Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive321

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 September 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>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

First they came for the irony, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't an ironist.[edit]

Surely in CNAV worldimg that poem ought to read:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out for Alex Jones told me communists were taking over America.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out for Rand Paul told me Obama was a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unions, and I did not speak out for ALEC had told me trade unions destroy industries and deny hard working Americans jobs.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out for Matthew Hagee said all the Jews must be in Israel before Jesus can return.

Then they came for me, and strangely enough my collection of assault rifles wasn't enough to stop them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

New consignment of extra heavy-duty meters ordered from China. Please email me if you need replacements. Redchuck.gif ГенгисpillagingModerator 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Run them by me for QC before distibution. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It'll take me a while, I need to replace the standard fuses with penny nails. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 06:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that Ken was writing for Terry's blog. A collection of quotes pretending to be an article? Really? And good God, the design of that site (and esp. this article) is atrocious. Headline spread over five lines, one of them on the left side and all others on the right side? Same image twice in the top part, being almost as wide as the content column, but still allowing bits of text next to them? Not even a linebreak after the Print/PDF button? Or maybe it just looks silly because Adblock and Ghostery are going apeshit on the site (Ghostery alone blocked 13 items - that "MALWARE-FREE" button looks like sarcasm to me)? --Sid (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
At least he's removed the advertising banner that covered the site name. But the duplication of images has been a staple of the site since, like forever. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
...Did Heavederriere seriously just quote Lenin? --Certified Sick Bastard 11:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
He used the Lenin quote to support the idea that the great army of leftists, which naturally hold the true power in America, are actively trying to sow hate for conservatives. That's not out of character. Kimberly (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No, since Terry didn't write this. BTW, shouldn't this be in Clogs since it's not on CP? --Kels (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Love what is written at the bottom: "Think the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case was bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean". Persecution complex much? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, because being shot in the chest and dying is mild compared to being mocked on national TV. Though, even more disgustingly, he was probably comparing his plight to that of poor, persecuted George Zimmerman. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
When I bought a new iron to replace the one I inherited from my Mum, I did what I sometimes do - chose the best one I could find. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Marathon[edit]

Has anyone on CP noticed that Ken's latest marathon now spans, by my count, well over 48 hours non-stop. This must be the longest marathon yet. Acei9 02:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The term is mania, not marathon. Whoover (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Snickers. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, it's completely nutty. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
See what happens when you try to get rid of WIGO:CP? Ken goes to extreme lengths to get our attention. You all should be ashamed. Vulpius (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
That WP entry describe Ken with breathtaking accuracy:
grand or extravagant style, or expanded self-esteem; pressured speech; reduced need of sleep (e.g. three hours may be sufficient); talks more often and feels the urge to talk longer; ideas flit through the mind in quick succession, or thoughts race and preoccupy the person; over indulgence in enjoyable behaviours with high risk of a negative outcome (e.g., sexual adventures or improbable schemes)
Occasionaluse (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On the Talk atheism page he accuses Ryansch of being obsessed with atheism and the subject rarely crosses his mind, I had to laugh at that. He also has a go at Ryan because he admitted lying in his life where Ken himself has been caught out with his lies on more than one occasion--Mercian (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For someone who thinks rarely about atheism may I present:

Atheism and science, Atheism and obesity, Atheism and beliefs,Western atheism and race,Atheism and politics, Atheism and agnosticism, Atheism and the Problem of Evil, Atheism and the Bible,Atheism and Christianity,Atheism and morality,Atheism and charity, Atheism and Evolution, Atheism and Mass Murder, Atheism and Miracles, Atheism and health, Atheism and intelligence, Atheism and suicide, Atheism and deception, Atheism and belief, Atheism and terrorism, Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win, Atheist fluff, Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality,Atheism and Uncharitableness, Humorous quotes about atheism and evolution, Atheism and satanic deception, Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality, Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution, Atheism and marriage, Atheism and women,Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian, Essay: The atheism and science blues, Atheism and evolutionary racism, Essay:Atheism and depersonalization, Atheism and self-esteem, Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd, American atheism, Atheism and obesity, Atheism, Internet atheism, Atheism and the suppression of science,The atheism and obesity entry, Atheism and communism, Atheism and European suicide in the 17th century, Militant atheism and the intellectual slothfulness of PZ Myers, Atheism and public schools, Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, Atheism and depression.

I became bored with all the cut and paste but this is my no means all of Ken's atheism articles--Mercian (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Atheist Hypocrisy[edit]

Almost 200 edits in 36 hours and at most a 4 hour breakimg. Hard work! Good job! Excellent! Magnificent!

Oh.img.

Shakedangle (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually he takes several breaks between one edit spree to another. Still, this editing pattern is alarming. The longest interval between one edit spree to another lasted no longer than six hours and most intervals lasted less than that. It seems the breaks he takes are getting longer towards the end of the marathon, possibly due to exhaustion taking its toll. This is really a cause for concern, if people can die from playing PC games for 40 hours straight I don't see why Ken's editing patterns couldn't lead to the same outcome. - Bill Rawls (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
True, but I was pointing out his first 36 hours of edits, between 17:33 5 August and 03:42 7 August. Curiously, since taking that screen cap it looks like Conservapedia has closed its doors on me. Time to proxy up. Shakedangle (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On the morning of the 10th he took a 9 hour break. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Markman Hits One Out of the Park[edit]

The latest Greatest Conservative songimg is from an anime series about a hyper-intelligent corgi on Mars. It's a celebration of Flying Kitties! The usual "justification" about why the lyrics (by Yoko Kanno) celebrate Creationism is not very inspired, but it will be enough for CP. Whoover (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That cat is flying out of the bunny hole with its rainbow cape! Corgis are dogs, btw. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Welsh dogs. Queen loves 'em. What exactly did I say that sounded like I was confused on that subject? Dog's a major character. Song's about cats. Here's a bit more on Ein the brilliant data dog. Whoover (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The absurdity of this particular selection is that the lyrics are basically enciphered in a shifted-letter structure. The song is in Japanese, but Japanese encoded into this nonsense language Yoko Kanno invented and occasionally uses in her music. It's so absurd, it's delicious. On the other hand, am I the only one who got a distinctly religious (if not specifically Christian) feel out of Call Me Call Me? This is without taking the song's in-series context into account, mind you. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Must be the line, "Ten thousand years I've searched it seems." Seriously, "Cowboy Bebop" has as much to do with Christianity as "Sprited Away." And yes, it's an inspired edit. Whoover (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Is CP down again?[edit]

I can't access CP neither through my real IP nor through a proxy. Is anyone else having the same problem? - Bill Rawls (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "again"? I haven't been able to see it all for six weeks now. Spud (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Nah, still going. Highlight of the day is Karajerk's latest clog, written in faux southern drawl (or something), bitching about the fact that people made fun of Bush, so why can't they make racist taunts about Obama... --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
CP was working for me until today, and many people wrote on this talk page of how of all a sudden they managed to gain access to CP again after the site wasn't loading for them for a long time. - Bill Rawls (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Did they? I think rather more people wrote about how they used their tech skills to get around the block. I don't have any tech skills. There was one Saturday at the start of July when I could see it but I couldn't get RationalWiki that day. I don't know if that means anything. Spud (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
CP being down only proves Brian right about them being correct about everything. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That how bit with the rodeo clown, I can't believe he got banned for that. If you are a politician in America, you're going to be made fun of, so sick of this bullshit that presidents and other politicians are sacrosanct.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bible Fight - Andy vs. Karajou[edit]

In his latest Angrydome, Karajou sez "..."Go, and sin no more." Sorry to disappoint all of you liberals, but that's what's in the Bible. Better quit the cherry-picking."

Well, sorry to disappoint YOU Popeye, but it isn't in the conservabible. Your master considers itimg a " liberal message" that is "not authentic." You damned liberal. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Kara was opposed to the CBP since day 1, looking at his posts in the FF and ZB groups, so I doubt he cares about His Master's conservative message. He just never had the balls to confront Andy directly about it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 08:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
And he's just posted a shout out on cp main page right to thisimg. Considering Andy removed the adulteress story from his rewritten bibul as it was liberal rubbish I reckon anger bear is subtly mocking Andy again. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I really hate to say this but I think Karajou has a much better grasp of traditional Christian teaching about ethics than Schlafly does. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let that sink in. --Revolverman (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That's because Andy isn't a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word; he just cherry-picks Scripture to back up his twisted arguments. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
As far I can see Karajou is one of the saner genuine editors on CP (as compared to Andy and Ken). Why is he still wasting his time on that place when it's clearly infested with obvious parodists and a few genuine lunatics? It is because CP gives him some kind of a position of power? - Bill Rawls (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
"As far I can see Karajou is one of the saner genuine editors on CP (as compared to Andy and Ken)." That's some faint praise. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
He's not an editor as such. He doesn't write articles or do anything to create an encyclopaedia. He just bans people. He's a permanently angry little man who likes to take out his rage on other people --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
He did create all those bird articles a while back. Vulpius (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm loving that blogpost by the way. It's just such a classic piece of idiotic conservative reasoning. Especially this bit:

"I now pronounce you husband and...er...uhh...husband" says the confused priest, who then gets a letter in the mail from the newlyweds stating they are going to sue him for mangling their nuptials in front of their guests in the church where they forced the priest to hold the ceremony under the threat of another lawsuit...wedding cake, anyone? Yes, the baker was sued, too; she opposed gay marriage, wouldn't bake the cake, got sued and was forced by a judge to start baking the cake anyway, and this was recorded by the photographer who himself was sued for refusing to put the happy young gay couple in his studio because he opposed gay marriage... Isn't liberal love and tolerance wonderful?
  • Why is the priest so confused? Did he just wake up? Is it that hard to phrase a sentence which slightly deviates from the normal sentence he uses?
  • Why did all these professionals agree to be hired, and then refuse to do the work?
  • Why is the photographer taking pictures of a baker who's being forced to bake a cake? Just, what?
  • WEDDING CAKE ANYONE?
  • Indeed, liberal love and tolerance sure is a sham in this retarded scenario you just made up based on nothing! Hey remember how christians say jesus was a good guy? Well how about when jesus raped and murdered THE ENTIRE WORLD?! So much for christianity!
  • Alternatively, imagine if someone were to intentionally mess up a christian wedding because they think christianity is wrong. Think that would be okay? --GTac (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the delightful roseann is on about in this lot of drivel? Has she really simply cut and pasted some kind lecture to home skoolers and not even bothered to take out the 'questions' they were asked? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No, but I fear it's the start of a long series.

Back to the last post, more than his paranoid fantasy about all the upright citizens being sued by gays, I don't get why homosexuality is such a special case for these people. He fantasizes that the Adulteress is really a lesbian and cites Leviticus for proof that God hates gays. But the same citation shows that God hates adulterers and people who have three-ways with sisters as much. Why don't they work as hard to deprive remarried people (Jesus said that they commit adultery) of their rights as gays? Irrational homophobia seems to be the true religion here. The Torah contains 613 commandments. No butt-fucking doesn't even make the Top Ten. How did it become The One for these people? Whoover (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it's the one they're obviously and demonstrably not guilty of (except when they secretly are.) Most of the things god commanded them not to do they do anyway, so any one they happen not to be guilty of is worth celebrating. It's probably the same reason why the gay haters are the same people who see witches and warlocks everywhere they go. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Castro[edit]

Look who's written a statement. Stomach ailment would explain why he's not in public life any more. Anyone think Andy still cares enough to bother with this particularly brown and slimy train of thought or will he still pipe his stupid idea? (It's I came/saw/shat btw, but I'm on mobile and can't be arsed to log in) --95.144.36.229 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course he'll stick to his idea. He has already fortified it enough to reach the point where nothing will convince him otherwise: If there is no live video, then Castro is dead and the statement was just written by whoever is secretly in charge now. If there is video, then Castro is dead and this is just a body double. --Sid (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
When Castro finally does die, which very likely will be in the next few years if not sooner, Andy will just take the route he took with Chavez, and claim that Conservapeida was right all along and it just took that long for the mainstream press to admit his death.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Didn't he even claim that the photo of Chavez sitting upright in a hospital bed holding a newspaper with a smiling young woman looked staged? It sort of looked staged. But it's insane to say look we were right he's dead. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Insane perhaps but if you look at the "Conservapedia Proven Right" page, Andy states that because Chavez died, CP (really just Andy) was correct in stating he was dead long before hand. It is akin to you or I stating right now that Obama is really dead and then years down the road when he passes away, claim we were right all along that he is among the non-living, it is the very definition of insane.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ken's IQ circa 230[edit]

Unfortunately I failed to screen cap this before the evidence was burnt but it was posted in the "news" section that he took an IQ test and got a score of 230 and challenged atheists and liberals to beat him. This is the test in question.[2]. However the test does not test IQ but nerdyness which Ken obviously did not read until after posting and bragging about his results. So instead of being a genius he is a first class nerd. A word of advice Kenneth, if you don't want people to read and ridicule your idiocy, don't post it in the first place.--Mercian (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I got 221. It asked me to identify a bunch of scientific and mathematical concepts which I got all right, but also to identify a Dr. Who, which I can't stand, and some cleavage I couldn't even get the reference to (game of thrones perhaps? That's a thing that's popular, right? Never read it, never watched it.) So I guess I'm not nerdy enough to meet Kendoll's exacting standards. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
173 and I took it 4 times. It seems more like an Internet Aspergers test than a geek test. I don't get it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
87. What is a "Larp," and who is that cute redhead? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
A LARP is a live action role play, or nerds in a forest beating each other with foam rubber swords. The redhead is apparently Felicia Day, and I should probably have my geek card revoked for not recognising her. I blame the cleavage for distracting me. Apparently it's from some Dragon Age live action film thing where she wears comically bad fake elf ears for some reason. That's a little too esoteric even for me. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Haven't seen the test (can't YouTube at work) but by context I suspect the 'LARP' thing with Felicia Day will be The Guild which is a MMORPG pastiche rather than LARP. It's actually pretty funny. Short episodes. As as with everything these days, Will Wheaton pops up now and then. From Geek and Sundry, who also host Will Wheaton's 'TableTop' which is pretty cool too. Worm (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
201. Then I did the test again because the first time, I didn't get the question about the redheaded lady with big knockers; my geekiness went down to 154. Very definitely not an IQ test (but Kenny-boy's place on the leaderboard might indicate that he spends too much time on the internet looking at pictures of big-knockered ladies). Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
(but Kenny-boy's place on the leaderboard might indicate that he spends too much time on the internet looking at pictures of big-knockered ladies).
That makes two of us--Mercian (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
How does Ken manage to be so geeky yet fail so horribly on the Internet?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
He probably isn't. He probably just took the test about 50 times and then boasted about his best score. That's exactly the behaviour I'd expect from him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Come on Jeeves. Let's have a little back and forth. What other behavior would you expect more? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
283. I think I should be ashamed but I am not. --Certified Sick Bastard 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more impressed by his 4th place in a spelling bee than any score from ten, 3-choice questions. This is the level of a newspaper personality test, and is redolent of Ken just grasping at any passing straw to prove something or other. What an underachieving twat. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
How the sodding hell could anybody mistake that for a genuine IQ test? How could somebody who has gone along with Andy's line about video games being evil (except when his friend Shockofgod plays them) think that knowing about those games was a measurement of intelligence? How could somebody who has repeatedly used the word "nerd" as an insult to taunt atheists then boast about being a first class geek? Ken has well and truly passed the dickhead test. Spud (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You Have to Remember...[edit]

I have no doubt at all that User:Conservative's IQ is in the mid-200's, if not higher, since they are a committee of at least eight people. 06:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Isn't the normal formula the lowest individual IQ, divided by the number of people? --65.101.119.25 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to interject that, generally speaking, conventional IQ testing runs out at about 180 or so, depending on the number (usually 15) chosen to represent one standard deviation. Done battle on WP over some of this (high IQ societies), think I lost in the long term because I lost interest... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Markman's bullshit translations[edit]

I see his adding of bullshit to the conservabible continues apace. I think he's getting bolder as he realises the two and half admins left at CP don't give a shit what he does as long as he has "good blocks."

I like this passage: "Because I know of all of your many crimes and your huge sins: you hurt the conservatives and take bribes and you're uncharitable. / And so the conservative keeps silent in that time; because it's an evil time."

And this one: "The LORD has sworn by himself, said the LORD God of armies, I hate the claptrap of Jacob, and hate his palaces: so I'll turn over the city and everything in it."

There's gold in them there translations. Terry would have a shit fit if he ever bothered to stop by. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed:) But my personal favourite is the translation of Chronicles chapter 10 verse 4 which went from:
Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
To
Then he told to his squire: “Take out your sword and kill me with it, so this atheists don’t come and have fun with me.” But his squire failed to obey the order, because he lacked machismo. Then Saul took his sword and let himself fall over it. --Mercian (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, I think that passage describes Conservapedia's strategy to a tee in the last few years: Falling on their swords so atheists don't come and have fun with them. Genius. Though nothing will ever beat God's plague of dental hygiene, because universal healthcare is evil. That one is inspired. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre as it seems, and damn silly idea that it is, the CBP could have worked. A couple of hundred prints and sales perhaps. Sure it would have lost money but could you imagine the bragging rights it would have given Andy?--Mercian (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean "could have"? I don't remember Andy ever talking about getting it published on paper. Why would he want to when Conservapedia is going to replace books, newspapers, television, movies, all other kinds of entertainment and everything else? In the past, Andy has triumphantly crowed on CP's main page about bookshops closing down, to the confusion of most casual visitors. But if Andy wanted to bring his Bible out in book form, he still could. Of course, almost every one who bought it would only do so for a laugh. Spud (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Forget about his bible translations and look at his new addition to Greatest Conservaitve Songs. I can't provide you a link because my IP is blocked, and I won't tell what it is so as to not spoil the surprise. - Bill Rawls (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think CP has the wrong link for the song, please try this one. Hclodge (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hahahaa. Well, if anyone had any doubts about Markman being a parodist, that pretty much settles it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Karaturd is the only one paying attention. But he is very, very dim. http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Amos_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=1064154 Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 10:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I seriously dislike markman, he's thrown a lot of decent people under the bus on his parody crusade. But even I have to admit that he has played this superbly. He has pushed just the right buttons to get Andy to support him. Anger bear knows damn well he's a parodist but can do nothing because mm has Andy's support. And he has managed to insert so much utter crap throughout the site that it will be impossible to revert everything he added. I do think he's getting a little bored now though and is ramping up the crazy to see just how far he can push it before Anger snaps and blocks him. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"The Lord took me from behind the flock" - yeah, he's a douche, but his parody is pretty good. PsyGremlinTala! 10:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
He's making the Conservative Bible even more silly than you thought it could beimg. Probably the first "translation" of the Bible ever to use the words 'cowboy' or 'slut'img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, what a douchebag suckup he is. Is it really going to work? Can you really add the Trololol song to CP then just flatter Andy's delusions enough that he'll let you stay? I guess we're going to find out. Surely even Andy can't be that oblivious? It almost makes me angry to watch him fall for these flatterers and fawners again and again. He's like a tragic hero without the hero bit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody else notices to whom Markman is replying? Another case of the "sysops fail to weed it out users named after fictional characters" phenomenon on CP. - Bill Rawls (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, Dougie there is a long time thorn in the side of Andy and co. There's a bunch of other famous people, fictional and not. It is kind of strange to see how the real name policy is enforced. Or not as the case may be. Hi, Conservative and Karajou! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
If they already have a DHouser I wanna see a BStinson. It's gonna be LEGEN... wait for it... DARY! - Bill Rawls (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Markman takes all the joy out of parody. It's hard to know who to root for. Whoover (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Capturebot[edit]

Capturebot appears to be down, can anyone fix that? — Unsigned, by: 124.171.150.179 / talk / contribs 2013-08-19T09:40:23‎

He got picked up for vagrancy since CP is so dead. Gunna let him dry out in the can a bit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap Ed[edit]

"Black Racism"? "Black Unemployment"? Anyone want to take bets on what's next? Ruddager (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm betting a "Black people and crime" article. In this rate Ed Poor is gonna become a racist version of Ken, writing shit like "Black people and bestiality". - Bill Rawls (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear... "Gay lobby" Ed stubs are go. All that's missing is him liveblogging a movie with teenagers in. Did he get smacked around on WP again? --PsyGremlinParla! 16:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess he's just found himself a new idol. Why are Ed's favourite authors always the most reprehensible people imaginable? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that question is rhetorical. DickTurpis (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
At wikipedia, he has maneuvered himself in a corner at wikipedia, by playing a new expert card: (Here's a Sobran quote which, to me (a Jew), sounds distinctly pro-Jewish). I assume he just wants to let pass some time... --larron (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, Ed's gone from "my mother was a Jew, so I'm a Jew" to "I'm a Jew." No Ed, you're a member of a Korean faux-Jesus cult, which uses a blessed handkerchief during sex. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Is his mother Jewish, really? If so then that does make him Jewish according to Jewish law. (Probably everybody here knows that; I'm just a little puzzled because I don't all the ins and outs of CP personalities.) Doctor Dark (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's a bit complicated, but if your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew. That's the way it works. --Sasayaki (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Depends on which denomination of Judaism we're talking about. According to Orthodox Judaism, if you've been born to a Jewish mother you're Jewish no matter what, even if you convert to another religion. This does not necessarily mean that Ed would be considered a Jew by them; just because his mother might see herself as Jewish does not necessarily mean she would be considered Jewish by Orthodox Judaism e.g she could be a convert to Reform Judaism, making her a "JINO" to the Orthodox.
Reform Judaism, if I'm not mistaken, defines people as Jewish based on whether or not they practice a form of Judaism, so therefore I think they would regard Ed as non-Jewish due to his moonie affiliations. - Bill Rawls (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ed's a second generation Moonie. His mother might have been ethnically Jewish, but she was religiously nutty. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ed defended Moon's anti-semitic bullshit by saying "I'm a Jew and therefore by me agreeing to this it's not anti-semitic." I'm wondering if that's why he likes Sowell, they both use the "I'm _____ (insert ethnic/religious group), ergo saying some bad shit about _____ is not racist if I agree with it." - Bill Rawls (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Cringe[edit]

I haven't seen this little gemimg from Ed mentioned anywhere. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 10:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is truly pathetic[edit]

Ken is so keen to be persecuted, his made up book author is now receiving made up death threats. What the fuck, Ken. It's bad enough you continue with this charade, now you're smearing us atheists with fantasy crimes? Fuck you. You're delusional, seek medical help. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure medical help is the answer. What's a doctor going to say? "Other than being a bit overweight, chronic insomnia and a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome... I can't really find anything wrong with him." The real problem is that he's using his brain as nothing more than a knot to keep his spinal cord from collapsing into his asshole. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Ken, as a child, did you get your ass kicked daily? Or was it just weekly. You act such a coward thinking you're striking at those dastardly atheists from your intellectual bunny hole; but don't you ever forget that you're not anonymous on the Internet. Cuddles, Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting in that Ken has never given away the identity of this "author". So how they found her is a mystery I guess. Or, alternatively, Ken is a complete liar. I know where my money is...And Ken has gone and posted it here too. Acei9 02:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"The authoress expects the book to be published in 2013 or early in 2014." Or perhaps late 2020... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In my mind any death threat should be reported to the police. Is there such an offence in the US of falsely accusing someone of a crime, even if the alledged criminal is anonymous?--Mercian (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
And the picture of the meat cleavers is sick, bearing in mind a recent high profile and very nasty murder was commited in London using such a method[3]--Mercian (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
To me, the worst thing about that post is he uses 'authoress'. Why spread the dastardly '-ess' suffix to more words? It's stupid. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 03:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word 'authoress' is way overdone. Suspiciously overdone some people might say. 'The authoress expects the book to be published in 2013 or early in 2014' Isn't it funny who her willingness to commit to deadlines is very similar to Ken's. She doesn't exist. The book doesn't exist. Ken is a liar and a lonely, lonely man. StarFish (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say much for Ken's security if somebody who's never been named is suddenly getting death threats. It says even less that a fictional person is getting death threats. Then again, we wondered just what levels of insanity Ken would descend to if we removed CP from our frontpage... here's a good example. Ok Ken, death threats are serious business, so let's see you file a complaint with the police, if you're so concerned about "her" well-being, and let's see a copy of the case number and who the investigating officer is. Just remember, filing a false report is a federal offence. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If the book were actually real, there wouldn't be any doubt as to when it was going to be published. There'd be a hard date when the final manuscript had to be done, and a hard date when it would go to press and those dates would have been fixed about a year ago. Ken's so unfamiliar with how things are done in the real world that he thinks authors just make airy promises to their publishers about when they might finish a book. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind the modern revolution in self-publishing is really amazing, at least in the hands of a sane person. Books are literally printed-to-order at a reasonable price (trade paper under $20, say). ħumanUser talk:Human 01:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When did Ken start pretending to be a woman? I know he always claimed several people were writing it but this seems to have changed to an 'authoress'. I know he just makes stuff up but personally I would absolutely love to see this book produced as I think it would be a hoot. Sadly though his proudly displayed promises of publication dates turn out to be as real as the mystery woman writing them and most other things in the life of Worlds-Saddest-Man. StarFish (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

He's not claiming to be a woman, although he has frequently claimed to be a collective which includes women. What he is claiming is that other people, in this case specifically a woman, are helping him out in creating his imaginary tome. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe "authoress" should be added to the list of new conservative words and attributed to whatever century best fits the exponential curve. Hclodge (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lest any personess who objects to -ess commonly being added to the ends of words like actor, waiter, and author have the PC police called on her, let it be known that the conservative solution was reached in 1867 (this is a great book). Don't do it, Keness. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am considering phoning the police in Buffalo,NY myself to report that Mr Ken Demyer of the city has knowledge of a death threat and is witholding the information from them. That should give him a kick up his lying backside. Time to get your story straight Ken.--Mercian (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
PS. what are the odds of all reference to these threats being deleted and burnt from the QE blogspot, facebook and CP by the end of the day?--Mercian (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Screw you. That wouldn't fall under any good samaritan law and you've got no evidence that anyone's withheld anything but from you. You also likely don't know his address and nobody here's going to tell you just so you can cause him grief. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
And considering no one, not even Ken, believes this woman actually exists it'd be a very bad faith report. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Tongue in cheek Nutty, sometimes it is hard to express in writing. Anyway it is now 2 people who have recieved death threats.[4]> And his attitude shows that he is welcoming these threats. Bring it on atheists.--Mercian (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried to turn in a certain scumbag for threatening and harassing my family, coworkers, and pets. The local authorities were a bit perplexed as to how to proceed in finding and prosecuting the perpetrator, and eventually just gave up. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ken , your question:[5]. May I answer: Michael F. Griffin, Rev. Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder.
Now to be fair this is not quite the answer you wanted. The victims were not necessarily evolutionists but they were all of course "liberal" which you have used as a synonym for evolutionist in the past. I am guessing that most of the murderers were YEC. True they may not have threatened to kill, they just murdered. Does that answer you? Can you give me a single name of a YEC who was given a death threat by an evolutionist? Cat got your tongue? --Mercian (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
May I humbly add the examples of Dennis Markuze/David Mabus and Anthony Powell? Really Conservative, literally hundreds of death threats go back and forth on youtube comments every hour. Shakedangle (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"Conservative" himself relishes the thought of atheists and people he disagrees with getting hurt, having violence done against them, and being put in lethal situations like being in burning houses, getting hit by cars , being hurt by animals, and being shot. It's not analogy or hyperbole when it is such a visible part of his tirades against "evolutionists". As an OEC Catholic, I have been lumped into that lot. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My favorite part of this story is that when someone gives an example of real people receiving threats, Karajou rides in with "Show me the proof." So, an anonymous person claims that another anonymous person made a threat against a third anonymous person, and Kara thinks it's probably legit. Someone gives a very clear, well documented answer, and all of the sudden he's a skeptic. Carlaugust (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Anger bear is dumb and angry, film at 11.[edit]

"Show me the proof!" he roars. "OK!"img says a peon, but apparently showing him exactly what he asked for is trolling so have a block. What a bunch of cowardly fuckfaces. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How is the Acropolis proof? Me thinks you got the link wrong Jeeves. Did you mean thisimg and thisimg? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops, yeah. managed to truncate the URL somehow :/ --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
[6][7][8]. Ken responds as if the issue was not addressed, and asks further questions of the now blocked user.I think he can safely declare victory.--Mercian (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually ken replied to ziltoid and not to the blocked user. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet, Ken has utterly failed to substantiate his claim that his anonymous "authoress" received any death threat or even exists. Par for the course for a deceitful turd. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
isn't it fairly common knowledge that Dawkins has received numerous death threats? Acei9 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If you search for Dawkins hate mail on youtube you can find any number of amusing videos about it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And don't forget Anthony Powell, that fucked up creationist who actually made good on his threats. Acei9 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Who exactly are the lamestream media?[edit]

Quoth Andyimg, parroting a BBC news headline: "Obama's "credibility 'in tatters' over Egypt crisis," Then adds that "... the lamestream media will never admit it." Um, isn't the BBC part of the "lamestream media"? I think criticising the media for not reporting something your copy-pasted verbatim from the media is a new level of madness for Andy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

CP-centric answer: the lamestream media are whatever media sources that fail to report the news as Andy would have reported it. Real-life answer: it's an America-centric term meaning the big three networks, CNN, and the big urban newspapers. Most Americans don't read/watch/listen to the BBC (I myself am a World Service addict...) so it hardly counts as "mainstream" over here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait, is Andy inadvertently supporting the Muslim Brotherhood here? There's not that much the US can technically do except cut off military aid, which won't probably do much to stop the violence anyway. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
He's advertently supporting whatever he thinks makes Obama look bad, just like he does with Putin/the Russians. He would support the zombies, the insect alien overlords, or anyone else if he thought it would let him score a point against Obama.
Conservapedia's article on the BBC describes it as both a liberal and socialist organisation. I think in their eyes in could be considered "lamestream".--Mercian (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm a relatively well-informed guy, but I'd never heard the word "lamestream" before Andy lapped it up after some now-blocked parodist suggested it. Has anyone else heard this word outside Conservapedia? What would a random casual reader think seeing that? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It gets bandied about a lot over on Fundie Teabagger Facebook took. Evil WP tells me the phrase is used by Caribou Barbie. That said, in Andy's case it means "everbody whjo doesn't report the news the way I want it reported." Remember, even WND wasn't conservative enough, after they had a go at the CBP. PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I remembering hearing it back in the last century when I was knocking about with some members of London Greenpeace, hard core punks and the hunt sabs in southern England. I may be mistaken of course, a lot of that time was spent in a cider and speed induced haze. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You're a bigger man than I am. Booze and amphetamines never did anything for me except in doses that are probably dangerous to most people. Dopamine agonists just settle me. Opiates and booze? Yes please. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
BBC News is the largest news organisation in the world, beating out all the others and producing 120 hours of news material every day (worldwide), and that doesn't include online articles. It is literally impossible to get more mainstream than BBC News. X Stickman (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Very few people in the US follow the BBC, therefore, to an American-centric guy like Andy, iy's not "mainstream." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The BBC is not lamestream only because the current PM is Conservative. If Labour were in, it would be totally lame, and Socialist to boot. Whoover (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The BBC is known to have had a strained relationship with the British Government from time to time, be it Labour or Conservative.--Mercian (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing Andy's world and reality. Whoover (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that Brush Lintball coined the term. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you mean "lamestream media," that's Sarah Palin's. Whoover (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure? I thought it went back to the nineties, before Nailin' Palin could even see Russia, let alone spell it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure.
I'm sure you are not correct. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A lame rhyme, used once and ignored, might be "coining the term," but Caribou's use was noticed and became the meme we're discussing. Since she doesn't read, we have to give her the benefit of the doubt and allow how she dreamt it up. Whoover (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but just because it took barbie and the US until a few years ago to pick the phrase up does not mean she coined it. I told you, I recall hearing it being used extensively in the the 90's here in the UK in certain circles. She may have popularised and, to paraphrase your words, created the meme. But I refuse to believe she 'dreamt it up'. More likely she heard it in passing one day, forgot about it until suddenly one day her dumb brain dredged it up and flung it out. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Most likely one of her mooses/handlers told her to use it. You think she thinks or dreams? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No, but I was trying to be being more subtle about making that point. Personally, and only from what limited evidence I have seen like her having her crib notes written on her hands during interviews and try to sneak looks at them, I somewhat doubt she has ever had a truely original thought inher entire life. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sysops fail to weed out a user named after a cartoon character[edit]

I won't mention who this user is so as to not help Schlafly and his gang. I don't think the rest of you will have any problems discerning who it is, just look at CP's recent changes page. - Bill Rawls (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One of mine I think ;o) Better lie low for a bit or my you-know-what might get bitten ... Ruddager (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I don't think that any of the few genuine editors on CP actually know enough adult animation to smoke you out, and the parodists might let you live just for the humor your name provides. - Bill Rawls (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's happening again, this time it's a live action fictional character, and seeing his alias he definitely reads WIGOCP. Don't wanna say his username here so as to not spoil the fun. Besides, looking at his edits it's clear he won't last long on CP. And no, it's not me. - Bill Rawls (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Not everybody can be familiar with every cartoon character. What you'd be asking would be for them to google every username. Not terribly fun. Now, if someone signed on as Mickey Mouse, that would something else.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And now BStinson has been killed by Ken, supposedly for being a sock of "Horace". - Bill Rawls (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh crap[edit]

Seems I've been included in Andy's "block the world" campaign. Because hiding from criticism is such an adult thing to do. Ah well, proxies here I come. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally IP edited here a few days ago and it looks like that was enough to get server blocked again. It's for the best. At least until 2016. I forget who pointed it out to Andy, but we're about 10x more likely to know how to get around the block than someone who actually wanted to edit CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I've had the same problem lately too. Been careful for ages so he must've found a new way to detect RWers? Ruddager (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Strangely, I was not able to get to CP for several weeks and now they are open for me. Personally I would attribute all these ups and downs to blundering and general erratic behavior rather than any great cleverness in their approach to blocking. (They could be smarter than I think, but consider the track record...) Doctor Dark (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I was blocked for several weeks, unblocked for a couple, and now I'm blocked again. No apparent rhyme or reason. Maybe "Block the World: Round 2"? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A few more days and they'll drop below 100,000 on alexa. I can't believe Ken is letting them do this. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
They are already below 100,000. Arcane (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Arcane

My God, listen to us, obsessing over web traffic statistics. We've become what we've always hated! We're no better than Ken.... Time to shut down this failed experiment.--JimBags (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What's more interesting than the numbers themselves are the entries on the Alexa page under "Upstream sites" and "What sites link to conservapedia.com"? Copied here for your reading pleasure:
Upstream Sites
Which sites did people visit immediately before this site?
Site Percent of Unique Visits
1. google.com 16.1%
2. rationalwiki.org 6.2%
3. facebook.com 4.5%
4. wikipedia.org 4.1%
5. google.co.uk 2.6%
I'm too lazy to figure out a decent way to show the linking sites, but the only real item of interest is that they're getting a link from an article on puffer fish antidote, of all things. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't a puffer fish one of Ken's favourite pictures at one time? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 07:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah you remember why back when his gibberish was confined to his userpage? All those ridiculous pictures? I recall the puffer fish being one of them. Acei9 07:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I love that three of the top five are from sites that Andy simply despises.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Google 'liberal'? That would mean he doesn't like all five. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 16:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy loves it, too. Never underestimate how much reality gets filtered out by those rose colored glasses. In Andyland, people are fleeing from liberal sites like RW, FB and WP to go find real knowledge at CP. Seriously. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Numbers[edit]

I updated Conservapedia:Active_users#User_chart. --larron (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Essays: a look into a troubled mind[edit]

Apparently, I had never taken the time to plumb into the depths of CP before, and today stumbled across a essay on Comedy and Satires concerning Atheism and Evolution, which I find to be, shall we say, a bit scatter-brained. How can anyone seriously post something like this and be expected to be taken seriously? Comedy and satire, indeed. Hclodge (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that the work of one of the mysterious panel of of prime intellects known as User:Conservative? His/their essays are a riot. SophieWilderModerator 10:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Besides, it's those silly atheists who need to get a life! Vulpius (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, essays. From back in the day when CP editors would rant on the site instead of now from their own blogs at CP's expense.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
They have to rant on their own blogs if they want anyone to read their words of wisdom, because most of the world is now blocked from reading CP.... Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Real Proof Castro Is Dead[edit]

If Castro was really alive, then the liberals here in America would be clamoring for Obama to pay homageimg to the cigar chomping communist dictator. As they don't, he must be dead, and to believe otherwise is akin to believing in Kim Jong-Il's elite golfing skills, says Il Duce Andy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of North Korea, how do we know if Kim Jong-un is still alive? Surely if that was the case the arch communist Harry Reid would have invited him to speak in front of the Senate. - Bill Rawls (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
How do we know that Andy S is still alive? If he was then Conservatives in Congress would be clamoring for him to address a Joint Session of Congress. Hclodge (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think about atheism very rarely, honest.[edit]

[9] Bad Kudos from Terry, he ruins the perfect Conservative only update page--Mercian (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

TO BE FAIR, I don't think much thought was involved. -GTac (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I wrote this I have done my normally evening activites, had 8 hours sleep, got up, etc but he has not stopped. In fact he has now been going 21 hours flat, with a small break last night. Is Ken on amphetamine ? I am a fit and healthy man some 10 years younger than him and I have nowhere near his energy levels, where does he get it from?--Mercian (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is why there are very genuine concerns about Ken. It's all too easy to get all amateur psychologist but his manic (in the true sense of the word) edit patterns do make one wonder. From Dictionary.com
Manic disorder - a type of affective disorder characterized by euphoric mood, excessive activity and talkativeness, impaired judgment, and sometimes psychotic symptoms, as grandiose delusions.
When we laugh how much are we mocking the afflicted? Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As most of the editors here are aware, yes, Conservative is mentally ill. I guess it's funny to taunt him, in an Encyclopaedia Dramatica kind of way. Personally I find it distasteful. Tielec01 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Mentally ill or not, he's still a sexist, homophobic religious bigot who likes to point and laugh at fat people. And a crap writer. Spud (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a point it's worth not losing sight of. Just as atheists can lack morals and Christians can show truly unselfish altruism, mentally ill people can also be genuinely obnoxious pricks.--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 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
True, and when he states he distrusts and hates atheists as much as he hates rapists I think that shows the quality of the man. Not to mention a fellow user, Human I think, had his business and living threatened and attacked by Ken. Mental illness is one thing, but it is clear he knows right for wrong, and it is clear he knows he is doing wrong but continues anyway--Mercian (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
All my work is done online and the fucker has slandered me repeatedly on his blog.--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 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a train wreck in manic mode; he spent the last 48 hours with only one break of 7 hours writing incoherent copy/paste articles. Nets awesome (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy Schlafly needs to step up to the plate and shut this down. Ken will at least have one less thing to fixate on while he's clearly having a manic episode. Those people are depraved for watching this man break down and doing nothing about it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if he's not like this all the time. His edits to CP went way down when he was concentrating on his QE! blog, but now he seems to have mostly given up on that and is back to writing tons of incoherent articles on CP. I get the impression he's always spending near 24 hours a day doing this shit, only on a mediawiki site it's way more obvious what he doing (modulo his constant oversighting to try and hide it of course.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
To be sure, for someone who ridicules "nerds," he spends an inordinate amount of time on social media, CP, that blog, and petering around various fora. However, this behavior isn't normal under any circumstances. It would kill a person if he kept it up. In any event, Andy Schlafly has absolute control over this one outlet for Ken's mania and he's doing nothing to help the man. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I am guilty of starting this and other Ken topics maybe we should not react to him for a while. It may calm him down. If only he would put his undisputable energy, drive and diligence into something constructive--Mercian (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It wont. If we ignore him he will quite simply ramp up his crazy to try to get us to pay attention. Truth is I get the impression that we are the best friends he has. We are certainly the ones who care the most about him. Even Human and Fergus seem to care more than either his church or his fellow sysops at cp do. And that is very VERY sad tbh. I'm sure many of us know people with mental illness and have compassion for most of them. Ken's closest associates seem not to care at all. They may care, but that is not the impression I get. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as much as I despise him for his failings as a human being I'd like to see him get the help he needs. If his issues were controlled he might actually be able to see what's wrong with the way he acts towards people and start to sort it out. FFS, if he wants people to pay attention to him all he has to do is send a message and start a conversation! I'm sure most of us would at least give him the time of day if he approached us, even if nobody would exactly be rushing to invite him round for a beer. What gets me is his determination to turn everything into a public slagfest.--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 19:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I ain't no psychiatrist so I don't know what's Ken's ailment is, if anything at all (although a 48 hours editing spree is very disturbing). But what I'm certain of is that nothing that we or the people at CP do can exacerbate/lessen Ken's condition. His CP editing and FYI messages are merely a symptom of his supposed illness. If CP and RW were to vanquish tomorrow Ken will still find a way to engage in the same tomfoolery.
Bottom line is that none of us should worry that we're hurting Ken, other than violence there's nothing anyone of us can do to harm him. If you find Ken amusing than laugh at him, if you don't find him amusing than don't. It's that simple. - Bill Rawls (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no question that Ken is not "normal". Whether he is "mentally ill" is a different matter. Particularly when people extend that appraisal to imply he is mad. Ken has manic phases but apparently still manages to function at quite a high level, although the evidence from his editing shows that he doesn't have a regular job and he has admitted that he has sleep problems and needs some meds. But many of us are not "normal", Ken is just different in his difference and is fully responsible for his actions. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so Rodger is back again[edit]

And his two edits are about Chelsea Manning'simg<capture> conviction and her descision to announce her desire to trans and her <capture>name changeimg. Rather strange things to come back to cp to make edits about Rodger. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The guy does have a point though--Mercian (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think WP's policy on this issue is particularly well thought out. DickTurpis (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia goes to the Dogs[edit]

Seems that Kennyboy has decided that the Bestiality section needs some improvementimg— Unsigned, by: 58.106.53.196 / talk / contribs

And now a more efficient article on bestialityimg— Unsigned, by: 58.106.53.196 / talk / contribs
Why is there no USA and bestiality article I wonder. After all the USA has higher crime rates in general than the UK or Germany, and it is even legal in some of the states.--Mercian (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
He is slacking though, I thought he would have had a Wales and bestiality article by now, poor research Ken.--Mercian (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Lol! Don't forget NZ! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone should ask him why cattle herders were referred to as cow-pokes. Sphincter (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you've never been around cows. They kick anything that stands behind them. Now calves ... Cowpoke comes from cattle prods. Whoover (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Ken himself is into bestiality, as he is himself an animal. Ken leave that dog alone.--Mercian (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's quite interesting (OK, that's an exaggeration) that Ken's 'Britain and Bestiality' thing focusses on a British tourist in the USA and doesn't highlight the US of A person who's the main culprit in the story and sounds like a complete weirdo. But ignoring 50% of the facts if it makes the story sounds better is normal for Kenny-boy. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

8-year old shoots 90-year old grandmother after playing GTA IV, exempt from prosecution[edit]

Can't wait to hear Andy's take on this one. Gun control? Personal responsibility? Nah, let's just blame video games which are clearly not rated for the audience that perpetrated the crime.--Seth Peck (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, Andy's way aheadimg of you. --Sid (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, conservative denial. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Stupid Fox News. GTA IV does not "award the player points for killing people". Literally nothing like that happens anywhere in the game. X Stickman (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it's always interesting/furiating to see the American media strawmanning vidya games.. A while ago there was this notorious clip of some American news show where one guy went on how disgusting GTA was, since he had run over a hooker in the game and then beat her to death with a baseball bat! Which was interesting, cause the disgusting part of that was obviously the guy playing it, since there isn't any mission or anything that made him do that.. --GTac (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's more fun to run over the strippers or shoot them with the explosive shotgun anyways. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 09:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed GTac. Ban this pencil and paper because I just drew a cock with it. It's disgusting! StarFish (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've not seen anybody comment on the tragic irony of this: Marie Smothers was pronounced dead at the scene with a gunshot wound to the head in a mobile home park in Slaughter, Louisiana. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 10:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose claim from Terry[edit]

Is this true? In the My Credentials section he says this, "I am the one who, nearly four years ago, first broke the “Climate-gate” story out of the narrow niche of climate-skeptical blogs and into the realm of journalism". I don't recall chuckie being that heavily involved in the 'breaking' of that story, was he? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's complete bollocks. This wanker was the first guy to write about it in the "mainstream media", and he got it from this wanker. Terry had only noticed the day before, and no one gave a shit what he had to say. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"out of the narrow niche of climate-skeptical blogs", er, and into the narrower niche of fundie Christian, Tea-bagger blogs? Chuckie has an inordinate amount of hubris and delusions of grandeur: from the way he tried to take command of the CBP as translator in chief, to wannabe general-of-the-one-true-generator when society-as-we-know-it finally collapses. The man is a pompous nutcase. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 12:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)A
Terry who? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy quietly admits a mistake[edit]

There's the still the occasional signal among the Kendoll-induced noise. Here's a turn up for the books. One of Markman's victimsimg gets a reprieve. The billionty and one other users he blocked are pretty much SOOL. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oopsie, link does not work for me. I'll take your word for it, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
SamHB's yo-yo block log makes interesting reading and exemplifies the arbitrary nature of CP's blocking policy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's easier for Schlafly to overturn this block since he wasn't the one who gave it, but merely one who let it stay for two weeks. It would also appear that Schlafly would have done nothing about this block if it weren't for being emailed about it but by both Sam and Markman. - Bill Rawls (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have placed the actual correspondence on my talk page; use the above link.
I have since been in correspondence with the guy. He admits that his motives were complete vandalism and mayhem all along. To him, CP was just one big MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). And I have to sort of agree with him. Whatever pretensions it once had to being a "Trus[t]worthy Encyclopedia", it has really become just an RPG. And people get (virtually) killed there. If not by malicious trolls, then by admins. It's not fair, especially to the people who came there with good intentions, and were either banhammered or left in disgust. It's a rough place.
Markman was absolutely astonished that Andy let him get away with what he got away with.
SamHB (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I've often wondered aloud here if he lets people like Markman stay because they clean up spam so he doesn't have to do it. He does seem to consider blocking the toughest job, worthiest of the most praise so it might follow that he thinks their janitorial services outweigh the damage they do. Then again, never ascribe to malice and all that... --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

More "victims" of parodists are being rehabilitated[edit]

And no, this time we're not talking about CP users, but about actual Republican officeholders. Iduan removed from the RINO article all of the current officeholders listed there. Sorry I can't provide a link but I'm IP blocked. - Bill Rawls (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend not putting up a link. Links to CP are very dangerous here at RW. While we can't be certain, there is some evidence that whatever broken software changes have been put in place that are ruining people's access to CP may be triggered by an attempted reference with a "referrer field" showing RW. Yes, I realize it's more complicated than that, but that does seem to be at least part of the problem. It might be the intent of the firewall change. Because of this, people should be extremely careful about clicking links from here to CP. And, don't post CP links here in link form, that is, with the double brackets. Just put up the links in plain text, and people can copy and paste them into their browser.
That said, go to CP, and look at the RINO page and its history.
SamHB (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Been blocked for over a month. My life has not been devastated. That is all. Scream!! (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The link PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Been blocked for a couple months now. Keep up with the capturbot. Warn people, I suppose? Who really cares? It did not affect my "real life" in any way. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If we can't access CP, how can we vandalize it? — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 07:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
We and what? Don't be stupid. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are individual editors getting blocked from CP but not Capturebot? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 08:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Didn't we deduce that Andy was blocking IP's with referrals from RW? I'm guessing whilst Capturebot is RW it doesn't get it's referrals from RW. Andy could probably kill capturebot by blocking it's IP if he could find it. 31.193.128.154 (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If referrals are really a problem, links can be given with anonym.to or a similar service. Open minded (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

While my home IP was blocked where spent the summer, I have followed dozens of links from here to CP at various libraries, coffeeshops, and here at my new crib, where I have been for a week now, and none of them were blocked for it. I'm calling total, unadulterated bullshit on the claim that Andy is systematically blocking IPs that visit his site from here. He's firewalled the site, but in a ham-fisted way, not based on anything we're doing. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it was turned off. I should reset my IP out of curiosity, if I cared enough. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd certainly concur with the idea that Andy is incompetent but I was accessing CP quite easily until two days ago but after following a few links from here it now always times out, while it pops up in a flash if I use HideMyAss. -Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 07:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
But that doesn't explain how I only ever visit CP using links from here and I've never stopped being able to see the site. Ayzmo (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've occasionally visited links from RW and never been blocked; however, it is always possible the blocking is an entirely manual process, whereby Andy and/or his minion(s) grep the logs and manually apply blocks to anyone with RW in the referrer. While going about such a tedious and repetitive process in such a manner would be stupid, it doesn't seem that far-fetched for that particular site, and would explain why it's so haphazard: whether or not you get blocked depends on whether your access happened to occur within the period they're scanning the logs for, and whether or not they get bored of adding blocks before they reach it. Purely speculative, of course: the real explanation might be even stupider. --Editor374 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Conservative stomps on an already dead corpse, declares victory[edit]

I'm not providing links because I'm CP blocked and so I have to use a proxy. Anyway, Ken went to AugustO's talk page and posted the following tripe under the title I warned you about the evolutionary morality slippery slope and Germany:

AugustO, I warned you about the evolutionary morality slippery slope and Germany. See: Bestiality and Germany and Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity.

Seeing that AugustO has not been active for three months (well he could come back for the remaining days of August, but what are the odds?) this is essentially tantamount to kicking some dead guy (that you haven't yourself killed) and than declaring victory. On a lighter note, can somebody make an edit of "I warned you about the stairs" which features this exchange? - Bill Rawls (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is "Bestiality and Germany and Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity" one article or two? (I'm currently unable to access CP.) Phiwum (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Two, and he has added the bestiality and Germany link to the Germany page. Parents, please do not allow your children to read Conservapedia, it is pornographic, chiefly edited by a man who is obsessed with an usually illegal and sick pornographic practice. I wonder if he has any idea that these articles make him look nothing but a pervert.
Update. His "Geographic ares where bestiality is posing a problem" died very quickly[10]--Mercian (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy is supposed to be starting a new course soon. I can't imagine he still invites his homskollars to come to CP, just one look at the shit that's in recent changes and all their parents would throw a fit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Lol, Andy Schafaly the porn baron: The the 21st Century conservative Hugh Hefner.
A shout to Karajou, who is at least sane and who keeps up with events here at Otisburg. Take a look at the history over the last few days, do you like what you see?--Mercian (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Jeeves, from where do you know about Schlafly's recent homeschooling activities? I'm not doubting the veracity of your information, it's just that I haven't seen it on CP so I'm curious as to where you are getting your information from. - Bill Rawls (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if Ken has the faintest idea that his obsession with linking bestiality with atheists does far more damage to Conservapedia than it does to atheism. (Although, I guess at this point Conservapedia's image is so negative it doesn't really matter.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
While I've been following Conservapedia only since about 2011 (I think), I get the impressions that CP's image would have been slightly better if it weren't for Ken's many bestiality/homosexuality/atheism articles. - Bill Rawls (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: Andy's homskolling, he posted about it hereimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like any references to bestiality in the main Germany article has been memoryholedimg, as currently the page without any references to the practice. Perhaps Kenny read this page and actually thought, "hey, this does make it sound like CP is all about screwing sheep", more likely just because we called attention to it. Unfortunately, this is more than off put by the sad fact that CP does have an entire template devoted to colt cuddling and doggy dinkingimg, which is creepy as fuck, and should be held as one of the top reasons why no one under 18 should visit that site, ever. Finally, for the curious, here is Kenny's note to AugustO for those who are interestedimg.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of that, I wonder if Ken realizes (in fleeting moments of sanity) just how utterly lame and ineffectual he really is. He's a one man circlejerk of trying to demonize homosexuality/atheism/evolution who comes off as the world's most uncreative troll trying too damn hard, and he's such a loser he has to try to get the attention of people who are laughing their ass off at him because no one else will ever take him seriously with a straight face. Arcane (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Arcane

Duck Dynasty?!?[edit]

Can someone of the yank persuasion explain to me why JPratt has a sudden hard-on for a reality TV programme by the name of Duck Dynasty? The only thing I've managed to gather about the content of this thing is that it features godly blokes with impressive beards. Why on earth do people watch this? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

why does anyone watch reality TV? People like a freak show AMassiveGay (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I know basically nothing about the show, but apparently at least one of its stars is a fundie, so that's probably it. DickTurpis (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it also about guns and hunting? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Just from reading WP, it looks like they are basically a family of pro-gun fundies. Perfect CP material. Until they say something that Andy disagrees with at which point they'll become RINOs. Actually one of them always seems to wear a Stars and Stripes bandana, which I'm pretty sure is against the Flag Code. Worm (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Only an issue when liberals do it. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
One or two weeks ago there was some talk about one of the family members running for congress, suggested by some Republican or whoever, but it was quickly shot down by the guy in question himself. Shakedangle (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't one of them treated like a hobo by some swank hotel recently? No doubt just another example of how the religious right are being persecuted. (And am I the only one who thought "Oh, Finland!" when I saw the heading?) PsyGremlinPraat! 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"Not the 700 Club for Rednecks." Whoover (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So, can anyone enlighten me as to why one would want to watch this? Are they fucked up like a sort of hillbilly version of the Osbournes? Or are they wholesome good ol' boys, kind of like a real life Waltons or something? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You're asking this of a nation that thought Honey Boo Boo was a good idea. The more I hear of reality TV, the more I can hear Bill Hicks yelling, "Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!" PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Every now and then something like this comes up which reminds me why it is that I never watch television anymore and haven't done so for over 10 years. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I imagine why the likes of JPratt watch it is that it is about "our type of folk" and so there is a knee-jerk support no-matter how dull it really is. It's the sort of thing that numbnuts Karajou would do as well. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeya Markman[edit]

Funny that Ken[1]img of all people finally blocked you. Nets awesome (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy was the only one that Markman had fooled. Ken and Anger are usually of the mindset that everyone but themselves are parodists; Andy, on the other hand, usually thinks you're a good enough guy and will approve of you if you just kiss his ass once or twice. Markman's done this multiple times, and in response Andy has ignored everything he's ever done. In an interesting development, Ken just reverted all of Markman's edits to Amos (Translated). Andy just oversighted this edit. Will be interesting to see how this turns out.--JimBags (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Welp, nevermind, Andy just yanked Marky boy's blocking rights. So long Markman, we barely knew ye. I was really hoping you could keep this thing going for a bit longer. Well done for keeping it up as long as you did. You're no Bugler but you did well.--JimBags (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You'd think they'd thank us for saving them from themselves yet again. What would they do without us to point out their hideous mistakes. Hey chaps, you might want to delete and oversight his edits to Ruth as well. They're hilarious. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
And good riddance! I have never enjoyed the uberdouche style of parodist. The crew of regulars are more than enough concentrated dickishness without having to add any extra. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't see the screenshot, why was he banned?--Mercian (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"Parodist" was quite literally the given reason. - GrantC (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, Just saw that I have been terminated. I honestly thought that I could go on with this forever, but apparently even Andy had his breaking point. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted and it's amazing it went as long as it did. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Conservapedia. You're welcome. Love, Rationalwiki. Ah, if only they had Rob's counter-intelligence skills to rely on. PsyGremlinSermā! 09:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume, now that Markman has been outed as the painfully obvious dick parodist that he was, someone will reinstate the well meaning editors that were blocked by him? Yes? ***crickets*** --Shakedangle (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Please send email to Andy apologizing for blocking me, and explaining that your block reasons were completely bogus. Though I think he knows that. Please copy me on that message--openly, not by blind copy--at sam4557@gmail.com. I will also be sending him a message, which, not having an email address by which I can copy you, I will post on your talk page here.
As Andy used to like to say--I haven't heard him say it lately, though he undoubtedly still believes it, as do I, actions have consequences.
On another matter, were you by any chance the person behind "markmansbanhammer@gmail.com"? It looks like some random drive-by trolling from some random person who found my email address on my CP talk page. On the other hand, it has the style, and the characteristic dementia, of CP sysops. SamHB (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy did revert all of Markman's changes to Ruth as wellimg; the book will likely never to be touched again until the next parodist comes along.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that capturebot isn't working and I don't know how to operate it anyway, I decided to upload this lovely exchange that I've screen-capped from Schlafly's talk page. You can't hide the truth Andy! - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the glee with which you are describing your CP behavior to be unseemly and hideous. Though Andy did deserve what happened. SamHB (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Crowing about how amazing you were at CP on this page is generally frowned upon love. --MikallakiM 17:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that anything I did on CP was amazing. I simply find it highly amusing how Andy can praise parody at one point and than fervently denounce it later on. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes and Crowing about them yourself tends to be looked down upon. So why not stop and let us do it if we feel so inclined. --MikallakiM 18:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
He's not crowing about anything, kid. Leave it to the grownups who are interested in this thread. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in it? When did that happen. --MikallakiM 18:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why we are coddling this fucktard asswipe who actively attempted to make legitimate users of Conservapedia's lives worse, and brought his dipshit trollery here to freshen up his character [11]? This is the kind of parody that needs to be stamped out - that makes us look bad. Hipocrite 18:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC) ? Hipocrite 18:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What Hyp said. Markman was and is a fucking wanker who did not indulge in 'parody' he indulged in tedious trolling, both of CP and here. The fact Andy is too fucking stupid to recognise trolling of that kind says more about him than markman's 'skill'. Parody is the entry about a form of vehicular transport that has been there for the past 3 years or more without a single cp sysop noticing it, not being a tedious lick arse shithead who delighted in banning decent people for spurious reasons. He was and is a tosser. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has called Markman a dick more than me (an opinion I continue to hold), but what do you wanna bet the concept of "daughter" being "female son of Israel" lives on in the CBP? Some of his crap was so beloved of Andy that I don't see him ever reverting it. That's got to get some credit. You could tell Markman wanted off the Crazy Truck; his shit got so obvious. I saw Russian Rickrolling as a symbolic act of suicide. Whoover (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy/Ken reverted all of that parodistical cunt, Markman's edits to the CBP.
I'd just like to add that Markman is a fucking cunty cunt without a single redeeming quality. He wasn't a parodist; he was a gratuitously obnoxious cunt. And, in case I forgot to mention this, he's a cunt.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 09:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I deliberately avoided using that particular word Fergus, even going so far as to go back and edit out the many times I had initially written it, but I would just like to say I wholeheartedly agree. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys would do well to just chill the fuck out slightly about him. He was actually pretty funny, and the way he was able to manipulate Andy and continue to get away with shit was hilarious. He also showed that the only way that you'll get taken seriously over there is if you're a giant cockface. Think how many times AugustO, GregG, brenden, and many others have been bullied/reverted/blocked by Andy, Ken, Anger, and Ed while trying to make logical, civil, reasonable, and sound arguments. On the other hand, 99.9% of what Markman wrote was bullshit, and it stuck (for a while) because he acted insane towards anyone that disagreed with him, sort of like TK. It shows you what they really value there, and what it really takes to be a prominent user. Utter insanity. --JimBags (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is nothing we didn't already know. It's nothing Karajou, Ed, Terry and Ken don't know either but I admit it might be news to Andy. Spud (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
My favourite time was when he went along and put a fact tag to every single article that AlanE had worked on. He just slapped them on 100's at a time. When AlanE objected, JM agreed with Markman so Markman carried on. Eventually Karajou asked Markman to stop it, but then he turned on AlanE and told him off for whining, saying that while Markman was a bit zealous it was basically AlanE's fault for writing bad articles. I think this was the straw that finally convinced AlanE to leave. Pure and utter cuntery, and in seriously bad taste, but also kinda amusing at the same time. --DamoHi 12:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is anything good to be said about Markman's behaviour, it's that it educes the shallowness and general douchebaggery of the other sysops. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, lots of Markman's best has not been reverted. No need to help them out further, but Andy finds that ring of truthiness irresistable. Whoover (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So Markman was a RationalWiki troll. I actually spoke with him on my pageimg when I was still with Conservapedia. As a moderator I saw he was wrongly blocking others and unblocked them, and ended up leaving Conservapedia in annoyance at all the bad blocks going on. This is the same kind of dishonest logic by liberals seen in Crash the Tea Party, infiltrate to try and make conservatism look bad. And then you guys think you deserve respect.
Jzyehoshua --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not one of ours. He was called out on being a troll/parodist time and time again on here. We warned CP over and over again that he was up to no good. I can't figure why you think it is our fault that Andy and Co let him carry on his bullshit for so long. He was asked to leave RW due to his trolling of CP remember? Or perhaps you just don't know what you are talking about. DamoHi 22:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Pfff. Markman's bad blocks are the reason you left CP... So I'm guessing you were cool with TK, Karajou and Ken's bad blocks? - Bill Rawls (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Markman was just one of several who blocked in ways I disagreed with. Actually it was Karajou who I most disagreed with on blocking policy.
Jzyehoshua--98.220.198.49 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh fuck off you tedious lying troll. That shite you posted on cp is bollocks and you know it. Oldusgitus (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well there's a specific, detailed, rational objection. Now here's where I suppose I should provide a reasoned response to your well-thought-out concerns. Oh, wait... --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, thank you for crystalizing for me once more why I dislike liberalism so much, and where exactly the rational, intelligent people do NOT hang out.
Jzambrano/Jzyehoshua --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Dude, you didn't have a valid point to begin with. You talk about Markman as if: A) He was personally sent by us to sabotage CP. B) That he single-handedly destroyed that wiki. Fact is that whatever damage Markman did to CP pales in comparison to the damage inflicted by Ken and Andy upon that site, both before and after Markman came along. Their bullshit is far greater than anything he inserted, and his bullying was simply an application of the knowledge he had learned from them.
Anyway, I see that MackD was given an infinite block by anger bear for demanding to see some actual evidence for the claim that Obama is a Muslim. Why don't you go fight actual bad blocks (given by a current sysop no less) rather than whine about the acts of a terminated parodist? - Bill Rawls (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
While that had been my initial impression per my original comment, I now realize per Damo's comments that this was not a deliberate strategy by RationalWiki to infiltrate Conservapedia, or necessarily authorized by RW. I never said he "single-handedly destroyed" anything. I mentioned that I disliked his blocks but again, there were multiple users whose blocks I disagreed with, he was just one of perhaps half a dozen different moderators/admins. Again, I already mentioned I differed more with someone else than him.
And I DID fight bad blocks. If you checked the talk page I linked to at the start, you'd see I did try unblocking people and ran into trouble with Karajou, even got short-term banned despite being a moderator as a result. I do still favor Conservapedia though I disagree with their blocking policy and have hope that some day they'll reform. Anyway, I am just dropping by to discuss my disagreements; I always like to see what others have to say in defense of their positions. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah of course you did, and you know if you so much as put a toe out of line you will be banned also. One of the major block reasons at CP is showing real evidence that shows the sysops to be wrong. Twice in the last few days Karajou has blocked people for proving he was wrong. Face it, CP is a dictatorship--Mercian (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I'm not editing at CP now. I contributed numerous major pages to CP but I don't like that kind of blocking policy, whether it's with liberal bias at Wikipedia, or conservative bias at Conservapedia. In Conservapedia's defense they have far fewer users and constant spam attacks, it must be overwhelming for the admins trying to confront the non-stop spam and they've likely become over-aggressive as a result. A lot of the vandalizing liberals like to show their tolerance by defacing other's websites, you know how it is. Not excusing Conservapedia, I'd love to see them change. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You say that in good CP fashion, that only liberals resort to vandalism, that is so not true. Face it, average liberals and average conservatives are decent people who have differing views. The average liberal(or atheist) will utterly and completely condemn mass murder, censorship, bestiality etc as much as the average conservative or christian will but on Conservapedia these traits are are an inherent part of liberalism, or even centrism. It condemns Obama as a marxist when in fact, at least from the my point of view he is a centrist, perhaps even leaning slightly to the right. It calls Hitler an "infamous liberal" for gods sake. People who believe what goes on at CP are utterly bonkers like Ken, or really nasty pieces of work like Andy or Karajou. I did not approve of Markman, mainly because he did not give a toss about the collateral damage he caused. But he did show that Andy Schlafly is a total wanker, excuse my french, and I applaud him for that.--Mercian (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
True, not all liberals resort to vandalism, just most of them. In all seriousness, there are extremists on both sides I suppose, although to be frank I generally have bad experiences with many liberals online. But then maybe they can say the same of conservatives, I don't know.
I don't really get into the whole "Obama is a Marxist" name-calling but as a business major I've come to understand why they say this. Socialism can actually refer either to the good kind of socialism, care for the poor and services for the good of all (like the post office, healthcare, etc.) or to economic socialism, which in essence means a government monopoly where government takes over industry, resulting in poor quality of care, cost inefficiency, and bureaucracy.
When these Tea Partiers are saying Obama is a Marxist, essentially they are complaining he's supporting government takeover of industry and picking winners and losers in the private sector; essentially increasing government subsidies and allowing Democrats to control industry for political gain. Personally I have more pressing concerns about Obama, like his voting record on the Born Alive bills (I authored Conservapedia's page on the issue, 'Obama born alive controversy') but I understand the concern.
Obama is an extreme liberal on social issues, but on the economic and foreign policy stuff that Bush got so vilified for, you're correct that is actually if anything right-wing. He's continued Bush policy on Guantanamo, warmongering, the Patriot Act/civil liberties violations, lobbyists in his administration, executive orders, drones killing civilians, free trade, and tax cuts for the rich (which he authorized without changes when Democrats could pass anything without a single Republican vote). And he passed a huge healthcare bill like Bush did (2003 Medicare expansion) in actually similar circumstances, but with more corruption, backroom dealing, and partisanship.
As someone who refused to vote for Bush and Obama in 2004 and can prove it, it annoys me that the same things I was willing to agree with liberals about criticizing Bush on at the time, they now give Obama a pass on. I've come to see them as operating under a hypocritical double standard. And by the way, Obama is not left-wing on foreign policy/economics, he just says what people want to hear and then does the exact opposite. It actually is kind of funny in a sad way that so many liberals think they are being smart by supporting him on issues where he stands on the opposite side, they foolishly don't fact-check anything he says.
Personally, I don't have anything against Andy or Conservative, but there are some other posters making some really bad blocks and I think Andy is permissive because he doesn't want to lose their contributions to the site. That the site started a debates section shows I think it started with good intentions, but it has gotten out of control with the blocking unfortunately. Again, I have hopes someday Conservapedia will fix that. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I also refused to vote for Obama in 2004; mainly because he wasn't running for President. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
Of course Obama wasn't running for president in 2004, he was running for U.S. Senate here in Illinois. He originally ran against Blair Hull and Jack Ryan but the Chicago media knocked them out of the race for him after they led him in the polls, by forcing the unsealing of their divorce files, after Obama struck a deal with the head of the IL Senate, Emil Jones.[12][13] Alan Keyes entered the race in August 2004 with less than 3 months left, arriving from out of state after Illinois citizens asked him to come so Obama wouldn't win unopposed (the same way he won in 1996 using a team of lawyers[14]). As an Illinois resident I discussed the 2004 election quite a bit on Alan Keyes' 2004 election site at the time, RenewAmerica.com, specifically the forums.
Anyway, I don't really see what your point was. Of course Obama didn't run for president that year. He ran for the Senate instead. Any resident of Illinois ought to know that. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Moderator 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, you're not editing at cp? Well thisimg says you are lying. You were editing there right up until a few hours ago. So we now know where liars go to hang out and I guess it's cp. And you now claim that "While that had been my initial impression per my original comment, I now realize per Damo's comments that this was not a deliberate strategy by RationalWiki to infiltrate Conservapedia, or necessarily authorized by RW." but hereimg you effectively directly accuse RW of sending that wanker markman to cp by claiming he is 'one of ours' when, as seen by the reaction on RW to him, he was anything but. So were you lying then or are you lying now? And if you now accept you were wrong can I take it you will be going to cp to retract your comment on talk:mp right? Or are you just simply a lying troll? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, there you go. No need for you to admit your error now as anger bear has just 'removed RW mention' so you can now pretend you didn't mean what you meant and claim all innocent just like most wingnut right wing xians always do. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
What? how can that be?, I think you're are telling porkies Oldusgitus. Conservapedia does not allow censorship (Unless is is printing the truth, mentioning RW, daring to disagree with Karajou, Ken, Andy etc or daring to suggest 20+ articles on bestiality have no place on a family website). It is trustworthy remember. Personally I have more trust in the local crack dealer. What i don't understand is why the NJ government or local parents allow kids to be taught by a bigotted moron like Schlafly --Mercian (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Those recent edits don't consist of editing at the wiki but in using the debate and talk pages. I haven't contributed in editing pages at the wiki since my disagreement with Karajou. Also, in my comment to Conservapedia expressing concern about this page, you will notice that I said the exact opposite of what you are saying, Oldusgitus. I stated, "though it sounds like Markman was doing it on his own" which is in line with what I said here.[15] I maintain that my comments there are consistent with what I said here. As I said, "I now realize per Damo's comments that this was not a deliberate strategy by RationalWiki to infiltrate Conservapedia, or necessarily authorized by RW" and my comments to Conservapedia were consistent with this new realization. I told them specifically that Markman appeared to be doing what he did on his own, not with RW authorization. You claim I lied. I challenge you to show how. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not call my recent conversation at Conservapedia "editing" I call it "discussion" since it's not actually building the wiki but carrying on a dialogue with those there to express my concerns and contribute to the conversation there. I stated "I'm not editing at CP now" and indeed I haven't been editing content pages. I talked with them using debate and talk pages the same way I'm talking here now. That's not editing, that's discussing, because it's conversing about issues and the wiki, rather than editing/building the wiki itself. I would not feel right contributing to the page building of a wiki whose direction, including on disciplinary action, I disagreed with, so as I said, I stopped editing the wiki pages there out of concern over the blocking policies. My statements are consistent, you just define the word "editing" differently than me I guess. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Call it what you want, it is editing. Just like what you are doing here is editing. Lie one.
Now onto 'markman'. Either you know damn well that the troll did not register here until quite some time after than he began editing cp as markman and he then only registered here as 'conservapediamarkman' to deny the user registered as markman was him or you are lying. Which is it? You can claim what you want, now anger bear has deleted the evidence, but you said that markman was a 'member of RW'. He was not. Either you knew he wasn't and you lied or you didn't know whether he was or not and should not have made that claim. Which is it? Are you a liar or just another markman dupe? Because face it, most here on RW knew mm for the troll he was long before anyone at cp noticed. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it was not editing of the wiki itself, it was using the debate and talk pages to discuss, not edit the actual wiki. You are not the penultimate judge of all English vocabulary and my usage of words does not have to perfectly match your own. The only way for you to declare I lied is by defining my words in a way that I clearly never intended or meant them as, in other words misinterpreting what I stated through a rigid definition of vocabulary designed to attack me.
As for Markman, he appeared to be well-known here, per this thread, and to be actively known among the RW community, so when I found this discussion, I assumed he was a "member of RW." If I was wrong about that so be it, but I had perfectly good reasoning for assuming he was a member here. He had a user profile here, he appeared to be known among the community, why exactly do you say he's not a member of RationalWiki? --98.220.198.49 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Friendly edit button[edit]

Why? Because he was asked to leave because the community as a whole indicated that we didn't like his trolling of CP. Why would you write something about which you know nothing about? Besides, your memory of your history at CP is significantly at odds with mine. You spent considerable energy trying to unblock people of which you knew nothing about, I recall you went to war over trying to unblock TK for goodness sake. DamoHi 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hoist on your own petard moron BON, as idiots like you so often are when you try to play semantic games. If you say I can not define what 'editing' is, despite everyone and their brother knowing what editing is, then you HAVE to stop defining any belief system you disagree with as a 'faith' as you were doing earlier. Will you do so? and no, you lied. You are now continuing to lie by trying to pretend you did not mean what you wrote. I am not ken, I will not 'declare victory' but everyone here, and you, know you are now disembling to try to avoid the point. And carry on pretending what you want about mm, he was not registered here until long after he became accepted at cp. To pretend otherwise is - go on guess what? Another lie. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Damo, I haven't followed RationalWiki closely enough to know all that, I simply went off face value from what I saw of this conversation when I found it. Markman appeared to be known here as a member, so I called it like I saw it, and said he was a member of RW operating on his own. There was no dishonesty intended, just a basic description of what I saw to the best of my understanding. I did express concerns over the blocks of members whose reasons for being blocked didn't seem to make sense, I don't recall the names in particular. I was very concerned about the constant blocking and apparent censorship so I made what I considered a good faith effort at the time to examine the blocks over a year's worth of time to make sure they were all for valid reasons. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Oldusgitus, I was referring to editing of the wiki itself. When I discuss on a forum or talk page, I do not consider that "editing" in the sense of content building or contributing to a project, but simple conversation. I consider my recent interaction with Conservapedia through the talk and debate pages to have been for conversation, not actual editing of the content pages for purposes of building the wiki, which again, I would not feel right about engaging in given my disagreement over the blocking policies there. There was no dishonesty, you're just making a big deal of how I phrased things and are trying to misconstrue my words. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Damo, assuming that was addressed to me, I don't recall trying to have someone named TK unblocked at any point, nor do I see their name mentioned in the list of people I stated concern about having been blocked. I did an extensive analysis of users I thought had been wrongly blocked as seen here.[16] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You are JZambrano right? It looks like you have a history of poking your nose into issues that you don't understand. Whether it be TK or NathanG or Bugler or Markman or god knows who else, you shouldn't go around making pronouncements on things that you are ignorant of. And get yourself an account for goodness sake. Stop posting as a BoN. DamoHi 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am Jzambrano, aka Jzyehoshua on other wikis. Well, that's ironic. You guys complain on one hand that Conservapedia is too full of censorship and heavy-handed blocking of disagreement. But when someone like me tries to, as a moderator, make a good faith effort to figure out which blocks are wrong and stop the bad blocks, you accuse me of "poking your nose into issues that you don't understand." So should Conservapedia moderators err on the side of doing their best to figure out where bad blocks are and address them, or should they be more concerned about not "poking their noses into issues they don't understand"? --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not ironic at all. You were given block rights on CP as an aid to remove blatant parody and vandalism, not to go investigating years old blocks. Did you really think you were a 'moderator'? lol. --DamoHi 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't told why I was given the rights, I'd presume it's because I put close to a million bytes of well-sourced editing on the site within a matter of months and substantially improved top pages like the Barack Obama and abortion pages (I organized the debates section also).[17] Once I saw all the blocks ongoing though, and that some didn't appear to be fair, I began taking an active interest in making sure the blocks were correct. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Proven Wrong (Again)?[edit]

Given what happened at the MTV Video Music Awards this week, I'm guessing we're not likely to have another "Great Awakening" any time soon... Tacitus (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, good point, but you've just refuted an essay by AddisonDM. I was really hoping this was about something Andy said instead of a four-year-old essay by a now disappeared CP editor. Phiwum (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Farmers' Almanac[edit]

So when I pop over to Time to read their article about the Farmers' Alamanac forecast of a C-O-L-D winter, the first thing I see is Heat Wave Prompts Early School Dismissals. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FTA: The Farmers’ Almanac predictions are based on the same analysis of sunspots and tidal action, largely ignored by modern meteorologists, that the publication has used since its first issue, in 1818.
This raises a couple questions for me - Who the fack still buys Farmers Almanacs, much less pay attention to their "forecasts?" What circumstances are needed for a major publication like Time to crap out a useless blurb about what kind of winter this superstitious almanac predicts? Holy crap why are there so many comments on this turd of an article? How loose and thin are the straws now that conservatives (including those in the comments) grasp this article as "proof" that global warming is a hoax? Shakedangle (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In the UK we have something called "the silly season", when parliament is in recess and the media scrape the barrel to come up with news stories. With 24/7news reporting, finding newsworthy items becomes much harder. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think TFA tells you when to plant your tomatoes and pick your pomegranates and stuff, between all the weird weather predictions. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Does it still have a hole punched in the corner? SophieWilderModerator 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That's to hang it on a nail for quick access. The story goes that it was most often hung in outhouses, and pages no longer needed put to good use. This sturdy American stock used to be inherent recyclers. Whoover (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tebow[edit]

Andy loves himself some Bill Belichick Uh oh. Trouble in paradise? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just moar liberals who'd rather lose than let the Christian play. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It will be easy for Andy to spin this. Cut by the Patriots, well that is liberal New England getting rid of him; Tebow never hired by another NFL team, well that is the NFL being liberal again, and likely they got a personal phone call from Obama too because somehow CP will need to villainize him in all of this.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No doubt it will be easy. I'm kind of curious which one it will be. Belichick bowing to liberal pressure? NFL forcing the Patriots? Greedy, non-athletic Tom Brady demanding it because he knew Tebow would take his job? Looking forward to the spin. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy is losing interest in Conservapedia, too[edit]

Andy's number of edits at Conservapedia are at an all-time low: as can be seen in the user chart: for the first time in Conservapedia's history, he isn't listed either as Übermensch or as Hyperactive, but only as Very Active. On the other hand, he has to do quite a bit of janitorial stuff, blocking trolls and deleting spam: while in 2011 and 2012, less than 20% of all his actions were handing out blocks and deleting revisions, this number is up to over 40% in 2013 - in fact, in July 2013 nearly 60% of his logged actions weren't edits.

What must be annoying is the Übermensch Conservative doesn't pull his weight: while he is constantly deleting his own revisions (perhaps a kind of anti-troll measure on its own), he leaves clearing up all the other mess mainly to Andy...

Andy
User:Conservative
Karajou

--larron (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff, although I'm not sure whether or not Andy's decline in activity should necessarily be attributed to a loss of interest. You know better than all of us that CP's overall level of activity is down. Could it be that Andy's reduced activity is simply due to the fact that he has fewer people to interact with, ergo he makes fewer edits to talk pages? If talk page edits formed a large percentage of Andy's edits when he was more active, than this could explain to us why July had his monthly edit count reach a new low. - Bill Rawls (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you do one for Karajou? I think it'd be quite dramatic. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
↑ As you wish... --larron (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Even a graph of Karajou's actions looks angry. It's like a personal aura. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

LArron, would it be possible for you to graph the percentage of total edits to CP by, say, the top three editors over, say, the last two years? As traffic there declines more and more, it seems very evident that an ever higher proportion of edits are by the insiders. The primacy of Ken is also clearly increasing at a tremendous rate. DogP (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be possible. But perhaps those two graphs which I just updated have the information you are looking for:
Conservapedia
RationalWiki
These graphs show for each day the average number of edits over the previous 91 days: So, at the end of June 2013, ca. 150 edits per day where made at Conservapedia over the last three month, roughly half as many as at RationalWiki. At both cases, ca. 50 of these daily edits were made by "Hyperactives", i.e., those who made more than 10 edits per day in the three month before.
--larron (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The CP graph is old data. Is it just the axis labels? Whoover (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops! My bad... --larron (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you LArron! Yep, the data shows what we know to be true, it's dying, and Ken is really the last editor standing. DogP (talk)

@Human: Generally I'm grateful when my comments are corrected: I'm aware of the fact that my English isn't very good - certainly it's painful to read from time to time for you natives. But is Andy's number of edits at Conservapedia are at an all-time low: more correct than Andy's number of edits at Conservapedia is at an all-time low:? In German, the subject number would be seen as singular - is this treated differently in English? Thanks, --larron (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

<Pretends to be Human>In English it's are, because it would about the edits. But as it's about the number of edits, that's a single thing, so we use is. Buy my speakers!</pretending to be Human> SophieWilderModerator 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Technically it's singular. (If you want to take a descriptivist approach, using 'are' sounds fine to my ears.) — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 08:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Sophie covered it. It's a grey area, as is most English grammage. You were correct, I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What I find interesting in that graph is that CP was at its most active (since 2007) around when TK got his sysop powers back and reached the all time low just before he passed away. CP never really recovered from the damage he did. Vulpius (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance Conservapedia could be undergoing some kind of cyber attack with site outages that is ARE! alternately taking up Andy's time? Declining activity levels in public editing/moderation could be explained through other reasons, after all. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Human, I noticed you changed my above post to include the phrase "ARE!" after the word is, presumably suggesting I made a typo (which I do sometimes).[18] But actually, the original sentence was grammatically correct, i.e. "cyber attack that is alternately taking up Andy's time" would be the correct usage. 'with site outages' is just a phrase, if the outages (plural) were the main subject then you'd be right that are should be used instead of is, but actually, the cyber attack (singular) was what was being originally referred to, so is would be correct instead of are. I do make typos and grammar mistakes on occasion, but that wasn't one of them. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder...[edit]

Does Karajou just roam the internet looking for things to be angry about? Oh look, more Otisburg ramblings and it's not even about us this time. Pssst, Popeye! You're supposed to believe that dogs came from wolves, because DOG KIND. But that's totally not evolution so it's OK to believe that! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this obsession with animals on CP recently? Dogs and wolves can mate and produce fertile offspring. I am no geneticist but I thought that was one of the signs of a species. It's why ligers and tigons are usually infertile, as, although very closely related in the genus panthera, tigers and lions are distinct species. He also suggests his cop friend arrested and charged people for being stupid, and this gets his full approval. And the sentence "Like Otisburg, it was hidden once, just so we or the general public couldn't read it" The irony meter has just blown up--Mercian (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Merican: Oftentimes the demarcation between species is due to geological separation or mating habits or other reasons not related to whether or not they can produce viable offspring. Between closely related species the difference may be arbitrary; entomologists are said to be especially guilty of overzealously "discovering" new species when they could be classified as a new variety instead. Rationalwiki has a short blurb on the subject, Wikipedia has a longer article. Shakedangle (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You know he's stupid when he can't even get official cretard doctrine right, about wolves and dogs are the of same kind. Also note that Brian himself has banned people from his site for being "stupid". And the part referring to the special discussion groups... He knows we're the only ones reading his blog (you know, the one that doesn't allow comments)... I've said this before, but I refuse to believe anyone could be that stupid. He has to be fucking with us. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
See this Karajou [19]. I think it is safe to say that if one of these wolfdogs bred with a collie, and its offspring bred with collies, after a few generations the offspring would be collies, with very few or no characteristics of the wolf ancestor. Yet they would have still been bred from a wolf. Wait, he said show him proof, I guess my ban is imminent.--Mercian (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Brian, you're right: you can't fix stupid. </irony meltdown> Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, the Russian breeding program was for tame silver foxes, and it's been going on since 1959. You can even buy one if you like. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely early man did not set out to breed domestic dogs from wild wolves but that the wolves allowed themselves to be domesticated as they found easy pickings around human habitation? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 13:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the least aggressive and/or skittish dogs would have been able to scavenge from human's middens; get a few extra calories that way, and have a few more mild-mannered pups. Eventually you're friendly enough that the cavepeople throw bones at you instead of rocks, and you've got it made. Dogs that bite their masters get killed and eaten/worn first. No need for an advanced neolithic breeding program. Wolves already have the pack structure so protodogs can integrate into human social structures. Raccoons, who also live well off of human middens, never made the jump to domestication - for many reasons, including that they have a much different social behavior. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Leave my trash dumps out of it for a moment, and yes. The wolves evolved themselves to the new environment that we humans presented. Dogs started off by evolving themselves to be our "best friend", long before we took over the process. Raccoons are too stupid, so we kill them. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The raccoons have done quite well fitting into human settlements, thankyouverymuch. They are arguably smarter than dogs and cats. If you want stupid, look for an opossum.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
They do okay, but how dumb are they that they didn't tame us like cats and dogs did? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to be pedantic, but phrases like "wolves evolved themselves" is what some creationists pick up on and mistakenly think that's what evolution claims. Of course, we probably don't care about the creationists themselves - they are most likely too far gone. But they can and do quote those phrases when proselytising and use them to mock teh eevul eevulooshun. Just a thought. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A fair point, evolution is passive rather than active. Many animals have adapted to living alongside humans and their detritus but we do not always have a use for them. Dogs and cats both have uses in keeping down vermin like rats and mice, but dogs have also proved useful as guards and their wolf pack behaviour is used for herding livestock. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 09:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point about the phrasing, AJKG, I hate it when I do that. I hate it more when scientists say the word "designed". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL, yes! Or "believe in evolution/Big Bang/etc."