Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive318

This is an archive page, last updated 14 July 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>, <317>, <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)

Bachmann's Terms

Andy continues to insist that Michelle Bachmann is a "five-term congressman" when she is currently serving her fourth (and final) term. This is not the first time he's made this assertion. This seems odd, even for Andy. Is there any justification that I'm missing? Whoover (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In Andy's world, it's perfectly natural to stomp your foot and drive an assertion home...and then flip it backwards the instant it becomes inconvenient, and then deny ever having held the position. It's just what you do, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's expecting her to reverse course and declare she's running again to save America from those godless liberals. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 12:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And then it would be Conservapedia proven right all over again. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tebow's team?

Surely, Andy has to say something about the fact that Tebow's new team just fired a player accused of murder. This can't be mere happenstance. There just must be a story here! Phiwum (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, because it's Andy. He can either say that liberal Boston is punishing the Pats for signing Tebow, by making spurious charges against a fine, upstanding (and surely Christian) player. Or he can say that the Patriots show their fundamental conservative values by dropping Hernandez like a hot potato as soon as he was arrested. Or something!

Obviously, I'm not as imaginative as Andy is, but surely he's got something to say. Phiwum (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? God made Hernandez murder someone so he'd get kicked off the team and the Pats would play Tebow. Makes perfect sense. DickTurpis (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And Andy goes with NFL values and NFL shunning Christianity^img. Surprisingly, no Tebow though. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, does he mean Tim Tebow supporter Aaron Hernandez? Or Christ tattooed on his back Aaron Hernandez? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I so wish someone had added Hernandez to Greatest Conservative Sports Stars and got Andy to endorse it before this. Then we'd hear all about how the liberal NFL is framing a good Christian, which would have been hilarious. DickTurpis (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, the NFL does anything but shun Christianity. How many prayer circles and prayer jesters have we seen during and after a game? Andy is simply butthurt because the NFL doesn't treat Tebow with "the proper respect" as in having him be their official spokesperson for the league, or in teams fighting tooth and nail to have Tebow be their starting quarterback. It is all about his totally not gay man-crush.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that our least favourite parodist

"Blocked" himself from CP yesterday for 24 hours in protest at the descision of the supreme court? Oldusgitus (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No. dont really care either. --^Mikal_lakiM 05:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

He's back and his latest Greatest Conservative Song is very entertaining.

In addition to being the psycho tranvestite's theme in Silence of the Lambs, it's been used in these Great Conservative Media examples: Married to the Mob, Clerks II, Grand Theft Auto IV, Skate 3, Family Guy and Nip/Tuck. I find the use of the Great Conservative Song in those video games especially satisfying. Whoover (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

NATIONAL CHAOS

America has taken the plunge into madness by overturning DOMA. Nutty and I have been stockpiling pretzels and bud light lime-a-ritas, get in the bomb shelter while there is still some semblance of domestic order. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Madness" as in "we just won the World Series!" madness? --Seth Peck (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, if you're drinking Bud Light things must be pretty bad over there. Can we sent you a red cross aid parcel or something? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We'd be this trashy and thirsty anyway. 21:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you expect anything less?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And I always thought that DOMA was passed because of homophobia. What a surprise to learn that it was actually about keeping marriage laws less confusing!--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

America just may as well stop competing in international sporting events now. X Stickman (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Andy though, a whopping two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage^img! Of course we just have to take Il Duce's word for it as his claim is completely without citation (I wonder whyyyyy).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just love the fact that this has driven Assfling even more insane. Suck it, fuckstick. The country has "technically speaking, made progress." Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tushrocket's ranting about Canada is funny. The points given by the Bishop seem to be symptoms of a Conservative majority government, not homosexuality, except for "muzzling and debilitating the Church." Instead, replace "Church" with "science." Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 07:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy is correct on his terms - he's not talking about people he's talking about states - 70% of people live in states where same sex couples can not get married.--Iduan (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In very narrow, lawyerly terms, perhaps, but while it is correct to say that over two-thirds of the states have banned gay marriage in various ways at some point in the past, that is very different from claiming that "more than two-thirds of the United States continues to reject same-sex marriage." Tacitus (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I bet it would look even more impressive if he talked about the area of the US that ban same-sex marriage. Must be a small portion of the US that allows same-sex marriage, geographically speaking; bunch of teeny Yankee states and such (plus CA, of course). Phiwum (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Detroit is burning and in utter chaos!! This must be because DOMA was overturned!!! Wait, nevermind... it's just Friday night. My bad. Pdoke2 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Things Popeye doesn't understand, volume #45323

Acting. OK, I'll try to use little words for you, Karajou. Actors make believe they are characters written by other people for our entertainment. By appearing on screen, they aren't endorsing what their characters are doing. This may include robbing banks, going back through time to kill people, being an autistic savant or hanging out in front of the quick stop selling people drugs. It's not real, Karajou, it's not real. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

True, by this logic Alec Guinness, Bruno Ganz and many other actors should be big supporters of genocide, aggressive war and other nasty stuff as they have all played an "infamous liberal"--Patmac (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps next anger bear can list all those who don't practice what they preach on marriage, drugs, homosexuality, sex outside marriage and honesty. You know the ones anger bear, people like (rino) Rush Limbaugh or possibly (rino) Sandford. Or those who say that politicians should be held to account for campaign promises, rather like (rino?) Palin is now doing conveniently forgetting her own lies on the campaign trail before she bailed out half way through her term. Thing is they aren't actually actors playing a role. They are playing real life and YOU support them anger bear don't you. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well to be fair, Oldus, it isn't only conservatives/followers of Republicanism that can be considered hypocrites. Similarily, you can't imply that because some conservatives are hypocrites, that all conservatives are therefore hypocrites. Brenden (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To be even fairer, Brenden, it's the management at CP who insist that characteristics like hypocrisy, denial, deceit, bigotry, arrogance, bias, stupidity and uncharitableness are liberal traits. Of course no political stripe is immune from hypocrisy but I think a little bias here is justified and its limits well understood. Whoover (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning all conservatives and not even all xians Brenden. Only those who often bleat most loudly whilst secretly breaking every commandment. I recall reading one interview from Planned Parenthood (can't remember where it was but it was about 18 months ago) where one of the workers was talking about how one Saturday there was a protest and one xian woman was most vocal in her condemnation of all the employees and women seeking to use the services. On the Monday that same woman came in the back door with her daughter, I suspect you can guess why the woman had brought her daughter to the 'baby killing factory' can't you. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Limbaugh is a RINO and and a sexual degenerate to the boot. He's having so much sex that he had to replace several wives and smuggle Viagra into the country. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Whoover, I (and pretty much every editor there, other than Markman) don't support the extreme demonizing of liberals/non-conservatives, especially not the plethora of "liberal/evolutionist traits" articles. 92.3.161.209 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but as long as Andy and his gang of hand-picked goons are in charge of Conservapedia, it's what the site is going to be known for. Conservapedia is a censorship-happy extreme-right-wing group blog with extremely tenuous connections to reality. Conservapedia exists to insult and demonize everyone Andy and co don't like. Just try and change some of those liberal/evolutionist-trait articles to be less garbage, see how long you last. (And watch Markman be the one to block you because he's a bootlicking parodist.) Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 23:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The dog that didn't bark in the night

Now here's a funny thing. Everytime the thermometer in New Jersey dips a little bit low in winter, Andy is very quick off the mark to say that current weather conditions prove there's no global warming. But now, the western states of the US are hot! damned hot! but Andy hasn't posted any corresponding announcement to say that there is global warming after all. Is this because: (a) Andy has finally realised the difference between weather and climate, (b) he has finally realised you can't use short-term exceptions to define long-term conditions, (c) he cherry-picks evidence that suits his case, (d) he's a git? More than one answer may be correct. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Or (e) he's doing it deliberately. Cherry-picking might include self-deception or delusion. He's just a flim flam artist. 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Last year was the worst for andy: Above Average winter across the board in the US, combined with with a persistent drought/heatwave for the majority of summer. However, it snowed somewhere else in the world so global warming is obviously wrong! --^Mikal_lakiM 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I got one of my less important socks banned by pointing out that, while he was busy rubbishing global warming because the ice was thick enough to skate on in New Jersey for the first time in 5 years or so, Melbourne was having its hottest summer ever recorded. Don't shoot the messenger? Pah! Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It finally happened: blocked from CNAV

I figured it would happen eventually, given my tactic of calling out one specific (incorrect) factual statement made in an article and trying my hardest to keep Terry on that subject. Here's my latest attempt, and the offending comment that wasn't posted:

"I wouldn’t put it past him to start thinking he could do all those things, now that you’ve put the idea into his head. The way he acts about things being beneath his dignity, supports just this kind of absurd megalomania."

Fine. Maybe he'll try to shoot lasers out of his eyes now that he personally has read my comment. At least that would make him more interesting, I suppose. I'll keep an eye out for him squinting at various things at press conferences.

"You haven’t shown that you would even accept any answer I gave as valid. So, no."

What answer? I'll sum up what you've given me so far:

1. You cited a separate (but related) decision and misunderstood the constitutional context by which it was decided. You ignored me when I pointed that out.
2. You mentioned something called "natural law". You ignored me when I asked what that is or where these laws are codified.
3. You departed on a bizarre tangent about Obama being some tyrannical dictator, when this decision really doesn't have anything to do with him even if that were true.

"You’re here on my sufferance, anyway."

Are you threatening to block me? If you do, it'll be a great testament to how you can't back up the unsubstantiated and untrue statements in articles published on your website.

Really, if he had said he didn't LIKE the decision, that would at least be honest. Saying it's unconstitutional and unlawful is completely dishonest, because someone reading it could assume the writer knew what they were talking about factually, rather than tossing out words that they think apply just because they're unhappy.

Oh well. It was kinda fun while it lasted. Maybe I'll give it another shot someday under another name. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is a common thread on CNAV. None of my comments challenging him to substantiate any of his claims that this or that is unconstitutional has been published after I showed him up when he was complaining about Obama doing some kind of totally unprecedented depraved power-grab. That many presidents, including republicans, have done to an even greater extent in the last 70 years. He's a liar. Didn't you know that? 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What always gets me about Terry on the subject of SSM is he's so deranged he can't even comprehend that homosexuals actually have emotions. They're not a couple, they're not in a romantic relationship, they're Same Sex Roommates Sharing (a) Bed. It's amazing for someone who tries so hard to maintain plausible deniability (except for the plausible part) by not sticking his neck out on most other subjects would be so daringly dehumanizing. But I guess that's one of his big blind spots.

I guess there's also the possibility that it's deliberate, and primarily a derailing tactic, to pull the conversation away from facts and into emotions, since he can't handle the former. Either way it's despicable. --Kels (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how much of CNAV's traffic comes from RW?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, I wonder how quickly CNAV's traffic would drop if we put it and CP on a one-week link/topic ban on RW and just agreed to ignore Rumpbooster and the Usual Gang of (Conservative) Idiots. The amount of goat that would be needed for that to actually go off on RW is a separate matter, but it'd be fun to watch KenKens with his Alexa charts after CP got put on a timeout. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Aside from all that, first you'd have to figure out how to measure any drop in traffic (if any, but I'm sure there would be some). Unless you've got access to his stats, there aren't a lot of good ways to do that, so it's a bit pointless from the outset. --Kels (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing a boycott isn't worth it, my opinion. Terry basically posts to preach to himself anyway, it won't affect anything.

That whole comment section is magnifique, CowHammer. I hope you cleaned your hammer, because that sort of sodomizing you gave must make cows cringe. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Buttapult is completely insane

"I wouldn’t put it past him to start thinking he could do all those things, now that you’ve put the idea into his head. The way he acts about things being beneath his dignity, supports just this kind of absurd megalomania." -- Terry A. Hurlbut, suggesting that Obama reads comments on CNAV, and will use CowHammer's comments as a way of informing social policies. Also, did anyone notice the "nationality" of "Arab"? I wonder when the US is going to stop pressuring the UN to deny Arabia's member status. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha yeah I thought that was hilarious. I often wonder if he actually believes any of the crap he posts or if he just writes it just to score political points. Debating him is fun just because he usually posts dissenting opinions (probably because that's all he gets) and watching him twist himself into knots to avoid admitting defeat is hysterical. Cow...Hammer^time! 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"I wonder how quickly CNAV's traffic would drop if we put it and CP on a one-week link/topic ban on RW." Are you too young to remember the Boycotts? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 09:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And thus Evidence No. 39129319238 of Trebushitter's (.... ok that was a crap attempt to rip off buttapult, im sorry) narcissistic megalomania is shown to the world. It is not enough for him to engage in masturbatory fantasies of leading a violent far right revolution against that uppidy negroid usurper (who is in reality the Anti-christ, Cthulhu, and smallpox in disguise) thus allowing tosser to play act as a "great american hero" in the making, but he is convinced Obama is just as obsessed with tosser as tosser is with obama. Of course since Terry continues to believe he is the god ordained spiritual liege of all conservatism and future lord of the post rapture wasteland, it is only natural such a mighty titan be given the ultimate evil as his arch-enemy. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Trebushitter" is awesome and don't you dare apologize for it, Holden. It's starting to stray away from the core Launchbooty word cluster, but as a general word, that's awesome. Maybe a variant mode of the Gish Gallop style of communication? User:Conservative's trebushitting his 15 Questions again. My brain walked right past "trebuchet" on the way to buttapult, but I couldn't think of anything snappy to go with it. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :) and I completely agree that it might be better used as a general reference to fundies spewing their idiocy rather than another direct hurlbut jibe Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 09:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Religious icons in your pocket

I think Andy thinks science works like Catholic church. You see the pretty icons and you believe. I'm sure nobody will believe in the evil scientism religion once Darwin isn't on the tenner. This is the kind of idiocy I'd expect from Ken. I hope whatever the fuck is wrong with him isn't catching. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, that WASN'T ken? --^Mikal_lakiM 00:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Ken's is the post about how the UK recovery is impededed not by the severe austerity measures and lack of economic stimulus (as most economists would have it), but because Darwin on the tenner discourages investors. Whoover (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Jane Austen on the £10 note be a set back for misogynists like Andy? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane Austen was a Creationist. What's the alternative? Darwin was eight when she died. Whoover (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant, shes famous and was a creationist! --^Mikal_lakiM 04:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Even having been told it was Andy, I still thought it was Ken for a minute... Creepy. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

15 questions that Conservative Christians cannot satisfactorily answer

Maybe it's just that it's way past my bedtime but I had a mischievous thought of compiling a list of 15 Questions that Conservative Christians Cannot Satisfactorily Answer. I have no idea what use one could make of it but there could be some fun to be had with steaming hypocrites on the lunatic fringe (like certain denizens of CP). E.g. why are there two different and contradictory creation stories in Genesis? Why do you believe homosexuality is evil but still eat shellfish (Leviticus)? Why do Conservative Christians blasphemously (in their terms) deny the possibility of salvation for homosexuals? Etc??? Sadly, I suspect the lunatic fringe will have claptrap answers to trot out in response to all such questions. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a stupid idea. If it's anything like the 15 questions for evolutionists, then you'd constantly have to pretend that nobody can answer the questions when actually they have. Christians have answers to the questions you'd pose to them about the Bible, they're just incredibly stupid answers, which I suppose is exactly what they'd say about the answers to the evolution questions. There really isn't anything to gain by writing them down in challenge form. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of why you shouldn't mud-wrestle a pig. It's their home turf and they'll enjoy the experience more than you will. Christians have had centuries to work out the official cover stories for a lot of the discrepancies in the Bible, as Jeeves said. And, more likely than not, you should expect similar evasions and weasel words and such to bridge the gap between the 2,000-year-old nomadic goat herder ethos and Internet-and-space-stations present day life. They just crowbar Jesus in. (Side note: "Crowbar Jesus" is my indie band name.) Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are good answers to some of those questions. You may not like them or think they're consistent, but the tradition of biblical harmonization goes back to the second century. There's no point in misrepresenting objective reality. It is what it is. That's why the 15 Questions for Evolutionists are so funny. But you lose if you think you can stump fundies on theological issues. Just look at how pointless debating creationists is. Moving targets and all that. 01:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to stump fundamentalists on theological issues since they typically just take what their pastor or favorite media ministry tells them for granted, but then, you could say the same thing about most people who accept evolution because that is what they were taught in school. That's what charlatans like Ray Comfort depend upon -- that, and the fact that anyone who sees through his ploy ends up on the cutting floor floor.

But, yeah, Biblical inconsistencies have been done to death, and those who defend inerrancy can construct internally consistent narratives with a slickness that would make even the most ardent Star Trek fanatic green with envy.

But if I'm going to ask questions, I prefer a different approach -- one that tries to get fundamentalists to think beyond the shallow reasoning they have learned outside of Biblical literalism, like why are they so keen to end abortion in America if all the unborn who die go directly to Heaven, and thus removing any risk of them going to Hell after growing up to be adults in a Godless society?

Even then, it's not likely to sway many, but it can make for some interesting discussions if they are willing to continue to engage with you, and you never know, it might make them a little less of a fundamentalist in the long run. Tacitus (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncertain why you think that using evidence and reason to persuade religious fundamentalists and YEC, people for whom evidence is considered something that 'gets in the way' and reason is something that is second to faith, is a good idea. People like Ken and Andy are a lost cause. Just continue as we're doing; show how ludicrous what they believe is, keep putting forward sane, rational alternatives, and eventually they'll die out and be replaced with people less crazy. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A more interesting exercise might be to create the questions along with the different answers which each religion would have. this would be unlike the evolution questions where there is only one general answer in each case. With theological questions there would be multiple answers depending on the religion or sect.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is that "Because God" is a satisfactory answer in the minds of a conservative Christians. --Seth Peck (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned our Essay:Question Creationism! page. Генгис^marauding 14:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My word! And a fine essay it is too! Though it comes at it from a scientific standpoint rather than from a theological one which the initial poster proposed. Good though.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it was a bit of an after-midnight idea. The salient point is that there are loads of questions that Conservative Christians cannot satisfactorily answer but they wave their hands, say "Goddidit" and tell unbelievers they'll go to hell. I like Weirdstuff's answer; I once had the idea of writing a textbook about creation - with all the various different creation myths (c.200 native ethnic groups = c.200 creation myths in North America alone!) and in appropriate places (not together, because they're completely different) sticking 'Southwest Asian creation myth 1' (= Genesis 1) and 'Southwest Asian creation myth 2' (= Genesis 2). And I didn't know about the Essay:Question Creationism! page - brilliant stuff. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia. Where Christ's message of love is so much liberal claptrap.

CP admits defeat, but reminds us that what's important is that they're still free to hate. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 00:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel so soiled for just looking at that post. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

From a narrow factual point of view they're correct, but... holy shit, can't even Schlafly see that's way over the top? Hateful talk like that is why I don't let on around here that I'm a believer. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing is blocked on CP at the moment but what I would have got my sock to ask was, "Does the person who posted the item about homosexuals burning in hell disagree with Pope Francis, who regards homosexual sex as a sin but says that homosexual people should be treated with respect and love? Do you also disagree with the Christian doctrine that God's grace is boundless and that no-one is incapable of being saved except those who deny His grace? Do you understand that you're getting pretty close to that position yourself?" Cardinal Fang (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's only night mode, which does seem to be going on and off at strange intervals now though. And why bother, Ken will just bullshit on about 15 questions that have been answered thousands of times, issue random debate challenges asking you to debate people who don't talk to him and have no interest in taking up his offers of debate on their behalf, tell you that you are a faxu liberal christian and insist that he is correct. You may as well piss into the wind, at least you'll get a warm feeling to go along with your frustration. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was Ken who wrote that ghastly post. The fact that the so-called moderator of that so-called Christian website hasn't taken it down says quite a lot about their idea of Christianity - i.e. that you can pick and choose the bits that suit your loathesome attitudes. Cardinal Fang (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Telephone for Ken: come and debate Salvation by Grace with me right here. Cardinal Fang (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You mention Pope Francis, but Ken doesn't see Catholics as fellow Christians based on his many comments through the years, so in his mind such words from the Pope will only likely further "prove" that Catholics are reprobates.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Ken's particular kink is in religious terms but 'salvation by grace alone' is fundamental to all flavours of Protestants, especially Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think its 'salvation by Machismo alone" for Ken. --Revolverman (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of knowing what's in Jesus's heart, it would be nice if AugustO would stop by and let us know how someone who takes his Christianity fairly seriously views having it mocked by an Israeli who's been a Christian for a month or so. Markman never has told us much about his new denomination. Whoover (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's called Westboro Baptist Church. I think the RW article about it is pretty decent and more or less sums up what we believe in :-) But seriously though, I prefer not to divulge too much private information regarding myself as I don't want Yad L'Achim going all over my tuches. I have actually been a Christian for half a year by now, I was simply hesitant to announce it on CP due to fear of harassment from the Pharisaic persecutors I just mentioned. Eventually I came to the the conclusion that they can't connect my CP account with my real identity.

I know that the exemplary Christian shouldn't be afraid of confronting the enemies of Christ but rather stand up for the cross like the martyr Stephen, it's still one of my many flaws that I need to work on. You wouldn't be incorrect in saying that I'm somewhat lacking in machismo. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Markman ought to know there are a few things in common between Judaism and whatever his particular profession of "Christian" faith is. LOL. Like the commandment not to bear false witness by calumniating and deceitfully detracting from your neighbor's reputation without basis. I gather he thinks it is good parody to one-up "Conservative". It is too easy for those who fill their hearts with hatred to deceive themselves into believing that they walk with Christ to ignore His commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Are you living your life as a Christian when you deceitfully slander your neighbors, Markman? Perhaps you will learn something about your new faith if you are actually serious. I don't believe anything you do is in good faith, but then I can only judge your actions and cannot see into your heart. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nate, have you not read the words "Stop judging others, if you do not want to be judged" (Matthew 7:1) or John 7:53-8:11 nevermind. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Markman, that is really funny, given your eagerness to judge AugustO's faith. PS: let me know when you have your special email address set up. 21:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Markman you have just proven yourself to be a liar, whilst the Westboro Baptist Church, being slightly less extreme than K Demeyer would suit you down to the ground they do not admit people without a long and thorough vetting process. Just keep pulling your pud from the arousal you get from being a lying turd--Patmac (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you simple or just trolling? It is blatantly clear that the whole thing about being a WBC member was a joke. As for your smear regarding my homie Ken, do not even compare him to the WBC, who clamor for the noble blood of the American militaryman. Any WBC folk who would come to Conservapedia would receive the banhammer so fast he won't know what hit him. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "homie" Ken is the second biggest prick ever to grace CP, after your good self, and don't tell me he is not an extreme nut job. I don't care if he is ill , he clearly is well enough to know right from wrong. He may not protest at the funerals of American soldiers, but all the rest, basically all that do not tow the line will burn in hell applies to him. I have a nice little record of your homies postings that he thinks he deleted but was too slow. If Demeyer and yourself are going to heaven I am glad I am off to hell. Roasting for eternity is preferable to sharing heaven with you two. In fact sharing the same planet is a grievous experience for me. You are as I have said before, a class A Wanker, in probably more than one sense of the word

--Patmac (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a nice little sample of your homies posts.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:16-06-2013_01-52-18.png
And he is such an attention seeking excuse for a man that he cannot bare not to be on top of the "news" section. If another sysop posts a story he quickly comes up with a "new" story so his stupid fucking hate filled blog of shit can be the headlines again. And by the way Demeyer, the story about fundies in 200 years time was from me, I forgot to sign in. And you somehow twisted the point to support your position. You know what, I was wrong, Marksman is relegated to silver medal position, you are the biggest Wanker on CP--Patmac (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionists made up the idea that the Earth is flat.

Evolutionists made up the idea that the Earth is flat. Flat Earth Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Flat Earth Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair. What they mean is that evolutionists created the pseudohistorical idea that people used to think the Earth was flat, in order to take the piss out of Christians. And I know that's not true either. The idea that Christopher Columbus lived in a time when everybody thought the Earth was flat was largely invented by Washington Irving. But why are you bringing that up now? That CP page was last edited on 22 February 2010! And you could have used the preview button before leaving the above mess on this page. Spud (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proxima, go home, you're drunk. In other news, of course Conservapedia would practice deceit about a crazy myth/belief that can make someone look bad. The ancient Greeks knew it was round. And any sailor that had working brainmeats and paid attention to how receding land gently falls away below the horizon would've had everything they needed to deduce that the world is round. (Yes, the Earth is not in fact round, it's an oblate spheroid.) Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 14:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

While the educated have known the Earth is round for millennia, I'd be willing to bet your standard uneducated peasant-type spent their whole lives thinking it was flat. DickTurpis (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also sure many uneducated mediaeval had no idea about the real shape of the earth. Further some educated people may not have known if the relevant ancient texts weren't available where they studied. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, my brain cells are marching out of my ears and jumping off with little cries of despair. Sophie^Wilder 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can Imagine fundies 200 years from now, when evolution is as undisputable as the earth is around, saying the whole YEC idea was a hoax by atheists to attack religion--94.9.177.164 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's indisputable now. But it makes no difference to those who don't want to listen.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fundies denying that the bible very clearly teaches a flat earth is truly mysterious. What's to blame on "evolutionists" is the creationists' need to save face and appear consistent where they clearly can't read their bible literally or lie about the science. Their childish finger pointing is a transparent effort to create a bogus dispute to distract from the bald truth that creationists dishonestly cherry pick what they'll read literally. I think they are actually forced to take even more inconsistent positions than " liberal christians" but that's another discussion. I think those creationists who are capable of thinking for themselves find it deeply embarrassing that the bible was being written and redacted at a time when, outside the late bronze age intellectual backwater of Palestine, people who were actually civilized already knew the world is round. 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

CP 40,000

Seeing that it has 39,979 articles right now, anyone wanna propose an article drive (and the headline boast afterwards) over there to make it 40,000? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only gay bowel syndrome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Only when Slaanesh and Nurgle play nice. Though I suppose Conservative Undivided might make a decent attempt if the collective gets focused. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you go over to CP and use their website to suggest edits and new articles? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All you need to do is kick sand in Ed Poor's face over at Wikipedia and he'll be back making dozens of worthless stubs like a shot. Генгис^marauding 17:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought account creation have been disabled on a permanent basis, as such I was suggesting people to do it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More nonsense on Ken's blog

“RationalWiki editor admits that the evolutionary paradigm is disputuble. Other RationalWiki editors don’t challenge his assertion.”

The quote he uses?

“”I can Imagine fundies 200 years from now, when evolution is as undisputable as the earth is around, saying the whole YEC idea was a hoax by atheists to attack religion.

Yeah. Disputable. (The quote in question was from this very talk page): ShadowFan-X (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And the comment was made by a BoN to boot. Seriously though; I am just gonna throw it out there - like some of the other editors here I am tired of razzing up a guy who we all know is mentally ill. Maybe it's time for a CP boycott? Tielec01 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There won't be a CP boycott, too much lutz. If you want to ignore Ken, simply refuse to comment on anything he does, or respond to comments others make about him. If anything, the above straw grasping by Ken shows how desperate he is for our attention and how weak his position is.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for putting it this way, but fuck you for giving me a link to click. I can't resist looking at Ken's insanity yet it never makes me happy. That guy is such a smarmy turd and I've spent too much time being angry at liars lately. Thanks for nothing. I need to retire my CP sockpuppets. These CP admin's depraved ideas and dishonesty are depressing. 05:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to add Ken's blog and Conservapedia to my .hosts again. I greatly appreciate the public and private calls to move on. 05:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And all because Proxima Centauri tried to make out that a CP article, which hadn't been edited in over three years, said something other than what it actually said. Can she be blocked for a few weeks? Spud (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, amongst his many other ailments (how're the teeth Ken? Still keeping you up?), he's suffering from Rationalwiki Obsessive Compulsive Syndrome. Mostly because we're his only audience. Please people, let's just ignore him... if only for this month. If nothing else, it'll give us a private chuckle as he ramps up the crazy to try and regain our attention. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 08:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proxima might've blown an old CP article out of proportion, but there's no need to talk about blocking. I mean, fuck, last year we dragged Rob to the coop several times for worse and he survived multiple votes to promote/block. And Markman's still here despite riling us (and CP editors) up more. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 10:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the bigwigs at CP just don't comment here themselves, they read this section regularly, at least Ken and Kara does.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Because then we could talk back to them. They only get to feel like they have MA-CHEEESE-MO when they can shadowbox illusory atheists. When they get their arse handed to them in actual discussions, they don't feel so big. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy has some research to do

His "perfect doubling" of new conservative words now looks like 33, 64, 133, 263. If he's going to construct another statistic he'll need to take it to 34, 68, 136, 272 - 17 new words - but that sounds hard so I guess he'll just have a change of heart on some existing ones and trim it instead. Ruddager (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy'll find some way to get his "perfect doubling" back on track, doubtless just by reverting this hapless peon. After all, this is a real pattern we have here, not just something Andy pulls out of his arse. Nothing can jeopardise The Pattern. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I imagine someone pointing out that a single person can't be the arbiter of what words are conservative and what are not, or that a word's political affiliation is a) a ridiculous concept and b) even if it wasn't it would depend on the context it is used in, could ruin it. But then Andy wouldn't listen because in the Andyverse he can just wipe people out of existence like they never existed. That's what Stalin did. Hence Andy is a filthy commie and can't arbitrate on conservative words. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Pick me! Pick me!

I see Kendoll is looking for a few good men, including a leader for the UK. Pick me, Ken! I volunteer! I mean, technically I'm not a creationist and I'll be laughing at you the whole time, but I actually exist and that puts me head and shoulders above all the other candidates for the post. Just a thought. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Iduan v Andy - on Tennis

Roflcoptor--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this greatly clarifies things. Consistent with Andy's loathing of experts and his own lack of competence in many regards, the "best of the public" is simply a cohort of people who aren't very good at what they do. Otherwise they'd be overrated. This is easy stuff, Daniel. 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think Andy doesn't know what the phrase he coined pulled out of his arse means anymore. By no means are any of the tennis players at and Grand Slam event the "best of the public" - they are highly trained sportsman, who've been swinging a racquet since they could walk. That said, Nutty totally nailed it. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Djokovic conservative? Is Andy Murray, who seems to have clear run to the final (he says touching a tree's-worth of wood) a goddammed lib'rul? There are some things here that don't make a lot of sense....... Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Djokovic is indeed God's Own Tennis player, because he makes the sign of the cross when he wins. Murray never wins, because liberals hate underdogs and never support them. Andy's sports knowledge in a nutshell. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 21:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I love it when Andy uses "best of the public", a meaningless term in itself, in regards to professional sports. Everyone he hold up as BotP is a paid professional, the elite of that sport. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When I see Andy posting utter stupidity like this, there's a fleeting moment when I think CP is nothing more than his personal decade-long project to troll liberals. If, in 2016, he revealed it as such, it would actually be kind of awesome, in a twisted sort of way. Tacitus (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Athiest blog editor admits that it would take years to determine CP is a project to troll liberals." Whoover (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

More proof^img Andy doesn't understand his own term. It seems experts predict Grand Slam winners, therefore any unseeded or low ranked players who win, confound the experts and are therefore the best of the public. Add "rankings" to the list of things Andy doesn't understand. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Terry, get your generator

... or Fling Behind: Tribulation Farce.

Chuckarse and co. are reinventing themselves as survivalists. Is it technically reinventing yourself when I suspect most of them already were survivalists in their own half-hearted, old and crotchety ways? I guess that's one way to go on thinking the Tea party is relevant all these years after the mid-term election you were whipped in to a foam for. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Generator 2: Buttapult Boogaloo. I bet Chuckarse wouldn't know how to bind a wound properly (as in, hygienically), never mind survive more than a month in a real survival situation, unless he killed everyone else in order to monopolize the stockpile and outlast the disaster. Around the time that he'd be reduced to hunting squirrels, he'd be too traumatized to get up in the morning. I'd like to see Buttapult go one week without his precious Internet, and without electricity and pressurized tapwater, without outside assistance. Just to see how ragged, physically and mentally, he comes out the other end. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 23:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus the guy is ancient and stringy, he wouldn't even be good for cannibalism. Maybe you could use him as bait? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't he a doctor? I'm not saying he isn't a delusional idiot, but maybe we can hand him first aid.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Related --DinsdaleP (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He was a pathologist before he got fired/ragequit/took early retirement/went on disability/whatthefuckever. So no, don't hand him the first aid.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont know whats more pathetic, the fact Hurlbutt's most desperate dream continues to be for the apocalypse to happen and everyone but him and his cohorts to suffer and die so him and his "blackrobes" can spread their brand of authoritarian theocracy without "goddless libruls and big gubment" getting in their way, or the fact these pampered, sheltered, and hilariously inept clowns think that in the case of an apocalypse they will survive even the first week without their beloved creature comforts, let alone become overlords of the wasteland.

At times like this (and yes this is kinda godwinning it I know) it is almost impossible to distinguish hurlbutt from the average race-war obsessed scumbag on stormfront. Both are desperate to see the world burn so long as they can watch the people whose existence offends them die horribly and then rule over the ashes, and both viewpoints descend from having their dogmas eviscerated and left ignominiously in the dust IRL by modern society thus convincing them that since they themselves "cant possibly be wrong", civilisation itself is corrupt and evil and needs to be destroyed. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a guy in the comments section for Terry's poll who says that he's ready to survive the Obamaclysm because he has a 30'x6' garden on the side of his house. This kind of delusion typifies much of the survivalist mindset. The idea that Terry and his generator or this guy and his 180 square feet of partially shaded farmland are prepared to survive a social collapse is laughable; that they seem to gleeful anticipate such an event is scary. --Marlow (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You gotta treat a societal collapse like being the new guy in prison. Eg you're prepared to shoot someone in the face for looking at you funny and wear a necklace of human ears. I don't think Hurlbut has it in hiim. In a post-apocalyptic Ayn Rand World, he's the first one to see his neighbor's ugly side the microsecond his answer to "give me all your shit" isn't "yessir." 22:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand World. Worst. Theme park. Ever. Vulpius (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly IPA

I have some. We got a case at the commie Park Slope Food Coop, so I bought it. It's too late for me to drink. Report tomorrow. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you're conservative in your consumption levels, so as to taste it the way Schlafly would no doubt want us to. 24.45.33.231 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Schlafly IPA is a great brew and I actually drink it pretty often. In fact, Schlafly happens to make one of my favorite beers in the world, the Schlafly Scottish Ale. It's brewed in a scotch barrel, making it taste a little scotch-y. Absolutely delicious, though it'll run you about $15-20 per bottle. Give it a try if that's your thing.--StephenCocktail (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sold outside the US :( - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sold anywhere near me, either. I have been looking since 2009-ish. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Stats

I updated RationalWiki:Active users, Conservapedia:Active users and the moribund Active users at Citizendium:

• June is a slow time for all of these, but brought a new low to Citizendium
• Top Editors at RationalWiki: User:Osaka Sun, User:PowderSmokeAndLeather, User:Krej and User:Weaseloid - only Weaseloid is of the old guard...
• cp:User:Conservative's ongoing project ("Due to various people wanting more of my time, I will not be reading any talk pages of Conservapedia in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In addition, I will not be posting to any talk pages of Conservapedia as well during this period.") hasn't slowed him down at all
• cp:User:AugustO hasn't edited in June 2013. Even when he said that he stopped editing "for lent", he made the occasional comment. I thought that cp:User:Conservative or cp:User:Markman referred to this absence, but I can't find their comments (and I cannot be bothered to search for them...)

--larron (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome info as always. Thank you. Yes, Markman posted something hateful suggesting August stopped editing because he realized Ken was correct that his church was nothing but depraved fornicators. Or some similar parody. Andy oversighted it. Don't know why. Also, Powder is definitely ye olde guarde. Ask him what his prior username was. 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Larron, would you be able to do your magic and update the ip blocklist graph as well and maybe the percentage of blocks by each user in the past few months. I believe the results would be quite interesting. Ghost (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Also any bets on when Ken will overtake Andy as the leader in the edits chart ? Do oversighted edits and edits from deleted and recreated pages get included in your stats ? If not I'm guessing Ken easily has half as much again in his total edit count. I say at this rate Ken should overtake Andy by the end of the month. Ghost (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

His edits are all autopatrolled so they're in the public logs for purposes of counting even when he oversights and deletes articles. I'd be interested in seeing his auto patrols vs. edits. 04:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken's actions

Andy's actions

	edits in database	autopatrolled
Aschlafly	58,000	47,000
Conservative	57,000	77,600

--larron (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that's what I call User:Conservative Deceit! (That or burning the evidence of needing 36 edits to get something simple right, over and over and over.) Thanks for the stats, larron. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 10:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The picture for Aschlafly is quite telling, too:

• In June 2013, Andy performed for the first time more blocks and deletions than edits: 167 blocks and 163 deletions vs. 299 actual comments
• This number of comments - 299 - is the smallest for him since the start of his project - on average, he made 760 comments per month, his average over the last twelve months was 520.

--larron (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Another feather in Ken's cap

Fourth place in a spelling bee and now #617 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think he will be pleased or annoyed that both Andy and Mama are much higher on the list? Worm (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoever writes that atrocious blog is 1. very good at cribbing from RW and 2. not so good at writing (he..."spends a surprising amount of effort trying (flailingly) to flog a horse he desperately and loudly claims is very much dead." That's not how the saying works. If he claims the horse is dead, he wouldn't be flogging it.) If I knew the way/I would take you home. 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The obese machismo-free evolutionist horse has been dead for a long time, Kenny just likes to let his aggression out on a helpless target. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy's Obama/Snowden obsession...

He's scripting it like a comic book. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He's no Stan Lee. Are we sure Schlafly's attitude about Obama has nothing to do with envy? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it has everything to do with envy, as I've yet to see anything but a "nyuh uh" response from him. History reflects that Andy has been one-upped and slapped down throughout his career. It must particularly sting to have been in the shadow of an uppity negro who didn't come from a "good" family, but rather a shamefully immoral mother knocked up by an immigrant. Recall that Obama's mother and father have also been savagely criticized. But ultimately, as with any other feelings, Schlafly is responsible for his own and we can only draw superficial conclusions from what we know. In related news, he's a jealous turd. 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Andy know what nemesis means?

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Andy & Obama, I wonder if his idea of a nemesis is more like this. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I love it when Andy edits the MainPage template rather than MPL or MPR. He reveals a lot more about himself than he otherwise would. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, re: Andy's other obsession

Tim Tebow tried to reform a murderer... If I knew the way/I would take you home. 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In a parallel universe: "Overated Sports Star Tim Tebow fails to prevent murder by being insufficiently Christian to convert Hernandez." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thou shalt not say Saint Tebow was unsuccessful.^img --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if you are Andy Schlafly. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wherein Andy discovers a previously overlooked part of the pro-choice coalition

The media is covering up the existence of Satanists^img in the pro-abortion movement! This is my favorite kind of Andy craziness. He takes something that's already bullshit, like the Satanic panic, and marries it to one of his pet obsessions. Godspeed (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anger bear slaps markman down

Finally^img Oldusgitus (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice how Andy stays out of the whole thing. I guess that Andy's inability to discipline his goons forced anger bear to step in. Can Karajou actually stop Markman in any way? Can he take away his blocking rights or something like that? If not, than why should Markman listen? - 74.63.112.141 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He could start playing wback an IP address and block the IP ranges Markman is editing from. No doubt the scumbag will unblock his greasy ass, but then atleast the other parodists will know where he resides and start blocking those IP addresses too. Ghost (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Go for it markman^img, don't let that Karajou tell you what to do. Of all the sysops Kara has the thickest skin and is most open to people questioning him. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I Will! Thank you, Oldusgitus! - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And that reversion comment is a nice touch. Whoover (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice how come all the recent vandal accounts are named after Sopranos characters? I guess it's because I talked about the Sopranos here once and the vandal follow me both here and at CP. I'm waiting for when he'll register as A.J, I hope I'll be the one who gets to block this account and not someone else. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That ought to be pretty easy to manage, Markman. All you do is a take a brief break from creating accounts named after Sopranos characters when you get to AJ and give yourself a moment to block yourself. Neat, huh? 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand where does this bizarre idea that all those vandals are socks of mine comes from. CP sysops have checkuser, and as someone else already mentioned Karajou tends to block IPs for merely being in proximity to those of previously blocked editors. Engaging in vandalism of such magnitude is bound to lead to me being permabanned from CP, especially considering the fact that some of the recent attacks were directed at Andy. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny stuff. Keep it up and we'll have something else to talk about when you finally get blocked. 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Heat Wave

Given that snow disproves global warming, I wonder what Andy thinks of the record high temps down in the South at present? --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 21:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He will ignore it, like he always does, and then the first time it snows this fall/winter you will see GLOBAL WARMING HOAX all over the main page.--StephenCocktail (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It was 65 and misty today here in Chicago. Give it up liberals. 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here in Blighty, if we have so much as one day of summer I'll be impressed. Fucking weather. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You should have seen the media heckling Britain got in Australia last northern summer. We had TV anchors laughing at the English "heatwave" where the temperature soared to as high as 25 Celsius. Meanwhile, last summer in Oz, we had a REAL heatwave which broke multiple records. It reached 48 degrees in some places. The temperature at midnight in Sydney exceeded 35C, while daily temperatures were between 40 and 45C. The average temp across the continent one day was something stupid like 40C (as in the ENTIRE continent). Oh, and ashphalt roads literally melted, too. This sort of thing went for a few weeks over December and January and CP's response was "record snowfall in [some Chinese city nobody has ever heard of]! Proof of global warming hoax!", and the Australians that commented were ignored. Besides, didn't you know? People LIKE hot weather, so even if there is no hoax it's nothing to worry about. Yes, I have brought this up before and yes, I am pissed at this rank stupidity. I cannot think of a better example of the douche nozzles at CP cherry-picking information to "prove" their fantasies, and that's saying a lot. Sokar (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In the CP context, it was an utter delight to see Andy sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating this "when's Al Gore going to give his prizes and money back" stuff when Australia and Tasmania were literally on fire with record highs and windy conditions spreading the conflagrations into cities. Good stuff. Not the danger and loss, but the deliberate ignorance or worse. 15:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohh... I forgot about Hobart (Tasmania is part of Australia, both in terms of nation and the continental landmass). It does raise something, though, doesn't it? No mention whatsoever about the Arizona(?) fires where 19 elite firies died this week... Sokar (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you've forgotten that thermometers are a liberal conspiracy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Al Gore controls the weather!"Sokar (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What the... I don't even...

Wow... even by Andy's usual standard, this^img gem is some serious, a-grade insanity:

“”Arrests begin in Egypt of the Obama-installed Muslim Brotherhood, which was failing to protect Christians. Obama was too obsessed chasing his nemesis Snowden to prevent this.

--PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Always Obama's fault. If the President solved world peace, established the US as a theocracy, made gun ownership and home schooling compulsory, banned abortion and the teaching of relativity/evolution and scrapped his health care plan I still don't think Andy would support him. He has already showed that he would rather support treason than Obama.--Patmac (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The saddest thing is that many Egyptians believe the US installed Morsi, because of American wingnut propaganda. Whoover (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

He.... IS aware that the "Obama-installed" Muslim Brotherhood are the targets of these mass arrests, right? --Revolverman (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's another example of "best of the public". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the arrests are explained by Obama's being distracted by his nemesis. Whoover (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I like how he seems to think that the entire US government is one person and their whims. Even if you believe the core things he's saying, that Morsi was hand chosen by Obama and that Obama is current focusing on Snowden to the exclusion of everything else... then what, does he think that there would be literally no one else in the entire government who'd be keeping an eye on Egypt? That Obama is sitting at his desk in the white house, staring intently at google maps trying to find a satellite picture of Snowden, and Egypt just happened without him noticing? He lives in a strange world. X Stickman (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My gosh, what lengths will Obama go to capture Snowden!? This never would've happened if Obama had become a real Christian and stuck to teaching and writing in church basements. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's something I haven't seen anyone mention. What the hell do you think would be happening if President Romney was trying to track down Snowden? Conservapedia would be screaming for Snowden's blood to be smeared over a half-mile area. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. Andy's current boner for Snowden is a classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Spud (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Publically educated, video-game player Snowden continues to betray America from foreign shores, evading President Romney's justice by escaping on the Bolivian president's aircraft. Pro-abort liberals deny this fact, but if they read the Bible more and kept an open mind, they would give up their foolishness."^{— Unsigned, by: Sasayaki / talk / contribs}

Andy really has no love for Romney, probably placing him at the bottom of the RINO barrel. Instead, Andy would blame the NSA leaks on Obama's first term, still calls Snowden a hero, and kick some blame at Romney for either letting Snowden get away or just being ineffective. Because as I've said, church basement educators have far better principles. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Could this be why AugustO is AWOL?

Andy doubles down on Chaos=Devil. Without a lick of evidence, it's best to just remove the fact tags. Whoover (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection--Patmac (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The connection. AugustO finally realized the steaming pile he was trying to polish would never take a shine. (I also recommend the early Markman cameos, which are basically "blah-blah-blah, so chaos." Great stuff.) Whoover (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be the other way round. Andy has just noticed that AugustO hasn't been around since the end of May and knows that he can now confidently assert that devil=chaos=devil without anybody telling him that he's talking bollocks. For his sake, I sincerely hope that AugustO has come to his senses and stopped wasting his time on the dung heap that is Conservapedia but it's too early to tell. Just because somebody hasn't edited a wiki for just over a month doesn't mean that editor has left and will never come back. Spud (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter: First, second and third in faith.

I don't think I've ever seen such as confused thought, even from the addled brain of the Schlafly^img. Peter apparently had the GREATEST FAITH IN THE WORLD. Except his faith was exceeded by Jesus. THE SECOND GREATEST FAITH IN THE WORLD. Oh, except for Mary of course... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I learned that most fisherman in 1st Century Palestine didn't know how to swim and that taking the leap of following jesus was one of the extraordinary acts of faith in the history of mankind. This is Good To Know. 14:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Even in recent times, there have been cultures, anglophone, Levantine, and perhaps others, where fishermen do not know how to swim. Not part of the job description. Furthermore, some believe that swimming prolongs drowning at sea, so they choose not to learn how. __ Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus. Kendoll is busting out the Bible^img to argue that Peter is fourth. Probably to stick it to those Mary 'n' Peter worshiping Papists. Maybe I give him too much credit, but he always finds a way to stick it to the heretics. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I love how Andy's "reference" to Peter not being able to swim is just a bald uncited assertion that "fishermen didn't learn to swim", though as SJC says there may actually be some truth in this - I've heard that same thing (that they would prefer to drown quickly) said about sailors in modern times. Cantabrigian (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bald uncited assertion indeed, likely pulled from the customary holding area. There are other cultures where children learn to swim before they can walk. Somebody ought to ask Andy if he was there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible fight, Andy v. Ken

Andy: Peter the Apostle was a great guy.^img
Ken: Paul was better.^img
Andy: Nuh uh! He never walked on water. Peter's faith was greater. ^img

Peter's walk on water isn't exactly the best example for how great his faith was. Andy apparently even skims through his own holy book. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That should have gone under "Peter, First, Second and Third in Faith" above. Spud (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, didn't see. Moved. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There's obviously a huge conflict between Catholics and protestants about the importants of Peter vs. Paul, since they expressed radically different theologies. You can't get away from jesus's essentially Jewish approach to works as tzdeakah,, even expressing pretty darn decent ways of doing it to keep the donor modest and save the recipient from shame, and Paul's emphasis on faith over works. Paul was a vicious prick and shameless bullshitter. I'm amazing at how credulous fundies are in accepting unbelievable and inconsistent nonsense from someone who admits to never having met jesus and who expresses quite different ideas about his person. I sort of view Andy favoring the gospel story over pauline sources of perhaps dubious authenticity as the last gasp of his Catholicism. 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So I went to that Biblegateway link and came across this. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit nearly complete ignorance to the eschatological positions of these zealots. It is my understanding that Terry would be characterized as a immanentist postmillenial, as I've seen him wishing for the rapture any moment now, that he'll meet Jesus in the air, and for a Calvinistic theonomy.That may be a jumble of nonsense. But I've never seen Ken or Andy express any thoughts on this either way. I guess you could infer from their vigorous hatred of homosexuals and anyone but their brand of fundies that they're of a similar mind. If that's true, they're not particularly sophisticated in their theology. That's not surprising for Ken since he's not very smart and doesn't appear to know anything about reform theology, including how to coherently debate a single theological position. I'd expect more from Andy. Or maybe not. He may be as much a deluded simpleton. Who knows. Anyone know better than I do about whether these people are waiting for the second coming any moment now? How would they dissemble about the identity of the "chosen people?" Would they be among those who seem to be using the Jews as useful idiots and actively pressing for war? Yeah, my understanding of all this is pretty simple, but it's very interesting to the extent that more effective fundies are dangerous. 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"they're not particularly sophisticated in their theology..." Christ, don't let Proxima see you use those two words in the same sentence, or she'll get inspired to start editing that article again. I don't see either of them actively waiting for the rapture to begin, or reading the newspaper with a copy of Revelation beside them and checking off a list of signs that the end days are here, Jack Van Impe style. I imagine any pro-Israel thing Andy has is less about fulfilling prophesy and more about conservative geopolitics. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They certainly don't refer to reform theologians like Van Til and his acolyte, Bahnsen. Proxima, don't do it. There are legit references to whether individuals have sophisticated theological approaches that don't implicate your pet horseshit. Anyway, cultists like CMI and AiG employ an apologetics derived from Van Til, but also don't seem to talk about him that much. 15:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, how does it feel to get your ass kicked by Ken in a debate^img? Not very good, I imagine. That should really be a wake up call. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy can't argue his way out of a paper bag. This exactly the same as his letter from Washington gambit before the NJ supreme court. Trying to use one tiny atom of fact to dispute a whole body of evidence. Still, I like Andy's assertion that Peter's faith was at the highest level, so presumably he got +3 to all faith-based rolls. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was describing premillennialist rapture, not post-millennial. Shows what I know. 15:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

After Ken declares I won and you suck, guess who appears in the role of Andy's lapdog with "Peter may have denied Jesus three times, but he cut off a slave's ear first"? (The whole point of the ear scene was the setup for the third denial: "Aren't you the guy with Jesus who cut off my cousin's ear?" "Who me?") Whoover (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one that is completely astounded that Ken was able to make a rather good and coherent argument? Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 16:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. We all know Ken can be quite lucid. He does not come over a unintelligent. He comes over as stupid. When he is taking whatever meds he apparently has to take and is getting whatever care he apparently needs then he comes over as an intelligent man quite frankly. Just so long as you keep him off whatever his preacher has told him this week. To me he certainly seems like an intelligent, but sadly misguided and unwell, man. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Give it up, gun control pushers

My state (Illinois) will soon express its preference for senseless violence and death. I am not surprised that Schlafly would gloat about this depravity. But good god how can we have failed ourselves so badly that measures like this pass? Do people genuinely believe that it makes sense to permit concealed carry in a place like the City of Chicago or is this some kind of cynical herd-thinning strategy? This will do nothing but spark and arms race. 19:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Who makes Kevlar? I want to invest in them. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My sister and I both had similar but independent conversations when in the US recently - I was in NYC, she was in DC. Both of us were challenged about UK police not being armed (well, not regularly in GB). I was asked how police defend themselves, she was asked how police shoot people. I just had to shrug and say it's always been like that. She pointed out how many police were killed by guns in the US compared to the UK. It was not the best topic of conversation for a polite dinner party. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The American position on guns is circular reasoning. Criminals have guns, so I have to have a gun to protect my family. Aside from other issues, the probability of there being a gun in your house demands that a criminal arm himself likewise in order to burgle your house, since the criminal is armed to defend himself from you you have to be armed to defend yourself from him. In Australia, most burglaries are unarmed simply because the criminals don't have to worry about the home owner having a gun (they still have to worry about cricket bats and kitchen knives... ). The same goes for robbery, most of those are committed with knives (or, very rarey, bloody syringes which carry the threat of AIDS) because there is a 99% chance that the victim does not have a gun, therefore the criminal doesn't need a gun. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that most gun crimes in Australia are related to organised crime: members of one criminal organisation shooting members of another criminal organisation (often, though not always, with legally owned firearms). If you're not a criminal you don't need guns to protect you from criminals, except in rare circumstances. Concealed carry doesn't protect you from armed criminals, it guarantees that the criminals are armed. Sokar (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevlar is a Dupont product. Pashley (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Kevlar AND napalm! Win-win! Sokar (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Vietnam-era napalm was a Dow product. Still, go US chemical megacorps! 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of. I couldn't help thinking it wasn't DuPont but I knew it started with D and couldn't conjure up the name Dow. DuPont were the ones manufacturing weapons-grade plutonium until the late 80s. Sokar (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

3 questions for user:Conservative/Ken

All situations are hypothetical.

1: You have pointed out on your blog the relationship of conservative Christianity growing as economic conditions worse. This in mind would you prefer to see:

A world full of fundamentalist Christians who live in abject poverty, riddled with disease and have to fight to survive every day of their lives?

A world full of atheists who live comfortable lives without fear of disease, hunger or economic hardship?

2: Your distain for atheists is plain for all to see, given this would you:

Prefer to share a house with two conservative Christians, one who had just served a 30 year sentence for murder and the other 15 years for rape?

To share with two atheists who had dedicated their lives to charity and to the general benefit of mankind?

3: Your distain for gay people is even more pronounced. Imagine an emergency situation and you had to get someone to look after your child when you deal with it. Do you chose:

The creationist babysitter with a history of child abuse?

Or the law abiding lesbian babysitter?

Are you macho enough to answer?--Patmac (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll save you some time. Blah blah blah obese blah blah blah debate blah blah blah VivaYeshua blah blah blah busy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before but logic doesn't apply to Ken. You might as well be arguing with Spongebob Squarepants. He literally thinks that he's leading an Internet crusade against dark, amoral, willingly depraved forces and hears (or wants-to-so-bad-he-deludes-himself-into-hearing) the voice of an all powerful divine being who tells him to write hundreds of articles like Gay Bowel Disease and the Flying Kitty Airforce. Guy just does not give a fuck. He is Bugs Bunny in a priest's outfit and about as rational. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But Bugs is capable of outwitting his foes for most of the time and is more endearing. I'm currently reading American Psycho, I'd say Ken is Bateman when he reaches one of those bizarre yet non homicidal episodes in which his behavior just doesn't make any sense. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

At least he's not as pointlessly obnoxious as that cunt Markman.--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} 02:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's quite an ironic cheer, considering you're Markman. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 02:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see he has changed his tune, the rise in Christianity is actually down to economic growth[1] when a week ok the rise was due to economic hardship. Make up that deluded mind of yours DeMeyer.

By the way Ken, have at look at this[2]. It is only a matter of time before you publish something similar on your blog or at CP. Imagine sharing a cell with a homosexual?.--Patmac (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't talk like that ... He doesn't express any personal desire to do violence, only that his enemies suffer terrible physical injuries like being burned to death or trampled by animals. 00:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the lies peddled at conservapedia, Humans are actually animals and given the supposed girth of Kendoll, I hope he doesn't meet any poachers. Ole Ole Ole Ghost (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Movie night at Casa Poor

Ed's back to doing his wonderful movie reviews again^img. At least its not teen comedies this time, but I think he might have gone to sleep^img in the middle of that one. Or maybe the negro being beaten up was his favourite bit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Never saw the movie but they gave Denzel Washington's character an odd name. Whoover (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ed is a lot of creepy things but I don't recall seeing any racsim amongst them. I'd happily leave a black friend with him for an afternoon. A teenager however may be a different matter. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Sidney Poitier's character suddenly changes sex at one point in Ed's version of In the Heat of the Night, when "Miss Tibbs is picked up as a suspicious charcter". Could he have been thinking of one of the two little old ladies from Fawlty Towers? Spud (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This site is growing

rapidly^img shrinking! Cheers for the honesty Ken Ghost (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Awwww, I think you hurt Kenny's feelings^img. Now he has to puff himself up by saying Conservapedia is big and important. Hey Kenny! Did you notice you were down from #48 last year? Still, I can see how you might be proud of being bigger than such influential sites as "Conservatives for Palin." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ken, when are you going to realise that the search engines are wise to your cretinous style of "SEO," i.e. page after page consisting of nothing but links to each other, and that it doesn't work any more? Stop wasting your time with empty blog posts and try finding a real writer for your book. That way it might actually get written some day. Sadly, however, the price for me to do it for you is now up to $3,000.--EuanK 23:07, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

It would appear that Ken has been suckered by the rampant clickbotting which distorted CP's pageviews and gave his pathetic pet articles undue prominence, and contributed to the widespread, public ridicule heaped on CP. If you are not already aware, Euan, Ken has (had?) his own pathetic SEO business but the cash-flow must be abysmal, otherwise he could afford to keep up with his meds. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a name or a link or anything? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I do love your dishonesty Ken, Maybe you should man up and stop oversighting everything you disagree with ? Ghost (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

lol, he's oversighted what, three or four (maybe more?) comments already. Dance, Kenny, dance. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Darwin's Doubt

"One of Britain's top geneticists recommends Darwin's Doubt^img, says Kenny Boy. The geneticist in question being Norman C. Nevin, emeritus prof of medical genetics at Queen's University, Belfast and president of the Centre for Intelligent Design. Hardly an impartial reviewer then! Norm recommends DD because "The main problem with neo-Darwinism is the origin of new biological information... The issue that arises is the source of the information and how can random mutations and natural selection generate the necessary biological information to produce such a diversity of animal forms without antecedents." Evidently his medical genetics research stopped before homeoboxes were discovered 29 years ago. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken, Ken, Ken...

Look mate. We've had like a year of your jam tomorrow promises about project 200+. At some point you have to stop claiming you're building the "fastest growing" coalition of creationists, because at last count you claim you've recruited 7 people, and we all know you made them all up. I don't really know how to calculate the growth rate when it involves imaginary numbers, but I'm pretty sure you're being outgrown by the podunk creation league and the creation society of smallville. You still have no website, no company registration, no tax exempt status, no agenda and no plan of action. Those are things you do in the first month. Project 200+ doesn't exist. Andy might tolerate your obvious lies, but you're still embarrassing yourself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is so unbelievably pathetic. I know he knows it's pathetic because he misrepresents numbers to harp about declining numbers of atheist this or that. But why does he do it? Who in the world thinks a single person who continues gloating about something so modest and continues failing to deliver is worth listening to? I mean, he doesn't list any of the actual volunteer outfits he's hooked up with or even give people a way to connect with his campaign - no public forums you can get to off the blog, no email lists, no nothing. 21:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Having any public means of communication would expose the fact that nobody was communicating. It would be hard to lie about exciting developments when QE! was obviously a ghost town. As it is, it's pretty hard to lie about it considering all the other people involved in the blog bailed out in the first six months. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I fundamentally don't understand what drives him (and the rest of Conservapedia) to do this kind of thing. I mean, I have some views I feel strongly about, but not like this... - GrantC (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part? The having a blog part I understand, the lying not so much. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I should have clarified. Definitely the lying part, especially when it's so blatantly clear that he's lying. - GrantC (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Gone

Has Andy given up hope and deleted CP? There doesn't seem to be anything there any more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like diffs still work but most of the other pages don't.--StephenCocktail (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's working for me. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Gone again. I wonder if Andy is doing an inept upgrade. I hope he manages to delete the database somehow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No such luck, I'm afraid. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday's outages were all HTTP-level. Today, the IP won't even ping. Anybody have an idea what they're doing? Whoover (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not having a problem in the mountain states of the USA... --Seth Peck (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My IP seems to be blocked at the server. I can access it through a proxy. Anybody know anything about them blocking at the server level, and why? There is no new block at the wikimedia level that would affect me. I can't even ping from my IP. Whoover (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been at the AWS level and it seems to have fixed itself. Who knows? Whoover (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama is the cause of air disasters

Not one word on those killed or injured.--Patmac (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[3]

Well, they were flying to San Francisco, so they were probably all liberals or gays anyway... --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} 22:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Andy should ask Kendoll about it. Ken's always going on about Outliers, and that has a lot to say about Korean airlines. (Of course, I don't think Ken's actually read the book, I think he's just parroting Vox Day or some shit.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How the fuck does ILS get to be a "government controlled system"? It's controlled from the control tower at the airport, and it's used globally! Does Obama know he has all these powers that Schlafly assigns to him? --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} 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the sequester cut air traffic control?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the other flights seem to have had a problem. In any case, from what's been released so far ATC seem to have done their job perfectly and told the pilot to increase altitude, then when he didn't to go around.--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} 23:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It was pilot error. The plane was going "substantially slower" than its target landing speed, the throttles were on idle, the plane was about to stall and the pilot suddenly realized he'd screwed up and tried to abort the landing. When he advanced the throttle, the engines responded normally. But too late. Visibility was 10 miles. The FAA knew and approved ILS being off due to construction. Which is I guess why it's Obama's fault. Whoover (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The pilot was obviously the best of the public. And I've just heard on the news that one of the people who died was run over by a rescue vehicle. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 06:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Best of the public in some alternate universe, perhaps, you know whose. Now we get to wait and see what the actual experts at the NTSB have to say. With a working set of visual approach slope lights (PAPI,) anyone saying ILS shutoff had anything to do with it is likely to be talking through a paper asshole.

Low and slow on short final is a rookie mistake. It's possible the pilot was tired after a trans-Pacific flight, spaced out on the numbers he should be flying to, and thought his airspeed was just fine. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You do know this was the pilot's first landing at SFO in a 777, right? Asiana said it was a "training mission" for the pilot who only had 43 hours of flying time in a 777. Whoover (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I heard on NPR that he had ten thousand hours in other aircraft. I wasn't there, so I don't know if he thought he would impress the guy in the right seat by nailing the numbers (the ones painted on the end of the runway) just as the plane wanted to stop flying, or he just was used to planes with lower stall speeds. It's early days, and the experts are on the case.

I do know the last time I landed a Skyhawk, the guy in the other seat wanted ten more knots on final, so I dropped the nose a thumb's width, whuffed the throttle just enough to keep the end of the runway holding still in the windshield, and kept looking around. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not remember whether any air disasters were attributed to Ronald Reagan's firing of a whole swathe of striking air traffic controllers. For a while, the airport at the city where I now live had no eyeballs in the tower. None. Zip. Zilch. It became an uncontrolled field with a seven thousand foot runway crossing another one slightly shorter. Traffic talked to each other on the UNICOM channel and flew as they pleased. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama also arranged, through the unionized SFFD I imagine, to have a sixteen-year old Chinese girl assassinated. Maybe he thought she was a nemesis-in-training. Whoover (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Where do conservapedia admins go for their facts?

Why, wikipedia of course! I mean, I'm sure it's chock full of liberal lies, but there's no getting around that wikipedia actually tells you something while conservapedia just reprises the name. (CONCISE!) I guess we know how Terry feels about the success of CP now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is revealing

As close to an admission yet^img for "best of the public". I don't think it can get any more clearer that Andy created the term out of pure spite and jealousy and defines it so he can name himself BOTP and thus be better than experts. Most already know this, but his comment reminds me of Stephen Colbert grinding him, asking "but who is the best of the public?" I wonder what Andy failed to be an "expert" at in the past that led to his enclosed madness. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's gone. Any chance of a summary? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not gone! But anyway, Andy said, "'Experts' are people like tenured professors a select few whom liberals claim no more than anyone else. For athletes, 'experts' are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias". So there are Andy's current definitions of "best of the public" and "experts" but if he can label a tenured professor or a super-famous athlete as "best of the public" to show that Conservapedia was proven right again, he will. Andy is Humpty Dumpty and words mean whatever he wants them to mean. Spud (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now works. Was getting an internal server error. The capture failed because of the error. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy wouldn't know what trying hard looks like if it bit him in the ass, nor has he ever seen someone he would crow about not get recognition by "liberals, sometimes due to political bias." This is a man who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, whose legal analysis has the depth of a paper cut, who, if he's hustled for a client lately, has failed to attract anything but desperate cranks just like him. I'll continue treating professors and people who've shown they actually know how to get credentialed or, you know, do stuff, as my go-to sources for inspiration and instruction.

I think this "try hard" business is key - it's a completely abstract and subjective analysis that Andy gets to make. Overhyped? You weren't trying hard because you're an expert. Is that it? Expert that Andy likes? A try hard conservative star. 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Tucker would have a suitable description of areas of expertise. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is everyone overthinking this? An Expert is someone who's done well without overt signs of being Christian. The Best-of-the-Public are those who have, by pronouncement or gesture, signalled that they're on Jesus's side. If they are unsuccessful, their betters are Overrated and they are unsuccessful because liberals. If they are successful, regardless of public opinion, Conservapedia Proven Right. Anybody got a counter-example? Whoover (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find Andy's definition quite revealing as well. And quite sad, frankly. Andy is existentially frustrated because he thinks, deep down, that it's unfair that others <cough>Obama</cough> are more successful in life than he is, because he's trying really hard - just as hard as those other guys, Mom! - but the other guys win the big game and fuck the homecoming queen in the White House, while Andy waits by the phone in the church basement. Why, Andy's just as good as those other guys, so it must be the Man/Media keeping him down, and all the poor pluggers like him. Don't you get it, guys? He tries so hard, guys!

It's bizarre; it's like a caricature of an entitled 19yo kid raised in a self-esteem culture complaining about his grades rather than the hardass middleaged rugged individualist take-it-like-a-man pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps Dale Carnegie/Horatio Alger love child type that he is supposed to be. He tries, man. So hard. Hard as balls.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't try hard. As far as I can tell, he's exceptionally lazy. A lazy thinker, a lazy lawyer writing lazy briefs with shallow analysis, a lazy teacher giving children a bullshitted curriculum of often made up material in preparation for which he doesn't appear to have consulted legit sources. Try hard? I have contempt for people who have the balls to bitch about bias and failure when they have no idea what it means to put skin in the game and say "hey, I made this." Andy takes zero risks, including taking a giant shit on his own reputation now that he shitted it away years and years ago. 17:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, focusing on 'results' and shit. Andy's whole existence has been one of privilege, playing life on the easiest setting, and I would agree that given his starting position he has not done well for himself. But I believe that he thinks that he is putting out maximum effort - it must only be the combined efforts of a massive conspiracy that keep his special snowflakeness from being apparent to the world. He wants to be graded on effort rather than results, and he thinks he's putting out 100% of his best effort all the time. He may even be right, which is sadder somehow, but at any rate his 100% effort gives the same results as other people's 25% effort. Which is worse: mistaking your halfassed flailing for real struggle, or actually struggling to produce a halfassed result? I don't doubt that Andy considers His Kampf to be equal to that of some unwed minority teenage mother juggling daycare, a minimum-wage job, and night school while trying to start a home sewing business while living in some high-crime shithole downstream of a chemical plant. He's wrong, but I think that's how he sees it. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oldusgitus (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Whoover - 'Best of the Public' implies a non-expert.

Where do Humpback anglerfish fit into the Conservapedia schemata? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Iduan agrees that Andy is insane^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the first comment (addressed to me, I think). Andy makes that distinction, except in his examples. The second bit, about the fish, goes totally above my head, I'm afraid. Whoover (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

New clue! Jesus is BofP, not expert. I don't think that's a counterexample. Whoover (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus would never be given tenure no matter how much he walked on water". BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Oh Andy, you're a gold mine. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

At some Oxbridge colleges, turning water into s decent claret might be enough to clinch it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think supposedly being the son of God (as well as God Himself), omnipotent and able to predict the future, would qualify one as an expert. But what do I know, I'm not an expert on the subject....gasp maybe that means I'm right then??? --Seth Peck (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wimbledon

I wonder how Andy will spin the greatest conservative sport star Djokavic, losing to the underdog, from godless, liberal England (yes, I know, it's Scotland, but it's all the same to him), whom liberals hate to support? --PsyGremlin^Hable! 20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andy may have had a Scottish/catholic grandfather and Murray is from that same background who tend(I can't ref this, just an observation) to be more religious than most of the other "White British" ethnic group. Perhaps he will feel some kinship and frantically search for some religious quote or insight from Murray so he can proudly take his place on the Greatest Conservative Sports Star page.--Patmac (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a tough one. I never once saw Murray cross himself or heard him thank god for winning. Having also survived a mass school shooting as a child I would hazard a guess that he's not much in favour of gun ownership. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

underdog Liberals and atheists hate underdogs. «-Bfa-» 22:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

New Crop of Parodists

We might have been so focussed on Markman that we've missed some recent talent. These two^img are currently slapping each other, an important ritual when trying to gain favor. One in particular specializes in articles capturing Andy's colonic extractions^img. This venerable technique is no-lose, and was used by Markman and others to gain some cred. Remember Markman's edit war with AugustO about E=mc²^img? Such memories. Whoover (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's sad when you think a more newsworthy headline would be "A new genuine editor at Conservapedia!." --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

can we stop calling these people 'Parodists'? Sucking up to an imbecile and acting like a twat is poor parody indeed. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with such dismissal is that this stuff lives forever. Things as obvious as "earthquakes in Ireland disprove relativity" and the Asiana "article" have and probably will survive for months or years. Obvious drivel accepted as encyclopedia-worthy must be granted a certain level of respect. Anywhere else it's sophomoric bilge, but at CP it's well crafted, if not art. Whoover (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that "parodists" is not a good name for them. But the fact remains that they are trying to get Andy to notice them, trust them and give them extra wiki-powers. Why? Probably not to try to turn Conservapedia into something resembling an encyclopedia. No, if they're lucky, they'll achieve their goal of getting block rights and have fun pretending to be arseholes, which as we know by now, is exactly the same as being arseholes. Spud (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Subversives is probably a better description. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

what's wrong with troll? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolls are not welcomed with open arms. Trolls' "contributions" are not incorporated and protected. It's the perception (or lack thereof) of the target that determines if a troll is a parodist. At CP, even after a parodist is banned, their work often lives on because Andy would love for it to have been true. Thus, long after Spielman was banned as a parodist, this beaut lives on because Andy thinks it's truthy. Whoover (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

so parodists insert bullshit that feeds into Andy's delusions. They just winding him up and watching him go. Sounds like trolling to me. Just because they are too dense see them for what don't make em any less trollish. Plus they are trolling us as much as Andy. I would have more sympathy for your point of view if they did anything that was funny, or required some thought or effort AMassiveGay (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing my opinion that a parodist is a thing with being in favor of them. Yes, it all comes down to Andy's cluelessness. Whoover (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Semper Idem

Significant expansion of Project 200 Plus planned for the first quarter of 2013 Significant expansion of Project 200 Plus planned for the latter half of 2013 --larron (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Cons. nuked it... The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 05:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny about that comment.^img Whoover (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This "significant expansion" a sign that Ken is going to the gym and pumping iron and feeling the burn, and he's going to introduce us to his biceps, Jesus and Atheists-are-fat-sexless-homosexuals, once he figures out how to get them to have something resembling tone. Either that, or he plans to eat a lot and effect an expansion that way for the rest of the year. And, hey, he said 'group' and isn't he forever attempting to convince us that he is many? Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant expansion of Project 200 Plus planned for the first quarter of 2013 According to the Question Evolution! Campaign sponsoring Project 200 plus starting the weekend of February 23, 2013: “”....we are commencing our biggest volunteer recruitment drive to date and it will start this weekend. It will dwarf our previous volunteer drives in both its intensity and scope. It will be a part of our Project 200+ initiative. The expansion is a prelude to various Question Evolution! Campaign projects being released in 2013.

Significant expansion of Project 200 Plus planned for the latter half of 2013 On July 9, 2013, a Question Evolution! Campaign group involved in Project 200 plus indicated that the campaign will see its biggest expansion in the latter part of 2013: “”Today, we sent 3 creationist groups the third draft of the Question Evolution! Campaign book for middle school students. The last feedback form we got back from a young person was for the second draft of the book and the feedback form rated the book an 8 out of 10. This third draft is fantastic and we are looking very forward to receiving the feedback forms. And of course, on the eve of the book coming out we will go full blast on expanding our Project 200+ campaign which will be a worldwide and fast growing coalition of creationists. We will have our supporters in the Bible belt states of the United States assist us since we have found that they have a lot of fire in their belly.

(links omitted) --larron (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of recruitment drives he's said are going to happen. He isn't even a creative liar, he just recycles the same lie over and over and hopes nobody notices when it doesn't pan out. Almost two years of this shit. Incredible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

For a creationist, Ken is remarkably lacking in creativity. Is that because he leaves it all to God? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of a rasta that used to live on my mate's estate back in the day. Every time we said hi to him, he would shout "Repatriation!" and whatever the next year was. "Repatriation 1980!" became "Repatriation 1981!" and so on until "Repatriation 1985!" when he disappeared. We assumed he had finally got the money together to emigrate to Africa but he'd been jailed for dealing. Word is he's still around, on the same estate, but a lot older and a lot quieter. London Grump (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished:
Nate: "How can I help?"^img

Ken: "15 Questions."^img

Nate: "Are you recruiting or not?"^img

Ken: "You have reached my bunny hole. Go away for two months."^img

Markman: "Arf! Arf! Troll!"^img Whoover (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there absolutely nothing so utterly cunty that Markman won't do it??--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} 01:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken gets scammed

Look how uncharitable atheists are!^img Um, no, Ken. That's called a scam page. It's a clone of the actual, successful atheist campaign you can see here. You know, the one that more than doubled its goal. It's designed to sucker money from people who confuse it with the real thing. People exactly like you. You imbecile. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaaand deleted of course. Intellectual honesty is just another phrase Ken doesn't understand. Good luck getting in to heaven, you lying little shit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine game of whack-a-mole you're playing there Jeeves. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a remarkably easy game when there's only one hole, and the mole stays up for as long as you need him to. Somehow it doesn't diminish the enjoyment though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I see he has now resorted to blocking those who disagree with him citing quality of articles. No place for the best of the public where he is concerned. The more I think of it the more convinced I am he is a fat, gay atheist in denial.

--Patmac (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, between Tomqua's "warning" and banning he made two edits, one asking Andy if the CP logo were free to use and one asking Nate for his email. I did wonder which of these controversial edits was the defiant provocation that justified Ken's action. For me, CP is like an electronic ant farm. I can watch the interactions between the inhabitants for hours with fascination mixed with relief that they can't get out. It's probably not healthy but it is fun. Whoover (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just found this, old but who cares[4], about 3/4 of the way down he writes

Recently, I was telephone interviewed by an leading news organization whose website gets about 300,000 unique visitors a month

Now if this "leading news organization" had took the time to interview him surely they would have published something, and surely one of you good RW folks would have spotted and reported it. The only conclusion I can draw: You're a liar DeMeyer--Patmac (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I not infrequently get 'interviewed' by people that could be described as being from leading 'news organizations'. They are called telephone surveys and mean nothing at all to anyone other than a sad man who thinks his opinions matter and that his superb debating skills are chaning the world. Ken, they 'inteviewed' roughly 1000 other people at the same time and it was all anonymous. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to the "leading news organization whose pageview stats are a better reputation indicator than its actual name" if it even exists, if it did, legitimately, interview Ken in a journalistic way, I can see that interview not resulting in anything worth airing. We have to assume that, if this website exists and is willing to contact Ken for any reason other than because it's writing a story pointing aghast/mockingly at Conservapedia and wants exclusive crank quotes, it's highly partisan and right-wing. They can't publish Ken's blatherings in a serious article because it'd hurt their reputation, and they don't gain anything by turning around and actively antagonizing him or CP, so if the interview did happen, it'd be buried for being unusable. In other words, even if you actually are telling the truth, Ken, it doesn't make a difference. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 05:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And now ken seems to have posted some kind^img of slightly strange shout out to PatMac in reply to this discussion. But PatMac was/is a perma-blocked CP user and I'm not aware that he edits here does (s)he? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See PatMac's contributions to this thread, could s(he) be the same person? Also, a "leading news organisation" only getting 300K hits a month? Sounds a bit third tier to me. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In my defence Genghis, and it's a poor defence I know, it was early in the morning here in the UK and I was slightly drunk last night. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It was nice to be reminded of that Ken Klassik. The firefighter of atheism being powerless to stop the fire of Christianity as it destroys a house full of asbestos. Good to see that again. Is it just me, or has Ken been getting a bit softer in his rhetoric and the pictures that go with it recently? It used to be all fires, sharks, storms at sea and Sun Tzu. Not to mention the time he seemed to be telling kids to machine gun their evolutionist teachers with a link to a clip from The Last Samurai on YouTube. Now he just adds flag icons and clip art that shows big numbers, the great woofter! Spud (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt that he was interviewed by a "leading news organization". But the position of tea boy is a demanding role and someone else was better qualified. StarFish (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken has a very obvious pattern. When he's making something up he'll describe a person or organisation by location, or by how many people they have following them on twitter or some such shit. When he's actually telling the truth (not often) he'll just tell you what the person's name is and link to them like a normal person. He thinks he's being mysterious and subtle, but it's as transparent as glass that he's a bullshitter. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One end of telephone conversation:

"Mr DeMyer why do you think you'd be able to sell newspapers on Main Street?"

Scream!! (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

To which he no doubt replied: "Mr Jameson, a volunteer for my sales organistion has over 100K followers on social media. She will soon help me conduct the biggest ever sales campaign in the history of the world." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If this some kind^img is an apology or peace feeler (though deleted) then it is accepted.

--Patmac (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell what he's talking about unless he uses smileys :) 20:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yo, when capturing pages that have captures for them already, put an anchor on the end of the url to make it unique. I like to use the date, e.g. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/FYI#20130710. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus and tenure

For the record, "Walking on water" is within a subject (Phys Ed?), just not easy to teach, that's all. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are trade schools that teach traditional carpentry, quite a few universities offer religious and cultural studies, and of course there are religious schools that would be eager to give Jesus tenure. But yeah, it's not like Andy actually put much thought into it. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus being denied tenure really makes for a boring story. Nowhere near as interesting as him being sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition (even he cannot expect them!), but then again, Andy is no Dostoevsky. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Internal server error

Out of curiosity, does browsing CP since several days gives 500 error more often than normally? Open minded (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe 1/50 for me. 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

More like 1/10 for me. And there are often odd characters before timestamps. Something is corrupted for sure. Whoover (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Now it's a complete 503. Damned thing is Terry Shiavo mode. Dead if kept alive, dead if dead. (too soon?) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a Fertile Sphincter

I truly don't get Andy's approach to argument. He's insisting that it's Obama's fault that the Asiana wreckage is still in place. In reality, it's evidence at an active accident investigation scene that the NTSB doesn't want disturbed. Does he truly not comprehend this? Is he so hateful that he doesn't care? Does he think the audience for his little debate with himself can be convinced? How can a lawyer divorce himself so totally from the reality experienced by the people he's arguing in front of? Is he arguing that privatization would have allowed a cleanup because there'd be no accident investigation? Of course, he also argues that a private airport would have prevented the accident, ostensibly because they could not have been forced to turn off the instruments by an administration hell-bent on killing Chinese Christians. But that's a separate argument. Whoover (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"How can a lawyer divorce himself so totally from the reality experienced by the people he's arguing in front of?" It is my opinion that he has not been an effective advocate in any of the cases I've seen him handle appeals in in the last several years. I haven't done more than glance at his prior work to feel confident that there's no good reason to take him seriously as a professional. His briefs are merely serviceable, but not even really all that workmanlike, and riddled with tangents and such highly politicized rhetoric that a trial level judge might sanction him for wasting his time on irrelevant and hateful screeds. You can find his Supreme Court video game amicus brief on the docketing section of the Supreme Court sites. I'm sorry, I don't have the case number handy. It is, predictably, hopeless littered with things that weren't even at issue in the case. The Court grants leave to third parties to file amicus briefs pretty generously, but I cannot imagine their clerks have the resources to bother reading more than the first few pages of briefs like this before the throw them in the trash. Hope that helps. 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy knows all this but never waste a chance to bash Obama. What gets me if Obama is as bad as Andy and co says he is there should be no shortage of legitimate reasons to bash him.--Patmac (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh youth. Go have a look at Terry Hurlbut's blog for some insight into how deep the paranoia goes. Every reporter on staff at every major news outlet is in Obama's pocket. It's true. 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just like every scientist is in the pay of Big Evolution. Is your opinion considered batshit insane by the majority of people? Close that credibility gap by inventing a giant, worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth. It's worked for some of the top cranks throughout history, and it can work for you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Had to look up that video game amicus brief. You can download from here.

Some highlights:

• "The risk of harmful effects from being exposed to violent video games is far greater than many other risks that receive more attention and regulation, such as exposure to lead, second-hand smoke, and asbestos."
• "There were several tell-tale signs that this massacre was incited by a violent video game. For example, he never moved his feet during his shootings, and never fired far to the left or right; instead, he fired only once at each target that appeared, just as a player of video games maximizes his game score by shooting only once at each victim, in order to hit as many targets as possible."
• "Displaying a shockingly violent image to belligerent, misbehaving teenagers is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult."
• "Content known only to the manufacturers include the use of undisclosed “Easter eggs” in video games that secretly take players to sexually explicit images. Not even game reviewers are aware of these secret passageways to pornographic images...."

"secret passageways to pornographic images" is my new favorite phrase. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it was immediately apparent to you how each of these "points" related to the underlying litigation. His factually conclusions are typically very well supported, aren't they Night Jaguar? I wish I had the credibility to tell the Supreme Court of the United States How It Is™. Dammit I'm tired of having to by $60 video games to find secret passageways to pornographic images. There [xhamster.com has] to be a better way. 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Love it, chain smoke around your kids and invite all your friends around to add to the effect, connect a hose to your exhaust and feed it through their asbestos lined bedroom window, but please god no, do not let them play Skyrim. It has gay marriage in it.--Patmac (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Skyrim? Sounds dirty already. You'll be suggesting we play Freckles or soggy biscuit next.--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} 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Shortly after the release of Skyrim someone posted a petition on the new USG petition website (the one that requires 50k signatures) alleging that the game should be banned because, among other things, it advocated "the homosexual practice of rimming". I really don't remember if it was serious or not, though I have a feeling it was posted by someone at a fairly prominent parody site, but some people fell for it anyway (might be confusing this with something else). Skyrimming aside, I can't wait to see the reaction to GTA V from these anti-gaming-types. Sokar (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest it to Andy, and maybe add a piss your pants contest--Patmac (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Ken would win that. In fact I think he just did.--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} 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So declare victory and move on, the ball is in his court now and I can't see him returning it anytime soon--Patmac (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)