do) this will turn into a hell of a shitfight as Markman will take it as a personal slight. Brenden isn't a bad fellow, although he reminds me of a prefect in school, earnestly trying to please the teachers. --Damo^Hi 09:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Zeta is Ken. There's no strategy, just Ken's guilty inability to stay away. London Grump (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Zeta is almost certainly NOT Conservative, and a look at his post history (particularly his comment about the Wisdom Tree NES game) should make that very clear.WilliamR (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Zeta is not Ken, Ken merely restored a deleted edit. Ken may try to hide his identity on occasions but he's never so different as ZetaSonic is from Ken's usual style. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman has been attempting to troll me on my talk page--Patmac (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He's going on now about banning ryancsh as a parodist because Ryan Cash is an internet joke. Anyone know what he's talking about. Did I miss a meme memo? Whoover (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that Ryan Cash troll has something to do with this page. Brenden (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty thin for a meme. One use of a very common name in a made-up context on a single obscure site is an "internet joke"? Whoover (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Ryancsh is a long shot from Ryan Cash, and as I said to Markman, I don't see how a website dedicated to trolling some random individual has anything to do with Conservapedia. Brenden (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Get real Brenden, markman is not interested. He is there to sow as much crap as he can in as short a time as he can before he takes his mask off, laughs at them all and leaves. He has no interest in being reasonable. He is tk light. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The genuine-editors-to-parodists ratio is so low at Conservapedia that trolls are forced to troll their fellow trolls. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How many genuine editors are there ? GregG and AlanE are the only ones that come to mind here + the one topicers like FOIA and Bert. A full list of the non-parodists would be tiny as. YOLO Naca (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What about AugustO? He's genuine enough, although he really should have learnt by now that trying to improve Conservapedia is like trying to polish a turd. Spud (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Angry bear agrees with us^img Naca (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

He looks to^img be getting bored^img and is starting to remove the mask perhaps? Attacking Ted Nugent as a liberal song writer is surely too obvious poarody even for the cp sysops to ignore. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proving that dick beats parodist, Markman gave the restored Ryancsh a symbolic, two-hour block for daring to complain about being blocked for no reason. Whoover (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Brenden, you are pissing in the wind^img, markman is a dick and a parodist who is doing his best to out TK TK. All you did was get Rafael's^img block extended and Markman is now gunning for you. When will you learn, cp is not a wiki, it is a hate blog edited in the main by parodists who will take great delight in sending you down the road. And on the way you have made Rafael collateral damage. Way to go. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Got plenty of popcorn? Whoover (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything you need to know about Markman is that the string "block" appears 58 times on his talk page. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Parodists battle for Andy's affection. Too bad for them, Andy subscribes to the do nothing school of leadership. He wont take any action; a vague comment is just about all they can hope for. Marlow (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

With one exception: if a block war commences (which is likely) and Andy gets wind of it, he'll quietly yank away someone's (Brenden's) block rights, then they'll get permabanned by the victor. We saw it with Rob and probably others that I can't think of at the moment. Cow...Hammer^time! 01:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy will inevitably side with the bigger dick, because dicks are more conservative. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Except if that Dick has a gallic last name or thinks that Gaddafi is a terrorist. Still can't believe that Andy accepts JoMar's love a dicktators. Ghost (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘He looks to^img be getting bored^img and is starting to remove the mask perhaps? Attacking Ted Nugent as a liberal song writer is surely too obvious poarody even for the cp sysops to ignore. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of getting bored, starting at 8:50 we see Ken unprotect Atheism, have RobertTurkel make a change and then reprotect Atheism. Why does he use socks like this? Whoover (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Would be marvellous if Markman blocked RoberTurkel for 90/10. Ghost (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Even better to block Conservative as "Sock of RobertTurkel." Whoover (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Or Andy as a sock of collegerepublican Ghost (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Other than blocking Rafael and Patmac some more today (dick mode), Markman is back to full-on parodist. He's changing biblical "Judge" to "politician,' as in Ruth, where the CBP knows the text is a plea for small government. Andy will love this and I look forward to the Book of Judges becoming the Book of Liberal Politicians. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible will point out that "Judge" was a quasi-prophet-cum-army-general, chosen by God to lead. Samson was a Judge. He had human failings but was given superpowers by Guess Who when appointed Judge. Samuel was a Judge. Eli, Gideon and Deborah were Judges. As far as I know, they never voted Democrat. The Conservative Bible is such fertile ground for parody that it's hard to imagine it being started by anyone but a parodist. Andy may still be proven someday to have been performance art. Whoover (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ While the badmouthing of me goes on, one of you decided to post this lovely message on my talk page. Real mature guys, shows just what kind of website rationalwiki is. - 79.183.143.89 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Prove that came from here. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I knew that markman was a paradoist moron troll but I had no idea he was Jewish. And markman, I could never be the one to acuse your 'race' of killing jesus as I don't believe there was ever anyone called jesus in the first place. And considering all the lies you throw out in pursuit of your trolling and your victimisation of decent editors over at cp I really think that you playing the victim card is just a little shallow and hypocritical, don't you? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, where has this attitude that markman is a sysop/admin over there come from? From what I can see he's a standard user with block, edit, rollback and skipcatcha. He has no more rights over there than my sock has and quite frankly shouldn't the users he is bullying start to point that out to both him and others? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

“”He has no more rights over there than my sock has

See, this blatant sockpuppetry is the reason why RationalWiki is seen as a vandal site composed of liars at CP. You just admitted that you operate a sockpuppet deceitfully at Conservapedia. Brenden (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that having one id here and a different one there counts as blatant sockpuppetry. For one thing, your existence notwithstanding, editing here is grounds for banning there, at least if the whim strikes a sysop or nasty user. (BTW, who claimed Markman had sysop status?) For another thing, very few CP editors reveal actual names. In some cases they don't reveal gender or number. By your reckoning, Conservative is a blatant sockpuppet even if we ignore his many actual sockpuppets. Vandalism has nothing to do with having a down-low registration on CP. I would have expected you to know that. Whoover (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My sock was set up when even being suspected of being an account holder here earned a perma ban from uber troll TK. It's been there for several years and has not once been used to vandalise or to insert parody, in fact the opposite. I revert silly vandalism. I do leave parody there to show the world what morons there are at cp that they can't even recognise blatant parody when it is obvious for all to see. As for who was suggesting that markman was someone senior there it was comments on cp itself. IIRC someone was arguing with him and stopped, saying something like 'I dont want to argue with a senior admin'. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman seems to be loosing interest again. Wonder if Andy will sysop him to keep him and his iron fist around. Ghost (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And it seems that Angry Bear has sided with AlanE^img over the North Pole talk page Ghost (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tebow

Tim Tebow is signing with the New England Patriots; now the question is will this great conservative sports star be unjustly forced to play behind overrated liberal Tom Brady.--Danielfolsom (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Another fucking year of Tebowmania. Why the fuck can't he just piss off and make money on the megachurch circuit so I never have to hear of him again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the fuck have the Patriots picked him up? Just about the only job he could do there would be to push a mop about.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 23:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is apparently evidence that "God does indeed have a sense of humor"^img. Like always, Andy seems to be the only one who gets God's jokes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@JeevesMkII you say that like he won't be a 5th string practice only QB. --Revolverman (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My interest in American junior rugby is basically nil, but Andy has managed to turn me into a Jets fan. Hopefully they'll flatten the Patriots in Tebow's first game.--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} 00:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Guaranteed Tebow will not be a quarterback (full time). He'll likely make the difficult (for him) transition to tight end. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 00:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Fergus As someone that enjoys rugby junior, I can tell you there us a near zero chance of that happening. Tebow has value as a 3rd string emergency QB that can do something else useful on game day to make the active 46, such as playing fullback/3rd tight end/flanker/H-back or another archaic position that appears 10 times a game these days and as a scout team QB to prepare for teams that run the option (although they don't seem to have any on their schedule this year). He won't be beating the Jets, Brady will. He will get to hold his towel for him though.- π 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

He will be third string when it comes to the quarterback position. Remember, the Patriots have Tom Brady, one of the best quarterbacks of the modern era and an elite player. From what ESPN states, Tebow will be used as a quarterback only though, which means he will be heading the practice squad offenses and watching the regular games.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't even see him being a TE/H-back, and I don't know if the Pats even use a FB. He's behind Gronk and Hernandez, two of the best TE's in the game if that's what the Pats were thinking. On second thought, Gronk and Hernandez were pretty injury prone last year, maybe there is something there.Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 07:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Both Gronkowski and Hernandez are likely out for the first couple of games. The patriots have typically carried a FB - Fiammetta in 2012, Polite in 2011, Morris in 2012, typically sees action only in short yardage/goal line. Tebow is either going to get cut, warm bench, or learn to play something other than QB, because there's no way that Tom Terrific is getting replaced for even garbage-time snaps absent injury. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about this weird sport you Yankees worship, but how good are the Patriots. It'll be interesting to see Andy put a spin on their results, if they win without Tebow playing. My guess is we'll nothing about their wins and everything about the games they do lose. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 13:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the actual win-loss record, I'd estimate the Patriots over the last ten years finish the season somewhere around 12-4, usually winning the AFC East, and it's not uncommon to see them in the AFC Championship (winner of that game heads to the Super Bowl.) So if Tebow couldn't get off the bench for the Jets, I don't see him doing much for the Patriots. Perhaps a trick play here or there, or videotaping opponent practices, but nothing worthwhile. Jared (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They might not rate as the best team each year, but have managed to rate as being vary good or better every year for at least a decade, and that includes those times when key players have been injured, which puts them as being one of the best teams around for the past 10-15 years. Compare that to the Colts who, for a long time, looked the better team, then Manning goes down with an injury and it suddenly became obvious that the Colts had no flexibility in offence and, as a team, the Colts were all about just one man. Take him away and the team collapsed, which isn't something the Patriots do.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Patriots enter the season as the favorites to lose to the Broncos in the conference championships, and are considered by vegas to be the 4th best team in the league. They have a legitimate shot, but the WR status is questionable, along with TE health in the early season. The return of Gronk in week 6-8 will likely be incredibly helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I (and most people) put the Patriots in the top 4 or 5 teams of the 32 teams in the NFL.Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 04:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My Prediction

Tom Brady will end up on Andy's infamous "Overrated Sports Stars" list. This will occur when Brady struggles in a game during the 2013 NFL Season (every quarterback, no matter how elite, has games which they struggle). Of course Brady will not be benched by Belichick, as even a struggling Tom Brady is still superior to either Mallett or Tebow, but Andy won't see it that way. For Andy, keeping Brady in the game will be nothing short of a conspiracy between liberals in the NFL, the Patriots, the media, and all of New England to keep outspoken Christian Tim Tebow from taking the field, where no doubt he would succeed as Gawd smiles upon him above all else. After all, the only reason Peyton Manning ("The liberal media treated him like the Second Coming of Christ in order to oust conservative Tim Tebow from his leadership position in the swing state of Colorado prior to the Presidential Election 2012.") and Mark Sanchez ("he New York Jets quarterback is being touted as the team's best QB over conservative Christian Tim Tebow despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season.") are on the infamous list is because they are in the way of Andy's vicarious glory through Saint Tim. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny that you should mention Tom Brady [1]^img. 13:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Christ, just how bitter and childish is this man? Even Sports Illustrated is part of the Great Conspiracy against Andy's made-up list of great conservative sport stars. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't made the list yet: The media and NFL clearly only promote Brady, who hasn't won a Super Bowl since 2005, because he went to the liberal University of Michigan, has a supermodel wife, and displays Hollywood values. Deny this and lose all credibility. Godspeed (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I do have to agree with him in regards to Mark Sanchez. Another USC quarterback who didn't pan out. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Did somebody say University of Michigan? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with Andy on Sanchez. You are right he didn't pan out, Andy though no doubt feels that Sanchez was lionized by the team and the media over Tebow instead of the reality where the media all but eviscerated the hapless Jets' starter last year. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Damn, it has already begun and the Patriots haven't even gotten through mini-camp yet.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Andy's other mancrush and Godbotherer, Jeremy Lin? Given the hype over him and how he's faded, he sounds like just another overrated sports star. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 14:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tim Tebow is a far better athlete. Whoover (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What a tremendous idiot.Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonics

Another case of "Conservapedia ruining my life" - I just came across a mnemonic for the planets of the solar system which includes the outer minor planets; My Very Eager Man-Child Just Sent Us Perfectly Capable Xenophobes. :( Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Neptune's missing from that! Spud (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My Very Eager Man-Child Just Sent Us Neptune's Perfectly Capable Xenophobes. There you go! ^{— Unsigned, by: sophie Wilder / talk / contribs} effing mac keyboard, where's the tilde?

Ah, one of my pet peeves: mnemonic devices that are more difficult to remember than what they stand for. DickTurpis (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Eris, Haumea and Makemake? If you're including Pluto, Ceres and whatever X is supposed to be, then they need to be added too... --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What do C and X stand for, anyway? If C is Ceres then it's in the wrong order. You know, I memorized "Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto" when I was about 5. I sort of thought everyone did. DickTurpis (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's Charon, Pluto's moon & Xena. But Xena doesn't exist does it? Somebody lied to the Rampaging One. Also, no Nibiru? 4... 3... 2... --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 13:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Xena was the informal name used before classification of the body was established. It's official name is now Eris. Sokar (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Mondas, no Gor... what sorta cockamamie list is this? Sophie^Wilder 14:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd updated this, but I'm on a crap connection at the moment. I wasn't particularly concerned with the veracity of the mnemonic just the effing "man-child". Why they chose that rather than something like mother, I don't know. As for Xena, the mnemonic was only suggested when Xena was considered and is not meant to be the current state of the game. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(reset) The problem with many mnemonics - they require twice as much information to be learnt as 'just memorising the original terms.' (Some mnemonics are useful - as with plug wires in English - 'l' in the colour goes left, 'r' in the colour goes right and green goes upwards.) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLue Bottom Left BRown Bottom Right. London Grump (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's an evilooshunry mnenomic for you: Elderly Camels Often Sit Down Carefully. Perhaps Their Joints Creak. Pure Engine Oil Might Perhaps Provide Relief. (Ediacaran, Cambrian, etc. It would help if I could ever remember whether Pliocene is below Pleistocene or vice-versa.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the few devices I find useful is "See the dog jump in a circle, leave her home to entertain educated veterans." It's dated now, and needs another word added, but still useful. Sort of curious if anyone knows what it is without looking it up. DickTurpis (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1) Some Lovers Try Positions That They Can't Handle. 2) Piss Poor Parents at the P.T.A. 3) Ten Zebras Bought My Car--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The one I learned for basic wilderness survival (although it was in the context of an emergency parachute landing) was FFSSF: For Fuck's Sake, Stop, Fool. Or, first-aid, fire, shelter, signal, food, in order of priority. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The gauntlet has been thrown...

Terry takes a page from Conservative. It looks like another Lenski affair could be in the works...if Lenski even notices Terry's silly little taunt.209.179.125.134 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course Lenski won't notice, unless someone takes the time to actually ask him instead of demanding a debate on some obscure and poorly maintained blog of a failed son of an ancient political activist. If Flingbooty follows Kens MO it'll go down something like this; Demand a debate on your own terms, wait an unreasonably short amount of time, declare victory, crow about said victory on your own blog, then move goalposts if the debate challenge is actually answered. Which of course it won't, and Terry will have fodder for another few blog posts. Profit! Shakedangle (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One would assume that Launchbooty has actually sent a request to Lenski, but somehow I doubt it. I'm guessing that the above scenario will play out. Besides, Lenski has a full-time job and doesn't have time to be responding to internet nobodies all the time. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 15:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see it as this: Terry wants to debate a subject that is sort of Lenski's area of study (like asking a golf player where/how golf balls are made)? The only reason Terry wants to debate is to get his name out there and try to derail the Unstoppable Train of Evolution^tm, since he has no credibility except for his past notoriety. Lenski has nothing to gain from the debate, but it seems odd Terry made a rather neutral step in the debate process to which they can agree to. Then again, the "audience question and answer" bit sounds like Terry wants to flood a bunch of his like-minded ilk in and bombard Lenski with stupid-specific questions. I'd say IT'S A TRAP, but if someone wanted to stir the pot of shit a little, they could email him everything about Terry, being Temlakos of the Digg Patriots and such and hoping Lenski posts the email exchange. For the lulz, of course. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did Terry issue this challenge on Conservapedia rather than CNAV? I doubt Lenski will debate him. Working scientists generally have little-to-no interest in creationism, because it has nothing to offer the research they are doing. That's why it's hilarious when PJR assumes that evolutionary biologists run around trying to cover their tracks so that creationists can't catch them out.

There are a few scientists who care about this because of the effect that religion has on politics (and politics has on science education and scientific research), particularly in the United States, but, to my knowledge, Lenski is not among them. Also, a few of the gnu atheists who are also biologists (like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers) like to talk about creationism because it is tough to find a clearer example of an incorrect religious dogma--but, once again, this doesn't include Lenski. Godspeed (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Terry's looking for a chance to pull a Gish Gallop on Lenski, both in the debate and by packing the Q&A with fundies doing the same. This lets him claim a victory in his own opinion, and in doing so provides some redress for the bitter smack down of the Lenski affair itself. I'd even venture to guess that there's a desire by Terry to defeat Lenski where Andy failed to do so. I'm convinced that he considers his blog and conservative prowess to be superior to Andy's, and this would build his own reputation up in those circles. That all said, the best response from Lenski is to politely reply that science is done through the scientific method and peer review, not staged debates, and that he'd look forward to reading any formal submission Terry plans on submitting to qualified journals. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Conservapedia is a known troll-site. They openly plan attacks on thinking people constantly and pollute many websites with nonsense.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am honestly curious what brought this on suddenly and why Lenski of all people? This an attempt to close the book on Conservapedia's greatest humiliation?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How can it close the book? Most new parodists over there, and even the genuine editors, are likely unaware of the Lenski humiliation. All this will do is drag andy's humilitation up for all to see once again. Is a putsch on the cards here? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

well an attempt to close the book for Andy and Terry. We are talking two huge egos there propped up by the conviction that their views are divinely backed after all, they must be right!.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure that's true. Debating and teaching require different skill sets--that's why the Gish Gallop works against those who aren't familiar with how fundamentally dishonest creationists are. A casual audience with no scientific training and that is not taking a biology class is going to be interested in arguments that make sense to them intuitively, not necessarily is hearing about such-and-such experiment or a range of fossils or peer reviewed papers. A biologist's job will be especially tough if the audience is packed with YECs. Debating these clowns is like mud wrestling with a pig--you just get dirty, and the pig likes it. Godspeed (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of a famous line biologist Robert May would use when challenged to a debate by a religious nobody: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The sort of debate that these creatards want is not along the lines of The Oxford Union, it's more like the Jerry Springer Show and with the same type of audience. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is there any indication this has been communicated to Lenski in any other way than announcing it on the front page of CP? Do they actually think he reads CP? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ken does...

... some cleaning.^img I still fail to see why Kendoll uses Conservapedia to store all of his bookmarks. Ghost (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a fan of Exercise science^img are you kendoll ? Ghost (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Or films^img? Ghost (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered about that too. Does that mean when CP goes down, he's left just staring at his screen and dribbling? More so than he usually does, anyway. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking at his editing over the past few hours earlier. I guess he's off his meds again and is heading for another one of his meltdowns. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Or security^img Ghost (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems he has migrated them all over to Google. This site is growing rapidly! Ghost (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Before TK died he told me that Kendoll would access conservapedia from the library at SUNY Buff. Aside from being the weird doughy pasty guy with greasy hair and retro glasses wearing sweatpants that smell slightly of urine and stale chetoes on the library computers it also means that he didn't have a computer to keep his bookmarks on. So he had to put them on server space somewhere. And who has more server space for crazy than Andy? --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 12:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was common knowledge when WP blocked him as kdbuffalo and his socks editing from SUNY library IPs. TK had no special insight. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When does Ken even sleep? There's edits yesterday from 4AM, then every hour from 9AM through to 3 the next morning, except 7PM when he apparently took an hour off from his mammoth spree. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the meds have run out again. Grab some popcorn. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

One possibility. Whoover (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

mfw I've found links on Ken's Excercise Science page useful and informative. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What is "exercise science?" Is that the same thing as training using safe and responsible methods? Surely working out by itself has little to do with participating in science. It's the work of whichever scientists you may or may not follow that is the science, I'm not a scientist when I drive a car. I'm not a scientists when I use a cellphone. Yet this approach is what Ken repeatedly urges, leading me to believe that he is either a 90 pound weakling or overweight. Given the proclivity of radical protestants to be deceitful and indulge in the behavior they publicly eschew, I suspect the latter. 15:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Here you go, Nutty. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained delicious to Ken once. He didn't get it. ^talk 18:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The curse of Tebow

Every team he touches turns to overrated sports stars. Andy didn't even bother to wait to see if Tebow would actually start a game... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The funniest part about that is that it was added by a parodist who taunted Andy in the edit summary, but Andy just went with it. Andy actually knows that Tebow is shit (at least by NFL standards), but him not getting to start allows Andy to feed his persecution complex. Godspeed (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No andy doesn't. I am willing to bet he knows nothing about sports and the only thing he knows about American Rugby is that Tebow is a player and his position is something called QB. I doubt he has ever watched a single game all the way through, let alone with the kind of passion you and I may feel about a sporting event. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok - as someone who's disagreed with Andy on sports issued - his analysis is correct - perhaps minus the media promotion (and who knows what being a better speaker has to do with a depth chart). Tom Brady is probably the best quarterback ever, but he does have a noticeably weaker arm than most nfl QBs - that's one of the reasons he was drafted so low. His ability to read defenses and make accurate passes has more than compensated for the lack of arm strength, but it doesn't mean it's not true. It's also fairly obvious that Tebow is a better athlete, but being an athlete at the quarterback position has mixed results - and I can't think of an instance where someone whose mechanics and accuracy are as bad as Tebow's being especially successful.--Iduan (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha! So called it! Andy, you are so predictable.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values"^img. Geez, I know sports fans like to worship their heroes, but Andy takes it to another level. Very little of it has to do with football too. Andy isn't that far from requiring a restraining order. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's sports "insights" are by far my favorite part of CP. "Manning and Brady chase money". I love that analysis. Manning went to the Broncos after the team he had spent his entire Hall of Fame career with cut him in favor of their rookie draft choice. Brady was a sixth round "best of the public" draft choice who has spent his entire Hall of Fame career with the same team. Yup. No loyalty. All about the money. Andy's sports knowledge make me want to kiss him on the mouth. It's adorable. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate proof that Andy is wrong... He claims that Brady and Manning are only so heavily promoted by the media because they 1. lack talent and 2. lack morals/religion. If this was the case, my Detroit Lions should be the most heavily promoted team in the history of sports. So many criminal records, so little talent. Pdoke2 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

God I cant wait till Tebow commits some unforgivable blasphemy against schlafly style RealTrooConservatism enough to make andy disown him (not hating the sodomites enough, speaking about obama without calling him a filthy mooslim fraud a few dozen times, etc). Given his extremely unhealthy obsession with Tebow I half suspect a series of furious, tearful, drunken, phonecalls to various Tebow related numbers from andy, begging Tebow to explain why he betrayed his prophet. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it ever crosses what passes for Andy Pandy's mind that spouting nonsensical drivel about sportsmen might make people wonder if he isn't spouting equally nonsensical drivel about evolution, relativity and global climate change. For the sake of daily lulz, let's hope not. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy: "Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values"^img.

Reality: Brady takes 50% pay cut before the 2013 season. Why? The main reason is that the team that he played with all his pro career would have more money to hire top talent in order to build a championship team. Andy knows less about football then he does about science, and that is saying a lot!.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Times like this make me remember just how orwellian andy's own psyche truely is at this point. He honestly sees a football player who had some vague connection to religiosity as some superhuman paragon of arya...christian conservative machismo simply because he was on "andy's" side and thus embodies all andy loves, and unilaterally decided that every other football player (and sportsman in general it seems) is therefore on the "liberals side" and thus clearly an utterly talentless and degenerate poseur sent by the infernal liberal conspiracy to corrupt RealTruConservatives (or something, hes always been nonsensical on the "whys" of the supposed conspiracy) simply because they are not his pet player. No matter what the situation or item, or how utterly removed from politics and religion it is, andy will find a way for it to "prove" the utter and inherent supremacy of his own personal faction and the utter evil and degeneracy of everyone else. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, B. Sounds like Brady is a legitimately decent guy. I know I frequently express amazement at how petty and cruel Andy can be. This Tebow vs Brady stuff is a better look inside his head than his insane politics. Judge nails it. The minute Tebow's overshadowed by a superior quarterback, they're suddenly adverse, with the Christian put upon by an amorphous leftist conspiracy. Bizarre. Big ups B and Judge. 19:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Markman may have ...

... Finally overstepped the mark, man!^img Decent little block war too. Ghost (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He's hassling a nobody, so the powers that be won't care.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

His latest Greatest Conservative song is a vaudeville paean to no-strings-attached sex with uneducated women. Throw "professor values" around and Andy is certain to eat it up, but this may be where "conservative values'" hatred of feminism jumps the shark. I still am not convinced he's not just a dick, but if Markman is playing Andy he's doing it brilliantly. Whoover (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he's playing Andy. He added a bunch of Nugent's poontang songs to the liberal list. He's obviously gotten bored and wants to see what it takes to get banned. No way will Andy think a song about the benefits of an uneducated girl is conservative, nor that Nugent's songs count as liberal. Phiwum (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You may underestimate Andy's willingness to ascribe evils to feminism. As we speak, Markman is continuing to write daughters out of the Bible, with Andy's support. On the theory that the Hebrew words banim and b'nei can only mean "sons" and never "children," we have translations like "The sons of Anah were: Dishon, and Aholibamah daughter of Anah." Every other translation going with "the children of Anah ..." is liberal bias. Andy really likes this concept, that biblically "daughter" is an inferior kind of son. Do you really think he won't agree that education pollutes women, derailing them from the path that God intended for them? Whoover (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He himself 'teaches' girls, though. Then again, his hypocrisy is limitless. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He "teaches" girls but gives them separate exams. He's consistent in his own logic, kind of. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 19:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

C'mon folks! At least let the topic age here a little before running with it^img. It will increase your chances. Whoover (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was so obvious, Andy himself deleted it within moments. Lame parody is lame.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Teaches" or "touches"?--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} 23:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we've reined back on that sort of insinuation. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's a moron, but there's no indication he's a child molester. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh not this shit again. He's not very smart and he's a creep. Lets leave it at that without mentioning this nonsense. 01:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Touches? Really? Do we need to go down that route? Fucking lame.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman has changed all the "children" to "sons" and is now working on the squishy, pacifist biases. First correction is "Lord of hosts" becomes "Lord of armies" since "hosts" could imply cocktail parties. Andy loves it. Can he too not have known that "host" means "army"? You really can't parody this stuff. Whoover (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He's doing fine with sons and children. Those are both good meanings for b'nai. I have worked with the Jewish service group B'nai Brith, which they translate as Sons of whatever Brith means. I have no idea whether this Markman character is doing parody but he is stubborn and unpleasant and his type is not good for making Conservapedia feel less hostile than "Conservative" made it trying to run Catholics off. He's supposed to be from Israel so I would expect him not to be mangling the meaning and poetry of the Bible. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"He's supposed to be from Israel so I would expect him not to be mangling the meaning and poetry of the Bible." WHAT? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he is just putting on a show but he talked about blocking his website address to try showing that he is the real Markman. 109.64.131.73. He also edited from that address here. I looked it up and it's from Tel Aviv. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The "WHAT" was not in reference to his geographical location but to the idea that there's a necessary relationship between his geographical location and his theological views. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Translating "b'nai," when it's an antecedent to one male and one female, as "sons" is not poetry, it's stupidity. Whoover (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be weird, Whoover. Tell that to all the other stupid people who translate it that way, from concordances to Jewish people around the world. Powder, I mentioned Israel because if this guy is genuine then he speaks Hebrew. He appears to be right about b'nai in Biblical and modern Hebrew. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Knowing Hebrew doesn't mean that his reasoning is at all sound, nor that he is operating in good faith. Nor does being from Israel. If I knew the way/I would take you home.

You guys aren't actually supporting your claims. It's dumb to say someone's reasoning is unsound without bothering to show why, especially when the person is obviously correct. Good faith or bad faith has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Being from Israel means he knows what this word means. But anyway, reasoning doesn't really come into being able to use a dictionary or knowing what a word means. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at possible translations. They all make sense except for the last one, which denies that b'nai can mean "children." It's passages like this one that make it clear to any scholar that the ancient word, like current usage, could mean mixed-gender children as well as males. This is the exact opposite of their position on English grammar: that the use of male pronouns in uncertain-gender contexts is logical, and "chairwoman" is unnecessary. There are many passages where b'nai refers to a mixture of men and women. To translate it in those passages as "sons" makes no sense. The fact that sometimes is means "sons" has nothing to do with good translation of this passage. Whoover (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Gauntlet Withdrawn?

Launchbooty quietly removes his challenge to Lenski.^img Speculation why?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Terry realised he was a vainglorious, boastful prick who couldn't possibly argue miraculous creation in the face of the actual evidence as presented by a scientist who was leaps and bounds ahead of him when it came to scientific credentials....just a guess. It might also be Lenski cowered in his bunny-hole. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The creatures outside looked from Ken to Launchbooty, and from Launchbooty to Ken, and from Ken to Launchbooty again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not technically withdrawn as it is still on mainpageleft, albeit on the veeerry bottom even after Ken's QE linkwhoring. An attempt to make the debate challenge even more obscure so there is no danger of Lensky actually answering? Andy telling Terry ixnay the eferenceray to the asskickingway? In any case he has decided to remove it, without actually removing it, because he is a prideful dishonest fuck. Shakedangle (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would Lenski every bother to give anyone connected to Andy even a slight chance at an argument? If he's smart (and I hear he's fucking brilliant) he'll do exactly what Dawkins does; not give them even the time of day, so as there is no debate to be had. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He won't. Which is what they may be counting on, because they can then declare "victory" and that he was too cowardly to face them because evolution is bunk. Terry may have thought though to hide it down the page, juuuuuuust in case Lenski does see it and accept, as CP doesn't need another ass kicking.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Classic Andy hubris

Confronted with a well-worked out historical analysis of the Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Andy replies that the Church's position is the exact opposite of what it is because logic. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 17:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have shown several times that he is making this up as he goes along.[2] I cited several helpful resources in a discussion we had that disappeared and it became apparent to me that he could not support his position and he just stopped responding. I understood that to mean that he has no basis for disagreeing. The Church is hostile to YEC. How can Andy Schlafly say these things out loud when modern Popes have basically ridiculed YEC and it is clear as day that it embraces the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. That has nothing to do with the special creation of our souls, as the encyclical Humani Generis teaches. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"I understood that to mean that he has no basis for disagreeing." You don't know Andy very well, do you? The only basis he needs to disagree is that he disagrees. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it looks foolish. I expect "Conservative" to lie about the Church and say things as inane as the Church takes no position because a Pope hasn't addressed it infallibly. It's just so fucking stupid. But you cannot say the opposite that the Church is YEC. That's even fucking stupider. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Yes but it looks foolish." That is because Andy is a fool. "But you cannot say the opposite that the Church is YEC. That's even fucking stupider." Andy can say that, precisely because he is fucking stupid. Are you new, or something? This has been well-established for years. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Arguing about the foolishness of Ashlafly is like arguing about the wetness of water. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy is not a fool. He is a self centered self righteous egotist who always thinks he is right even when the truth punches him on the nose. He would not even back down from his statement that he would vote for the BNP if he were British, even when other editors pointed out what the BNP stood for. However he is not a fool and it would be dangerous to dismiss him as such.^{— Unsigned, by: 94.9.177.164 / talk / contribs}

I'm not "new" new but I do admit that after several years of looking at Conservapedia and talking to Mr. Schlafly I am more and more confused by how a smart guy can say things that are so wrong as if they're obvious. I have never seen him defend anything he says. It's usually just ???? multiple question marks, whatever they mean. One would be fine if he wasn't asking rhetorical questions that only distract from showing that he was wrong about his original points. He also never changes his mind or lets people correct misstatements or remove over the top opinions from articles. I am afraid to remove the word "Evolutionist" from the RCC article. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am more and more confused by how a smart guy can say things that are so wrong as if they're obvious." ANDY IS NOT A SMART GUY. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Powder - yes he is. He's just really weird. Anonymous editor - if he is not a fool but thinks he is right even when the truth is staring him right in the face, what is he doing? Does he really believe these things or does he have another agenda? After more than 20 years of studying the Bible and theology with Discalced Carmelites and at Opus Dei centers of all places I have honestly never seen someone politicize a theological point so unsupportable. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on ehat evidence do you conclude Andy is "smart?" If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He went to Princeton, Johns Hopkins and Harvard Law School. Odds are he smart. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Small point -- he worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; I don't think he went to school at Hopkins, at least not to earn a degree, though he may well have taken a few courses. Also, while it's not a bad school, Hopkins engineering school is no where as prestigious as its medical school. (The more cynical would say it's a degree mill for the Baltimore/Washington corridor tech industry.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I did take a few JHU engineering courses, including a couple actually taught at the Applied Physics Lab. While I'd have had no idea who he was at the time, it's possible I saw Andy on the campus; the time frame was about right. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So everyone who goes to prestigious schools is smart? That's really dumb reasoning, and it ignores the huge stinking pile of shit that is the evidence for Andy's stupidity. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What's dumb about it. It's not conclusive proof but going to two of the top 5 most selective schools in the United States sets the odds in favor of the man being pretty smart. I don't accept there's all that much evidence of his stupidity, just ample evidence that he has some extremely peculiar beliefs and debates extremely poorly. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

His mother is Phyllis Schlafly, which makes it much more believable that could have attended though schools without accepting that he is not an idiot. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't and you've got no evidence that Phyllis Schlafly of all people has any pull with top universities. You're basically spouting a conspiracy theory but whatever. You also make silly points poorly. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's bull Nate. He comes from a solidly republican grandee family and his mothers name will have opened doors for him at those places in the same way that having the right family opens doors at Oxford and Cambridge. So far as I am aware he has had one real job in his life, that was the patent lawyer one which he fucked up so badly it cost the company lots of money and him his job did it not? Since then he has basically been on wingnut welfare as atorney to extreme fringe groups of doctors and his mothers Eagle Forum. He is NOT smart. The evidence of the Lenski Dialogue show he is anything but smart. I would even say it is debatable wether he is intelligent, I've certainly not seen him say, do or write anything to suggest he is. Oldusgitus (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He worked at Wachtell Lipton for christ sake dude. His dad was a lawyer in a relatively small county courthouse near St. Louis. His mom is a wingnut celebrity. There is no way those connections got him a job at one of the fanciest tall building law firms in the country or any closer to admission to Harvard law school of all places. These are the elite of the elite. Some ultra right wing cunt from West Central Illinois doesn't appeal to the Nob Hill and Montauk crowds. And no, he didn't fuck a case up so badly that he cost the company lots of money and him his job. He advanced a stupid but nonfrivolous position in a motion in a case in federal court. We don't know anything about what his client paid or his employment status, but I can assure you that defense lawyers at fancy law firms don't get fired for taking scumbag risks like he did. His Supreme Court briefs in AAPS and video game cases and his appellate brief in the Menendez case were fine. You've got to be pretty smart to even comply with SC filing requirements. They're insane. In non-amicus briefs, he makes the best argument his client's loser positions can support. There wasn't much he could do in the Menendez case except discuss civil procedure issues and talk about Washington's heart felt letter. His amicus briefs are stranger than fiction but he's not stupid. LIke Nate said he's just a fucking weirdo. He looks stupid because he believes unbelievably stupid shit, having been blinded by powerful ideological bias and the psychological trauma of growing up in that house with that Skeksis as a mother. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

I think the issue is that some otherwise smart people can be stupid in certain areas and the fact that they are smart in one area creates an arrogance that they are just as smart in other areas. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Go to bed Khant. 02:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, I'd only just got up. (Malaysia time-zone.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is that that's what some people mean when they call people stupid. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. I don't know how or why he went to those schools, but i know that he is not a smart person, and you can't ignore real evidence for assumptions. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You are spot on Nate, Andy is a politician, albeit (thankfully) a failed one. All of his posts have political undertones, be they religious, scientific or otherwise. Lets face it, he would line up all liberals against a wall and shoot them if he had his way.--94.9.177.164 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I upload a png screen capture? Thanks--Patmac (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The same as you would any file, using the Upload File link on the left side. Генгис^evolving 02:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

PUSH ME

Thanks, I caught this posting by Conservative that lasted about 5 minutes before being hard deleted [[3]]--Patmac (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this. He's just a rigid and prideful liar. He knows I'm not "liberal" in any way except disagreeing with him on a few theological issues that he is such an intellectual lightweight he can't justify his positions on. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy may have been smart at one time (though, honestly, I suspect his family connections and wealth had a lot to do with his early success). However, even if he was smart once, he clearly isn't any longer, as you can clearly see here. I don't know what exactly happened to him, but there is no way the person he is now could possibly make it at Princeton or Harvard Law. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone here picked up on this reference to Andy from a few months back, but this seems to be an appropriate time to mention it. It's from a self-pitying column from wingnut Ellis Washington writes to Andy's mother, complaining about his being blacklisted from the prestigious law schools around the country.

Here is Phyllis Schlafly's reply:

Ellis: You are blacklisted because you are a conservative. The law schools have been taken over by the liberals and feminists. I think it’s hopeless. I would like my son, Andy (Harvard Law School graduate), to have a law school faculty position, but I know he is blacklisted, too.

Aww. If it was anyone else, I might have a shred of sympathy for Phyllis over her son's "plight." Tacitus (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I remember Ellis. He thinks everyone he doesn't like is part of a Liberal-Muslim Axis. Perhaps Phyllis should set up a play date for Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ!^img:

"The Humani Generis is clear, Jesus was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the Great Flood. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails."

The dude is definitely not smart. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes some sense. Jesus spoke of the Genesis account and the Flood as if it was factual history. So if you believe Jesus existed and spoke these words, then you believe that he believed in the Genesis account, and if you also believe Jesus' words are divine truth, then logically the Genesis account must be true. It does seem illogical of some Christians to believe in Jesus as God, spoke about Genesis as history yet do not believe in Genesis themselves.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No he didn't. I would be happy to have a discussion on the proper interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, but it's not necessary to make my point here. I do believe Jesus existed and I do believe Jesus spoke those words, however, I do not believe that mentioning Noah means he was claiming it happened as written. There are very good reasons to take much of Genesis as poetic or allegorical. The flood gets mentioned previously in Matthew 7:24- and the point is the same as in 24:36- - men will be taken unawares. That's it. Christ is speaking prophetically of the "hour of the unknown" by referring to the story of another world changing catastrophe. That doesn't mean the story is true. It means it has meaning and gives Christ's prophesy context. We use references to stories all the time without anyone bothering to ask whether they're true or not, which goes to show that it's not as easy as saying "Jesus said it, them's His words, that settles it." Creationists miss the forest for the trees. This flood nonsense isn't nearly the most interesting theological discussion to have about Matthew 24. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

More thoughts on this BMcP - it seems to me that it is likely you grew up in an evangelical household and are probably no longer involved in your family's faith? Is that close? I know you're not saying it is this way, but fundamentalists do miss that interpretation of Genesis 1 doesn't start with what you want to be true. There are very good reasons to doubt God was doing anything but being allegorical. I find it sort of funny to consider that if He was speaking of actual history, that He would make the story so difficult to identify as actual history because my understanding is you have to interpret key words in Genesis one in novel or unusual ways for it to be what creationists want it to be. I have seen a well-informed lay Christian scholar's analysis of some creationist claim about Genesis. I think it was AiG's or CMI's. This guy shattered their lies and wishful thinking. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nate! You, too, here? I'm Swordsman. That Conservative guy is REALLY nuts. --2.228.141.122 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Conservative seems to have shifted his focus to what he considers "liberal Christianity" recently and attributes the same labels to it that he does to atheists. Liberal Christianity and Infidelity, obesity, bestiality etc. I am an Anglican and you should have seen some of the shit he threw at me. Andy at least is behaving with some dignity in his responses but Conservative is a sandwich short.--Patmac (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Swordsman. Yes, he's nuts. He's also a nasty and dishonest person. It would nice to be able to have a conversation with Mr. Schlafly, but ... Nate Keaton (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was permabanned by a certain Markman for "Defaming admins on another website (one that is dedicated to attack Conservapedia, you know which one I'm talking about)". And, I swear it, I was completely honest and good-faith about the improvements I wanted to make to that article... if I've got to tell it, I wanted to clarify and expand the Catholic Church's article so to drive it away from the insane fundamentalism that seems to harbor in Conservapedia's religious "articles", so that nobody could ever read that the Catholic Church does share that bullshit (because it doesn't). Then I again, it's a lost battle and I acknowledge defeat. --2.228.141.122 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Marksman is quite likely a parodist, as are most other active non-sysops on Conservapedia. Of course he'd suck up to Ken by sniping someone for trash-talking Ken on a page we know Kennyboy can't help but read (this one). If you're trying to "help" Conservapedia be more acceptable to the general public, you are trying to bail water out of the Titanic five minutes after the iceberg said hi. It's a valiant, noble effort, but the sinking is already well underway. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

He's a poor parodist, it's more fun to watch them destroy themselves rather than chipping away at their foundations. But it does serve as a prime example of how they've abandoned even the pretence of Andy's grand ideal; see entry 16. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth ex cathedra

Anyone know why (apart from obvious ignorance) he's going on about ex cathedra? Does anyone want to tell him that gravity, the earth not being flat and the sun at the centre of the solar system haven't been pronounced ex cathedra? In his own way is he trying to say that concepts that the world is flat, the sun revolves around us and we stick to the ground due to actions of invisible gremlins are the Catholic Church's position on these matters? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you nailed it in the first seven words. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Links, please? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all here. Whoover (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

One of Ken's little conceits is spelling "Brenden" "Brendon." I've always thought it's like "the Democrat party," a childish insistence on using a corrupted name for your enemy. Apparently AlanE felt so too. Ken's response is weird, even for him. Kind of that Brenden is such a worm Ken wouldn't be expected to spell it correctly. Or something. So little of what Ken says is beyond the maturity found in middle school. Whoover (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me prove Andy wrong.

Please only take this poll if you identify as a "liberal" in the broadest sense of the term, and have a father who is alive.

Did you wish your father a happy Father's Day?

Yes	104	Vote
No	22	Vote

--If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't identify with political labels, and dad finally succumbed to Alzheimer's a decade ago, so I can't vote in good conscience. Still, Andy can go fuck himself with something uncomfortable such as a large spiky pineapple. Is his world view really that constricted? What does he think stands to be gained by pitching to such a low denominator? Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proving Andy wrong is easy. Getting him to admit he's wrong, though.... that's different. Sophie^Wilder 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Father's day isn't until September around here, so I would have felt kind of silly. - π 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fucking idiocy, all of it. Neither of my parents approve of father's or mother's days, on the grounds that they're pointless commercial rubbish. And, much as Andy would disagree, I don't think my parents can exactly be called liberals. In fact they're both Conservative Party members and well towards the right of it, and think David Cameron is a screaming leftist. He really does have an almost childishly simplistic view of the world. Andy, that is, not David Cameron.--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} 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"an almost childishly simplistic view of the world" -- i think that's literally an understatement. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 06:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy is, was, and ever will be a creature of pure self worshipping spite and pettiness. At this point he is honestly incapable of seeing those who disagree with him as human, and universally views them as soulless degenerates who exist only to hate all that is "good and conservative", as evidenced by the fact they dont utterly submit to his insane and ever mutating dogma, since he is the paragon of holiness, goodness, logic, and wisdom they must be evil and decietful scumbags by default as they could not "possibly" disagree with him. Thus since he happens to like fathers day at this very moment, all filthy liberals must hate it simply because they hate all that is good and thus hate anything andy likes. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly wonder if there's room on the Internet for a "Fake Andy Schaffly" blog, whereby someone posts the exact opposite of what Andy likes/hates this month, but phrased as he would. For example, "The secular holiday of Father's Day continues to drive non-believers away from the Bible and biblical truth. Instead of sending your father a card, why not send Him a card instead? To deny this is to deny logic." --Sasayaki (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like stringing together Andy's actual insights into a single narrative. Andy isn't particularly verbose, so his true "genius" isn't always readliy apparent. But when you splice together all of his thoughts on a topic into a single screed... it's golden! Read the quote on my user page to see what I mean. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Inquisitor" (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), your incoherent comments are getting tiresome. I've managed to read your rants and all you do is repeat anti-American lies, so there's a 95% chance you're a homosexual. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: accept that women knowing their place reduces atheism. Do yourself a favor and admit that we're building an encyclopedia here. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up. One more disagreement and your account will be blocked.--Andy Schlafly 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, no screed of andy's mental diarrhea will ever compare to the mindfucking stupidity innate to his most idiotic declaration. I.e. That the very word "Christian" was a "librul and secular distortion of conservative language" Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheater, cheater.. pumpkin eater

If anyone remembers the shameful display of Andy and others trying to calculate countries that legalized same-sex marriage will do worse in the Olympics, it's revived a bit. The whole notion that religious people perform better and the gays don't is distorted all over the place with cherry-picked percentages and other opinionated shit. Andy's trying to compare Canada's performance before and after with hilarious results (a shaky "decline of 6%") to prove himself right. Three years, one day... what's the difference?^img Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It actually says medals won by countries that allowed same sex marriage fell by 6%. Of course, South Africa is arbitrarily excluded. If South Africa were included there would be no change. Bizarrely, Canada's pre-same sex marriage medal count is averaged between 2004 and 2008 (12 and 18, respectively) on the basis that same sex marriage became legal "effective in late July 2005". Yet, in Spain it became legal on July 3, 2005, 17 days before Canada, and only the 2004 medal count is given. Furthermore, Norway legalized same sex marriage Jan. 1, 2009, way after Canada, but only the 2004 medal count is given.

I'm beginning to suspect Andy is using dubious statistical methods.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw gay people in a club on TV once and they all looked a lot more ripped than any of the CP users I've seen photos of. Seriously though, it's an odd concept to hold on to. "Gays are girly and thus not aggressive" I can at least understand as a stereotype, so I can see how he'd claim that they wouldn't be good at straight up competitive events, but a lot of the olympics are individual scores being set and the highest winning (gymnastics, field events, some of the track events, all the time trials etc...) and even most of the actively competitive ones are more about being fitter than the opposition rather than more aggressive. Just seems like an oddly specific thing to latch onto; he's basically saying "gays are unfit", which is the exact opposite of every stereotype and cliché I've ever heard. I mean, I get that he's just doing his "gays are bad therefore they're bad at everything" shtick like he does with atheism and liberals but... I guess I'm just overthinking it. X Stickman (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy doesn't have hyphotheses. He has insights. That's why he needs a better kind of statistics to verify them. Next thing Norseman will discover the perfect geometric fit of the conservative word curve doesn't hold up either. Whoover (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Identifying "gays as girly" seems to be a prime example of the toupee fallacy. For every effeminate gay man, or butch lesbian, there is probably another who does not fit the stereotype. That's why it's usually turned into an issue when a major football or rugby star comes out. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He's making a statement about the societies, not the athletes. I don't think he really conceives of gay athletes -- besides, not even his "logic" can make the leap from gay marriage to more gays. For Andy, it's a sign of societal decay, one symptom of which surely is poor performance in endeavors that require total dedication and focus. It's the same reason he knows that all great sports stars are home-schooled Christians and the other ones are overrated by a liberal press pushing a secular agenda along with the homosexual one. Whoover (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PRISM: How Obama's evil communist plot was acheived

"This is great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy! You see how clever his part is? How it doesn't require a shred of proof? Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant!"

Apparently PRISM is how Obama made himself in to a natural born citizen despite being an evil Kenyan Muslim. It's how he made Republicans offer halting support for some brand of immigration reform. It's how he controls the supreme court. It's the tea party conspiracy phlebotinum!

Sometimes I wonder if Terry's cohorts are just senile. They really seem to revel in being completely unfamiliar with how the real world works. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He'll be back. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was struck by how they're so eager to deep-six their beloved Patriot Act because Obama. It's an amazing thing to watch. Whoover (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I just love this part from him, ""Many people may think this data mining by our government is essential for the security and safety of our country and would only be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. In case you missed it, it has."". Or in other words, republicans listening to us - GOOD, VERY GOOD. Demcrats listening to us, and also as it happens to republicans, BAD, VERY VERY BAD. The only difference is that now the NSA are listening to the tea partiers rather than listeining to those who were telling the truth about the Bush lies that took the US and the UK to war in Iraq. It was ok to listen top us, it not when they are the ones being listened to. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Terry & Co., Obama is all powerful and able to control the government through his nefarious surveillance and data mining operations. Meanwhile, back in reality, he can't get legislation he wants passed or stop leaks of information.

Looking at this more broadly, PRISM is brilliant as a grand unified conspiracy theory. It doesn't require space reptiles, the Trilateral Commission, or the Freemasons to be in charge. Only THEM, who are watching you. Godspeed (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I hate about much of the opposition to PRISM. PRISM should be opposed, it should be halted on constitutional grounds alone. Unfortunately much of the support for the ending of PRISM doesn't come from sincere opponents of this kind of government intrusion, and who always opposed such measures, but from hypocrites who were all for this kind of government surveillance, as long as their guy was the one in charge.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately Terry and Co.'s opposition will mysteriously disappear in January 2017. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point Tosser and friends have basically turned Obama into a satanic fusion of Nyarlathotep and Xerxes from 300, which means they will either have to continue beating their chests and smearing their basement walls with feces in rage over his "infernal plot to subjugate Real Tru Muricans" indefinitely and thus be left in the dust bin of obscure extreme far right online community history, or pull off the most insane act of orwellian flavoured amnesia in internet history to transfer their fury towards the next demoncrat in the whitehouse Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty amazing how little of a fuck Andy gives about his website

He won't do anything about the fucking spammers, no matter how many people bring it to his attention. If you try to tell him that there is an EASY way to deal with them, like QuestyCaptcha, he won't even respond. Every day he turns on account creation in the morning, a million spammers register, then he turns it off (As a chronic sufferer of CPOCD, I notice these things). It's mind-boggling. I guess as long as he is able to put his stupid propaganda all over the main page it makes no difference to him.--StephenCocktail (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, very few RW editors give a shit about Andy's travails running his own damn site either. 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Think what would happen to his edit count if the spam were prevented. I'm sure he does. Looking at their Recent Changes, you realize 90% is noise. Whoover (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember, they're blocked not deleted. Each one counts toward his user count.

In which Markman reveals himself to be the Worst Parodist Ever.

Bugler, this guy ain't. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bugler wasn't always subtle either; but when the sysops are too stupid to catch something like this edit comment, it doesnt really matter.131.107.0.89 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And reading through the history of that entry we find this^img addition by bad touch Poor. Really Ed, did changing it from "young or adolescent" REALLY improve the article? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman adds Dancing on Graves to his repertoire. The spirit of Jesus is strong in him. Whoover (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The funniest thing is that even though we, and markman, know EXACTLY how to tweak andy's pleasure centres the sysops at cp allow people to do it without comeback. Any one of us could have posted that, it took markman to do it though. And he will get away with it because andy can't see the obvious parody. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this dumber it seems. So Markman is an Israeli Jew who not only identifies as a "conservative" by American standards, but knows enough to call such and such a RINO and the lyrics to Ted Nugent songs. I could go on. Karajou, you really are a fucking retard. 20:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nutty, you missed it. Markman is no Jew^imgIf I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. This guy's artless. The Bugler trick is played out. Try something new. 23:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Political Correctness, Wingnut Edition

Mental retardation is too easily used as an insult, hurled at people of normal intelligence who act like morons. That's why we're constantly changing the favored euphemism for people who actualy suffer from it. "Retard," "moron," "imbecile" and "idiot" are all impolite, even with a clinical meaning intended. "With special needs" seems to be the most accepted euphemism today, even though that could as easily apply to a sex addict. Surprisingly, the usually reflexively anti-euphemism PC brigade has become very sensitive to this issue. Even the term "mentally retarded" is now hate speech. We skipped insensitivity completely and moved directly to criminality. Whoover (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Criminality? Fortunately the country Maher and I live in, one cannot be prosecuted for saying something, someone, somewhere, at some point in time deems as "hate speech"; thank FSM for the First Amendment.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really for the accusers of the hate speech to assert and the courts to decide. The SCOTUS has held that hate speech which intends to trigger violence is criminal. I can't imagine saying that referring to a child with mental retardation as mentally retarded is hate speech, so I have no idea how someone who would make the claim might justify it. Considering the usual wingnut hysteria, it would not surprise me if they call this a threat on poor Track's life. But since I'm better than that, and they haven't yet, I'll agree that they're just calling it hate speech. Whoover (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "retard" just needs to be taken back and used to describe mentally competent individuals who act like dumbshits (or, perhaps, those who act to "retard" the efforts and progresses of others). Also, why is this discussion on Talk:WIGO:CP? --Seth Peck (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The "hate speech" link in the initial post is to CP. Isn't that enough? Whoover (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it is pretty mean to call a retard a retard. 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with "dumbshit" as a descriptive label. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Conservapedian" would probably also cover most of the bases. - Tygrehart

Dang Khant. Calling the Downs child of the self-absorbed fundie who had him at age 45 the dumbshit is cold. 12:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman as Nuanced Parodist

Greatest Conservative Songs has been a favorite of mine since "YMCA" spent six months on their chart while Andy insisted it was a sincere ode to the Christian Association and its values. Finally, someone let the gang in on the joke, and the song was quietly deleted. Great stuff.

Now Markman, fresh from stomping on the Torah and dancing on graves, mines this rich opportunity. We've discussed his dissing of Ted Nugent as liberal, but today he's given us two conservative anthems. Brimful of Asha is about the fantasy world of Bollywood, which allows Indians to survive their repressive society. To Markman, it's about big government. Even better, the Ramones' "53rd & 3rd" displays the apparently Christian fervor of a gay prostitute slitting his john's throat. Conservative Values don't get any better than that. Whoover (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to wonder just how long he will get away with this shit^img. Soon he has to start getting bored and take the mask off, he can't keep upping the crazy to see how much they will take. Can he?? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

His last Great Conservative Song was written by a guy who died of a heroin overdose. It's performance art and the show must go on. Whoover (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My deerest

... a story of evolution linked from CP.

The deer then evolve into shaggy dogs which chase cars: and learning how to cross the road chickenwise is more appropriate than evolving to eat fish and getting shark-attacking horns and hoofs. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That really should have gone under "The Parable of Anger Bear" above. Spud (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What the yodelling hedgehog was that? Sophie^Wilder 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody Asked...

... how Andy would react to the news that the HPV vaccine is extraordinarilly effective? The answer is in: "them's liberal facts."

Really, Andy's motivation is "if you ever have sex before marriage, or your eventual husband did, you deserve to die." But that sounds a bit harsh so he has to come up with crap that doesn't make sense. Why not take the leap and be honest? Whoover (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I love how schizophrenic that makes articles look. Someone put a reference to an article that you don't like? You can either a) delete it or b) keep it, but just say why the article sucks while referencing it. I'm glad he went with 'b' on this one. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Andy, we often get "b", and it's far more entertaining that way.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The parable of Anger Bear

Well... that was something. I'm not entirely sure what the point of that is, except maybe that Karajou's trying to tell us he's an imbecile. Well, I suppose if creationists understood that telling stupid stories doesn't refute evolution then they wouldn't be creationists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

All that I picked up was that he writes essays like a child. Генгис^pillaging 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What is that I don't even... If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh. I guess it goes without saying that he's a retard? Heh heh. 02:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Karajou. You know I love you and really have your best interests at heart, so please take it on board when I say that moonshine and blogging don't mix. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 08:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if Ken's blog doesn't convince Creation Ministries to have nothing to do with Conservapedia, there is always this.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

CMI privately disavows Ken's blog and publicly conspicuously avoids mentioning it. :) (Hi Ken) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible he doesn't know what "tossed salad" means? Whoover (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The tossed salad appears so out of place in the narrative, that I think it was intentionally included. Possibly to insult evolutionists represented by the deer.--Buscombe (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's just mockery. The trouble is mockery only really works when a) it's well-done and ii) when it's making a valid point. So "my grand daddy ain't no monkey", flying kitties, crocoducks, and this sort of poorly-written childish strawman will only work with other creationists or children already embedded in a creationist culture. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoever coined the term "transitional fossil" really screwed the pooch. It opened the door for these ignorami to demand to see the flying kitties. Never mind that the fossil record is exquisitely detailed in terms of basal amniotes as the ancestors of synapsids (including kitties) and sauropsids (including birds). They can't all be stupid enough to not get the branching bush vs. tree of evolution thing. I'm sure the "thought leaders" understand it full well but just exploit the semantic ambiguities. On the other hand, Ken and Karajou are stupid enough to not get it. Whoover (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a combination of not wanting to believe it and a lack of imagination. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember He Is An Overrated Sports Star

According to Andy that is. Lebron James won his second straight title tonight; can't wait to see how Conservapedia attempts to spin this.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In SEVEN GAMES. A Great Conservative Athlete would have needed only four. Or maybe even three. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh look he is the NBA Finals MVP also, just like he is the League MVP, but ya know, overrated.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Spurs would have won if they played Tim Tebow. Of course, the liberal media stopped that from happening and made claptrap objections like 'He's not even a professional basketball player and is just barely one at football'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Plus, Tebow playing for the Spurs would have made him a perfect "best of the public" candidate, and maybe a great accomplishment by a teenager, since he is still only a few years removed from his teens :P Danoso (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PowderSmokeAndLeather called it: "The Heat underachieved in the playoffs, barely winning two 4-3 series with the home-court advantage."^img They barely won two championships. What losers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Heat underachieved in the playoffs, barely winning two 4-3 series with the home-court advantage." How do you "underachieve" when you win the NBA Championship? There is no higher achievement in professional basketball. Oh Andy, you are at your best when you are at your most pathetic; keep shooting them holes in the credibility ship of CP, I think there are a few pieces of flotsam left.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist.

Class contempt? Check. A complete lack of sympathy for the mentally ill? Check. Victim-blaming? Check. Anti-feminist? Check. Marriage? Check. A complete absence of logic? Check-er-eeno. Andy gets concise. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please let someone call Andy out on this and have him explain how the hell this phrase is one of the "Best New Conservative Words." --Tabrcg23 (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother. He'll say, "bag ladies are caused by liberal policies and drawing attention to that is conservative." Whoover (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Liberal policies my ass. It's the Reagan administration that shut down the asylums and caused a homelessness boom.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to figure it out, everyone here and there already knows the whole concept is total bullshit.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And in total contrast to CP...

We have WeplurbUS. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If Karajou wrote that without once saying "Oh, hey..." then he must be so non-self-aware that he can't find his feet to put his socks on. Then again, he does live in the South... what we think are socks are just where the mud stops. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wooooow, 1,700 subscribers, Facebook is truly doomed, DOOMED!

Great, another platform for Psy to go fuck with people on. Whatever happened to that Tea-Party-friendly conservative version of Facebook from last year? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ppffft. I don't get out bed for less than 10,000 people to fuck with. That said, this project seems to be very much still-born. At least the other Teabagger Facebook has 126,000 members, although this grossly inflated, because you cannot delete accounts, so everybody whose joined and left and all the troll accounts are included. Seems inflating site stats is another conservative trait. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 13:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, the whole criticism section has been deleted and oversighted by Kendoll. And Koward has locked the page. Why is Conservapedia a wiki again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy did not like the article. Guess he doesn't want somebody horning in on the territory of "alternative conservative websites." If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr I got 4th Place in a Spelling Bee is calling^img you Jeeves. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, there's so much projection there, we can start calling him Cinemax. --Kels (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If Ken was ever a "university writing tutor" (whatever the cunting fuck that actually is) I can only guess it was at Oral Roberts or Liberty U. Most likely in his own mind. Ken, please provide some sort of documentary proof that you (or at least one of you) did indeed hold this position. Also, why is a 50-something still bragging about something that young kids normally partake in? Has he seriously done nothing of substance since he was 11? Or was this a little activity organised for the inmates? --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 08:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I doubt a "university writing tutor" would think that "In 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and eleven men participated in this study. The study in the American Journal of Psychiatry stated that..." is university level writing.^img Clearly you're a liar, or you've regressed. I go with the former. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 10:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah, snork. Yes, Ken. Because you've never made a spelling mistake. Ever. I'm sure it gives you a great sense of power to have spotted a letter transposition. Hey, watch more of what I write, I'm sure you'll find some more mistakes, because unlike you I don't spend hours obsessively editing and oversighting everything I post. As an aside, Ken, I didn't go to public school. Nor did I go to a private school, nor was I homeschooled. I went to a comprehensive school. Cultural differences, Ken. They're important. You might want to think about that next time you write about "evangelicals." I do know the words to the Eton boating song though. (Oh, and I'm an atheist. Happy?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, apparently I'm supposed to debate ShockOfGoat now. Well, tell you what Kendoll. You get him to email me, and we'll sort something out. You've got my email address. Get on it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Snowden, and Russia

Something tells me that Andy's love for Mother Russia is about to get stronger. I remember hearing young Reds in the 80s being told: "Well, why don't you just move to Russia, then?" Never would have I imagined that I would want to say that to a guy who praises the country for the reasons Andy does. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 13:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's type weren't really all that keen on living in the land of the free. He's more in favour of the land where the right people are repressed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, Andy is trying to pit Obama directly against Snowden as if it were some personal agenda. "Obama's Nemesis", "Snowden continues to stand up against Obama", and (the third entry appears to have been oversighted, damn) "Obama hunts Snowden", but I guess Andy thought that would make his wiki look a little crazy! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I have always seen andy's transparant fetish for russia's present authoritarian and bigotted leadership to be the ultimate testament of just how full of shit andy's pretensions of being a realTruMurican patriot are compared to his far deeper obsession with wanting those whose existance somehow contradicts his ever more insane religious dogma to be ground into the dirt. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Kendoll lies.

I suppose it's a bit of a dog bites man story at this point, but Kendoll lies yet again. He doesn't actually link to the article he "cites" but if you actually go and read it it's precisely the opposite of what he says, that r/atheism has cleaned itself up and now features high-brow content and less "karma-whoring Carl Sagan pictures." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Best conservative words - redux.

I despair. Every time he gets so far I think he can't go further he surprises me^img.. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Is Andy a fluoride crank as well? I never thought he had it in him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I thought organic foods were the domain of those nasty, liberal new agers and hippies. Conservatives are all about Chick-fil-A. It's so hard to keep up with Andy's made-up bullshit. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 15:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned. Phiwum (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

People who lived on farms in the 40s and 50s were getting liberal melanoma and prostate cancer. 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I love how in his mind those nasty hippies true conservatives who support organic food and oppose big pharma and food companies are in fact, without their knowing it, standing against government forcing those poor farmers to use pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy has actually surprised me here for the first time in quite a while. I'm trying to wrap my brain around this whole "government approved" criticism. Conservatives are against the government having to approve things like pesticides, so it seems his logic that use of such chemicals that aren't approved of by governments is good, but as soon as the government says "it's OK, this one's safe" they're suddenly bad. And I'm pretty sure irrigation water isn't fluoridized, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. DickTurpis (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy also added 'creativity' to the list. I love his definition: "an ability, unique to God and his likeness, to make something from nothing"^img. I guess Andy is creative since his conservative words list comes from nothing - not reason, not evidence, not from a coherent definition of 'conservative word'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the old ones are the best. I love "greasy spoon," or a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' Biblical scientific foreknowledge about the digestive system.

Following the link, we learn mainly that Jesus said we don't need to wash our hands before eating because we're not Jews. I wonder how many of his students refuse to wash before dinner on Andy's say-so. Whoover (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mystery solved???

On a hunch, I searched for <schlafly beer organic> and found that Andy's cousins are brewing at least three kinds of organic beer (I didn't bother going beyond the first page of results) and have a sideline in organic vegetables. I heard that Andy is a shareholder in the Schlafly Brewery so maybe saying organic = conservative is just covering his options: "yes, I do like organic, but the profit-making kind of organic, not the lib'rul hippy kind." Too cynical? Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In #12 they wash their hands of Andy and the old hag pretty well. I guess if they're publicly traded Andy could own stock and still be "unconnected" in any meaningful way, but I sort of doubt he's terribly invested in a company that clearly wants no association with him, and which makes beer. DickTurpis (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If Obama can have a beer even though he's a Muslim (the CP link is out there somewhere), surely Andy can invest in a beer company even though he comes off as an uptight prig? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is so weird. I admit I'm working from very hazy memory here, but I could've sworn this FAQ page only mentioned Phyllis Schlafly a couple of years ago. Did they add Andy at some point after CP launched? Could somebody check if Archive.org backs me up on this? (I'm dead tired, so forgive me for not digging myself.) --Sid (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems familiar to me as well. I recall someone posting a link to their website many years back; I think it was 2007 even. At the time, Andy was still a nobody (even more so, anyway), but it's quite possible CP has achieved just enough notoriety that they felt compelled to also throw him under the bus as a result. DickTurpis (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I find the fact one of their big worries (hense the fact that its on their FAQ page) is that they might get linked with not just syPhyliss but andy himself despite his complete obscurity outside the internet rationalist community, utterly and completely hilarious, if a little bit sad that his saner relatives might get flack for andy and his mother's infamy Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

BWAHAHA! You're absolutely right, Sid. It did only used to mention mama. I guess lil' Andy has come up the world of crazy wingnutia since those days. The earliest snapshot archive.org has of it mentioning Andy is in Feb 2012. I don't remember any particularly significant CP moment from that time, so maybe they just got fed up of the emails. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

When did Andy jump the couch on the Daily Show? CS Miller (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It was 2009 (and the Colbert report.) That was the first thing I thought of, too. But it was a while back. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe they had the misfortune of a family get-together with andy IRL or maybe a friend or colleague pointed out some of andy's hijinks to them. and thus motivated them to explicitly disassosiate themselves. For all the trolls and parodists who have gone to CP over the years, i doubt many of them have bothered andy's non fundie family (though that may just be optimism on my part) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This year's birthday present request picked out and e-mailed to my sweetheart. How long 'til a Ratwikian stops me on the street, I wonder? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 04:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of being a card-carrying Schlafly card carrier. Whoover (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a thing of beauty. When a branch of your own family have to publicly distance themselves from you, because you'd be bad for business, clearly you're doing something right. PsyGremlin^Praat! 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Great stuff guys." I reckon that the Conservative Bible Project pissed off conservatives and practically everything else Andy and his Mum do pisses off lib'ruls, so it makes good sense for the Brewer-Schlaflys to distance themselves from their Fruitcake-Schalfly relatives. It still doesn't explain why Organic = Conservative, unless Andy's trying to get a Schlafly beer voucher for his birthday. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The best thing Andy could do for the brewing Schlaflys would be to change his last name to something else, or at least take his shitblog down. That'd be at least worth a six-pack. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We should mail Andy a six pack of Schlafly beer. Have the card read 'Hope this helps you get new "insights". From your friends at RationalWiki.' --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Never waste beer like that! Not even as a joke! Recently, I saw Schlafly beer available in NYC, and I said to my friend I would not buy it, as I feared it would support that branch of the family tree. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

According to beer advocate it's a pretty good brand. I tried to see if there's a place in Israel that sells it but couldn't find anything. I'm going to try it if I'll ever have the chance, I'm glad that I've stopped following Pharisaistic claptrap so I don't have to keep Kosher anymore. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman, after all these years, I think it's safe to say that RWians actually have very little patience for bad parody. When you descend into expressing hate against gays and condoning real violence, it doesn't matter if you think you're joking. It's not funny. You're not upping the ante on Bugler, you're being a really nasty prick. It's rare that I actually care about a parodist harming CP, but you piqued my interest last night. Hope to see you blocked soon so Andy and his goons can get back to ruining Conservapedia on their own. Cuddles, 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that pertain exactly to the subject of Schlafly beer? - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It pertains to 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not that hungry anyway. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman's Continuing Cry for Help

His latest one and two Greatest Conservative Songs are favorites of Israeli Neo-Nazis. The second one, about impregnating a woman with the Semen of Fire, is about the merits of war to Markman.

The coolest thing about these, and the ode to corporal punishment and others by the Ramones, is that he's classifying them as Spirituals.

Any normal community would have spotted this long ago, but when your Dear Leader is pushing the joys of Putin's Russia it's best to keep your head down. Whoover (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Incredible. He's even put in a link to the video of Mann gegen Mann, which takes overblown homoeroticism to a whole new level.--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} 00:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that by posting it here, it pretty much invalidates it being successfully added as parody, but "Heterosexual Man" by The Odds would fit nicely until someone decided to actually look it up. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems we have a contender for the next Bugler here. Let's see how he does. At least my parody is a bit more subtle. DickTurpis (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if "Boom Bye Bye" by Buju Banton would be considered conservative--

Wow. It's still up there. If that's what counts as parody, Bugler starts looking like a good faith editor. None so blind as those who will not see, eh Andy, et al? 13:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

IIRC from the days of TZB, they feel that one of our tactics is to try and drive a wedge between the various sysops and sysop lites. Ironically, I think it was TK who kept saying that, whilst doing exactly that. Therefore, the more we point out that Markman is a parodist, the stronger his credentials are on CP... PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 14:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, the sad thing is we really do have their best interests at heart. It really would be better at CP if they didn't keep promoting aggressive arseholes, and if they demoted Kendoll so he couldn't do so much damage. But then again, Andy shouldn't need us to tell him. His first experience with a boot licking psycho should have taught him not to trust them, but he will insist on making the same mistake over and over and over... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what people do when they're over there stirring shit. I'm not going to get in Brenden's grill for being an obsequious hall monitor. Markman can butcher their "bible" and treat other editors worse than TK if he wants. It's all on Andy and his lackeys. I do care that the site has substantial enough traffic that there's a certainty that at least some kids are looking at it. Markman crossed the line. Andy and Karaturd won't do anything about it. 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

NKeaton posted the same liberal complaints you guys make on Karajou's talk page. Luckily nobody gives a shit about NKeaton so he was ignored as the tosser that he is. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Go on, Markman. If you're still able to edit by the time this discussion falls into the archive, add "Heterosexual Man" to the list, since it is all about (snicker, snicker) being a virile, woman-lusting heterosexual man. Machismo assured! Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

But I'm not a parodist. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ROFLROFLROFL "Dont tread on me." Fuckin' clown.

Anyone up for a ghoul pool on Markman? Offering 10x he's still editing Saturday 5pm CST. Email me for wiring instructions to the escrow service at Chase. 22:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are either a parodist or the most despicable little bastard that has posted on Conservapedia, even ken is reasonable compared to you--Patmac (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, we all know Markman is a parodist, but let's face it, he isn't going to admit it here, so stop trying to get him to. We'll all play along. And, yeah, barring any unforeseen coming out, he'll still be editing Saturday night (or at least not banned; I can't vouch for his editing habits or weekend schedules). DickTurpis (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After posting here that CP users are not "blocked for ideological disagreements", the superputz permabans someone for "insolence" in adding some post-championship positive mentions to the LeBron James article. Markman has about convinced me he's a hypocritical dick, which had been my first intuition. Whoover (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, what does it matter? Pretending to be an asshole is being an asshole. Phiwum (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're not a parodist, Markman, you're a complete fucking throbber. In fact even if you are a parodist you're a complete fucking throbber. Anyone who could act like such an utter dick and pull it off so convincingly deserves either an Oscar or a bullet in the head.--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} 02:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And again with the dodgy blocks! Why are you such a fucking annoying cunt markman? Also go have a look at the Gaddaffi article, see it is missing something ? Fix it mate :) Ghost (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So now this thick wankers 'suspicion' that Rafael may be a sock is enough to block him. Well I KNOW that markman is a cunt and a parodist. So can one of our socks over there block him for either of them? Or will he run crying to andy that the nasty people are bullying him again like the little shit for brains he is Oldusgitus (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do it! After the RW mole will block me I will revert the block completely on my own with your mole being revealed. Great success! - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And then you would reveal yourself as a RW mole, nice bit of attention seeking there with your fake vandal attack mate. Ghost (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL you're out of your fucking mind. The admins there have checkuser, if I were to orchestrate vandalism attacks of such magnitude against Conservapedia my culpability would have been quickly revealed, leading me to share RobSmith's sad fate. No thanks. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your devout new xian mask is slippgin very slightly here you know? Heaven forfend that karajou may occasionally read here and see you swearing in tht way, he may JUST see through your mask. Face it arsehole, your parody is poor compared to the real parodists over there and if you really think you are trusted by Brian I suggest you think again. The only reason I care is you are rather boring in your obviousness. The far better parody is the likes of the entry that has stood for over 5 years now where a sex toy is described as being something completely differnt and not a single editor at cp has yet worked it out. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I come of to you as an unfunny parodist is because I ain't no parodist. I don't think cussing is a sin and I refrain from using curse words on Conservapedia only because it's not considered appropriate there. shit shoot, If I were trying to be a parody of a Christian and wanted to act like a stereotype, than I would have avoided cussing. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nope, the reason you come over as an unfunny parodist is because ...... TA DA (big reveal) you are an unfunny parodist. We know it, the sysops at cp know it (that is why you have not been given the rights you so desperately lick arse to get) and you know it. Run along tedious parodist, go ban some other decent editor at cp for not matching your standard of parody. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Go bully me and call me a liberal for finding your behavior completely unacceptable. You mean business and nobody should tread on you, right? Andy Schlafly and Karajou know you're a troublemaker. I am hopeful that your days are limited. You are not doing parody. You are being a punk. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I gently advise you to voluntarily commit yourself to a mental institution, as it seems as if you're suffering from severe delusions. Mr. Schlafly has overturned a block given to me today by one of your lib allies, while Karajou has basically ignored the crybaby rants you left on his talk page. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can both of you please keep your little pissing match on CP from metastasizing onto this website? Thanks. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This says it all, really

Markman implements the TK Gambit. 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Never change, Conservapedia <3

Thank you Andy, for being such a spineless coward to the infighting spilled all over your talkpage and in the block logs today. You not only fail to respond or act as a leader, you instead keep it going by unblocking Markman without a single word. The circus will stay in town just a little longer. :D Iduan, Brenden, Nate, David... you all should know by now that Andy won't help you. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just another nail in Conservapedia's increasingly nail dominated coffin. For Andy, the choice between productive editors and a brown nose parodist (or Poe, who cares which at this point) is easy. Shakedangle (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it funny

That markman always appears right after a vandal attack^img Ghost (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ken

FYI, too slow mate, managed to catch your lies again, keep peddling them mate haha!

Gentlemen, as you can see HERE and HERE, atheism is imploding. And it will continue to implode as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE. While I can kick back and enjoy the summer, you gentlemen have to get on your little, "create content", hamster, wiki wheels in order to futilely try to save atheism. Gentlemen, it is not going to work!

Ghost (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That was written by somebody who "tutors in university writing and came fourth in a spelling bee?" I think one. Clearly one of the other Kens has the keyboard tonight. --PsyGremlin^講話 09:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What is he trying to prove exactly? That Freethought Blogs, which certainly isn't the center of atheism on the web, is more popular that Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries? Despite one site is just a bunch a blogs and the other represents people actually trying to have a museum and theme park? Or that Reddit's traffic remains about the same over the last year and that somehow refutes or because of atheism, despite 99% of Reddit having nothing to do with the subject, and that there are as many Christian subreddits? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Such and such group's traffic is plunging. Except it's relatively stable, or if it's down, it's down a small amount that's less than the creationist outfit Ken is comparing it to. Or it's a trivial fluctuation while traffic trends upward. But it's never what Ken actually says it is. Ken - it doesn't help to actually post the graphs when you launch into that kind of fucking embarrassing hyperbole stop lying so much. 13:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

He's not trying to 'prove' anything - certainly not in any sense of the word 'prove' that a rational person would understand. He doesn't understand the concept of proof - he just goes through the eternal spin cycle of atheism, religion, money, chicks with long hair, pull some random figures together, therefore conservatism rocks. He doesn't care what the actual facts are, where they come from, or what they mean, only that they seem vaguely relevant to what he has already decided is the truth. The guy is a total tool. Worm (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What he wants to believe is the evidence. Everything else must concur by default. So even if it says the exact opposite, it still supports his belief. Otherwise known as blind faith. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Godspeed and I were talking about this last week. He doesn't think it's necessarily fair to interpret Ken's conduct as deceitful. I can't see it as anything but. Do I understand correctly that you're with Godspeed, Ajkgordon? I honestly don't understand how that works as an epistemological position. It's hard to accept it as self-deception a la akrasia when he's constantly reminded that he's wrong on the facts and that his rhetorical strategy is cowardly and dishonest. 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that discussion. I think you're over-thinking it. Ken has been doing this for years, decades even. It's hard wired, his thoughts ossified. I would wager he became convinced of this stuff years before he had any evidence for or against. Now he can only see evidence for. He doesn't have the imagination to think that anything else can be the truth. He never questions, only repeats. It's dogma, ideology. There is no room for any understanding. OK, I'm not totally sure about this because he does seem to be actually analytical about some things in his moments of lucidity. But his simplistic and dichotomous conservative vs liberal and creationist vs evolutionist stances are just thoughtless mantra, like an automaton. I'm not sure many of his writings would even pass a Turing Test. Actually that would be quite interesting! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Over beers here in the neighborhood. He used to be my neighbor. 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You talk about Ken in the real world? 'Kin weirdo! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. It made us both uncomfortable, but it came up in trying to understand how to contrast his behavior to Andy Schlafly's. Does Andy know nearly everything he says in public is premised on falsehoods? How does all this work? Magnets. Etc. 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a bit more to it than that. Like you said, he's been doing this for years, so he's become so invested in his various causes that he can't back down. I break it down in a few ways:

• His taunting and name calling and general childishness for a man pushing 60 is all justified, in his mind, because he's right. He HAS to be right, or otherwise he's been an asshole this entire time and all the editors he's blocked are better than him.
• Look at all the time he puts into Conservapedia and his blog. Who wants to hear that what they've been doing for the better part of a decade has just been one long sit on the toilet shitting into the internet?

He's so invested in his position it leads to a bias that spins anything positively, or barring that dismisses information for any number of trivial reasons (Liberal! Lacks Macheesmo!). This allows him think what he thinks with little cognitive dissonance. But this mental jujitsu comes with a price; since he dismisses anything so easily, he's similarly afraid of having the same tactic used against him. Thus his obsession on anonymity, memory holing, and an insistence on ideological purity.

TLDR: He's a dick and he knows he's a dick. Shakedangle (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a holy war for him - he's built an entire worldview on a house of cards and the only solution is to go forward, ever forward. I've got conspiracy theorist friends who endlessly double down in the same manner, regardless of the lunacy required. Semipenultimate 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe more to it, but I don't think so. Just look at the way he writes. I've never seen writing like that. It's all automatic. There's no thought, no reflection. It's not just the grammar and the clumsiness. It's the repetitive nature of it all, even within the same post, even the same sentence sometimes. It's like writing by numbers. The man is a Pavlov experiment gone horribly wrong. It's pure pre-determined reaction. And if he doesn't have a relevant off-the-shelf answer or quip, then he uses one that's an approximate fit. Or even no fit at all. We've all seen it countless times. It's very very intricate, of course, like many conspiracy theories. But it's still just salivating when the bell rings. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was addressing more his inability to acknowledge any information contrary to his position. His writing style is a whole other bag of piss. I think his repetitiveness comes from what has "worked" for him in the past, which amounts to throwing shit at your conversation partner until they've had enough. Like you say, just copy, paste, and ignore, rinse repeat. Shakedangle (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So what would that be in Orwellese - Duckwrite? Vomitype? Semipenultimate 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For the rest of us it is Doublethought duckwrite, for Ken it is Goodthink pornotype. Shakedangle (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

'Goodthink Pornotype' sounds like an early-70s Bond girl name. Gah, I just pictured Ken in drag! Brain bleach! Semipenultimate 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, since my name's been brought up here, I should probably say I don't attribute Ken's blatherings to deceit because I don't think he's capable of deception in the way the rest of us are, not in any real sense. He's some combination of mentally ill and mentally retarded. If he went to school today (at least if he went to a public school, rather than being home schooled) he would take up much of the support staff's time, and they would have him in counseling and remedial classes and probably on medication. If Ken is really past middle age, he went to school before all of that, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that he was in special ed. He may be fooling himself, but that's about it. I don't feel comfortable talking about him for that reason: It's like making fun of the kid who rides the short bus to school. Andy is another story: Much/most/(all?) of what he says seems to be driven by resentment of "liberal elites"--which he views as a large and all-powerful group. Mommy Dearest first came to prominence when she wrote A Choice, Not an Echo during the Goldwater presidential campaign in 1964. Andy is his mother's son. If you're interested in why Andy's so fucked up, you could Rick Perlstein's book on the begining of the post-war American conservative movement: Before the Storm. Godspeed (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reams of crap that make a lot of sense to the author but nobody else, produced in fitful, sleepless bursts certainly reminds me of my bipolar friends. There are possible links with dyslexia and other learning disorders as well. Of course you can't diagnose by remote control but I don't see evidence for retardation. I do see evidence of a mental disorder. Whoover (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Godspeed here. Both Ken and PJR are very religious people and I'm fairly sure do not deliberately tell a lie - or rather what they think is a lie - there is probably some inner rationalization that convinces them that they are not being dishonest. To be an in-your-face creationist requires a special sort of stupid and cognitive dissonance, and what we might see as dishonesty is something else in their warped worldview. I'm sure many people are creationists because they are both indoctrinated and ill-educated but there must be something else going on when apparently well-educated people reject all the contrary scientific evidence in a many different fields and weld their life to the literal interpretation of one ancient book. As for Ken (who is nearer 50 than 60), then it's fairly obvious to all that he is not normal, even by creationist standards. I reckon he's of average intelligence (not smart, but there again not retarded) but driven by his faith. The evidence certainly points towards some sort of bipolar disorder and, given his editing habits and history, some sort of OCD. It also wouldn't surprise me if he suffered from some mild epilepsy. And in response to Ajkgordon's analogy for Ken's writing, I think it is more akin to a Skinner box experiment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Re: your delusions and obsessions

First, in my high school chemistry class, I obtained the highest score on the state exam. The last science course I took at an institution of higher learning, if memory serves and I believe it does, I earned an A (or a B at the very least). So this tripe that I don't understand basic scientific principles and don't have a grasp on basic scientific knowledge is pure fantasy on your part.

Second, as far as your obsession about my intelligence level, based on correlations with various metrics (such as my college entrance exam score) my IQ falls somewhere in the top 1-2% of the general public. I really don't care what it is though. Your obsessions about this matter perked my curiosity and caused me too examine various correlations with IQ via some quick online searches though. Gentlemen, your attempts to make me dumber in your minds, doesn't make you smarter! Furthermore, your personal attacks fail to make the content of my articles any less true.

Third, your obsession on the status of my mental health is rather ironic, don't you think? I certainly think so and I am not alone in this matter. When I tell people the extent of your obsession about me and this wiki they often laugh and say how odd they think you all are. Gentlemen, your attempts to make me mentally ill in your minds, does not make you more well adjusted! On top of this, I have indicated that I may have let other people use this account. I will let you be the judge if I found some of your past psychological profiling of some of the editing of this wiki account rather humorous.

I don't much care if you're mentally ill or not, Ken (although the evidence is certainly pointing that way.) I just think you're a cunt.--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} 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And even more bullshit from Kendoll Ghost (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And the beat goes on, and on….http://userconservative.blogspot.com/2013/06/an-announcement.html^img DogP (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope he's not mentally ill because that makes it all right to laugh at the hopelessly awful stuff he spews forth. And whatever else he is, he's a sexist, homophobic religious bigot who can't help resorting to unfunny stereotypes whenever he writes about other countries or minority groups. I guess my position hasn't changed. mentally ill or not, he's still a total dickhead. Spud (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the use of having a high IQ (as he claims) if at 51 you are a still an unmarried loser without a career, spending most of your nights posting bigoted drivel and puerile clip-art while hiding behind the skirts of Andy Schlafly's failed blog? It just shows that IQ isn't everything.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait. What? He's estimating his IQ on ACT or SAT scores from nearly 35 years ago? No wonder he's a creationist. If that's the best of "various metrics" he has to offer, I'm fairly sure his IQ isn't anywhere near what he says. 12:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear gawd, Conservapedia and his own insignificant blog are the only places that give his life any purpose or meaning, and we, we are his only audience, watching only out of macabre interest and to mock. Yet, if you think about it we are the closest thing he has to any real social interaction, the closest thing he has to friends. Think about that for a moment. Sure you can say he has ShockOfGod and VivaYashua, but while they may share his goals, they certainly don't give him any real measure of their time and certainly no influence, and they certainly don't hang with him or respect him. Yeah, neither do we, but we do give him the most attention out of anyone he knows. In a way Ken needs Rationalwiki, that is why he so desperately begs for our attention on the front page of CP with his poorly thought out inflammatory statements; we are the only people he really "talks" to and he doesn't want to lose us.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't post this if it hadn't been deleted, but you got a red telephone. "Did He bring someone into my life with Spanish ancestry with long and luxurious hair?" Uh huh... Cow...Hammer^time! 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer to which is: "No, Ken, he didn't." You're making it up, just like you do with everything else in your pathetic little life. Let us know when that 100 page QE! booklet is released. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is time to take a break from poking this guy with a stick

Nobody really comes of well in this particular interaction. Step away from your keyboards, folks. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been such a hypocrite about this. I completely agree with ToP and lost sight of how pointless and cruel it is to goad an unwell man into shaming himself for our pleasure. I feel tremendously sorry for Ken in particular. Andy's beyond help and, I think, far more intelligent than Ken to the point that he's making affirmative choices where Ken is blinded by his desperate need to believe in what he subconsciously knows is an unsupportable dogma. You can't fit the square peg of reality into that round hole. There's no sport or positive energy in this. Dissing the retarded kid for acting like a moron has been weighing on my conscience and actually making me feel badly throughout the day without knowing why. Why am I drawn to look at this page and participate in discussing the insanity of a highly reactive and mentally disturbed nobody. I'm sure I'll slide back into being a raging hypocrite, but at least I had another moment of clarity. Thanks for helping me work this out over the last week, ToP. 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't ant to come off as though I'm pointing fingers; I haven't been in on this particular thread, but go through the archives -- I'm as guilty as anyone. Hey, it's nice and warm outside. Go for a swim, go sit on the deck and drink beer, take your laptop to the park and work on that short story you've been writing. This thread has passed its best-before date. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is right. But we've been talking about ignoring him for years. The best I think we can do is agree that there is something not quite right about him and leave it at that with no more pop analysis. His writing should simply be patiently and repeatedly refuted for the benefit of anyone who might, on the off chance, be taken in by it. Still, this site isn't alone in being quick to mock him. He's a mockery magnet because of how he writes and what he writes. But at the end of the day it's ad hominem and should be resisted. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, if he had access to universal health care, that he campaigns against, he would probably received treatment for his condition--Patmac (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And it would make no difference. I used to debate universal healthcare with a Christian woman on another forum. She was a cancer survivor, and needed ongoing, and very expensive chemotherapy drug treatment to keep her cancer at bay. She had maxed out on her insurance benefits, maxed out on what Medicaid could provide, and was only still alive because she finally qualified for Medicare under some kind of disability provision. Yet, despite owing her continued existence to socialized medicine, she was rabidly opposed to Obamacare and all other forms of universal healthcare reform.Tacitus (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)