Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive324

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 November 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>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

And a new layer begins.[edit]

With the completely uncited addition of Apostle's Creedimg apparently from 1658. Except a slightly more trustworthy encyclopedia gives a citation of 390 CE and Online Etymology dates it to the late 12th century. I just hope people let andy invent an entire new layer before anyone points out his blatant bullshit on this term to him. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

wasn't apostles creed in rocky? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
That actually made me lol. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for making my morning, gay. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
"Somebody" is all over making it "truthy". Follow the updates. Sorry, too lazy to screencap unless you complain to me personally. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, EddyJ and GregC are spoiling the fun. At least in one way. However whilst they have changed the Best New Conservativeimg words page Andy still has on MPL his proud claim that Apostles Creed started the new layer. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sad[edit]

It saddens me how hard it is to find easy yuks now on RW. Just now, I had to go up to the last 500 revisions to Recent Changes to find this page. I am sad. How the hell am I meant to keep tabs on my crazy friends at CP? I know the decision to remove WIGO:CP from the Main Page was made, but can't a handy-dandy shortcut be MainPaged for those of us who still want rapid access to our lolz? DogP (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Make a bookmark--"Shut up, Brx." 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, there aren't any yuks to be had. CP is deader than a tomb after the closing of parliament. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Theres yuks to be had at CP?--Mikal | lakiM 02:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Select 'conservapedia talk' in the 'Namespace' drop down at top of recent changes.
In the search field upper-right corner, type WIGO:CP, and then switch to Talk page. Open minded (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sacrifice a chicken then ask the zombie of baron samedi to navigate to the page for you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Add this to your watched pages? Ayzmo (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I got booted again :) ħumanUser talk:Human 08:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If you've been here a few times before, just type 'cp' into the browser's address bar and this page's URL will appear in the dropdown, ready to click. I use this feature far more than bookmarks these days. Tacitus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The Web 2.0 media Conservapedia has been overtaken by Ted Cruz hijacking the C-SPAN TV network for 22 hours. Same level of content in both media. Hclodge (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dog, you can do stupid shit like this. Let me know and I'll rig one for the MP. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy really is a fucking moron isn't he.[edit]

So we get his usual stuff about video gamesimg being responsible for the latest mass shooting in Merica. And to be fair to him the article he cites does indeed say something about the killer being a video game player. Right after 3 paragraphs about how the US's insane gun laws were largely to blame by allowing a mentally ill person to have the guns in the first place. But of course this is andy, so he will ignore everything in the article that doesn't follow his warped mindset and focus on the few lines there that do. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Love Andy's actions on E=mc²: He removes what he calls "dilutions to the entry", to give us undiluted craziness. A gem from the talk-page: "Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared." Moron. --larron (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The eating-a-pound-of-cake thing is at the top of the list for Best of Conservapedia. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't we expect an Intelligent Designer to have made our stomachs nuclear reactors? It shouldn't have been that tough for someone who's omnipotent and has all those other omnis as well. Nibble a bit of cake and you're set for a couple of centuries. Isn't his pound-of-cake quote an admission that God wanted us to fail? Whoover (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Karajou: Obama did 9/11.[edit]

Well, this is a thingimg. Help, help! Teh radical moooslims are coming! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's Jerome Corsi - all you need to know. Meanwhile, check out this flying Kitty (Image #2) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Wah. Via your link I found out that, while Sabrina the Teenage Witch / Sliders slasfic may not exist, apparently that was a thing in real life. I'm not sure my brain can handle this news. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've got concrete proof that Obama faked an Apollo moon-landing to hide Lord Lucan, who was conspiring with the Freemasons to kidnap Shergar from the Grassy Knoll in Dallas and hand him over to Opus Dei, who put him on a UFO to sell him to the Bilderberg Group, of which Obama is a member. Just coincidence??? It's all in my book. His Eminence, Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't make it through to the end. Even though I loves me a good conspiracy theory, the likes of Jones and Corsi is just too strong for me. I need my foolishness to be cut with something. A little chaser if you will. Listening to these guys is like freebasing pure crazy. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember tripping out on this so hard. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oddly Quiet at CP Given the News Out of NJ...[edit]

Since Andy lives in NJ, I was surprised that there was no message of outrage posted on CP today about the news of a NJ Superior Court Judge ordering the state to allow same-sex marriage on constitutional grounds. Equally surprised that nothing's been mentioned on CNaV either, since the editors there are all NJ-based. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(As I can't view CP) Has Andy had anything to say about the IPCC report on climate change? There must be a chink of hope for him with that 5% uncertainty... Cantabrigian (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy has made 20 edits since last Sunday. Of those 8 have been to his 'American History' lecture. I do sometimes wonder if he has finally realised his nightmare dream is dead. Tehre were 27 edits to cp yesterday, 6 by ken, 3 by Joaquin, 11 by JoeyJ and one each by Ed and DanAP. The site is growing rapidly I guess. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
When you can see three different days at once on recent changes, then you know it's really on its last legs. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 13:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif ħumanUser talk:Human 02:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it perhaps a direct result of their "block the world" campaign? CP's been on a slow decline for a while now, but suddenly they're in freefall Ruddager (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of the drop-off is the fact there's no notable parodists/hecklers for Andy to spar with, and I guess Ken has decided to let Darwinism catch it's breath before delivering the coup de grace. Or maybe the the internet is finally all fresh out of fucks to give, when it comes to CP. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, as a regular heckler who was blocked after accidentally following a link from here, I'd say that there's at least some argument for the correlation. Having said that, I had pretty much run out of fucks as well. Who is it that normally updates the active users page? I'd be interseted to see how they went in August and September. Ruddager (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Chucky still loves him....[edit]

Heh, couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Apparently Bradlee Dean's "ministry" has gone I know it's only tangentially CP related, but we've got all space free now nothing ever happens at CP. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For people who are supposed to be law abiding conservative pillars of the community, Conservapedians seem to support some dodgy bastards who are borderline if not outright criminals. Terry with Dean, Ken with Shockofgod and most perverse, Andy with Edward Snowden.--Mercian (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy because if he was nicer it wouldn't have happened to him. Or, it could have happened to a nicer guy - thank goodness it happened to Bradleeeee instead.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
While I'm certainly not sorry (to say the least) that Dean's staff apparently resigned en masse, Terry's response could well be, "Dean's staff is wrong, Dean is right, and I'll run his columns as long as he lets me suck him off at that rest stop off the Jersey turnpike continues to write them."
And really, I couldn't find fault in that logic. To give an example, it's pretty well-known that Keith Olbermann is difficult to work for (to put it mildly. More bluntly, I've heard he's an arrogant asshole.) That didn't stop me from watching his shows on MSNBC or CurrenTV, because I liked his views and the way he presented them.
On the other hand, at least I admit Olbermann's an asshole. If Terry goes into "la-la-la, I can't hear you" mode regarding Dean's personnel issues, then there's room to question him. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 11:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldn't Terry support Dean? Dean's piss poor treatment of his staff fits well with Launchbooty's Objectivist beliefs.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unique Editors per Month[edit]

RationalWiki Conservapedia
Ae-rw.png Ae-cp.png

Discuss! :-) --larron (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that Andy walled off Conservapedia to kill it? I can't believe that he's stupid enough (I know, all evidence to the contrary) to have not known what he was doing. I'm just wondering if he's given up and did that to hasten the decline. Ayzmo (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
From my reading of the graphs we don't have too much to crow about. We may not be dead in the water but there is a steady decline in the core of RW as well. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Never underestimate how delusional Andy is. The cause of each and every one of CP's woes is libruls, and once it's walled off from libruls, true conservatives will come out of the woodwork to collaborate. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I presume that his current problem is trying to implement the al-gore-ithm which differentiates between would-be liberal and conservative editors. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, transparency is a liberal value. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What do the colors mean? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The colors aren't important. I put a legend on the second picture: the shaded areas indicate the number of editors who started to contribute in a month or made the last edit during the month. So, the criss-crossed area shows those who edited only during one month. --larron (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, now it makes better sense to me. Earlier, I hadn't zoomed in enough to see the cross-hatching in the bars or in the legend. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Active editors[edit]

RationalWiki Conservapedia
Api-active-editors-compl-RationalWiki.png Api-active-editors-compl-Conservapedia.png

Two classics... --larron (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent grammar[edit]

"Obama's ploy backfires. It's paid union thugs pretending to be furloughed Federal workers who are protesting World War II veterans at a memorial in Washington D.C." Lolwhut? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice little demo of a Schlafly reversal I reckon.[edit]

So, Andy starts out by posting that shots have been fired in Washington and the when the situation becomes slightly more clear he quietly removes that postimg and replaces it with what seems to be an implied criticism of the police for shooting a woman who has crashed into a security barrier and then fled. Anyone care to guess what he would have been saying were it a muslim woman who had done this? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Obama false flag operation orchestrated by union thugs, probably. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Alex Jones and Andy are both going with the "brutal execution of an unarmed mother with infant for the crime of being a bad driver." So far, even Fox isn't biting. It kind of makes you miss Markman, who would be whipping up the "dental hygienist's life destroyed by Obamacare" angle that Andy is not creative enough to come up with on his own. Whoover (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Even for Andy, this is bizarre... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It's perfectly reasonable to be critical of police overreaction in this case, but, as always, Andy has to make it into a partisan political thing. I assume Alex Jones still thinks it's a false flag operation, even though it clearly accomplishes absolutely nothing for the President or anyone else. I'm just waiting for infowars to post a headline "man robs local liquor store in false flag operation!" DickTurpis (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare: The Frightening Truth[edit]

Good one (no, not really) from Dwight at CNAV: "Obamacare is the tipping point that our Founding Fathers wrote of and were worried about." Well, I thought that if you were sick at the time of the Founding Fathers, you either went to the local Wise Woman if the puritans hadn't burnt her at the stake or, if you were very rich, to one of the very few doctors. Still, all good things must come to an end. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"if you were very rich, to one of the very few doctors." The Irony being that if you did, more often then not, you were coming back in a box. Using 1700s logic in modern health care, superb work CNAV. --Revolverman (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


They are loving themselves some government shutdown over there. How widespread is the joy at thousands of people not getting paid and services not running? If they are anything but a tiny minority, american politics is broken. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are against big government, then having no government is nirvana. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmaraudingModerator 10:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is andy and chuckbums arguement to a t. As it says on wigoblog when even Grover Norquist thinks you are being barking mad dickheads then it's probably safe to say you are being barking mad dickheads. US politics has looked fairly broken from the outside for a long time, this is just a another chapter in the ongoing car crash (to shamelessly mix metaphors). Oldusgitus (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm aghast at the right. Again. The 96 shutdown cost something like .3 billion a week. This one will cost something like 1.6 a week. Cost. Not save. Who the fuck are these people that they exult in harming the US and then are so unbelievably deceitful that they can blame it on others with a straight face? I am ashamed of these republican stooges. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pleased to live in a country in which refusing to fund the government results in an election, not a shutdown. - GrantC (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
How does it either "cost" or "save" money? I mean, the money isn't burnt is it? It just doesn't move from point A to point B during a particular period of time. Sure that's disruptive and not a great idea (especially if it doesn't move through your pocket during that period of time) but I suspect that both "cost" and "save" are used by people with particular axes to grind.--Coffee (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That may be true for the "save" part, but shutdowns actually do cost money. The infrastructure required to put a shutdown into place (and then to "reopen") has a finite cost to it. - GrantC (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It's like going years without brushing your teeth. What you save in toothpaste, is more than offset by what it costs you in dental bills and loss of sexual partners. --Inquisitor (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The biggest direct cost is back pay for the 800,000 furloughed workers. Congress invariably votes to pay them retroactively in their post-orgasmic afterglow. Many of those workers are in red states, after all. That's totally sunk cost, of course, because we have to pay them again to actually do whatever is is they would have done. I wonder how low the market has to drop before Andy's gloat about Wall Street loving the slimdown is taken down? Whoover (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure the amount of overtime that gets paid out to catch up on all of the work is quite significant. - GrantC (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Lost earnings at national parks and museums. Place which srtill have to have maintenance done on them or they will deteriorate. It's fairly obvious where the costs come from, what is not obvious is why the republicans tper's think they will gain anything from this. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe the Tea Party Republicans actually think. - GrantC (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The way I've heard it analyzed, the costs are disuse, inefficiencies of catching up and restarting, and back pay at a premium. I'm curious what the costs actually are. Someone know? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh ya Grant's got it and reminds me of another point, if it wasn't part of what he was saying: the act of responsibly shutting down is itself not without great cost. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
So take "Lost earnings at national parks and museums". OK so it's not in the national parks and museums - but it's still somewhere else. It hasn't disappeared. It's just in a different part of the economy.--Coffee (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay... But if the U.S. spent 90% of their budget on packing peanuts, that money would also still be in the economy. However, it would still be wasted. The point is that the government will end up spending a higher percentage of its (eventual) budget on its normal operations once this shutdown ends, and less of that money will be able to come from revenue that the parks/museums generally supply. Whether or not said money is still in the economy is somewhat irrelevant. - GrantC (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually the US would still have the peanuts. If you really want to waste money then you need to convert your money into bombs and bombs and then blow them up in foreing countries. Then you have spent the money and really got nothing for it. (But spending that money would still count towards your GDP)--Coffee (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, but the government still needs money to function. Paying federal employees with packing peanuts would be an unpopular move. The government can't just draw funds from the nation's GDP. The additional money the government will need to pay out to various folks due to this shutdown has to come from somewhere, after all, and without raising taxes or diverting from existing government spending, that additional cost will end up coming from other countries buying up more U.S. federal debt. - GrantC (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got a bunch of friends/colleagues who are wasting their (often publicly-funded) research grants cooling their heels in DC waiting for the National Archives to re-open. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Me not economist but I think much the biggest cost is the increased cost of servicing the federal debt because lenders will require higher interest rates if they don't trust the gummint to repay on time. A big problem now, unlike 1995, is that the federal debt ceiling needs to be renegotiated at the same time as a budget needs to be set, and Congress won't agree to either.
I don't know if this is over-melodramatic but it seems to me that the US political system is as terminally broken as it was in 1860. It depends crucially on compromise between the Prez, Senate and Congress but since 1994, compromise has been a dirty word for the fruit-cake wing of the Republican Party. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No, compromise is their favourite word. You compromise on everything you believe and they compromise on nothing. They love the word, they just have a different meaning than the rest of the educated world. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I love the two previous posts! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
PS I can see the slimepit again! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You have to see Twitter for the more "sophisticated" excuses (ie. JP Freire's "Pre-existing conditions can be solved without enforcing the individual mandate!" and "Here a CD about how Obama's ruining the economy to teach your kids!" Osaka Sun (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yuh huh. And even when the Democrats "compromise" so much that they're essentially just implementing Republican policies, the Republicans still find ways to be angry about it. Hence the current mess. If it hadn't been for all the fucking compromise, you people could have had a public option to really solve the problem rather than the mess you have now. At least the Republicans would have had something to be genuinely angry about then. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed, considering "Obamacare" is the same as "Romneycare", which Romney ran against and Obama ran on, winning re-election, and is now the "law of the land", Democrats still seem relatively politically civilized, ie, willing to compromise, but the GOP/Tea baggers are so full of hate and anger they won't budge one inch from whatever garbage they ran for election on. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The really scary thing is the debt ceiling. If they fail to raise that then the economy will really go to shit. I would like to say that Republicans aren't that crazy, but given the evidence, I really can't. Hopefully, Wall Street will come to the rescue and talk some sense to them. (Yes, I realize how incredibly fucked up that last sentence was, but that's where we are.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy just called for a default, calling it "a perfect antidote to liberal spending." Is he just trying to shock, or does Professor Homeschool not see the downside? I'm sure some of the loonies really would like the purifying fires unleashed on the world economy that has leaned on the US for things like a reserve currency for far too long, but I would never have put Andy in their camp. Michelle Bachmann, waiting for Jesus, ok. But a Harvard guy? Whoover (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pub question[edit]

Interesting question for the right sort of pub: why, starting from almost identical constitutions c.1780, have the British and American political systems diverged so far, one with parties which treat each other with guarded respect and have policies so similar you could hardly put a sheet of loo paper between them, while the other is descending into a bunch of screaming toddlers.

My guess, for what it's worth, is that it's down to the primaries in the USA; the screaming toddler fringe of both parties can relied on to turn out to vote in primaries so American politicians have to tailor their policies to appeal to them. British politicians only have to appeal to the 90% of the population who are "normal sensible people" and can usually disregard the screaming toddlers. Hence British politics tends to be pushed towards the centre ground while American politicians are pushed to the fringes. Not QED yet...

Next interesting question: why are Republican politicians currently being pushed towards the screaming toddler wing of their party but Dems aren't? Yours eminently, Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

From outside it looks to me like US politics has been bought lock, stock and steaming barrel of fermenting stuff by the extremes within big business. The Koch brothers are bankrolling the teabaggers and their associated representatives. Without 100's of millions of dollars I don't see anyone getting elected in the US and that money comes from those well known people, large corporations. Gop politicians need the money so they suck at the teat of the koch's and to continue getting that mnoney they have to pretend that what those 2 are pushing is real. The US have got the politics they bought and to be honest I'm almost tempted to say that they deserve the mess they are in right now. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You also have different power structures within the parties and what that means in government. In the UK, a parliamentary system, the party leader of the winning party in a general election (usually) becomes the prime minister, the chief executive, and is answerable to the legislature. Whereas in the US you have the legislature and the executive split with little evident leadership of the parties in the house. The UK system is probably more open to fringe parties too (although I can't quite figure out why off the top of my head), like UKIP, who can attract the toddler voters and leave the main parties to the centre. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In other words, the US is still stuck with the political system of the UK in the late 18th century, in which the parties had dominant and influential personalities, like North (Tory) and Rockingham (Whig) although they weren't party leaders as we would understand them now. Perhaps that system worked because the leading players by-and-large accepted that they had a collective responsibility for making it work (and lost the favour of the King when, like North, they failed). The GOP seems to have lost that sense of moral obligation to the country as a whole (because they're worried about losing the favour of talk-show hosts and lunatic-fringe preachers?) Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The UK first past the post system allows tremendous room for fringe parties to exist without having to actually cede any power. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Genghis: that's true but what actually happens when a fringe party starts becoming popular, winning local council seats etc, is that one or more of the three main parties picks up their more popular policies to keep the voters who were drifting away to the fringe party. The Greens have got significant parts of their agenda implemented in this way, without ever being remotely near the Cabinet. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"...starting from almost identical constitutions..." surely you can't be serious. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes - think about it. The powers of the President are almost the same as this of King George III. The balance of powers between Senate and Congress reflects those of the Lords and Commons c.1780. Individually powerful ministers were appointed directly by the President/King. The main difference is that the USA (intentionally) lacks a Prime Minister but apart from North, a total disaster, no long-serving PM had been the strongest man in his own government. As the British Constitution isn't written down, it could evolve and has continually done so, but the USA is stuck with the political system of George III which cannot work in the age of big money elections and virulently ideological primaries. Discuss. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The US Constitution was written by the French, not the English. It was intended to make achieving power almost impossible. Other than some basic "rights of man" it bears little resemblance at all. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The language of the US Constitution is that of French revolutionaries. The structures are firmly English (and conservatively so, harking back to the 1760s and Pitt the Elder, ignoring the changes of Rockingham and Pitt the Younger in the 1780s). Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And I don't agree that it was designed to make the exercise of power impossible. Successful government in the USA depends on compromise between the three branches, President, Senate and Congress (just as it did in Britain before the 1780s). If one branch simply won't compromise, as is happening now, the whole thing falls apart. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Liberal logic[edit]

This is hilarious. One thing I hate about the FB "sharing an image full of text" meme is the inability to correct typos. Or add "information". ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Teabaggers are renowned for the poor spelling and grammar in their signs and posters. Of course, when you combine that with flawed logic and non-sequiturs it makes you look rather dumb. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 07:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Their dumbness is what makes them look rather dumb -Liberal logic 101. --GTac (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Liberal Logic 101 usually has at least 1 or 2 typos per week (from last week: voilent!). It's what makes it extra-special.
Also, they're seriously blaming Obama for shutting down the WWII memorial? I think, at best, you could blame Senate Democrats for not caving to the Tea Party's ridiculous demands. Obama hasn't done anything other than make some speeches, but I guess that "Thanks, Obama!" meme had to come from somewhere. Cow...Hammertime! 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait. What the hell is wrong with these people. Republicans refuse to cooperate in passing spending bills so the government can function without the least concern for the cost - there's absolutely no savings. Then these tea party clowns refuse to acknowledge republicans' responsibility for the shutdown and its consequences and have the chutzpah to ridicule and attack the executive for responsibly closing things down. Does the average American understand how dishonest these people are and how savage it is to stick so many Americans up simply because they don't like something ... that's already law? They endlessly bitch about nonexistent subversion of democratic processes when it suits them. Jesus christ I can't wrap my head around this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing their "point", such as it is. The memorial requires no labor to keep open (they claim), but requires some labor to shut down. Hence, even in a government shutdown, it ought to remain open, because that costs no money (again, they claim). The only reason to close this memorial this week is to make the shutdown appear worse than it is. Phiwum (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That's actually a tricky thing. I'm sure many people who go about their daily business don't have many run-ins with liability insurance and legal matters related to it. Of course, the Tea Party folks cleverly fail to point out that without any security personnel on hand, it could be very bad news for the government if somebody ends up injured (or worse, dead) on federal land. - GrantC (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Then that would be Obama's fault for failing to protect the Murc'n people by closing down the monument. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
They shut down half of my state (NH) during peak foliage season... I blame B. Hussein O.! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Touché! :-) How could he deny the fellowship of revelers in god's unexplainable beauty? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing to check out all the government websites - like, say,, that are off line. Pure hilarity. Oh, and when [can] we have our consumer economy back, you idiots? (not sure which site I am on, did this make sense? Click "like" for yes, ignore for no.) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nasa's off-line. Fucking hell. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ken gets even more pathetic[edit]

Something happened today! It's big! Really big! Big! Big! Big! Bigger than JesusThe Beatles!

I can't tell you what it is but you atheist Darwinists better believe it's BIG! MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely it isn't as big as a 12 year old giving his pamphlet a perfect 10! DickTurpis (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am appalled that Ken thinks "spoiling the surprise" is a more important reason than keeping his promise. What a low-life turd he is. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 17:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that Ken nevertheless finds the time to teach Ed Poorimg ("nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance") on wiki-editing:
I just went into one of your recent two sentence articles and it didn't have periods after the sentences. If you don't want to put in the effort to write an informative article and can't be bothered to even put periods after your sentences, then please consider not creating any more articles. Andy just deleted one of our articles that was merely a quote.

I believe you are capable of writing good articles, but you are choosing to just slap "articles" together instead.

You are putting category tags on them now so you are taking some additional effort. But you need to put more effort in them if you are going to create them. Conservative 03:50, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
Indeed, Andy has just deleted Ed Poor's "articles" on cp:Heidi (2005)

Heidi (2005) is a splendid remake of the classic children's story, only this time it's an Irish orphan sent to live with her Swedish grandfather.

and on cp:Homeownership

"... anything that increases the cost of homeownership therefore limits people's ability to generate wealth and poses a particularly severe hardship on low-income people who do not yet own their own homes." [1]

--larron (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god, Ed. How does it feel?! How does it feel to be slapped with actual constructive criticism from Ken, who's greatest affirmation to date is a 12 year old's review of something he didn't even write. Shakedangle (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This would be an excellent time for a parodist wannabe to start cleaning up some of those poor articles. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Lol, "poor" articles! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ken, you are lying, everybody knows you are lying, your "friends" on CP, everybody at RW and anyone anywhere who is aware of you, including you parents know you are lying, so just stop. How does it feel Ken, when even some of the most batshit insane fundies and right wing morons point and laugh at you behind your back and call you names? Because that is what is happening.--Mercian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Who cares, CP is dead or dying and this is Ken's last grip on getting attention. Just ignore him and let him sink into further obscurity. Acei9 22:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This. When I saw Ken's announcement of a Dark Day for Atheists Darwinists, I knew it was going to be something pathetic, like "we finished another chapter in our booklet!", or "some sweetheart girl likes our book, you nerds!" The only action of Ken that is worth noting is the above showing on how he has begun smacking Ed Poor around. Ken, the only admin that Andy allows to push other admins around, and he is a complete nutter, awesome.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ouch, that's gotta hurt. "Mr. Poor, your articles aren't up to the calibre of Conservapedia. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to create a new entry: Fat Atheists Are Raping Flying Kitties." --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ken" who? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ken I skiptraced when he was freaking out over you on aSK. Hi Ken :-) Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

More Obamacare Lulz[edit]

Alex Jones cites a blogger's "experience":

“I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance.

I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”

Karajou is all over this, plastering it on MPR and the Obamacare article. It's been pointed out that there are some flaws, like

  • No "opt out" step in enrollment process.
  • Penalty caps at 1% of income, or $550, not $4,037.
  • Out-of-pocket caps at $6,350 so $13,988 deductible is BS.
  • Law specifically prevents liens and levies to collect penalties.
  • No provision for driving license suspension in law.
  • No "repercussions portion" in enrollment process.

Snopes gives it a "Mostly False" and Politifact gives it a Pants on Fire, but Karajou says it belongs in the Trusworthy Encylopedia because nobody's proven the guy didn't get the email from Obamacare. Oh, and he protected the Obamacare article, after reverting GregG's correction. GregG has taken his sputtering objection to Andy, who will do nothing, of course, including when Karajou bans him. Whoover (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How much more of this sort of crap is going to happen before the "regular people" actually experience what the ACA does for them? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that by the time the next Presidential election comes around removing the majority of its provisions will be off the political table, much like removing the fundamentals of the NHS is in the UK and the subsidy and public hospital system is in NZ. Once people have the opportunity to experience it for themselves and benefit from it, all the bogeyman crap will lose it's lustre. I think it is a case of a system that once passed and implemented, will struggle to ever be removed. DamoHi 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all your fault, RW.[edit]

Danq has grown frustrated with Andy's inability to keep his website functioningimg:

I am growing extremely frustrated with Conservapedia :( Every time I try and log in to see my contributions, it goes down after about 5 minutes, and then I have to get another IP address for it to work for another 5, and then it stops working again, over and over again. I'm deleting my user page in case I am unable to edit it fast enough in the future, and feel free to delete my account too. I'm very unhappy as I used to be a frequent contributor to the site, and now I can't anymore

Karajou repliesimg:

The reason you are being kept from editing and the site is going down is because of a few clowns attached to RW, who think spam and DDoS attacks should be done against this site on a daily basis. Unfortunately for them, they have failed, both in the marketplace of ideas as well as their own liberal belief system, which specifies "tolerance", or so they harped about constantly. So, Danq, ignore them and their little wasted efforts at trying to take down this site, because it's certainly not working.

PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I love that Karajou thinks that we're the masterminds behind the spam bots. You know, the spam that every publicly facing mediawiki site on the entire web suffers, including RW, we're behind that. I imagine we're making quite a profit from the endeavour (how are my shares doing, Trent?) Their own incompetence prevents them from implementing the technical solutions every other site employs to stop the spam while preserving the ham. The same incompetence that stops them migrating to a host that doesn't suck (what Karajou refers to as a "DDoS attack" is actually their webserver failing miserably to handle Mediawiki.)
Maybe it makes Karajou feel better to blame the events he doesn't have the skill to control on his personal devil. You carry on then, Swabbie. Carry on destroying your site in the name of preserving it from imaginary monsters. It makes CP a nice synecdoche for your whole angry old white people movement. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I've used CP's API to gather small amounts of information about Ken's erratic behavior. I didn't find that CP's server was slow when I was making a reasonable number of requests per whatever period I used (I don't remember). However, performance rapidly dropped off above however many requests per period to the point that the response time was actually substantially lower than for slower rates and I slowed down just to save myself a disproportionate amount of time compared to slower rates. Just to compare speeds, RW's front page loads in .12s. CP's: 2.5s. Google: .6s. Facebook: .3s. Wikipedia 1.4s. So we're 5 times faster than Google and more than 20 times faster than CP. Seems to me that CP's server is probably just inadequate to handle its needs as traffic has grown over the years. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Jeeves is right. The fact that Andy's got no competent site admin leads me to believe he's on Siteground's $7.95/mo shared plan, which really isn't suitable for a production website getting appreciable traffic. He'd easily be able to meet his needs on a $40 Linode plan, but he'd also need to have someone who knows bash, php, ubuntu (or whatever), MW, and how to set up and maintain mysql and apache servers. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does Karajou have to bring belief systems/philosophies into it when it's completely irrelevant. He can't just say "it's those assholes at RW DDOSing us", he has to say "It's those assholes at RW DDOSing us because their liberal belief system is shit and they can't even follow their own beliefs about tolerance because they're shit!" Who talks like that? Other than Karajou, I mean. X Stickman (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, we do. A lot. Right here. On this page. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Comedic video game reviewers on YouTube. Vulpius (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler! -GTac (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@Nutty sure we discuss beliefs and stuff and try to link it to things, but only in contexts (contextes? Contextses? Fuck) that make sense, like if Andy says StupidThing15, some people will discuss StupidThings1-14 to try and explain 15. But if Andy fucks up CP's server/software/whatever, we say "andy's a dumb stupid face who can't manage a website", not "andy's a dumb stupid face who can't manage a website BECAUSE OF HIS CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS, WHICH ARE ALSO STUPID", which is what Karajou and Ken do all the time. They just drag it into completely irrelevant stuff. X Stickman (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The lack of transparency in Andy's ham-handed server blocking tickles me just right. To my knowledge he has never addressed it directly when questioned and he's way too proud to ask.
I don't think Brian could ever accept the fact that the vast majority of TWIGOCP bloggers would love nothing more than to direct more sunlight onto CP. Nothing is funnier than when an actual, self-identifying conservative tries to edit there. Ditto for Christians on ASK. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

An aside[edit]

I see CP's last 50 recent changes is now displaying 3 days' worth of edits, and a fair chunk of yesterday's were Karajerk reverting and blocking people. Good to see the site growing rapidly - in fact, a quick glance tells me that 80% of the edits were made by Andy. Kara, Ed, Ken, Launchbooty and Jpratt. I wish they'd drop the pretense that it's still an encyclopaedia and just call it what it is - a reservation for old, angry, white men. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's happened several times recently. I expect l'arron's next set of charts to need readjustment of the scales. Having soiled myself by having a peruse of their RC, I notice that Anger Bear is continuing to claim Fair Use for images that are CC by SA. What an idiot. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
They actually seem to have a new policy of oversighting all the spam and blocks, which makes the pathetic number of edits each day stand out all the brighter. They're getting down to aSoK levels of irrelevance over there. Even Ken seems to have deserted the sinking ship, and only hangs around because it's a free place to store his bookmarks. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm close to switching my allegiance to CNAV. When I do bother with a proxy to check out CP, the only good stuff is Terry's Swamp. The latest was a fantasy about Obama using drones to take out protesting semis on the beltway. The title is "Paranoid or Prescient?" Should we have a vote? Whoover (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
More relevant, will he admit he was wrong when it turns out the president isn't insane enough to order GBUs to crater the Jersey Turnpike, or that even if he was no military officer in their right mind would obey such a blatantly criminal order? I'm going with no. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I looked it up[edit]

Expected turnout at trucker protest: 1000s. Actual turnout: about 30. No reports of black helicopters or explosions. Chalk another one up to paranoia. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy, look up the word figurehead.[edit]

Andy posts a news item.

In the News. what the MSM isn't fully covering.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner cave in to the Dems and allows them to increase the debt ceiling, thereby pandering to Wall Street and worsening government handouts. [1] Most House Republicans voted against it.

And then swiftly edits the John Andrew Boehner article

John Andrew Boehner (pronounced "BAY-ner"), born November 17, 1949 (age 74), is the Republican U.S. Representative from Ohio's 8th congressional district and currently serves as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, succeeding Nancy Pelosi. He was elected Majority Leader in February 2006 upon the resignation of Tom DeLay because of allegations of campaign fundraising irregularities, and Minority Leader from 2007 until 2011. Mostly a figurehead, he has repeatedly allowed liberals to advance their agenda despite a Republican majority in the House.

A figurehead would have done exactly what the majority told him, my esteemed schoolteacher friend.

And McConnell himself has become a RINO

Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell, Jr., born February 20, 1942 (age 82), is the senior Republican United States Senator from Kentucky and the Senate Minority Leader in the 111th Congress. A RINO who pushed through a liberal-favored deal to increase the national debt, McConnell faces a Tea Party challenger in his primary in 2014 for reelection.

All very predicable Andy, you would rather see your nation go to he dogs then compromise that is very clear.--Mercian (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday: "Clueless liberals still hope conservatives will cave... Today: "Conservatives cave..." A good illustration of what "clueless" means. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
but but but conservatives didn't cave, those pesky RINOs caved. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The turn around time was awesome, this is exactly why I love Andy. I can't wait to read about Cory Booker winning the NJ senate election. Another black democrat to stick in his craw. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
In his state no less. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"pandering to Wall St": has he already forgotten how Wall St reacted positively to the shutdown? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Andy is just a fucking troll.[edit]

Last week, he was gloating about how a rise in the stock market meant that the shutdown was a good thing. Now, with a deal struck on which the GOP got nothing, another rise in the stock market is now proof that the system is broken. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

From the article he linked, "Excluding J.P. Morgan Chase's loss on hefty legal charges, [the S&P 500] would be on pace for 3.6% growth. At the beginning of earnings season, analysts expected earnings growth of 3%." Andy's comment, "Lower business earnings were announced, but the federal gravy train keeps chuggin' along." Do people really not read the linked articles? Most of his links say the opposite of what he says they say. What's the point? And yes, he's agreeing that Obama has been the greatest gift to business in decades, and that the "job creators" are keeping the profits and bleeding the workers dry. He just doesn't seem to know that's what he's agreeing with. Whoover (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Just Like the Good Old Days[edit]

Andy went all proven rightimg because large earthquake. When pressed for proof, he linkedimg a study about small earthquakes caused by fracking.img When somebody actually read the linked articleimg and called foul, Andy declared the parts in an article about fracking-caused earthquakes that mentioned fracking-caused earthquakes are "speculation,"img while the imaginary part that proves Conservapedia right is the the important part. Also, Second Law of Thermodynamics. I admit it's a rerun, but I miss WIGO: CP. Whoover (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. The page is there, and it's been wigoed. Could use some updates, though. Whoover (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy being humiliated on his own wiki? Popeye to the rescueimg! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
So liberals believed there would be no more earthquakes? I predict that over the next year that at least 100 people will die due to earthquakes, and brag about it when it happens. The man is pathetic, though anyone who is familiar with him already knows that.--Mercian (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what its like for the people who live with him. --Revolverman (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I imagine they treat him like a pet gerbil and lead normal lives. Whoover (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Reminds me of the summer of '08 (NZ summer that is). I was a newbie back then - a recent sysop coasting my way towards a 'cratship. It was simpler time, we were all being amused by the antics of CUR, a far cry from the annoyance of Brx. People smiled at each other and CP was in full swing and many laughs did follow. Them were the days. Acei9 08:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's become too easy to poke Andy into saying something stupid, and I'm disappointed that he hasn't brought any new crazy to the table in years. Earthquakes proving a recent creation is old hat. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 12:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the sysops are missing the old days, too: there is so much less personal around willing to be bullied. So, Karajou declares an adulating line by DanAP addressed to Ed Poor ("thank you for your very valuable service. It's hard to imagine what this place would be like without you! "img) as "nonsense/gibberish" and blocks Dan for a day, while Ed Poor threatens AugustO with the removal from the projectimg - 22 month after the incident, and five month after AugustO's last edit:
This is a fake issue. User:Conservative was not insulting you, and the heading is misleading.

He was just making a critique of liberal Christianity.

Your attempt to make it into a personal matter has failed. Don't do it again, or anything like it, or you'll have to leave this project. --Ed Poor Talk 08:28, 16 October 2013 (EDT)

Ed Poor has a nearly unparalleled ability to feel insulted by virtually any remark addressed in his general direction, while everybody else is just fair game...
--larron (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ed Poor is nothing but a self-important talking turd. Redchuck.gif ГенгисpillagingModerator 14:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That's really an understatement. Would your average self-important turd insist on rename 's-Hertogenbosch? Ed Poor is a gem among self-important turds. He is the self-parodying man. Phiwum (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nah, he's a turd that has been parodied endlessly recently by danap. That is why anger bear has started on danap and is going to perma ban him any day now. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ed really is a dishonest cunt. Every 'criticism' of liberal Christianity Ken made was directly aimed at August, insinuating that his religion was losing ground and therefore whatever Abdy-bashing he was currently engaged in, had no merit. For Ed not to realise that means that he's either so unware of what's going on around him, he walks into walls, or he has no problem being seen to lie like a cheap rug to protect on of Andy's goons. PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
When I was over there as cp:User:RonLar (with Andy's blessings, btw), the discussions with Ed Poor were the ones after which I just wanted to get a shower - or perform a cleansing ritual. I'm sure that his picture is used in real encyclopedias to illustrate both terms: sanctimonious prick and swarmy pimp. --larron (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Ed Poor decided to stress my point: Please review this block: okayimg --larron (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This might explain a lot about the Tea Party.[edit]

If you don't live in the US, this might be useful. [2] Mick McT (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to this excellent paper. Cardinal Fang (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Casa Schlafly right now...[edit]

NJ Supreme Court rules same-sex couples can marry beginning Monday Vulpius (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

He'll probably refuse to leave the house in case a gay guy accidentally marries him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Post. Of. The. Day. Congrats, Jeeves. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone archive CP changes?[edit]

Kendoll nuked a couple of weeks worth of edits to hide something on MPL today, anyone know what it was? I figure it must be something especially embarrassing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no archive here... BUT I have my suspicions. You remember that stupid QE booklet that Ken's "authoress" was writing? The one that was getting all the ultra positive feedback through it's enumerable drafts? Well Ken has recently scrubbed all traces of it from his QE blog, so I guess he was tidying up CP as well. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've no information about this either, but Inquisitor's reasoning seems to be very plausible. --larron (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you're right. Well, I guess that's his exit strategy. Two years of lies, followed by memory holing them all and pretending it never happened. Ken really is out of his mind. Honestly, why doesn't he just delete the whole blog now? He's pretty much run out of things to pretend he's doing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like typical Ken... deny! deny! deny! I'm not sure which the man is biggest of - an idiot or a coward. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
#Deny! Deny! Deny my friends, for QE's in eejit's hands. Deny! Deny! Throw away or you may die!#     An shiny new intranet to whomsoever gets the reference. CS Miller (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is why October 7th was a dark day for Darwinism! It was the day the doctor finally figured out the right combination of meds to stop Ken acting so crazy and giving us material to laugh at. Surely 2013 is the worst year in the history of the Question Evolution Campaign. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has a few snapshots of CP's main page. Oddly, the Wayback Machine robot got an HTTP 302 error. That's weird for a wiki mainpage. Anyway, Ken's made a general practice of oversighting edits where he can't simply delete entire pages, but I don't think he was deleting anything embarrassing. If I remember correctly, he tends to just post CMI stuff over there and keep the prideful boasting about his blog to MPR. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ken, can you answer this simple question instead of attacking any of us or going off on a tangent? I'm genuinely interested in just getting the facts here. What is the status of your QE booklet project? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for Ken to admit he's spent the last two years lying through his teeth about books and secret organisations and his build up to the glorious revolution that would grind evolutionism in to a fine paste, I wouldn't hold your breath. It might undermine his credibility when he calls atheists immoral. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thank fuck he ended his stupid charade. Acei9 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ken, you missed a fewimg spotsimg. But seriously, what did you do to that poor "authoress" to get her to finally bail on your project? She must have sainthood-levels of patience, if she ever existed at all. On another note Storehouse is actually looking more active than CP these days. Shakedangle (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention the poor, forlorn shell of Project 200+img now full of dead links, except for this lonely articleimg that somehow escaped the memory hole. It's like Ken's cafe of broken dreams. Or broken delusions. (Also, you don't really believe Ken's "authoress" was ever real, do you? You must be new around here.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I lurk more than anything, but I've been following things for a few years, first on CP then here. I actually do think the "authoress" was real, if only because the fact that some poor woman was helping Ken out of pity, then got browbeaten into quitting is way funnier than Ken making the whole thing up in his mind. Besides, it seems Ken has some standards, and if he were making things up I'm sure he could've come up with more than "12 year old gives QE Booklet 8 stars out of potato!!!!!" Shakedangle (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not surprised but it still makes me incredibly sad to see the man live like this. His response to GregG is emblematic of the way he lives his entire life: whatever obfuscation and lies it takes to extricate himself from the least possibility that he'll have to actually defend himself. Ken, lying is bad. Covering up years worth of gloating and then playing dumb about it is dishonest. You don't have to treat yourself like this. The obvious strategy for avoiding the terrible shame you're feeling is to refrain from prideful gloating in the first place. Responsible people who are accustomed to working well with others and completing group projects don't brag about things they have't yet done. They do the work and move on. You don't see people here bragging about the great stuff they do, and yet ... some of these people do absolutely remarkable things. Remarkable. Hope this helps. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ken is not a team-player. Any article he tackles immediately gets protected. His online antics and editing patterns are evidence that even his personal life is mainly solitary. When he gets defensive he brags about the most trivial things as if they are the highlights of his life-fourth place in a spelling bee thirty years ago; a minor compliment from a woman some time in the distance past- it's truly cringe-worthy. He is condemned to do everything alone, either by choice or by plain default, and it's all rather sad that someone has such a pathetic, pointless life. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


...Is Conservapedia up, not up, or blocking entire countries as too liberal? (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not wishing to jinx it, but I've had access for a week or so, after months of being blocked. I guess Andy is playing firewall Whack-a-Mole. Whoover (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Me too, I find surprisingly. Scream!! (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Mine goes up and down. It seemed like the last time it happened was because I opened 4 or 5 diffs in quick succession. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the inability to view CP has far more to do with the hosting server falling over, and less with nefarious blocking by Andypants. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 20:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It may more incompetence than nefariosity, but when an IP is blocked it's a firewall block (connection refused) and alternate IPs (like proxies) work fine. As I said, my real IPs were blocked for months, during which I could access using proxies and other addresses. Whoover (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia has remained visible for me for the past month, after I couldn't see it at all throughout June, July and August. But I'll say again that I have never seen the word "Edit" on any pages, only ever "View source". I'd like to know what's up with that. Spud (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you logged in? Whoover (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No. I don't have a Conservapedia account. I've never had one and I never will. So, you're saying Conservapedia doesn't allow anonymous editing on any of its pages. Well, that would explain it. Spud (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You must be new here. That don't even come close to beginning to explain it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 04:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I don't think I've seen so much naïveté in a long time. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It is blocking everyone, on an IP level, who clicks a link on this site ( in http referrer), and has been doing that for some time. -- (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
not convinced. I thought I was blocked in a similar fashion, but can access cp just fine now. I sometimes need to refresh the page a few times but still get on, and I frequently follow links from here. Incompetence not malice. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I should point out that by "explains it", I meant why I've only ever seen "View source" and not "Edit" on every CP page I've ever looked at. It doesn't explain any of the other mysteries of the site and its sudden disappearance and reappearance, obviously. Spud (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a crying shame[edit]

I hope this isn't the end of Project 200 plus. I was anticipating that by 2468 it was going to reach its target and wipe atheism from the face of the Earth. --Horace (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Edit (afterthought) - Do you think that the organisations that had already joined will have to give back their decoder rings?

The article about Project 200 plus has been deleted. All references to the Question Evolution! booklet have been removed from the main page. Has Ken finally given up his fantasies and joined the real world? Spud (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And kenny boy is acting all dumb(er)img about what Greg is asking. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That is some grade A1+ chickenshit, Ken.Shakedangle (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Welp. there you go again, Ken. You're a cowardly and dishonest bitch. The order of the day is to lie or obfuscation it takes to get out of having to answer a direct question about something that is and should be embarrassing. LIke I said, you could avoid feeling this kind of shame. Just conduct yourself like a reasonably humble person instead of gloating about things that will never happen. You can avoid having to repeat this cycle until you find yourself wandering naked down the middle of the street wearing nothing but a beef on weck around your shrunken and disused wang and winding up in the group home for a short stretch. This is good advice - I know you've come to the realization that, despite reacting strongly to your base character, taunts, and deceit, we care about your well-being more than your christian family. Smarten up. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Does he ever feel shame for what he does? He just seems to flow effortlessly from one lie to the next. When the last lie grows unsustainable, he just buries it and moves on to another. Maybe the fact that he swims in the passive-aggressive Christian culture where no one can ever tell anyone else what they think unless it's backed with 20 Bible verses and couched in terms of what "god thinks" means that he genuinely can't see how ridiculous he looks. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The fact that he buries his turds and lies and deflects to cover up the cover up indicates to me at least that he is exquisitely sensitive to the consequences of his dishonesty. It's pretty obvious he feels shame when he has to face up to some of it, but your point is a good when when wondering whether he's aware of what an absurdly deceitful shit he looks like when he brags and carries on. So many promises over the years and I don't he's managed to deliver on a single one. He knows he's a complete loser. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You ever go edit its articles?[edit]

I remember last month or 2nd last month, I had edited about 3 articles, as they had biased material, now i don't think i can edit again, and the changes i had made still remain there..

Why they disable editing really. Contractor (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Many people here have tried editing CP articles to remove bias or incorrect information but have been banned for doing so. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a badge of honor, really. Pinto's5150 Talk 09:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
at this stage of the game it is an exercise in futility and stupid to attempt Editting over there. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would you want to immerse your head in a pit of ordure? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I've heard that the boss strategy is to avoid adding anything of substance or getting too far into it with those mongoloids, but to simply encourage them to be themselves. They're awful people who deserve their awful characters and behavior to be seen by even more "conservatives" so they can continue marginalizing themselves and being ignored. Conservapedia will never be anything but a gallery of curiosities and that's a good thing. Schlafly could have actually been a lot more influential if he knew how to cooperate with others. It's sort of horrifying to imagine him letting his goon squad tag along. So it's not really that futile if your game is to let them shine. Ken, Andy, and Karajou take the bait quicker than a hungry bluegill. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of Total Views at Conservapedia[edit]


This is the number of total views at Conservapedia, taken from cp:Special:Statistics at the wayback machine.

  1. The first half of 2012 seems to be dominated by click-bots
  2. nowadays, traffic is slow, there is no sign for DoS attacks...

I don't know whether the click-boters just became bored (I never got the rationale behind this idea), or whether Andy's superior net-skills drove them away :-)

--larron (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, intuitively I felt that the views for CP must be slowing considerably, but it appears that they are maintaining a fair pace. Tielec01 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


--larron (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

JPatt, totally not race-baiting.[edit]

He's just wondering...img PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It amuses me how he just can't figure out how the poor wouldn't love Republicans (or even further right than that) as much as he does. There must be foul play somewhere. --Kels (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I presume that because of gerrymandering the ghetto areas have been eliminated from districts which the Republicans like to control. There was a piece on Radio 4 in the UK yesterday which went into some detail how many US districts have convoluted shapes to distort the voting system and ensure safe seats. It may not be news to USians here but in the UK where boundaries are monitored by the independent Boundary Commissions that try to keep a uniform population across the parliamentary constituencies, then it is another of those American oddities. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator
Political parties typically want the opposite of that when it comes to gerrymandering. "Safe seats" means wasted votes in a first past the post system. An individual member of congress might like being in a 90% district, but the party sees 30% of that as a wasted majority. The elimination of ghetto areas from Republican districts may be down to a different sort of gerrymandering, which is constitutionally mandated. In the late 80s/early 90s, the Supreme Court ruled a few times that if a congressional district could be created in which a racial minority would be the majority within the district, then dividing them into several districts would be malapportionment and unconstitutional. This led to the creation of "majority-minority" districts, which (at least from a political strategy point of view) Democrats hate, because most of these districts elect Democrats with huge (wasted) majorities. On the other hand, most African-American members of congress are elected from these majority-minority districts. The push for these supreme court decisions was carried about by an unholy alliance: Groups like the NAACP, who wanted increased representation in congress, and the Reagan/HWBush Justice Departments, who wanted to improve Republican congressional chances nationally. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, here in Chicago, such gerrymandering has created my favorite district design of all time, the Illinois 4th Congressional district, which seeks to connect two distinct Hispanic regions (one primarily Puerto Rican and one primarily Mexican) of the city through this very thin, convoluted, sometimes only one block wide section that meanders through the city and suburbs. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not the gerrymandering that has me amused, it's how JPratt can't figure out for the life of him how poor people wouldn't like people who spend a good deal of their time hating on poor people. Must be foul play. --Kels (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Causation done right![edit]

Andy: To show the negative effect I at first have to assume the negative effectimg. That's Andy's reasoning in a nutshell - bravo! ... --larron (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I liked this exchangeimg:
Andy: Public schools did fine before there was atheistic exclusion of Christianity from them.
User: Andy that's not a valid argument; it's a correlation-causation fallacy.
Andy: Correlation is often due to causation....
:D --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I sure would like to see Andy do a rhetorical backflip over the strong positive correlation between the ranks of religious belief and numeracy. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here, let me help you Ken.[edit]

Don't forget to scrub this reference and this reference to your Project 200 Ken. Oh yeah - and this blog post. You're dishonest freak. Acei9 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I cropped File:Missed2.jpeg - I hope you don't mind. --larron (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Oversighted. Ken's scrub of the project 200 is complete. Looks like 2013 was the worst year for the QE! campaign. Acei9 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, finally blocked[edit]

What was this guys deal? He barely ever made any edits that weren't in talkspace, was consistently antagonistic towards the sysops, but he's only been blocked 3 times. Any normal peon would have been Karajou'd into oblivion 5 times over, but even the current blockimg is only a month long. He must have upset Karajou good, since he memoryholed some of Tony's edits, not Kara's usual MO. Shakedangle (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never been consciously antagonistic to anyone on Conservapedia, but perhaps my exasperation with what passes for discussion showed up in my recent comments. I was more snippy than I might have been in response to Karajou's injection of the "Finnish ducks" nonsense into a discussion about US public school education.
If some of my edits were oversighted, I'd be grateful if someone could identify them.
I suspect my account has survived for so long between blockings because Ed Poor knows me from Wikipedia and I have been highly critical of vandalism and parody on Conservapedia or any wiki.
My final comment, which doesn't seem to have been accepted, is reproduced below:
Non sequiturs (2)
Here's a recent comment on the main page, in full:
It is snowing in Iowa this early Tuesday in mid-October, disproving (again) the liberal hoax of global warming.

As has become distressingly common on Conservapedia, the linked article says nothing to support the burden of the statement about global warming. It is to a fairly unsurprising report that the National Weather Service predicted that a cold front in the Midwest would bring snow to parts of Iowa. It's late October and Iowa has a continental climate.
Irrespective of your position on science, this statement is a blatant non sequitur. Nothing about global warming is inconsistent with cold weather spells, much less in the Midwest in Autumn. --TonySidaway 10:42, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
As readers will appreciate, my comments have been uniformly aimed, in good faith, at improving Conservapedia, making its material more factually accurate and more faithful to the external verifiable facts. It's difficult to do this without also challenging the somewhat perverse ideology which that misreporting supports, but I tried my honest best in the hope that Conservapedia might benefit from honest criticism of its very poor scholarship. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"my comments have been uniformly aimed, in good faith, at improving Conservapedia" - yeah, there was your mistake. You really should know by now there in no "improving" CP - there is The Word According To Andy and that is all. Try and improve the Word, and the acolytes like Karajou will brand you a heretic and cast you out. PsyGremlinFale! 16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, my views on Conservapedia are outlined in my contributions to this old debate. In short, Conservapedia should do more to encourage open editing.,_is_this_good_or_bad
Ironically, since then the relative inaccessibility of Wikipedia, and the consequent rapid decline of its editor numbers, have been widely discussed. But Wikipedia's problems are nothing compared to those bedevilling Conservapedia from its earliest days. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"In short, Conservapedia should do more to encourage open editing." Why? Doing so would do nothing to help CP achieve its goal, ie, to be a forum for the views of Andrew Schalafly and a few of his online buddies. After maybe sometime in 2007, and no more recently than the 2008 presidential election, CP has been nothing more than Andy's blog, as wellas a repository for the ravings of one crazy guy and place for CNAV to pimp itself. With the possible exception of that second-rate retired history prof,the guy who writes about Red Scare spy stuff, and maybe a couple of other contributors, there hasn't been anyone seriously invested in CP content in more than five years. There are no problems "bedeviling Conservapedia", it's working perfectly. It's that you don't understand what it's supposed to be. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The main thing that has been bedeviling CP from it's earliest days is that it's founder's skull is made from one singular mass of solid bone (save for the hollow passages that allow his muppet-like voice to escape). There's no use pointing out flaws to a person who is right about everything. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
CP is unsalvagable at this point simply because it's CP and carries around everything from CP's history. Even if all of the current editors left and were replaced with straight up geniuses, it'd still be looked down upon by absolutely everyone. There's no point in trying to rescue CP at this point, and there hasn't been for the last 2-3 years even. If you believe the concept is good and worth pursuing, you really need to start your own and do everything you can to make sure no one sees a link between yourself and CP. X Stickman (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
CP started as a conservative Christian homeschool resource but that was pretty much abandoned when the middle-aged angry men muscled in on the action. When the likes of Bethany and Sharon lost faith in the project, and even in Andy himself, then CP was doomed to be an Alamo staffed by sociopathic bigots. Since then it has relinquished any pretense at homeschooling - other than the sporadic homework assignment - and has been nothing more than a right-wing nut-job blog. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why rational people would "debate" anything with those guys. The raging fires in Australia, which has seen the hottest day, week, month and summer on record this year, are just random weather but snow in Iowa disproves climate change. The latest IPCC assessment cites 9200 papers and 41 climate models with 2 petabytes of modeling data but climate change is a proven hoax because of a few emails from frustrated scientists. What were you thinking they'd do?

BTW, the latest Conservative Word (sic) is "learning curve." Is that conservative because only conservatives learn? Or because only liberals have learning curves while conservatives just get it right away? Or what? I know that Andy can justify any word as Conservative or Not to suit the needs of his curve fitting, but "learning curve" seems about as political a word as "lettuce." Whoover (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I see now that you have been civil in your responses to the sysops, more so than most editors, even Augusto. And you had made considerable non talkspace edits, although this was before your recent talk:main page binge. Kudos for never falling for Ken's bait, too. I'm still amazed that you lasted so long, and it seems that with a month ban you could return in a relatively short amount of time. The recent talkpage edits alone could have been fodder for a 90/10 rule ban.
Still... I question what you hope to accomplish at CP. You seem a smart chap, and you've been there for a while. Has anything changed for the better at CP during your stint? Everything the above editors have pointed out is true. At this stage CP's nothing more than an echo chamber for a very small number of editors, and dragging incredible amounts of baggage (although RW is partially responsible for that last bit). Shakedangle (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I was satisfying my curiosity as to how Conservapedia as an organism would react to someone making well-meaning efforts to improve the content. My previous attempt along these lines involved removing creationist twaddle from an otherwise promising article about, I think, dinosaurs.

I think a fair-minded person would most likely recognise my criticisms as pertinent, irrespective of their personal ideology. I tried to avoid confronting obvious ideological biases, though I did manage to get snarled up in an argument over interpretations of the Establishment Clause. And I did take the bait about those pesky Finnish ducks! --Tony Sidaway (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's your life, so waste it as you please, however, you aren't the first person to try this and it always ends the same way. On the other hand, we could use some dedicated editors here and we tolerate ideological disparity slightly better than CP (only slightly). Tielec01 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's a very good point. Needless to say, what I've seen of RationalWiki's content is of higher quality than Conservapedia. Another thing that has changed over the past half decade is that, as serious Conservapedia article editing has ground towards a standstill, RationalWiki has many regular article edits. In fact, a quick look at Recent Changes for articles only on this wiki makes me feel quite nostalgic for Wikipedia as I first started to edit there seriously, in late 2004.
Another promising sign is that I'm increasingly finding RationalWiki to be the go-to source on obscure quackery, right wing politics and bad science. I'm quite pleased to see that the project has grown so well. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, you certainly know how to damn with faint praise. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Not how I intended it! Believe me, not many wikis are as good as Wikipedia in my estimation, even Wikipedia 2004. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Truth, Schlafly style[edit]

Report: "identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively ... with scores on the science comprehension measure:...the relationship is trivially small". Conservapedia: "Tea Party adherents are significantly more knowledgeable in scientific subjects than the average American adult" — Unsigned, by: ‎Doctor Dark / talk / contribs

There has to be some bias in that survey, cos given the rampant stupidity I've seen from them, I can't believe their science scores could be so high. Then again, maybe the voters have some modicum of intelligence - the people they elect certainly don't. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 05:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure Psy. I used to work with a highly intelligent man who knew the science behind, for example, climate change but he simply refused to believe that humans were mostly to cause. He even acknowledged that humans were A cause, he just did not accept that they are dominant cause. And no amount of anything shown to him by climatologist would change his mind. I suspect the tp'ers KNOW the science, they just don't believe it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If you ask me, anyone who is shown the evidence for something and refuses to believe it, without good reason (like other evidence that the original evidence is flawed somehow), is not intelligent at all. Not in any meaningful way at least. Openmindedness is a core aspect of intelligence. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a reason it's often said you should never bring up politics or religion during polite conversation. In my experience, those are the only two subjects that can make an otherwise intelligent person sound like a complete idiot. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree - there's nothing intelligent about rejecting science purely because "my preacher / politician" told me to. PsyGremlinSprich! 08:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, he believes in climate change and thinks it is changing. He just disagress that humans are largely responsible. He acknowledges that humans have some input but thinks that other factors are more significant. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If he believes it's happening and that it's at least partially attributable to human influence, then he must understand that humans can do something to mitigate it. Or is he of the camp that thinks the costs of mitigation (regulations, free ride syndrome by developing nations) outweigh the benefits? I'm of a similar thought, except that I believe we should be doing something about it, regardless of whether or not developing nations follow suite... I'm just afraid that people's expectations of how much we can mitigate the effects of unconstrained industrialization for 100 years with just a dozen years of half-hearted policy by half of the world is way overblown.Shakedangle (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I rather think that TP science is "safe-science" - things like Snell's law or Archimedes principle - not stuff that challenges their worldview, like AGW, relativity, evolution and an old Earth. That's why so many engineers are at the wrong end of the spectrum. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

These results basically show no correlation. r=-.05 for "conservative Republican" and r=+.05 for "tea party" from the same dataset. These are "results" that are significant only to Andy. Whoover (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

These people KNOW climate change is true, they deny it because legislation will hurt them where it hits them hardest, in the pocket.--Mercian (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that is not true for many of them. Remember this is the group Bachmann is a member of and she recently went on tv rejoicing and saying marantha because she believes that we are entering the 'end times' and jebus is about to return to torture me for all enternity because apparently he loves me. I think that many of these people GENUINELEY believe that the world is being run as a giant theme park by their deity and that he is in control of EVERYTHING, including the climate. Ergo AGW has to be false, because goat is in control. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to twisting the words ("Tea Party adherents are significantly more knowledgeable in scientific subjects ..." vs. "... the relationship is trivially small"), the Conservapedia item engages in some egregious cherry picking. The linked article (actually, the article linked from the linked article) says 4 things:

1. Science comprehension is "reasonably strongly" positively correlated (r=0.36, p<.01) with education. So much for the "best of the public", "professor values", etc. etc.

2. Science comprehension is "modestly" negatively correlated (r=-0.26, p<.01) with religiosity, as measured in terms of church attendance, frequency of prayer, and self-reported "importance of God" in the respondents' lives. So much for ..... words fail me.

3. Science comprehension has a "small" negative correlation (r=-0.05, p<.03) with conservative or Republican political leanings. "The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more 'liberal' and 'Democrat,' the more science comprehending."

4. Science comprehension has a small positive correlation (r=0.05, p<.05) with identification with the "Tea Party", but "the relationship is trivially small". This suggests, among other things, that most Tea Partiers accept the liberal claptrap of E=mc2. Poor Andy.

Guess which one of the four points Conservapedia mentions on their front page? Guess which other three they conveniently ignore?

Ex-CP-user (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In relation to point 2, there have been around 80 studies done in the last hundred years and less than half a dozen claimed religious people had a higher intelligence (using that word as a catch-all) than non-religious people. Just like climate change, the tiny proportion outweighs the majority and proves that science is a conspiracy. Apparently, the higher your education the stupider you become. As an aside, is there any reason I have been unable to access CP for weeks? All I get are time outs, regardless of time of day. I really want to read about how the current NSW bushfires are normal weather but the snow in Ohio proves climate change is a lie... again. Sokar (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

About Karajou and those Finnish ducks[edit]

Does anybody know what Karajou meant by thisimg?

How about changing "atheists" to "American liberals"? At least then you'd have some consistency in your message, and not have to deal with awkward questions about those pesky Finnish liberals and their top notch schools. JohanZ 13:46, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
Same Finnish libs who deal with a lot of ducks? If they are so "top notch", they'd be leading the world, but our liberal "educated" pals like to inform the world they are swimming in ducks. So much for liberal education. As T.R. Roosevelt said, an uneducated man might steal from a freight car; put him in a university, and he might steal the whole train. Karajou 13:53, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

He later tried to explain it had to do with vandalism of Wikipedia Conservapedia (which he seemed to believe I would have witnessed), but that hardly made sense in the context of superior educational attainments by an entire country. Does he imagine vandalising Conservapedia is a national hobby or something?

If anyone could make sense of this, I'd be most grateful. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of the Finland article. There was vandalism involving ducks. I can't link versions because I made the mistake of clicking a CP link again from here so I'm blocked again. The sad thing is that Karajou honestly believes that the vast libocracy was part of this so everybody that isn't crazy right enough for him would know all about this sophomoric vandalism. It must be awful to be that man. Whoover (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Glad to help. Karajou is both filled with hatred and fear, and isn't very smart. Those together are a killer recipe for world class incomprehensible political gibberish. Hope that helps. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You're pretty much on hiding to nothing trying to figure out wtf Anger Bear is on about. Have you seen his blog? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
In the game Conservatroll if you change the page on Finland to say that it contains no people and is populated entirely by ducks you get a huge number of points. Karajou could have provided some context so as not to sound like he's moved to the next level of crazy. Anyway, as is frequently said here when vandalism comes up, there's no point in vandalizing CP; Andy's genuine edits are way more entertaining than anything a parodist can think up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't this even played on a much broader front? My memory is not what it once was but didn't Wikipedia suffer from the same thing? Of course, in Karajou's tiny mind RationalWiki is always the source of any mishap at CP. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 07:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you ever think Captain Crunch is fuming that all the "reports" to the FBI and DHS STILL haven't gotten all of us sent to Gitmo yet? --Revolverman (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was counting on that. Always wanted to go to the Caribbean. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not the same as it used to be, I think they closed all the water slides and the rollercoaster only operates on weekends. Thanks, Obama. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Kendoll[edit]

How many thingsimg have you declared to be Obama's Waterloo in the last five-odd years? Can't you at least think of something more original? Hell, you were calling him Jimmy Carter 2.0 the other day, which considering you lost the presidential election is a bit rich... or more likely you don't even understand what that was supposed to mean. Just stop using idioms altogether, Ken, you'll probably look a little less like a twat that way. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ken is easily the most unoriginal human being I have ever encountered. I wouldn't be surprised if his speech, in real life, consisted entirely of movie quotes. All of his CP articles and blog mumblings are nothing but recycled creationist rubbish, quotmines, and stolen pictures... all held together with the glue of stupid. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
When Ken was obsessed with bull-fighting analogies he could never stick to whether it was the bull or the matador who was supposed to be the victor. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget that brave, Christian house fire, bravely fending off the attentions of the cowardly, atheist firemen. Ken's use of analogies never fails to bewilder and bemuse. PsyGremlinSprich! 18:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't there some talk about blueberries in the cereal of creationism or something? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Terry H, you hypocrite.[edit]

Today he has made a couple of revisions to the Conservative Bible Project.[3] Very minor changes indeed and hardly worth reporting, except he also posts a "news" link to his blog.[4]. I highlight this line; "To be clear, he had every right to give his opinion about homosexuality and defend the rights of homosexuals to live as they please, but he is not God and does not have the right to re-write Scripture and redefine sin". What a 24 carat twat.--Mercian (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful! Certainly WIGO worthy... --PsyGremlinPraat! 18:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
He won't approve my cousin's comments when they refute inaccurate claims he makes about the law. My cousin is getting frustrated. What should my cousin do other than forget about it? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Pray perhaps. I also must appologise to Terry, as he does have authority from Saint Andy to change scripture, and Andy ranks below God, Jesus but possibly above the holy spirit in the christian pantheon and has every right to change scripture and re define sin.--Mercian (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what these people think sin or morality is, to be honest. They claim to have an objective source of morality — their god. But many if not most evangelicals believe in a "new covenant" in which their god abrogated the 10 commandments and other OT law. Thus, the only claims they make to actually knowing what their god thinks is a sin is where he says so. There are few instances of this in the NT, and in fact Jesus had extremely loose morals, occasionally advocating violence under circumstances not even contemplated by the OT. So of course Terry gets to rewrite scripture. What he makes up on an ad hoc basis is as likely to be a fair description of sin as any other. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The deadly XBOX strikes again[edit]

12 year old commits murder by throwing an XBOX at his victim that he brought from home [5], or was it a gun he brought from home Schlafly? Moron. I dread the near future, with the new playstation and XBOX released next month these attacks will only increase.--Mercian (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I just hope that future iterations of the Xbox don't have such sharp corners? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The link you provided goes to the CP main page. I assume that's not what you intended? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
try this Scream!! (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy: "Liberal denial kicks in as reporters fail to ask if the 12-year-old murderer in a Nevada public school was incited by violent video games. [1] Instead, a headline screams that "Police search for a motive in Nevada middle school shooting that left two dead.""'
Yeah, why is the lamestream media failing to jump to conclusions that would validate Andy's world view? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget the cops. Why are they wasting time investigating when the answer is obvious? Whoover (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait!img A new shiny object attracts Andrew Schlafly's attention. One thing is certain, though: liberals are to blame, somehow or other! --Tony Sidaway (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

He seems to blthely overlook the tension between the liberal anti bullying video causing the shooting and liberal denial that violent video games did. Which is it? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well considering the fact that the articles he cited reference Doom I guess there is not much new concrete evidence to prove that video games cause violence. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Andy finds a conservative word that describes him perfectly[6]--Mercian (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(sophomoric 1813 pretending to know much, when in fact the person knows little and is even immature) Scream!! (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

October 26, 2013 is going to be a TERRIBLE day for Darwinism.[edit]

[7] Can someone please capture this before he scrubs it?--Mercian (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why? It's just more Ken drivel. Like the last fifteen ides and terrible days. Something imaginary happens and we laugh at him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
ken is such a spectacular failure at everything. He promises much and delivers nothing. Project 200, the QE booklet that got rave reviews from 10 year olds, imaginary letters from Canadian ladies, the ides of March etc etc. He has failed at everything and always will. Acei9 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
As a card-carrying Canadian lady, I agree that Ken sucks. --Kels (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Grammar asshole learn it so help me god I'll slap you. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Kels, would you like to point it out to Nutty or shall I? :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
My comment was directed at Ken. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hrm. I wrote a Ruby script that queried CP's API to pull all of Ken's deletions. Can anyone think of a simple heuristic for pulling edits that match the criteria of calling for an "ides" or a "worst day" or "terrible day" or whatever other relevant boast he's got? I guarantee it's more than fifteen. It's got to be 100. I can get this data. This could be fun. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's now 4pm GMT on the 26th and as far as I can tell nothing - outside of what passes for Ken's mind - terrible has happened to Darwinism. How long until Ken vaporises the post? PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I don't know Psy, I'm a little tired and can feel a bit of a stress headache coming on. The rebuilt BSA Bantam didn't start this afternoon so I need to revisit the wiring AND it has a bit of an oil leak which may mean taking the clutch apart again. I'm not sure that I can handle things getting much worse for me as a 'darwinist' today. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm hung over and a bird pooed on my car just after I got it washed. Only had one egg left for breakfast this morning. The arms on my glasses are getting loose. This is shaping up to be a terrible day for atheism/evolutionism. I hope things don't get worse. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's getting worse. The cat won't stop crying to be fed, despite him being overweight and me having fed him 1 hour ago. I don't think I can stand much more of this, please ken - make it stop. 17:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That's nothing. I've stopped evolving. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Arghhhhhhhhhhh, now he's climbed onto the bed and fallen asleep. The only way I can get into bed is to move him and wake him up, meaning he'll want feeding again. Thanks ken, it's the sofa for me again tonight. Well, 26th October has certainly been a disasterous day for this atheistic darwinist :-( Oldusgitus (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It has not been a great day for me and I am genuinely spooked. First my accelerator cable snapped on the M1 and I had to wait 50 minutes for the AA to come and fix it, and when I got home I found my fridge cooling pipes had ruptured. I think I will keep my mouth shut in future.--Mercian (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If we're going by Karajou logic, Kendoll actually caused that. CALL THE FBI! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's odd seeing the word Karajou and logic appear side-by-side in the same sentence without a few negative modifiers sandwiched between them. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I had a great day. Held my newborn for the first time, it was a sunny spring day, drank a nice bottle of Pinot Noir and had a good night sleep. Sounds like Kens powers didn't reach the South Pacific. Acei9 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, congrats Ace. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an ace day, Ace. Congratulations. As for me, our oldest chicken became extinct after a short illness and it rained a little while I was canoeing, but that's all I can offer for terribleness. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
At my age, I have trouble remembering what happened yesterday. Oh yeah... Slept in. Took the dog for a walk. Did a little yard work. Went for a run. Caught up on a few things for work, things that do involve Darwinism to some extent. Mrs. Dark made a great soup for dinner. We went to see Gravity in the evening, though I may have enjoyed it more than her. (Two words: Sandra Bullock.) So all in all a horrible day. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ken, sidebar: OK man, I'm going to explain the gag to you one last time. First you shit in a bag. You put the bag on the doorstep. You set the bag on fire. Then you ring the door bell. You keep ringing the bell, and when somebody answers, you shit your pants and hand them a cigarette lighter. Though you're way of doing it was funny initially, it surely has to be getting old for you, isn't it? --Inquisitor (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A day late, but...[edit]

KEN KILLED LOU REED!!!!! PsyGremlin講話 06:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

YOU BASTARD! But seriously, is this his new pattern? Just announce constantly that a random date is going to be a terrible day for atheism/evolutionism and then just leave it at that? I suppose it has the advantage that we can't laugh at his transparent lies about what happened, but it just makes him look even crazier than before. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It's just another phase of his International Mug of Mystery guise - you can't falsify his claim, because you have no idea who did what, where. Just the when. And the what could be some 3rd rate blogger made a post that is TOTALLY going to destroy Darwinism... if anybody actually reads it. But just in case nobody does, and we all still believe in evolution tomorrow, Ken can just put on his inscrutable face (which is like his normal face, but minus the drool) and claim that we are too inferior to find this miraculous event. The irony being, that if Ken did actually want to convert anybody, you'd think he'd point them in the direction of whatever it is that's going to give Darwinism a bad day. But that's applying logic to Ken, for which sin I shall now retire to the corner and think about what I've done... --PsyGremlinParla! 09:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway/Active Conservapedia editors[edit]

This is ready for prime time, I think. Think of it as a kind of death watch. Conservapedia is losing editors, and at this stage it's possible to track the few remaining active editors and administrators individually.

Did you know that of the 133 editors active on Conservapedia over the past 91 days, 28 (over one-fifth) are currently blocked for one year or more? And half of those (14) are blocked indefinitely.

Did you know that only about 50 different users have edited Conservapedia in the current month?

Some 18 users who edited in late July haven't been back since the end of that month. 42 users edited last in August and haven't been back. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account that most new editors and edits are spambots, the situation is even more dire. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 04:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Four of the accounts on that list belong to me - I wonder how many others are socks and/or trolls? Ruddager (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
One is mine didn't realise I'd managed 4 edits. Bevo74 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Active list on Conservapedia has been updated today, and has dropped from 133 users to 123. The total will drop again by the end of the month (8 active users last edited in July), though it's possible that the trickle of very infrequent editors will discount the drop a little. I think there is an air of terminal decline about this, though.

In mid-October before I started formally tracking active editors, the Active list was in the high 140s. At least in the short term, Conservapedia is hemorrhaging editors at an unsustainable rate. But of course it could simply be a periodic phenomenon, I'll just have to watch and wait. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So of course Ken declares the death of Wikipedia because they're down to 31,000 active editors. Whoover (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some users here have hinted or admitted that they've recently socked and vandalized or parodied on Conservapedia, an activity I've long opposed on any wiki, whatever the justification. I'd like to plead with all, once more, to cease all such activities. If this is the death spiral, I think it would be much more interesting to observe it without avoidable noise in the data. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that plea, Tony. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You'll it's not behaviour condoned by RW, Tony, and I doubt you'd find any of the old school run socks (or could even be bothered to) on CP anymore. Put it down to the exuberance of youth. PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, Conservapedia invites people to come edit. One needn't use the same user name on every single site on the internet, must one? Creating an account at CP isn't sockpuppetry. People need to get off uncritically repeating this inaccuracy. Seriously, how do you feel parroting Karajou and TK? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't jump to conclusions. At least one person on this discussion says they have four different Conservapedia accounts, which is socking as defined by most wikis (eg: WP:SOCK "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."). I and many other people signed onto and enforced that and similar policies long before Andrew Schlafly ever registered the Conservapedia website. Honesty is part of the social contract that makes collaborative editing possible. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest Tony, I really can't imagine that there are any reasonable, honest, and/or well-intentioned editors left at CP. How could there be? Unless of course, you share the exact same half-baked political and religious ideologies of its founder. In that case you can scratch reasonable and honest off your list of character traits. Anyone operating under the principal that they can "change CP for the better" will rapidly become disillusioned and leave the project. Andrew Schlafly is the sole reason CP is a failure. Not trolling, parody, or sockpuppetry. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not trying to change Conservapedia. I'm just asking people to let it die (or not die) in a way that won't be complicated by socking originating from people whom I can reach through this discussion. See my request of 1444 GMT today. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) You only have to have a look at the history of genuine, well-meaning (note I didn't say reasonable, honest, or sane) editors - like Jallen, RJJensen, RobSmith, the one Ed blocked over the LOTR articles, etc, etc, to see why CP is the cesspit it is. Nothing to do with socks, it's just that Andy has so many crazy toes that even the most well-meaning editor will step on one of them at so point, and he won't get any support from the cowardly goons. PsyGremlinPraat! 23:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I get what you're saying Tony. I really do. I guess my point is that the CP deathwatch is going to go on for a very long time, and I seriously doubt that there is much sock puppets can do to hasten or delay that inevitability. In fact, I predict we (as in RW) will have grown tired of watching long before the corpse grows cold. But then again...--Inquisitor (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I didn't create any of those accounts recently, nor do I plan on making any more. Most of those accounts have been through a year ban and are recycled, usually just to pop up and make some point on a talk page Ruddager (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't 'sock' looked back at my edits, generally they were fixing typos. I had the account long before I found RW or realised just how nutty CP was. Should I not do that? Bevo74 (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you help with a Fred Phelps wiki? Why on earth would you want to help a bunch of hate-filled bigots? If they are too stupid to permit reasonable discussion, and cut off their nose to despite their face by banning editors who don't conform and kow-tow then let them rot in the ordure of their own making. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 09:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I like correcting errors of the bigots, just to show they make mistakes, and by crawling under the radar, I have on a few pages made them more truthful, but about one a month is hardly regular Bevo74 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In Sep 2013, some editors (including Ken) criticized Andy's "best new conservative words" at cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words#conservative word hypothesis falsified - the word "conservatism" appears to have dropped in usage since the 1960discussions and cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words#Statistical approach. In typical creationist's mode of discussion, Andy came up with his same old arguments, completely ignoring that they have been ripped to shreds months ago. So, I wanted to show the commentators some old links, like cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/archive3#Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test , cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/archive3#Too Good to be True , and of course cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/archive3#A summary with graphs... Therefore, I created a new account at CP: cp:User:Ladro (yes, it's kind of obvious, isn't it). Unfortunately - but inevitably - around this time other accounts were created (obviously by spammers): cp:User:Infantchap56, cp:User:Glosslady58 and cp:User:Animalgirl68. We four were summary executed by Karajou for "spam", though I hadn't been able to contribute even my first edit. I can't complain - and I didn't - but it is this kind of crap which any honest, starry-eyed would-be contributor to Conservapedia would have to deal with before being able to edit (if there were any of these creatures left, that is)

It took a couple of minutes and I wasn't able to visit pages at Conservapedia any longer. I assume that there is a no-view-list to which my IP was added manually. Again, for an honest, starry-eyed would-be contributor, Conservapedia must appear like an on-line version of Brigadoon...

--larron (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

James G. Blaine WIGO[edit]

Richard Jenson substantially wrote the Citizendium article. He was a history professor and a prolific CZ contributor. The WIGO is petty and reflects poorly on us. Just sayin'. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah (and I just voted that up before reading this.) We should remove that item, or strike it through and add an explanation of why it's crap. I'l add a link to this discussion for now. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've commented it out, it's sloppy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum diseaseModerator 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You do realise trhe Citizendium article contains a copyvio of published research not by Jensen which is copied into the Conservapedia article? Which is the point? Read for comprehension next time. (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Write for being comprehended next time.
Yes, the last paragraph should be put in quotation marks, as it is taken verbatim from the source to which it links at the end. Yes, this is a big no-no in a dissertation, but here, it seems to be just a mistake. And it is not very funny. --larron (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Screw you. I read for comprehension for a living. When I'm on RW, I read to reinforce my biases. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DanAP temp desysop pending discussion of suspicious edits[edit]

Tony Sidaway spotted that DanAP lost most of his rights "pending review". DanAP should be prepared that this is no temporary loss: We all know that Andy is just to lazy to actually perform a review, and that this is a code phrase for the sysops to gang up on DanAP. In CP's history, Andy announced reviews in five cases:

  1. cp:User:Jimxmchue
  2. cp:User:QK
  3. cp:User:RobSmith
  4. cp:User:AugustO
  5. cp:User:Dvergne

The result of the reviews was never published, and but Jinxmchue and AugustO got (some of) their rights back - after five to six months. In AugustO's case, this wasn't because his name was cleared, but dressed up as a Christmas present, while no comment was given for Jinx.

--larron (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DanAP's edit to Susseximg on October 20th was a giveaway. I don't know about the recently queried Modus ponens and Necessary condition because the articles have been deleted. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The irony being a) he's just repeating what Andy says about the UK and b) following CP's habit of shoehorning Andy's crazy toes into every article imaginable. PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be a dictionary of Andy's unique dissembling. An executive decision becomes a "review", deleting dishonest crap is a "trim", etc. He goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid actually saying what he means. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Are any of his posts not dissembling? A post about how the tapping of Merkel's phone was begun by Bush is "Has Obama been using the NSA to export his liberal agenda?" His practice of claiming a linked article supports the opposite of what it actually says is much more common than his administrative Newspeak. The fact that he's a lawyer and presents such crap evidence is proof that God has a sense of humor. Whoover (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Danap has been getting more and more obvious for a while now. What I don't understand is why anger bear has only banned him for a week, he's banned less obvious parodists instantly for far less.Oldusgitus (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
His comments about Sussex are incorrect, Sussex is not a county but a former Anglo-saxon kingdom. East Sussex and West Sussex are counties.--Mercian (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
DanAP may very well be Daniel Pulido. They have similar styles. And Karajou might suspect the same thing. Ex-CP-user (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing: Only for college graduates.[edit]

So says Ed's latest movie reviewimg. Ed should have his own movie review show on youtube. It'd be unintentional hilarity. Hell, someone should start an Ed Poor spoof show. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"...a girl's coming of age fantasy of reaching sensual and spiritual perfection." Stop it, Ed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I mean, Fucking Wow! Ed wrote all that? With a "category" and the subject in bold? Wow. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
And of course Ed had to redlink a bunch of random stuff. After all, this is a Wiki. Vulpius (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You can't expect a good Conservative encyclopaedia to have an article on such liberal nobodies as The Beatles. By the way, anyone want to make a bet on whether Ed intended the first sentence to be sarcastic or not? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't be stupid, of course they have an article on The Beatles - doh, with the definite article. It's just that Ed Moron links it to British Invasion which doesn't have any article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a search for ballroom dancing returns quite a few links for professional dancers written by DeanS. But as they were all on the US version of Strictly - Dancing with the Stars - the article was deleted by DouglasA for "television trivia", leaving 18 other articles with red-links. Not one of those those guys could organise the proverbial brewery shindig. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah how wonderful, another vomited out chunk of idiocy from our creepy uncle ed. And as for the last sentence of that stub would you gentlemen care to join me in a collective shudder of disgust? Seriously, out of all the bigwigs in that pit of insane gibbons known as conservapedia, Ed's raison d'être eludes me more than any other. Andy has (or had) the delusions of his blog toppling the thrones of tv, facebook, and the filthy liberal sections of the bible, Hurlbut has his spamming links for his own blog, kara has his sad little powermad patrolling, and Ken is able to spew his mental illness onto the one place that wont dare delete it. What the hell is Ed's reason for still being there? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I remember a folk song from my student years - No one's below you? Fancy that. Then your only consolation is to kick the cat. - CP is where Ed goes when he's been humiliated on Wikipedia. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum diseaseModerator 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Naw, Ed doesn't seem to be doing much on Wikipedia aside from live blogging's accessibility. He's learned to avoid stepping on people shoes over there for the most part. Although he does zealously guard his Dad's bio. I imagine Ed doesn't have many people to talk to in his life. CP is just a place for him to share his thoughts, bizarre and moronic though they may be. Hell, we're reading them, though we're probably not Ed's intended audience which seems to be fellow conservative parents looking for movie advice. Pro Tip Uncle Ed: No one reads CP for movie tips, there are plenty of conservative movie review websites that parents can go to if they're worried some movie might corrupt little Johnny's morals. --Marlow (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
But do any of those tell which movies feature football coaches with eleven year old daughters? Vulpius (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It may not have been Wikipedia this time, but you can bet that Ed has been put down somewhere and that he needs to re-assert his wikipowers with a suck-up to Andy or a put-down of a peon. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 00:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think Ed is the least offensive of the CP junta.--Mercian (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if he's the least offensive, but he's definitely the easiest to ignore. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
“...but it should only be seen by college graduates.” Hmm... Yet by his own admission he’s a college “dropout” who was “required to withdraw...” (see The Old Ed). One of Ed’s most unintentionally entertaining qualities is his near total lack of self-awareness. Long may he continue to provide the world with such mirth. JumboWhales (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at that dropout comment and followed the source link. Has anyone else noticed it gives an old Geocities homepage for Ed? And that homepage can be seen via the Wayback Machine. I'll be darned. It really does seem to be the real Ed Poor!! (I've skipped links here since I'm already worried that this comment is too close to internet stalking. I was just curious whether it was the real Ed. The linked home page is apparently from a Moonie named Ed Poor who links to an article titled "Subversive Virginity" by a 22-year-old woman.) Phiwum (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)