Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive325

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 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>, <324>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

A new low in Conservapedia editorship?[edit]

As I recorded at my new project yesterday, the number of active Conservapedia editors in the past 13 weeks has dropped to 118, 19 of whom are currently blocked for a year or more. This leaves 99 regular editors. 33 out of the 99 haven't edited in the past two months.

Just 27 days ago, on October 3rd, the figure for editors active in the previous 13 weeks was 156. This represents a drop of 24% in less than four weeks.

I'm not yet able to rule out cyclical effects such as the end of the summer holidays, or temporary effects such as a misguided and soon-to-be-reversed site blocking policy. The editorship does seem to be close to crisis, though. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The editorship is nowhere near "close to crisis." It's one guy's blog, with a few carefully-chosen assistants/guests, and they are all having a good time doing what they want with the project. CP works perfectly for what it is. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Well in time it may come to resemble a very low volume blog. That's not what it was designed as, and it isn't how it has functioned for most its life, despite the frequent claims to the contrary here. A glance at Recent Changes shows that traditional wiki editing is still going on and, even now, forms the great bulk of all activity. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a blog, you say? Hmmm.... that would mean any editor would be free to add any factual, well-sourced, apolitical, and noncontroversial information. Right? OK, explain the articles on Relativity then. Does "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap." read like an encyclopedic entry to you? --Inquisitor (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A wiki is a collaborative editing environment, and a blog is a web-based journal article store. None of the attributes you refer to above would make Conservapedia a blog. If content editing played a much smaller role and commentary a larger one, which could well happen at some future time, I'd be inclined to agree that the site had more of the character of a blog.
The decline in regular editor base is a serious problem for a wiki, mainly because the overhead for maintaining a wiki can be quite high compared to a blog. We're not there yet with Conservapedia. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The overhead for maintaining CP is the same regardless of how few people edit it, as it's only one guy paying the bill. You must be new, because you really do not understand CP. If the guys who founded Wikipedia died tonight, WP would still be there tomorrow and next week, because WP has a corporate identity and structure that exists independently of any particular person. If ASchlafly gets hit by a bus tomorrow, CP will die when the bill for the hosting goes unpaid. CP uses the wiki software, but it is not, in a philosophical sense, a "wiki" as you understand it. It is a one-man project where one person, sometimes acting through a trusted handful of intermediaries who serve at that one person's pleasure, controls 100% of the content. It is a vanity project for one guy who lets some people -- none of whom he would ever have over to the house for dinner, I'd wager -- play with him, but only if they behave exactly how he wants them to. In that sense, it is much more like a blog than a wiki. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
That pretty much covers it. It's the Schlafly Estate pretending to be a WikiHouse. Sure you're allowed to pluck the occasional loose strand out of the rug, or if you're a really good boy, you might be given a cupboard to play in. But if you go in rolling a baby grand piano with plans of knocking down a few walls for a game room... you'll find out who the lord of the manor is. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not "new". I am quite immersed in wiki culture.

Conservapedia has its quirks but it's definitely a wiki and definitely not a blog. I'm sorry if I misled some people with the use of the term "overhead". I refer not to the monetary costs but to the cost in time to curate a wiki.

A healthy wiki culture is one full of janitors and wikignomes who bear the overhead costs of scrutinizing new edits, making incidental corrections and performing triage on potential problems. At the moment Conservapedia has just a small core of editors performing any kind of cleanup work, but the fact that the work gets done at all easily illustrates the fact that this is no blog.

Blogs have a different, more monolithic curation strategy. This is both because on a blog an article or comment has a single author, and because blog comment threads have more linear interrelations and curating then is a simpler task. Blog curation is also, typically, rather opaque, compared to the obsessively connective and historical cataloguing of each and every change to a wiki.

The absence of a time sequence in most Conservapedia editing is also a clue to its wikiness. Any editor in good standing can change any article content in any order. Most unbloglike.

Many blogs don't even give commenters the option of changing their own comments, and editing the content of articles is reserved to the author or to privileged users.

Could Conservapedia become more blog-like as time goes on? Certainly. But again, it isn't there yet. The right hand side of the main page is a chronological news and comment log, and alongside the main talk page it has a bloggish quality, but it represents only a small part of the work that goes into Conservapedia. Wikipedia also has similar sections, and typically Wikipedia has far more time sequenced discussion on the talk pages. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course CP is a wiki, structurally. But that's not really the point. It's not an encyclopedia in any meaningful sense. It uses the wiki format to present a very narrow slice of "information," including a very odd set of articles and, more and more, pure opinion. In this way, its content more and more resembles a right-wing blog than its stated goal. The chief difference between CP content and Terry's blog CNAV's content with its small stable of contributors, for example, is the absence of parodists at CNAV. But at the end of the day, if you discount the movie reviews and crackpot science on CP, it publishes pretty much the political opinion of a small group of people. It just does it with a format that is not very conducive to such publication. I can't imagine that saying it's a wiki but not an encyclopedia would be controversial here. Whoover (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not a wiki, as we know it, Jim. Please look at the evolution pages and who can edit them to see how far from the "wiki" ideal this project has drifted. This message intended for Tony Sidaway. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean that Creation wiki and ASK - for example - are not true Scotsmen (sorry wikis) either?--Coffee (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
aSK was never an encyclopedia. It's definitely a wiki, but like RW it's largely a chat site. So that's 2 things a wiki can be in addition to dead. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy's law: any sufficiently dysfunctional wiki is indistinguishable in content from a blog. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Active Editors at Conservapedia
7 days period
91 days period

While the black lines include all editors, the blue lines show only those who have at least three days of editing under their belt... --larron (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that Conservapedia is not only structurally a wiki; it is (at this point, still) a functional wiki. I myself have edited the articles E=mc²,Richard Lenski, Proposition 8, Dinosaur and Solar System.

Some of the discussion points above confuse the terms wiki and encyclopedia. You could argue that Conservapedia isn't much of an encyclopedia, and I'd agree with you.

Thanks for the plots above, which underline my observation that something catastrophic appears to be in the offing for Conservapedia. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You may not be new to wikis, but you seem very naive when it comes to CP. Congrats on editing it! I got kicked out about 4 years ago for no real reason. I can't even LOAD the site most of the time. It's a "blog" disguised as a wiki, that claims to be an encyclopedia. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Define "catastrophic" for me. What would be worse, for the long-term viability of CP as a web project than it being owned/paid for by one guy who has the final say on all content and whose principal collaborators are bullies, idiots, and the demonstrably mentally ill? CP has been running like that for at least five years now, its supporters show no signs of being disappointed with that situation, and there is no reason, even with all of our yelling about the "death of CP," to believe that five years from now, Andy, Karajou, Conservative and Hurlbutt will be doing exactly what they are doing now, with a few trolls and misguided good-faith editors coming and going, as they always have. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What I mean by "catastrophic" here is the possibility of the editorship dying, leaving a core of say less than a dozen regular editors. This wouldn't necessarily kill Conservapedia but it would change its character and may lead to operational changes.
I keep seeing some criticism of the way the wiki is managed and owned, which I do think is quite legitimate criticism. However those criticisms have no bearing, in my opinion, on the simple question of what Conservapedia is functionally, a wiki or a blog. By the standards have laid out above, which you're welcome to critique, it's certainly a wiki, a collaboratively edited website. I myself have successfully used it for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
CP is not a wiki. You can call it a wiki all you like but that does not make it one. I can call myself the queen of greater Jerusalem, I am not and never will be. A wiki is a collaborative project, cp is a blog run by a hateful, spiteful, tiny cabal. the only others who edit there are, in general, parodists. Now please, flog another horse Tony, this one is rather dead and very boring. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The proposition that Conservapedia is a wiki isn't controversial and I don't find it difficult to defend. Rather fun, actually. Please feel free to advance ever more novel and innovative arguments to the contrary, if you wish, and I'll field them. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Damn you are slow, Tony. Obviously at the "one brain cell" level, CP is a "wiki" - due to the software it uses, by definition. But it is a closed site that basically parrots its owners' POV 100%. Not even a good blog. It's just a pile of steaming garbage. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"the possibility of the editorship dying, leaving a core of say less than a dozen regular editors." Okay, have you become unstuck in time and are actually writing this from 2008? Are there not less than a dozen editors (who aren't deep-cover parodists, or blatant parodists) who edit CP on a regular basis and who have been doing so for, say, at least a year? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Some wikis are wikier than others. Conservapedia isn't very much so, which is why RW denizens are fond of calling it A.Schlafly's blog. It's part of the local lexicon. Lexicographers are famously divided into anthropologists and missionaries, in terms of the descriptive/prescriptive axis that Wikipedia strives to keep its stance towards one end of. Tony, are you also fond of telling your dinner host which fork should be furthest from the plate? I ask, because it looks like that's the sort of argument you're trying to provoke/defend here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of seven volunteer directors who manage a cooperative company that supplies water to about 100 homes in a mountainous area that has no public water utility service. I put up a wiki that the seven of us use to share operational, financial, engineering, administrative, regulatory, etc., etc. information. Only seven users have access and I wind up making 90% of the edits anyway. It's a wiki. "Wiki" implies collaboration but not public collaboration. Those who try to dismiss any functioning instance of wikimedia as "not a wiki" have their terminology confused. It's like Rand Paul saying that quoting Wikipedia without citation isn't plagiarism because Rachel Maddow. Whoover (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion is sinking into a Bill Clinton-esque debate over what the definition if "is" is.--Inquisitor (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I keep a "wiki" on my hard drive, with one single user. I use it as a set of linked notes on methods, materials, suppliers, standards, and some personal stuff. It's tiddlywiki, which I think uses HTML for most of the innards; it doesn't run Wikimedia software. If I even give it a name, it's "that thing I keep track of stuff with." Since it has "wiki" in the name, must I now refrain from calling it anything but a wiki, even in my own private thoughts? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I use the exact same platform for my research, and it's saved with the filename "DissertationWiki" (to differentiate it from the "CompsWiki" I used for my comprehensive exams). But while it looks and behaves just like this here Rationalwiki, it's not a "wiki" in terms of its philosophical underpinnings: openness and collaboration are totally unwelcome and are forbidden.

CP IS a wiki in every sense of the word if you look at it one way; if you look at it from another angle, it's a website that uses wiki software but none of the approach embraced by a lot of people who use wikis. So yeah, CP is a wiki. Sure. But to argue that it's about to undergo some sort of catastrophe is ridiculous, because, notwithstanding the values it originally tried to espouse (a conservative encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to...), the website does EXACTLY what the person/people who own, fund, control and operate it want it to, and, unless Aschlafly is incapacitated/goes broke/gets bored and moves on, there is no reason to believe it will stop doing so.

We can argue over when the exact moment was that CP stopped being a real attempt to create a Christian/conservative alternative to Wikipedia (I think it died when that first bunch of homeschoolers stopped participating/when TK chased off any viable editorship), but I think we'd all agree that to speak of the "CP community" that the guy who started this thread as something that existed after, say, 2009, is to be pretty generous. CP became what Tony Sidaway fears it's going to become at least 4, and maybe 5 years ago. Move along. It's old news. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it still is a real attempt to create a Christian/Conservative alternative to Wikipedia. It has developed exactly as expected. How else could a wiki that was bound to deny truth and ignore facts in favour of ideology ever turn out? Tielec01 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. It's a mountain - it's a hill - you're an idiot It's a wiki according to one sensible technical definition, a blog according to another functional one. IMO, Andy is playing wiki because he hasn't got a model railroad.
  2. I agree with Tony: CP is doing especially bad at the moment - it looks worse than the time when TK nearly succeeded in suffocating the blog/wiki/whatever. Last time, they were saved by TK's death, this time, Andy is doing the strangling, so they are doomed DOOMED hahaha - sorry, Halloween...
  3. Yes, CP failed to live up to Andy's dreams years ago, heck, it disappointed even reasonable estimations about its potential in 2007. The only one to blame for this is Andy himself, his total lack of leadership, and his laziness: he let the editors fight each other, always backing the winner afterwards, thereby supporting always the bullies and those who shouted loudest over the voices of (sometime modest) reason. The whole site is an experiment in Social Darwinism - and it shows how this fails to build up a working society....
--larron (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting views. I'm interested by the TiddlyWiki example. I've used that software myself but I think that's a primary example of software that, while it borrows wiki-style markup and hyperlinking, is hardly ever used to implement collaborative editing. That's an extreme case of using something wikilike as a blog or notebook, though I don't doubt that even TiddlyWiki may sometimes be used to run a true wiki of sorts.
I don't agree that the website has been down to a core of regulars for the past five years; indeed some of the most prominent recent editors have been recruited since that time. But there certainly is a core of old timers who are still very active.
I've given an outline of my analysis in previous comments above. Note that, in my view, a wiki does not lose its character if some of its content is discussion; I suspect that Wikipedia has an even greater proportion of its edits on discussion pages than Conservapedia.
I suggest that further discussion may best be continued on User talk:Tony Sidaway/Active Conservapedia editors, where I will place a pernanent link to this thread. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

regarding religion, schools, and karajerk[edit]

Does he really write that badly all the time? And not correct himself? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to type correctly when your fists are clenched with perpetual rage. Vulpius (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Timely as ever, CP.[edit]

JMR, a day late, and a sandwich shortimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Would the nutters there even celebrate Halloween? I would think Andy would see as worshiping Satan and kept his little ones home, tucked up behind a Bible, and would lecture any little kids who came to his front door in the vain hope of sweets. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 03:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how relatively free of paranoia the Conservapedia page about Halloween is. It's one of their oldest articles (created on 8 April 2007) and it's always had that cutesy-wootsy picture at the top of the page. It does seem strangely out of keeping with the worldview of most of the CP regular crowd. Spud (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, JMR is Mexican and their Day Of The Dead festival really runs on 1st & 2nd November so that's probably what prompted him - although preparations do start on evening of 31st Oct. Despite incorporating Aztec traditions TDOTD is now very much a Christian festival. Of course US flatulence influence has infiltrated some iconography which is opposed by the traditionalist Mexicans. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 11:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's a bit of mix up between the three days of Halloween (the eve of All Saints), All Saints itself, and All Souls, the commemoration of the dead. All Souls is big in many Catholic countries and graveyards get covered in flowers as families come to remember their loved ones. All three days are, in fact, one festival but it's the first day that's been commercialised in a similar way to Christmas and Easter and the original meaning is largely lost. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy's Out of the Batshit Loop[edit]

Alex Jones knows the LAX shooting was another false flag operation. (It's part of the fascist plot to take your guns and give them to the TSA.) Unless it's the Jews as reported on WIGO:World. Or maybe a plot to demonize Jones and Glenn Beck. So why does Andy insist it's video games? Apparently the true loonies have stopped returning his calls. Is Andy now a RINO? Whoover (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe video games are the means the reverse vampires use to brainwash people to go and shoot up public gathering places so they can ban guns and TAKE OVER THE WORLD. It all fits together. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The Alex Jones lookalike who wrote that article clearly thinks the Daily Mail is part of Obama's vast left-wing conspiracy. Exactly how thick are these particular wingnuts? Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a good case where we can see Andy's dissonance. His broken logic about video game players doesn't apply to rightwing conspiracies and scare tactics that probably drove this guy over the edge. How many times has Terry referenced Nazi's in the last month? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy the relativist[edit]

Might be worth a WIGOimg considering his past statements. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question[edit]

Well, look chaps, We all know Luke blew up the Death Starimg, but lets have several pages of speculation as to whether he used the force or was just a bloody good shot. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical Difficulties[edit]

May be unrelated but has anyone else run into problems with accessing the site? — Unsigned, by: 72.87.151.206 / talk / contribs

No, it's ok. Check this site: is it down for everyone, or just me: http://www.isup.me/ Refugeetalk page 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think they blocked my IP Address — Unsigned, by: 72.87.151.206 / talk / contribs

Andy the perfectionist[edit]

Conservapedia proven right!img. LeBron James is so overrated he only ranks in the top ten all time basketball players, not the top five! Fucking hell, Andy. Why do you really hate this guy? Did he steal your lunch money in high school? Did he run over your dog? Not sign an autograph for you or something? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it's sort of hard to know whether Andy thinks he's lying or if he's just such a sloppy thinker that "Conservapedia proven right, again" is equivalent to "that sounds like something I can use to impugn someone I don't like." To say Barkley "confirmed" something implies that Andy made the claim that Barkley didn't rank James among his top 5. I know he's never made such a claim. This seems like even stranger behavior than normal. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy apparently thinks that "not on the All-Time Top 5 list" equals "overrated". This is odd to say the least. But at least we didn't get a headline reading "Charles Barkley admits that..." --Sid (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Right or wrong, I'm still stuck on the fact that Andy keeps referring to himself as "Conservapedia". --Inquisitor (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"L'encyclopédie, c'est moi." 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm kinda surprised that the article on Lebron doesn't mention him being overrated or have a link to the overrated sports stars page. How did Andy miss that?Ayzmo (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
According to CP, Usain Bolt, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Sebastian Vettel are also overated --Mercian (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"LeBron can get to No. 6 on my list..." Otherwise known as the top active player in the game! Numbers 1-5 are retired. Does Andy ever read an article? Did he ever manage to win a legal case? Are his arguments all trivially countered by just reciting them out loud? What a waste of cerebral tissue. Whoover (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone copy Andiot's SI link here just for fun? Hmmm, basketball. Bird and Magic. Jordan. That's the untoppable top three there. Hard not to add a couple of Bird's teammates and predecessors. McHale, Parrish, Johnson. Red whatsisname? Hard to get into current lineups once we get past the people who made the game what it is today.
Did Andiot have anything to say about Tom Brady today? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
SI link. Whoover (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe he hates LeBron because his money was on the Spurs. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

An Andy Trifecta[edit]

Must be a quiet day over in Andyland, as he dishes up three gems:

It's funny to watch Christie be rehabilitated from RINO to Conservative so he can have something to crow about. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
How long until he gets thrown under the bus again? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
But wait - according to their article he's a PLINO. So does that mean he won the election by falsely claiming to espouse the vote-winning pro-life position? Good ol' Conservative Values. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy will go back and forth until Chris (probably) inevitably wins the Republican presidential nomination for 2016, at which point he becomes a beautiful chrysalis of conservatism. Then he will lose to Clinton, and magically metastasize into a RINO horsefly. Shakedangle (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia's position on various Republicans can be best summed up with the phrase "We've always been at war with Eastasia".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Geez, at least when the shills at Fox News spew out their intellectually-inconsistent garbage they're being watched and getting payed. Pretty much no one but us pays attention to Andy and, not only is he not getting payed, but it actually costs him money to keep his blog up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That headline is priceless:

Despite spending more than $25 million, liberals defeat conservative Ken Cuccinelli by only 2 points in Virginia. Dems are not going to waste $25 million like this again in most future elections.

From what I gather, this is a pretty big win for the Dems and if they hadn't spent the 25 mil, they probably would have lost it. 2 point win? Fuck it. Might as well not have tried in the first place. Cow...Hammertime! 18:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy's actually a solid spinster. If he's good at anything, it's turning any bit of news into a positive for his personal worldview. Democrats win a highly contested election? Well they didn't win by much and they spent money. Cold outside? Global warming definitively disproved. Castro meets with Pope? Obvious body double fools liberal media which refuses to admit the death of its icon. He could give Rove a run for his reality denying money. --Marlow (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And now we have "Sticker shock for potheads: Colorado voters slap a 25% sales tax on marijuana, by a landslide vote. Liberals end up hurting themselves." That's not even wrong. For one thing, the tax bill was introduced by a Democrat. Speaking of general cluelessness, I see they've been cleaning up Greatest Conservative Songs. I wonder when they'll figure out who the Scissor Sisters are? Whoover (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy tries to shoot from the hip and he dropped the ball on that one. He should have made a causation between smoking dope and the $70 million public schools are going to get from taxed marijuana. "Only liberal dope smokers think building more public schools is a good idea" (or something). Occasionaluse (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's Right, Terry[edit]

CNAV is atwitter that Kathleen Sebelius is wearing a Nazi symbol before congress. Of course, it was the Liberty Eagle from Washington jeweler Ann Hand's "Patriot" collection when Cindy McCain wore it. That's probably because Cindy McCain is a patriot while Kathleen Sebelius is a Nazi. I guess this proves it. Whoover (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. You beat me to beating on them :( --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, never fucking go to CNAV without adblock installed. There's so much shit on there which I'm sure is attempting to install drive-by malware. Jesus. I guess crime pays well enough that Terry doesn't give a shit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Aww, he's memory holed it (I guess I was late)[edit]

This link used to point to an articleimg (google cache here while it still worksimg) that accused Kathleen Sebelius of wearing NAZI regalia.

Of course it's a bald eagle pin. 2 seconds of thought would have been enough to realise that, and 2 minutes of googling would let you buy oneimg, but I guess thinking isn't the CNAV way. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If a picture paints a thousand words then Insanitary can rearrange them into a hundred lies. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 00:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I almost feel bad. This was the closest thing he ever had to concrete evidence that the Obama administration is the public face of a secret plot to destroy America. But unfortunately, by making a specific claim backed by proof, you open yourself up to some real embarrassment. It's a whole lot different than claiming Obama seems like a Nazi.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Obama's goons probably made him take it down. I've read about shit like that happening all the time on CNAV. Occasionaluse (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
With the views that man has how he can keep a straight face when calling anyone a Nazi I will never understand. Of course the Nazi's were liberal(National Socialist) in the same way that East Germany was democratic and Conservapedia is trustworthy, and an encyclopedia.--Mercian (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh, RoseAnne Unsanitary off on one of her totally unfounded rants. So much for "renewing the fourth estate." PsyGremlinSermā! 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I love how in that article she talks about how she "translated the English meaning of the acronym NAZI" as if that is some sort of achievement, or that she brought some hidden knowledge to light, rather than just typing in Nazi Party in Google and reading the first sentence of Wikipedia's article on it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Return of the Nazis[edit]

It's baaaaack!img Here's me thinking he'd actually managed to cling on to a clue, but apparently he's still the world's greatest moron. Where's Fergus to go and give him a shoeing on his blog? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wish for me, and I am there.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 03:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Terry aware that the eagle is the symbol (and national bird) of the United States of America? You can see one on the back of a one-dollar bill. And, if memory serves, it's been that way for some time before Barack HUSSEIN Obama became President. Ex-CP-user (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's really bizarre. The new version of the page is different from the old version, and more or less admits that, no, this isn't a NAZI eagle, but it could be, and anyway these people are just like NAZIs even if they don't wear the jewelry and that's what's really scary.
It's utterly weird. They really want to say it's a NAZI pin, but know that it isn't, so they add a disclaimer at the end. Phiwum (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
No it's absolutely typical. "If this administration weren't a bunch of Nazis we wouldn't be seeing this as the Nazi eagle." I stand by my earlier analysis: when a patriot wears the pin it's patriotic but the reaction of "reasonable" people to Sebelius wearing it proves she's a fascist. Whoover (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It reminds of when I point out to my right-leaning coworkers that the Obama factoid, contained in the latest viral email, is demonstrably false. They just sit back and go "Well sure... but you can totally imagine Obama saying something like that. I bet he does say stuff like that when he knows nobody's listening." --Inquisitor (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That seems to be the usual chain of events when some "smoking gun" item is found. It may turn out to be false, but by that point it's already added another bucket of gasoline to the conspiracy theory fire and there's no turning back. «-Bfa-» 16:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hey. I found the Nazi![edit]

Look, he's giving the Nazi saluteimg. This is a fun game to play, isn't it? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 19 will be a BAD day for Obama and all his Muslim/Communist friends[edit]

OK, I'm making up the date. And this page is supposed to be about CP, not CNAV, but Terry currently has 39 links to CNAV from the main page. The latest screed from Terry's friend Dwight Kehoe has extremely dire predictions that the birther insanity will blow up very soon. He can't tell us just when, because the super-secret investigation (including Sherrif Joe) is still going on, but it will really be big when they announce it. No specific date is given. That's too bad--Ken likes to give specific dates for his non-events. Last one was October 26 or so, wasn't it? Maybe we could talk Ken into posting something with a specific date. And the usual black cats, parrots riding tricycles, battleships, and flying kitties.

Anyway, I've got my money on November 19. Ex-CP-user (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Sheriff Joe's posse. The only police investigation ever to publish a book on their findings, before there's even been an arrest. --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Karajou, read your friend Terry's blog.[edit]

[4] The reason liberals are accusing Terry of accusing Kathleen Sibelious of being a closet Nazi is because he IS accusing her of being a closet Nazi. --Mercian (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

PS, You do it yourself, this blog entry is disgusting. You use images of the holocaust for your own agenda, and then you go on to accuse Obama of being a Nazi himself. Obama may not be to everyone's cup of tea but comparing him to Hitler is not just wrong it is sick, and only a sick bastard like you would make such a comparison.--Mercian (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Atrocious spelling and grammar aside, that post makes no sense. The brooch thing was raised by Terry, not liberals. How is this a liberal attack on them? They say something stupid and our saying, "Look at the stupid thing they said" is bringing up the topic as a slur? Other than hatred, I can't follow any logic. Whoover (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Karajou spelling Sebelius "Sibelious" because he's borderline illiterate, or because it's supposed to look like "libelous" or some other negative word? The latter would make sense if a) it made sense, and b) Karajou could spell, and it's so consistent that one wonders. He does call her "Heath and Human Services Secretary," which could be a candy-based insult or possibly an allusion to Scottish wastelands, but he also spells "sieg heil" wrong, so it's more likely that these all stem from him being an imbecile. Whoover (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I've missed Karajerk's hate-fueled, impotent rants. Watchig the spin Terry, Unsanitary (after rewording her original post) and now Angry Bear have been putting on this is hysterical. "We're not calling her a Nazi, but if you look at what she wears and what she does, then she's totally a Nazi!" PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone has been poking anger bear over there for the past day or two on his user page asking him what his rank was and adding quotations to the Kathleen Sebeliusimg article which he has been frantically memory holing. This is the latest and he has only reverted this, not holed it, so I'm not sure what the others said. I guess he's just got splutteing mad angry again. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, that was certainly something to make myself read. Normally if someone went on that sort of rant I'd at least point out that 'nazi' eugenics were heavily inspired by American eugenics (which were specifically praised by Germany,) and that things like forced sterilization were still around in North America well past the second world war. I expect my breath would be wasted, though: Karajou seems to not even realize that the reason people made fun of the 'nazi pin!' thing is because, when you get right down to it, how stupid do you have to be to believe that a politician in the United States would purposefully don a 'nazi-like' emblem of any sort, whether they were a nazi or not? To the point that you'd take it as any form of contributing evidence at all as to how you classified them? It's akin to people who point to things like the eye of providence on the one dollar bill as evidence of the illuminati. It's not like there's a rule about how you have to leave hints about your secret government-running-conspiracy or nazi-ness. Ego (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Notice how Sebelius kept her jacket on? That was surely to conceal the swastika emblazoned arm-band she wears next to her skin. And just to set things straight, mentions of watermelon and fried chicken are no way racist, it's just stupid liberals reading intent when there was absolutely none. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 14:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got a question. Part of Karajou's rant is a riff on the rightwing meme that Hitler and the Nazis were leftists (you know, "Socialist" and all). I get it. My question is, "Who were the right in, say, 1943?" I'm sure that Hitler being a liberal doesn't affect Stalin being a liberal. Conservapedia confirms that Mussolini and the Fascists were left-wing. (Mussolini is "the Duce of all revolutionary socialists in Italy.") FDR, of course, was a socialist, and, according to CP, based the New Deal on the Nazi and Fascistic ideologies he admired. Where was the right? France? Whoover (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In 43? well, France was split between being occupied by the National SOCIALISTS and Vichy, who were as right as you can get, but maybe can't count in this analysis because they were the love child of the National SOCIALISTS. Churchill would prolly be the answer in Sailor Moon's mind. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Nahh, Churchill was dangerously socialist to some of the new right wing. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
(EC):Ah. Let me explain the conservative version of world history... In 1776 God personally selected the most holy and christian men living in the New World. He called these men the Founding Fathers. They created the greatest nation on Earth. All was perfect until pesky liberals started the War of Northern Aggression. Then the evil socialists really went crazy in the 20th century and visited all sorts of vile wickedry upon the good and innocent people of the land. God, having seen what Satan and his minions had wrought, sent St. Reagan to set things right. But the liberals just wouldn't give it up, and since then a Holy War has been afoot. And... that pretty much brings us up to present day. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
...you just ripped off half the plot of Bioshock Infinite! Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 10:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If the logic didn't turn my brain to mush then I'd say it would be Italy, Andy is almost a carbon copy of Mussolini. But if you look at the Axis allies they were all very militaristic which is more of a right wing thing than the liberal pacifism. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 06:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The only true conservative is andy, and lesser men can only be conservative if he says they are. Trying to figure out the logic of andy's political inanity is like trying to figure out the physics of the time cube theory. Just dont bother trying. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 10:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is a good thing that the only people who actually read Kara's blog, other than himself, is us. I wager not even the other dukes of Conservapedialand ever bother to read what he says.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

QE campaign removed from Creation Science article[edit]

More of the QE campaign gets removed.img I'm assuming this is as close as we'll see to an admission of failure. TwelveMoreDucks (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, since ShockOfGoat failed to move forward again and again until even one tract was in anyone's hands, it was starting to look a bit ridiculous there. I'm not sure "failure" is quite the word, you can't really fail at an endeavour you never even started. An admission that he made the whole fucking thing up would be more accurate. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That's just Ken doing what he does best: being a weirdo and a moron! Audi (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What a senseless waste of time. You only get one go at this life, Ken. Make the most of it, because there isn't another one after this. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In other news, just like Ken predicted, 2013 is a terrible year for Darwinism, because creation.com has finally broken through the 250,000 visitors p.m. barrier. Which means that scientists, biologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, astrologists everywhere have thrown down their pencils and gone to join the unemployment queue. Of course, the minute it dips below that magical mark, will mean that it's a terrible year for creationism, right? --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
When you have no real victories, you cling onto whatever you can find.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Shockofgoat[edit]

Anyone know whether kenny boy has had a falling out with schlock? He's not linked to any of his drivel for quite a few weeks now. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Shocky seems to be doing more game where you shoot people videos than his idiotic Christian stuff these days. I think his star has fallen considerably since the old days, none of his videos seem to get to 4 digit view counts. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Vivayeshua seems to have fallen out of favour also. Perhaps he told Ken to stop using his name for his cowardly personal crusades. Then again even the slightest deviations from the party line are instantly banned now so the Viva card has not had to be played.--Mercian (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It's because Ken is, and always was, a complete nobody. Just like his Canadian authoress, his relationship with Shock of God has largely been in his head. Acei9 21:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's hope this lull with ShockingCodpiece is permanent. 24.45.33.231 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Days later and still no mention of the Phillippines tragedy[edit]

My recollection of the last world tragedy is that Andy all but declared that his prayers were as meaningful a relief effort as anything the Red Cross was doing. This time around it seems like that's too much to ask. Seriously - not even a post in the news or a request from an editor on MP Talk? --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. Where's our link to a Red Cross donation site? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder which God Andy is going to pray to - the one that caused the hurricane, or the one that sat back and let it happen? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I called Andy out on Haiti and posted relevant links here. My internet connection has been a piece of taut string for the last week. My colleague's girlfriend lost 7 relatives (aunts, uncles and cousins) in Tacloban. Must I do everything? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 18:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
He can't mention it because practically every article on the typhoon discusses the impact of climate change on sea temperature and the resulting increased severity of cyclonic storms worldwide. Although Andy is convinced that snow is definitive disproof of climate change, why would he complicate things? Whoover (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I know it would be a cold day in hell, but if there is ever a day when Andy can no longer deny global warming, it's going to make a great proof for a young earth. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Genghis: Sorry to hear the bad news. Everyone else: Give them your money. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Always brings it closer to home when the disaster is more than just words on a page. I've already sent some dosh off to these guys. And I've got two mates flying out with a medical team. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeeves and Psy.[edit]

You have a shoutout (heres a cap [5]) from the manchild. Hope the cap works before he memory holes it but I'll save the html just in case. The cap didn't work so I've tried to manually grab it as a png instead. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Even by Ken's ridiculously low standards, that is weak. Yes, Manchild, I made a mistake - I said astrolgists instead of astronomers, which of course, allowed you to ignore everything else and yell "na-na-nana-na" from you anti-intellectual bunny hole. There, I've admitted my mistake. If that was all you've got, you are even more pathetic than I ever imagined. PS, do you still have hot, sweaty dreams about Jessica?
Oh, and to use a Ken-argument against you - where exactly did I ever say I was "into astrology?" Please quote me, chapter and verse, where I ever said I believed in astrology. Or else, grow a pair of balls and admit that you have no clue what you "suspected." But you won't, because you are a coward. -PsyGremlinTala! 11:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
RW lost every last vestige of credibility when Ken discovered a very old photo in which Trent is overweight? This is a perfect example of what a petty sniveling cowardly shit Ken is. Nothing of substance in his entire shout out. How many edits did that take, Ken? How long did you spend rubbing your hands together with glee? Make some actual arguments about evolution. Not quotes, arguments. Not ad hom attacks, substance. Debate. You've been pulling this same pathetic shit with the same pathetic pictures for 6 years. Isn't it getting old being a complete failure in life who's only relevant on a site frequented by people who dislike you if they even care one way or the other? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that in the paragraph above his calling out astrology-gate, Ken spells "lessen" "lesson." May this be a lessen to you, "Dyslexics shouldn't throw stones." Whoover (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Homonyms and over-reliance on spelling checkers can bite you in the ass. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's cute that he's pretending he's removed all mention of two books and a league of creationist organisations from his blog because he's being subtle and mysterious. I'm sure he cancelled a textbook he was going to publish because that's exactly what his evolutionist enemies would least expect. Sun Tzu would be proud. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If he'd paid me to write his book it would have been done months ago. I did try to tell him that. Oh well.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Naa. Not "oh well." It's been absolutely nothing but lies and boasting from this "christian" soldier for nearly a decade. He's a pathetic person. Nobody really expects him to accept any reasonable offer or carry through with a single one of his "projects." QE was his Waterloo and 2014 his WORST year! Olé olé olé! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ken's biggest problem- wait, I'll start over. One of Ken's many problems is that he routinely confuses a tapestry with a quilt. It's one thing to cut up and stitch together others' work to make something, it's quite another to sit down at the loom, with spool in hand, to create something new from scratch. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You are being too generous. Creating a quit still requires craftsmanship and an eye for design. Ken's efforts have never amounted to anything more than an enormous, children's scrapbook. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please. The closest Ken's come to creating anything is throwing spitballs against the wall. --PsyGremlinTal! 20:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ken had better hope that atheism is true because if it is not he has given false witness so many times that there is a spit in hell waiting for him. He would hate the fact that he has been usurped by TerryH as CP's biggest twat--Mercian (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
"But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth." James 3:14. " "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence." Psalm 101. Nate Keaton (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I love how this little Sun Tzu gig is his go-to excuse whenever he realizes he won't be able to back up what he says. Can you imagine if people in positions of any amount of importance resorted to this logic? Imagine Obama giving a press conference and saying "I know I said the website would work by now... but fear not! It will strike you with a torrent of effectiveness and affordability when you least expect it! I can not reveal when this will happen. Be subtle, to the point of formlessness, etc, said Sun Tzu once!" Or imagine not getting something done at work on time and telling your boss that. He/she would laugh and throw your ass out on the street. Poor Ken has probably never had a job with any sort of real responsibility because this is how his brain operates.--JimBags (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh lol I didn't see the Sun Tzu stuff. See, Ken, here's the deal about Sun Tzu. He was a general who actually went to battle... So that's why he can talk about this kind of shit authoritatively. You do realize that people read Sun Tzu quotes to inspire themselves to actually do stuff, not give excuses for doing nothing, don't you. You nitwit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's worse than that Nutty. Ken doesn't have the imagination to even cook up an elaborate excuse. His crises management decision tree consists of: Can I burn the evidence? Yes? Problem solved! No? Lie about being busy with projects. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
His lies would be vastly more entertaining if he only thought up a variety of excuses when they became obvious. There's only so many times you can hear the Sun Tzu excuse for why one of his projects came to nothing before it gets old. I'd be happy to accept explanations involving sick relatives, sudden work crises and/or alien invasions. Anything to spice up the dreary routine of empty promises followed by burning the evidence. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed now[6]

Acting like a 7 year old in a playground laughing at the overweight kid. Even then I would expect a responsible adult to chastise the bully for it. Ken, you should have grown out of this behaviour half a century ago. You are a childish bully and should be ashamed of yourself--Mercian (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As expected, Ken runs away from the points raised above, like the coward he is, and instead resorts to childish taunts. I saw this earlier and wished that nobody posted it here, because now he's masturbating furiously at the attention he's getting. Once again Ken, you sniveling coward - show me where I ever said I was interested in astrology? Go on, I'm waiting. or will you suddenly have a 3-year project that will make you too busy to reply? --PsyGremlinPrata! 07:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
As conservatives love to beat their kids, I mean support corporal punishment I would suggest he have his bum spanked like a 7 year old, but that would only make him masturbate harder.--Mercian (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Psy, I'm Libra. Any tips for next week? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I foresee a week's worth of wild monkey sex involving 18-year-old, swimsuit modelling twins, several liters of baby oil and a llama. But only if you send me all your money first. However, due to Uranus rising and Pluto still grumpy at being downgraded, the fates are fickle this week, so it might not happen. But send me all your money anyway, because otherwise it definitely won't happen. PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Fuck you! The baby oil you can keep, you filthy prevert. But I'll take the twins and the llama. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You realise that for people of high moral standing such as yourself that there exist brands of baby oil made entirely from synthetic baby substitute? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know people above challenge Ken to actually answer their criticisms or provide evidence he actually does anything, but he never will, so it is pointless to ever attempt to shame him into possibly doing so. Normally this may be somewhat frustrating, but in this case, who cares? C'mom, it's Ken! He has no influence, no power, no say in the fundamentalist Christian community nor the YEC community, let alone anywhere else; all he has is Conservapedia to vet his impotent, so-called creationist triumphs. If it wasn't for us, these pronouncements would be to the Web's equivalent to dead air. Think even Andy or Terry care what he has to say? Maybe Kara does, but only because Kara needs Conservapedia to have meaning in his life, not because he actually believes in Ken.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

AND - it's all gone. Vapourised as if it never was in the first place. Bunny ken has just met his intellectual and moral hole. Run and hide ken, run and hide.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And it's back again, addressed to me, I am honoured.[7] Talk about missing the point. The point is that you are acting like a 7 year old, and you are a middle aged man. If you acted like that on the street, pointing and laughing at some bloke with a weight problem, you would get a slap, from a conservative or a liberal. Do you point and laugh at a woman who is not blessed with good looks, or someone with a disability? Don't answer that, I know the answer already. You may now continue to pull your pud from the attention you are getting like any pervert would. See you.--Mercian (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"...but adults are expected to behave better in civilized and scientifically advanced societies." Yes, by not lying, covering up their lies and by doing more productive things rather than spending 36 hours making minute changes to articles linking atheism to bestiality. Acei9 02:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The good old days.[edit]

Ah, 2007. When trolling CP was fun.img Too bad you missed it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Image uploads didn't last long, did it? So we now have the ridiculous situation when only the sysops can upload files, only sysops can move or delete files, but every uploaded image has to be protected. From what? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
For a site that leaves so much of the heavy lifting to the sysops, they do fantastically little. Except protect theor spots on the main page. Looking at their Maintenance category, there's a bunch of stuff that needs to be done, ironically most it untouched since my time there, like some 300 merge candidates. The only reason there isn't a citations category, is because that smarmy git Geoffrey Plourde deleted the ((fact)) template. --PsyGremlinParlez! 20:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Or look at the Wanted Pages. Apart from a bunch of rare elements linked from a periodic table template there's bunches of birds, battles and countries from Karajou's stubs. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a picture concerning Ken[edit]

Thinking about a question by User:Psygremlin (see here), I came up with this little picture:

Ken-vs-the-rest.svg

--larron (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA Thank you LArron. What was going on August 2010?Shakedangle (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
August of this year is even better. He had more edits than everyone else combined.

Speaking of the little mental case, CescF has pointed out to him, on Talk:MP, that US obesity is the biggest problem in red, southern, states, peaking in Louisiana. What will be Ken's response?:

  • Catholics
  • CescF, do you belong to a church that ordains homosexuals?
  • Sun Tzu
  • Banned for 90/10 Whoover (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no problem for Ken's Weltbild: 30% of the inhabitants of Louisiana may be obese, but 40% voted for Obama. So 10% of the inhabitants of this great state are slim democrats, 60% slim republicans.... --larron (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
In these brave, new, server blocked, turtle-mode times, I wonder how CP would deal with a potential influx of election season editors. Is anyone else interested in a wingnut media blitz to attract rightwing editors to CP? It'd be like buying a bunch of beta fish and putting them in a tank to watch them fight it out. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
They are called "betta" fish, OU. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No need to spring for the top alpha-males. Beta bettas will do fine. Whoover (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

His response is in. To paraphrase: "Where's your multivariate testing? Sounds like mere apocryphal data. Look at my catalog of fat atheists. That's real data." Never mind studies that show the religious tend to be more obese than the general population. Never mind that the founders of his glorious protestant reformation, Luther and Henry VIII, look like Chris Christie and Rob Ford, or that any attempt to post a gallery of obese Christians will get you banned. What a class-A dick. Whoover (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason African and Asian Christians are slim is the same reason that many non Christians in these areas are slim, food is often hard to come by, and is a ongoing day to day concern. They are not just slim, many are under-nourished and often have a life expectancy in the 50's. It is the opposite in the west, obesity is usually associated with (relative) poverty as fatty and surgery foods are a lot cheaper than a healthy balanced diet. The ban for Cesc will come though, once the balanced and fair hand of justice that is Karajou sees it (trolling), mark my words--Mercian (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope you meant "surgary" foods. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, "sugary" foods. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 09:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope, definitely meant surgery.--Mercian (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
My favorite bit of his "rebuttal" is the final paragraph. Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Paul and Peter were all thin! He knows, because he's seen pictures! Phiwum (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
That is beautiful! I didn't believe he'd written it so had to go & look-see. What a ... Scream!! (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It's amazing the disciples were thin really, I mean with a buddy who could conjure up food and wine whenever wanted.

Shhhhhhh!!!! The second that Andy realizes that Ken is his biggest liability is the second that it becomes ~0.00000000001% more probable that they'll win the war. Admittedly, that would still leave it about a tenth as likely as me being struck dead by lightening while fellating a unicorn tomorrow, but still, do you really want to take that risk?--Umichcynic (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

larron always makes such pretty graphs. I just wish I knew how to read them... PsyGremlinPrata! 05:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Brace youselves: Winter is coming[edit]

Hasn't hit CP just yet, but in a shocking disproof of global warming, Whistler opened 13 days early this year. I'm amazed by how popular Andy-styled logic is in the comments, even if they're all coming from the drudge report. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! But don't you know that a few outliers do not negate a trend? Gotta love those liberal conservative double standards!--Umichcynic (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
And I expect the eastern half of Australia went up in flames before summer had even started because it was so damn cold there... Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia's racism confirmed[edit]

Jpatt lists "Knockout game" to be an act of violence committed by blacks on whites[8]. Whilst this activity is listed elsewhere, only Conservapedia lists it as carried out entirely by black people.--Mercian (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only CP. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Point taken, so obviously white folk like myself would never do such a thing.--Mercian (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The "black mob violence" meme has been around rightwing media for a few years now. It's rooted in the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks. As someone who lives in a predominately black neighborhood, it's hard not to admit that black youth culture is fucked and that there are seeds of truth in these alarmist arguments. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As someone who lives in a predominately white neighbourhood here in the UK I find it very easy to admit that youth culture, black, asian AND white, is fucked. Most 'happy slapping' and drug crime around my way is white committed. The children may be copying US gang influenced rap culture but black they ain't. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I always chalked that up to Britain's atheism and notoriously poor mathematics. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
such horror. so wow. Is it any surprise CP would use this as another way to trot out some racist talking points? After all, everyone knows that it isn't the gang culture of these degenerate people that cause them to assault innocent people, it's because they were black. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Correlation is often due to causation, so... yeah, that's Andylogic approved. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Worst. History. Teacher. Ever.[edit]

Andypants just can't help shoehorning his own personal biases into world events: Britain, weakened by decades of economic socialism and declining Christianity, was no match for the larger and much stronger Germany, and Britain needed America to save it.img

So, wait, Britain, with its socialism and a state religion and only declining Christianity, was no match for a socialist, atheist Germany, that was in favour of gun control?? Let's ignore all the post-WW1 dithering, disarmament, political treaties, tactics, appeasement, etc. The Blitzkreig worked thanks to the Brits losing their faith in Jebus. Also Andy, the Battle of Britain was won long before the US entered the war. --PsyGremlinParla! 05:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing gets up a Brit's nose more than the "We saved you in WWII" crap. If Britain did not hold out in 1940, Russia would have been for the taking, and nasty as the USSR was it was not as bad as the 3rd Reich. The result could have been a USA/Germany cold war which would have been, in my opinion, far more likely to turn hot than the cold war that was. I don't know what Andy' problem with the UK is, I have read how he want's to save the 100,000 or so Americans in the UK from the atheist hellhole, and the only praise I have seen him give it is his support for the BNP, which he refused to back down on even after it was pointed out to him what sort of organisation they are--Mercian (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A ps to this, Germany, in 3/4 of a century has gone from one of the most evil regimes in history to a progressive, and as a Brit it is hard to admit this, one of the greatest nations on the planet where The USA has gone backwards.--Mercian (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
But the situation was rapidly deteriorating in Europe in 1940, as World War II broke out there. Wasn't that in 1939? *LOL* --larron (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
At one point in late 1941 Churchill even stayed for several weeks at the White House while Britain was being bombed by Germany. How cowardly of Churchill, cruising the war-infested Atlantic on board of HMS Duke of York for a week, than staying in Washington from Dec 22, 1941 until Jan 18, 1942, and flying back home, while Britain wasn't being bombed systematically by Germany, as the Blitz had died down in May 1941? --larron (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Britain had been badly weakened by decades of socialism, declining values, and rising atheism along with belief in evolution. Britain, weakened by decades of economic socialism and declining Christianity, was no match for the larger and much stronger Germany It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--Andy Schlafly 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT), and Britain needed America to save it. At one point in late 1941 Churchill even stayed for several weeks at the White House while Britain was being bombed by Germany. Is Andy quoting a German propaganda leaflet from 1942? --larron (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
He's craxy. It's a good thing [ht It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--Andy Schlafly 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)tp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com no-one is listening] StarFish (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, took him this long to do it? given his utter loathing of the UK save the monarchy im surprised it took him 7 years to spew the "We saved your ass from hitler" bullshit. Were I in a position to give half a fuck about the droolings of some impotent little bigot I would suggest referring him to Alan Turing and seeing him try to bend reality to prove that a damn dirty socialist homo did nothing of any importance. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Done already :
So, it were the God-fearing, catholic Poles, not the weak, evolutionist British...--larron (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
God fearing catholic Poles whose country fell to the Nazis in days... Andy must be one of the finest mental gymnasts to ever have lived even setting aside the flat out lie about how British codebreakers like Turing did nothing. Also while we are on the subject of "evil socialism and liberalism weakening and pussifying nations till they had to be saved by mighty conservative america", how exactly does the Soviet Union (aka that other nation andy compares everything he hates to due to it;s evil liberalism and socialism) play into this? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Turing was a gay. Everybody knows that gays are just degenerates who have no benefit to society. Ayzmo (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In part because of its secrecy at the time, in part because most people aren't very interested in mathematics and so have to be given a much simplified summary and in part because the reality of cryptanalysis is not so dramatic as to make for a good novel let alone a movie, Turing's role is often exaggerated, which plays into the hands of people like Andy. Turing did work on Enigma, improving on the earlier work by the Polish (e.g. he designed the mechnical "Bombe" a replica of which you can now see demonstrated at Bletchley, but it's merely a logical next step from an earlier Polish design) but perhaps his more significant, or at least cleverer innovation was Turingery, one element of the cryptanalysis of Lorenz, a very different cipher from Enigma. Lorenz cryptanalysis is also the reason why the Colossus was built - a predecessor in a loose sense of the modern electronic computer - but although today we think "computers - Turing!" the connection meant nothing at the time, Colossus was simply the right tool for the job, an electronic replacement for a previous mechanical device ("The Heath Robinson machine") that wasn't fast enough.
The reason the Polish had done the early cryptanalysis should be obvious to anyone who knows their geography. Poland has a large land border with Germany, the Polish government wanted the maximum possible notice of any aggression from their increasingly unstable neighbour. When the inevitable happened the cryptanalysts fled Poland, but Britain was a major Polish ally so even if they'd been able to remain in Poland they would eventually have shared what they had learned. The success achieved based on the Polish work meant that Bletchley was able to keep innovating to stay a step ahead of German technical and operational improvements. Accordingly Bletchley Park today has a small memorial to the Polish cryptanalysts who gave them their head start, though it's a bit tucked away - my Polish colleagues and I had to spend some time looking for it when we visited. The war itself and the subsequent closing of the iron curtain means there is no single equivalent site in their home country today celebrating what was achieved. Tialaramex (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Brits also hate the underdog, and Thacther was not a conservative. How is this man allowed to teach kids? Political positions should not be taught to school children.--Mercian (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy's hatred of the UK does not even qualify as a political position. Hell, due to Obama's "insults" to the UK (seen only by wingnuts and the Daily Heil) it seems that the US right wing cant say enough nice things about the UK save for foaming at the mouth wannabe ethnic cleansers like Pam Gellar who hate the fact we haven't "disappeared" our muslim population. Andy's loathing of the UK is either this, a very very strange grudge over something only he knows about, or just petty resentment over the number of his pet hates that seem to come from here. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget that the nasty socialist UK banned the ever so nice and not at all mentally unstable Pam Gellar from entering our country as her presence would not be conducive to the public good. And as for the whole 'The US saved the UK' meme personally I blame Hollywood - and I'm not really joking. When people are as unenlightened as they sometimes seem to be, especially when it comes to history, you can't really blame them for seeming to take the view that Saving Private Ryan was a documentary. I would love to see andy read The Origins of the Second World War by Taylor so I could sit back and watch his head explode as he struggled to reconcile his prejudices with historical events. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
He would just either mentally erase the contents of the book, twist them to fit with his bigotry, or dismiss the author as a filthy liberal if he read a book like that. Hell, were he a rational human being I might suggest reading Andrew Roberts "A Storm of War" since its easy to read through and is pretty good as WW2 histories go. Unfortunately andy is not a rational human being. He is a bitter and petty fundamentalist who will defend the most insane and idiotic beliefs on any subject to the death simply because he refuses to admit any "defeat". For andy his bigotry and obsessive fringe viewpoints come first and facts/reality are entirely irrelevant. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy's ability to misread plain text is remarkable: when I searcher for Turing, I stumbled upon this little gem, where Andy mangles a dictionary entry: cp:Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia vs. Germany Just amazing! --larron (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that conservatives in the USA never wanted FDR to send us Lend-Lease and tried to get the USA to stay out of war with Germany, but that must have been in a parallel universe. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, some of them were too busy making money to send aid, that was all. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
" Andy's loathing of the UK is either ...a very very strange grudge over something only he knows about, or just petty resentment over the number of his pet hates that seem to come from here." Andy is a very small, very hate-filled man. We've all read virtually every word he's written or pronounced in public for 7 years now. The overwhelming majority of those pronouncements are guided by hatred of people. I'm still pretty knew at this whole "practicing a religion" thing, but I'm pretty sure that the way he expresses himself is the exact opposite of what his professed faith strives for. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not really a problem for the man who proposed rewriting the Bible to remove liberal bias. Spud (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
He didn't 'propose' it Spud, he DID it. Admittedly a lot of the entries have ended up being by parodists but Andy has not challenged many of them. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if Andy will start claiming the Soviet Union was a paragon of religulosity and conservatism when he finds out it was the commies that singlehandedly turned the tide on Hitler on the continent. Brenden (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about the man who invented "joke sports" to explain away how Britain did pretty well at the olympics. Truth doesn't matter to him, he'll always find some narrative to explain why he's right. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the answer is that the Brits actually make Andy feel inferior and he can't stand that. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm maybe. I seem to recall him speaking glowingly of the British empire before (though that could have been someone else there) and the stereotypical view of the British Empire (i.e an empire with a mix of utterly unrestrained and unregulated capitalism and exploitation and enforced victorian morality with all it's dominionist and racist, sexist, and heteronormative overtones) does fit in with the world he would wish to live in. Maybe he feels contempt for the UK for giving such a "wonderful thing" up for godless socialism, free healthcare and lieberalism. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 19:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Andy and countries[edit]

Andy seems to have developed an abiding love for Russia, what with them giving asylum to "Obama's nemesis," clamping down on the gays, and Putin being some sort of great conservative leader in his mind. Four years ago, Andy predicted that Canada would tank at the Winter Olympics we hosted because we had recently enacted full marriage equality (...and even though we won the most gold medals, and the third-most overall, including both hockey golds, which is all that matters to Canadians, Andy stood by the claim that we had a disappointing games because joke sports). So Andy's take on the Russian games next year seems pretty simple: they excel because they are a conservative nation. but, this IS Andy, a man whose stupidity, ignorance of sports and hate knows no bounds. Is any other madness possible? — Unsigned, by: PowderSmokeAndLeather / talk / contribs

If russia has even slight success he will celebrate it as proof of how conservative and pure russia is, if any godless countries like...well literally anywhere (given Europeans are all pussy fag loving liberals as are Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc and America is weakened by the muslim usurper) are more successful than Russia he will pull the joke sports, "liberal bias" somewhere in the olympic committee, cheating....you get the point. No matter what happens andy will try to twist it to be some personal victory of his. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
My guess is he'll attribute any success Russia has to them cracking down on the gheys. He has that weird theory that tolerance of gays leads to less Olympics medals. He even wrote that countries do worse in the Olympics after they have legalized same-sex marriage. Somebody then actually bothered to look at the data and found that their medal count actually went up slightly (although, with only six qualifying countries, the result wasn't statistically significant). Andy, not ready to let mere facts get in the way of his assertions, arbitrarily excluded two countries (the ones that saw their medal count increase the most, of course) and then claimed victoryimg. Classic Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Schlafly. Statitician. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you run a spellcheck on that? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 14:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No. Spellcheckers are run by evil space elephants. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Schlafly. Schtatistician. --Horace (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please tell Andy who founded the Olympics and what they considered a good time? A Real Libertarian (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Baron de Coubertin in 1896. He probably considered a good time to be drinking absinthe at the Moulin Rouge. SophieWilderModerator 21:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering that he won a gold medal in it, a good time for the Baron would be poetry. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The many hats of Terry Chuckarse.[edit]

Since Terry is supremely lazy and just uses the exact same text on all his various spammy twitter feeds, you can find all his various outlets. And there are many of them.

As well as CNAV, he's also pretty much taken over the redundant Digg Patriots facebook, which considering Digg is now life extinct is pretty damn pathetic. He's also got his creationism hall of fame, his black robe regiment garbage, and this indescribable thing as well as his personal twitter and facebook pages. (Oh, and I totally forgot his examiner page.)

He's sort of Ken's parallel universe clone where instead of being a liar, he's just supremely ineffectual. Wait, no, come to think of it he's exactly like Wolfie Smith in Citizen Smith, equal parts idealism and incompetence. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

POWER TO THE PEOPLE. I am old enough to remember Citizen Smith but was too young to comprehend it properly, wasn't he a commie?--Mercian (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, unlike Ken, when Terry said he'll do something, he does it. What that is, and the outcome generally is pathetic, but at least he doesn't burn all evidence of his claims when he realized he's over his head again. --Revolverman (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
He still hasn't bought that generator. Just sayin'.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Terry is an in-your-face arsehole, Kenny is a cowardy-custard, run back to his bunny-hole arsehole. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 12:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody Tell Andy[edit]

Tell him that models predict that a rise of about one degree Fahrenheit (observed) will impact global climate in many ways. Storms will be more frequent and more powerful. Some areas will have increased precipitation while others will suffer prolonged drought. Average temperatures will rise in many areas. Sea levels will rise. Winter will not be cancelled. Snow is not a counterexample to climate change.

Actually, he's been told, many times. The big question is whether he spouts this crap, like all on the right do, because he hopes that the real "low-information" crowd will believe that winter proves Al Gore lies, or whether he himself believes it. I'd really love to know. I'd pay a lot to be inside his brain for an hour, presuming the ticket were round-trip. Whoover (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It snowed somewhere. Global warming is a hoax. PsyGremlinSpeak! 19:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Once somebody believes in YEC, all bets are off. If your mind has absolutely no problem ignoring the elephant in the room, then it's a trivial task to ignore the peanut shells he keeps dropping. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Back home in Austin for thanksgiving. It's in the mid-30s. Therefore liberal deceit. 166.137.119.30 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
An increase in the frequency of powerful storms is proof of a young earth. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Today I leaned that the phrase "nasty weather" to describe, well, nasty weather, is political correctness. Perhaps Andy too is being politically correct by wanting to use "snowstorm" instead of the more conservative word, "blizzard", even if half the affected area isn't getting snow, but ice (or even rain).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Oh wait, you were serious? Let me laugh harder..."[edit]

Apparently, Terry's cohort of Tea Party crazies have a secret weapon in their arsenal. One which will rival the might of nuclear bombs. It's.... wait for it.... PRAYER. No, reallyimg... Stop laughing. On thankgiving, they're all going to pray simultaneously (because god works like a cheer-o-meter) that they should be blessed, Obama should be smitten, and that flights of angels should bring them all new teddy bears. I for one am terrified my evil satanic jig is up now they're wheeling out the big guns. I doubt I'll make it past Thursday. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I love how these guys are able to reduce God - when he isn't busy holding all the atoms of the universe together - to a political hack... who just happens to be on their side. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 00:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wait, if prayer is so damned powerful, why did they wait until now to use it? Surely they should have gone straight to the big guns as soon as the evil Muslim atheist traitor usurper who's not even a real American anyway stole power from the good, honest, god-fearing Real 'Murricans (including McCain during that brief period when he wasn't a RINO). --Kels (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Now is when they really start praying. This time it's serious.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Are they making a claim that prayer will have an empirically verifiable effect? Can't wait to see how they defend that in the comments the next day. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
They're driven to this by "Harry Reid's nuclear option." Letting the gay, Muslim, communist murderer pack the courts is too horrible to contemplate, so they're calling in the big guns. Whoover (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We'll see who's laughing when Obama gets a nosebleed on that very day. Tielec01 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately for them I have it on good authority that the united cabal of liberalism, homosexuality, and people who dont hate Obama have joined forces with the muslim brotherhood to pray to Allah and Shub Niggurath for Terry's left testicle to sprout teeth and devour his greater genital area, and unless Terry publically disrobes to prove otherwise we can only assume it will work. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 07:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear god man! What have you asked for?! Tielec01 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Good old Roseann Insanity, making Chucky look the epitome of moderation and reasonableness by comparison. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 10:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What would we be to think if something actually happened to Obama on that day? I suspect they're all privately praying for some painful violence to befall the poor guy, but we'd learn a lot for certain about these fundies and their god if something actually happened, eh? But seriously, what could they possibly pray for? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretzel Incident 2.0? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I do like that the suggested prayer is basically "Oh Lord, force all those assholes who aren't LISTENING TO ME to get on board with bloody rebellion, but do it in such a way that I don't take any blame for it, 'cuz you're merciful and all." It's one big revolutionary wet dream. --Kels (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Factcheck[edit]

Roseann, when you write, "If you are not already crying to God with your heart over the national distress we find ourselves in today", do you mean the national distress (or do you mean scandal?) in which children are not treated in hospital because their parents can't afford to pay for adequate health insurance and people who have paid their premiums all their lives suddenly have their health insurance policies terminated because they've contracted a serious illness? Perhaps you could pray to your God to change the minds of Congress(wo)men who would rather cause no inconvenience to their wealthy, upper-middle-class constituents than allow sick children of poor families to receive medical care. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Relax. They're just praying for three years of President Biden. That should be fun. Whoover (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone remember the 1972 movie The Man in which a black man - the Senate President pro tempore - ends up as President after the POTUS and Speaker are both killed and the VP declines the position because of ill-health. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
People were alive in 1972?? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You should know, you would have observed them. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving Moderator 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Satire is now fact[edit]

The internet said it, so it must be true!imgEven though the source blog clearly states it is satire. Oh well.. it aligns with what we think must be happening.. and that is close enough!

a difficulty in telling fact from fiction is common amongst cpers and those who take the bible as literal truth generally AMassiveGay (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with difficulty MassiveGay. These people know fine well what they are doing. They will find the slightest "evidence" which supports their position and blow it up out of all proportion while denying overwhelming evidence that trashes it, simple as that. Andy takes the bible as literal truth until he finds something that goes against his dogma, then it is liberal claptrap, hence the Conservative Bible Project. Andy knows fine well he is doing this as he is a man of at least some intelligence.--Mercian (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I try to think the best of people. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thinking the best in people who would strip you(I assume you are homosexual) of your right to live your life as you want, in some cases advocating you be imprisoned for who you are seems somewhat naive.--Mercian (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
how dare you suggest I might be a homosexual. I will have you know that my current partner is listed on her passport as a woman. Sure it is a clerical error and she has a massive penis, but her lacy panties and legal documentation are binding. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever rocks your boat my friend:)--Mercian (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
yes sorry about that. I am still thrilled that for a few short days I was officially fucking a woman. I felt so butch. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Ignatiev's work, but he should have known better. Words like that, reproduced on the written page and shorn of their context, make easy prey for folks like Fox News who want to find a way to hang progressive academics with their own words. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 22:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If they're not given quotes to mine they'll make them up. Chris Matthews spoke in the voice of an evangelical, holding his nose and voting for a Mormon or Catholic, or "cultists" as the true believer would call them. So guess what? Matthews "calls Catholics cultists."img The fact that Matthews speaks often of his Catholicism is just another fact to ignore.img Whether this is the work of a parodist doesn't matter. It's the kind of made-up shit that passes for fact and will stay as long as CP exists. Whoover (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Took a while for the commenters on Gateway Pundit to realize it was fake and then many of them tried to cover their asses by saying "well, a leftist probably would actually say that." I figure a site called "Diversity Chronicle" with article links on the right such as "Nintendo’s War on Women, Minorities and Democracy" would have been pretty damn obvious, but I would be wrong.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

JPatt recently did the same thing with unrepentant marxist terrorist ghost writer Bill Ayers when joked about wanting royalties for Obama's book. The article he cited called it a SHOCK CONFESSION (sic). 14:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know if these people are just morons, or merely exploiting the fact that their readers are all morons. I have to admit that if I had a captive audience of drooling imbeciles like JPratt and Popeye, I'd feel like they owed me money just for existing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone fancy trolling Andy[edit]

With this little revalation? More lieberul science in actin will be his answer I expect. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Claptrap. There, I saved you a trip to CP. --Revolverman (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That or he'll take the line about they were more effective than "academic courses in some respects" to imply that college courses are useless and then ignore the rest of the article while still linking it. Ayzmo (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally im waiting for him to try and Schlafly his way out of the Pope's recent anti-capitalism speech. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
God, it's beautiful... Andy ignores everything and focuses on the use of the words "welfare mentality", which he believes(?) the pope is criticising. The actual quote: "Growth in justice requires...an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality." He managed to take away the exact opposite of what the pope meant. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, he pretty much reads what he wants to read in the Pope's commentsimg. Andy does the same thing with the Bible (when he's not rewriting it), so doing it with the Pope himself isn't exactly a great leap. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
HA! "I think the lamestream media article illustrates how the press will continue to see in the Pope's remarks whatever it wants to see."img --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy projects so hard that he'd be the most introspective person in the world if you just replaced every instance of the words "the lamestream media," "the press" and "liberals" with "I." --Marlow (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
He actually posted a news story I agree with[9][10]. He does turn the irony meter up high though, blaming liberals for "Abusively long imprisonment".--Mercian (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken takes a negative story and turns it into a positive.[edit]

Concerning belief in demonic possession, Ken thinks this is a good thing.[1]img[2]img What a nutjob. I guess he takes pleasure that so many are as disturbed as he is.--Mercian (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember that Ken inhabits a world where good Christian fires totally overwhelm lazy, fat, atheist firemen. But seriously, America, WTF? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 05:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Plucking out nuggets of corn from shit is the thing that creationists exceed at. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Noel Ignatiev[edit]

Linked to from CP main page, professor tells white males to kill themselves. Poe's Law. 20:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Look up, way up, and I'll call Rusty." (1000 bonus Internets for getting the reference) PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 20:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, now I wanna see cats playing jazz. --Kels (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Rusty? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 21:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Why is there no article for Ra(t)ional Wiki"[edit]

It's bad enough that n00bs and assorted basement-dwelling Cheetoh-eaters can't get beyond childish glee at getting a mention of this website onto CP, thereby reinforcing the idea that we do nothing here besides coordinate vandalism and trolling. Bringing that back here and gloating about it is totally bush league. Amateur. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. The Cheetoh-eater's comment was bush-league, and could suggest, to the ignoramuses at CP, that RW is associated with trolling and vandalism, but conservative deceitTM by Andy is fair game no matter what the subject. His deceit covers a great many subjects, all of them completely stupid. Ex-CP-user (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who knows enough to ask the question already knows the answer. Boring trolling is boring. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
why would they even need an article on rationalwiki? I know there is no consistency in their site policies, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing they would have article on. Even wp doesn't have one. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The funniest was TK deleting the article on ASoK, because of PJR's post lifting the lid on why he left CP. Because in Andyland it's easier to pretend something doesn't exist than have to face up to the reality that you might not be perfect. PsyGremlinFale! 22:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much whether they should have an article on Rationalwiki, there is no compelling reason for them to have, it's that an article on Rationalwiki is strictly forbidden, although Ken and Karajou have swipes at it every now and then. Soviet style censorship where the populace is not allowed to know how the other side lives. Of course Conservapedia does not censor information, that is a liberal trate.--Mercian (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. That was funny and noteworthy in 2008. By the way, what do you think about these newfangled "reality TV" shows," or this "rap" music that the kids are listening to all of a sudden? How do you think the Bulls will do without MJ? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Those are really fascinating questions! I'm going to have to look them up on The Google as soon as the kids get off the telephone so I can turn on my acoustic modem and get on the Internet Tubes.
Obviously, nothing interesting has happened at Conservapedia since 2008, and WIGOCP and TWIGOCP are boring and pointless. Ex-CP-user (Why say it even once?) 05:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Exactly. For a website so sold on that "evolution" thing, I sometimes wish some editors would show a little commitment to it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Aschlafly does not want to talk about RationalWiki.[edit]

[11] --79.211.107.206 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsflash. We don't fucking care. And trolling Andy then running here to gloat about it is fucking childish. Stop it. PsyGremlinParla! 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Psy, you can try and act tough but you will never be as big an asshole on and off the Internet than your buddy Nutty. Cuddles.

The Beatles[edit]

Andy on The Beatles: Little of their work, however, had sufficient depth to have a lasting influence.img Wow, really? Acei9 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the most influential rock band in history made soft music. Jesus. FFS Andy was in college when Nirvana broke. I'm sure he missed that too. 166.147.104.169 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles DID make a lot of "soft music" --> see: "Let It Be," "Hey Jude," "Something," "Here Comes the Sun," "Yesterday." Post, say, Revolver, they rocked out less and less. Also, in what world is a man born in 1961 and who graduated from Harvard Law in 1991 "in college" when Nirvana "broke"? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah. You're right. 166.147.104.172 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised he didn't try to claim them as conservative luminaries.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
He has however just added a picture of Harrison to the "Gallery of British Heroes", a list which includes Paul McCartney but not John Lennon. Poor Ringo always seems to be overlooked.--Mercian (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"Best drummer in the world? He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles!" --John Lennon. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
In defense of his 'best of the public' turd idea, Andy wrote: "The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders."img So Kung Fu Fightingimg is better and more appreciated than any song The Beatles wrote? What color is the sky in Andy's world? --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I though that Andy was Yesterday's man but evidently he's just a Mean-spirited Mr. Mustard. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 17:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles weren't really even "experts." They had little or no training in musicianship or composition. If anything they're a very good example of the best of the public, as they accomplished much more than just about anyone who formally studied music did. DickTurpis (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
He's a real nowhere man. SophieWilderModerator 20:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that silly little gallery I built five years ago is still standing & actually endorsed by Andy. That's strangely heart-warming. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WIGO CP: Extreme Meta Edition[edit]

Karajou now thinks that diffs on CP constitute news the Mainstream Media(TM) isn't coveringimg. I suppose he's right in a way, but it's still fucking bizarre. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. One troll makes an edit St George's page and suddenly we're part of a religion of hate. Which is fantastically ironic given that Kajagoogoo's friends in the Teabaggers have made a political party based on a religion of hate. And I'm sure most of Ken's articles contain more religious hate than that one edit. The butthurt is strong in Anger Bear today. Must've run out of Mad Dog 20/20 early. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's what's so fun about trolling Karajou. He's so wont to believe in the demons in his head that you can play him like a fiddle with mimicry. I forced a girl to get an abortion, then laughed about it. I voted numerous times last election. I vandalized the ten commandments. I stole baby Jesus from the nativity scene. I lie to kids about the Bible. I believe Obama single handedly saved America. I believe the ends always justify the means. He would automatically believe any and all of these statements. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Karajou falls for it every time. Somewhere in the leaked e-mails is his classic respose to that troll e-mail, which basically boiled down to "liberals are coming for your bodily fluids." I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure it's mentioned in TZB or fab five or something. (My blog's take on it.) My fave Kara moment is still "This video is totally the Fourth Horseman, and even if it's a flag or photoshopped, it's a sign Jesus is coming back." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask who runs that Conservaleaks site? It has my email address up for all to see and I would like it removed. --Horace (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... that info's been up there for 3 years... I'm thinking that if you haven't had any probs due to it before now, you probably won't... and did you really use your real email addy and not a throw-away or dedicated email addy for that site? Refugeetalk page 21:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I used my real email in private correspondence with one of the CP sysops and it ended up on the site because he subsequently shared that correspondence with the discussion group. --Horace (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Mountain Blue was behind it, try dropping him a line and asking him to fix it. I was under the impression most e-mails had been stripped out, but i guess one or two fell through the cracks. --PsyGremlinParla! 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, you magnificent man. --Horace (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy causes violence[edit]

I lol'd.img Video game violence is one of my favorite Andy memes. You really get to see how he thinks and how closed his mind really is, and you get to see him run the gauntlet of fallacies; incredulity, ad nauseum, silence, begging the question, shifting burdens, circular reasoning, correlation proves causation, oversimplification... and on and on and on. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V sold 29 million units in the six weeks after its release. Probably about 50 Million people world-wide people play violent video games every day. If there was a correlation between that and real violent acts I'd expect a lot more of them. No research required to figure that there is no link. That does not necessarily mean certain individuals may be affected. However, the issue is with the violent individuals not the video games. Auld Nick (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
He's just annoyed that it's made in the UK Scotland rather than in the USA. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Abusively long imprisonment"[edit]

I know we're talking Andy here, but he is aware that this case is in Florida, right? Where the "stand your ground" laws exist - words that bring conservatives to orgasm every time they hear them. The laws that they used to cheer on Zimmerman. The same law that screwed over an African American lady who fired a warning shot. In conservative Florida. And we all know how the US treats African-Americans when it comes to the justice system. But damn those liberals demanding jail time! --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I must admit this is the first time I have ever seen we liberals accused of wanting tougher sentences. Usually I am accused of being soft on crime and wanting all criminals to have a nice comfortable holidays rather than jail time. Not that I'm really a liberal, I'm more of a Marxist\Lenninist with Baukunin'st leanings but most rightists just call me a liberal because it's easier for them than thinking. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this started when all the bankers had to give up their bonuses and were put in jail after the last global financial crisis. --larron (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty comprehending this as I don't see which liberals are calling for these long imprisonments or even who is saying that this woman should not have been released. Is it just another case of Andy hurling shit "because liberals"? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 12:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I miss the old days where Andy would still occasionally have to try a defend his latest dribbling - at least until Terry or Karajerk weighed in to save him by blocking the liberal scum. These days any shit that Andy smears on CP's main page immediately becomes AndyTruth ©. PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If we ask Andy nicely to point us to some evidence that law-and-order liberals favor harsh punishments "to expand government power" he won't oblige? Someone should try. At least it would force him to add it to Liberal Denial. Whoover (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
well, credit where it is due. 20 years is a stupid amount of time, and the assholes who sentenced her were not Andy and co. Not all conservatives are racist, not all conservatives advocate tougher sentences on other races, and it seems like you are trying to make it so. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Reminds me of the republican-led opposition to the Fair Sentantcing Act to resolve a 100-1 disparity for sentancing black crack smokers to inordinate amounts of jailtime over coke users. A black democratic mayor gets entrapped by the FBI into taking a hit of crack and gets six months. A white republican sentator buys an 8 ball and well, let's just send him to rehab and not railroad him out of congress. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to guess this is Jpatt. Although I have no idea what he's trying to say and he's certainly not explaining why liberals want long prison terms to build big government. But to answer your last point - white man shoots black kid, gets off on stand your ground; black woman fires warning shot, gets 20 years. I wonder how much a white woman who fire a warning shot would have received. PsyGremlinSermā! 18:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
we never said that it was fair, we said it was unfair that a black women would get 20 years for defending herself. You seem to assume all conservatives are racist, and advocate tougher sentences for black people, etc. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Au contraire. Nobody ever said it was fair for a black woman to get 20 years for defending herself. Liberals haven't said so. Conservatives haven't said so. Liberals haven't said that conservatives said so. Conservatives saying liberals said so is a delusion. That's the point. Whoover (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well pysgremlin said so, but I suppose that is beside the point. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
He posited racism in the Florida judicial system. I see no accusation that it's "conservatives." Sadly, seeing this as a left vs. right thing is indeed the point. Whoover (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
"In conservative Florida" - psygremlin 172.218.56.70 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You do know that Florida went for Obama both times, right? Don't let yourself be trolled so easily. It's unbecoming. Whoover (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Florida - Governor: Rick Warren (Teabagger nutjob), State Senate: 25/14 Republican; State House: 75/45 Republican; Attorney general - Republican. 17 /10 Republican in the US House. The state that spewed up Allen West. Sounds like a hotbed of filthy liberals to me. PsyGremlinParla! 02:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Florida the place where they hang Chads? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For me, the war is over[edit]

We all have our own way of measuring when CP is finally dead. For me it was when it drops out of Alexa's top 100,000 which happened today. I know Alexa is an imperfect measure of a web site's prominence but it seems to have been quite accurate with CP matching it's highs (when Andy was mocked on the Colbert report) and lows (when they started blocking the entire universe). It's been fun but for me it's time to stop poking thsi corpse. StarFish (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy on Alexa ranking:
"I've long been skeptical about Alexa rankings.... The truth is always on the road less traveled. God seems to prefer it that way. If the truth were handed to everyone, then what would be the point?"img
I'm sure if it turned out that CP's Alexa ranking was great he'd feel the same way. He wouldn't be touting it on the main page and claiming this shows how popular CP is. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's strange how he's never expressed this distrust to Ken when he's been spamming Alexa rankings throughout his articles and main page blog spam. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Views at Conservapedia

--larron (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ken answersimg:

The young earth creationist websites of CMI, ICR and AIG saw significant web traffic growth in 2013, while a certain atheist gentlemen whose initials are PZM is seeing his blog network web traffic be lower than it was in the beginning of the year (see the Quantcast data for CMI, AIG and FtB which directly measures their web traffic via embedded tracking code on their websites). The Christian body that I belong to saw excellent growth in 2013. In addition, a certain atheist wiki saw its global market share drop in the 4rth quarter of 2013. Furthermore, global atheism lost global market share in 2013 and will continue to do so in 2014 and beyond (see: cp:Global atheism). As the friends of Joseph Thomas Kennedy often say, "I am happier than a possum in the corncrib with the dog tied up." :) Conservative 05:26, 1 December 2013 (EST)

Clearing up a misnomer. Some gentlemen are under the illusion that some war is over. Yet the conservative message is quickly growing on the internet and so is young earth creationism (YEC) and the Quantcast data clearly shows this matter in relation to YEC.

Furthermore, the scent of ObamaCare burning is clearly in the air and so is its fiscal feasibility given that young people are not enrolling in the federal boondoggle in sufficient quantities to make it sustainable. Also, the fabric of European socialism and secularism is clearly fraying under the pressure of an aging secular population not being replaced quick enough through births, growing sovereign debt and the added weight of religious conservative immigration that is resistant to secularism.

And while this destruction of secular leftism is occurring, cp:global atheism is shrinking while cp:global Christianity is seeing explosive growth. And the British agnostic and academic Eric Kaufmann notes about this matter, "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."

I would suggest that some gentlemen have a myopic view of the culture war and they need to take their blinders off so they can more readily see that global secular leftism is burning and no matter how fast they spin on their wiki content creation wheels, it is not going to reverse matters. Conservative 17:36, 1 December 2013 (EST)

Yes, indeed, creation.com et al. are growing rapidly - from being nonsignificant to being negligible, while PZ Myer's Pharyngula shrinks from being hugely popular to being highly popular. Apples and oranges, and lots of wishful thinking... The rest of the analysis is of similar quality!1 --larron (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Christian body that I belong to" - given Ken's ongoing secrecy about these organisations he belongs to, I'm just going to assume that until he provides actual proof, these "bodies" are Ken-speak for NAMBLA. PsyGremlinSprich! 07:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I really do love his "see" bits. Every articles has two or three of these. See: Atheists farts smell more. or See:Athiesm and body odour. Really does make me laugh.--Mercian (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ken is so obsessed with his SEO that he probably even talks like that in real life. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 08:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's a perfect storm of words and phrases he doesn't understand but uses anyway. I particularly enjoyed "fraying under the pressure", it has the complete Ken package: Reckless mixing of metaphors and complete incoherence in terms of what's being described. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
XKCD on fast growing religions: http://xkcd.com/1102/
My favorite phrase: agnostic and academic Eric Kaufmann- wow, he is both, agnostic and academic! --larron (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I like to imagine that Ken is some kind of brain slug and the growing Christian body he speaks of is not figurative. Vulpius (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's dead; and it's not even fun anymore. As others have noted Andy still occasionally dribbles some shit which is mildly interesting but overall you can't watch the same show for 4 years without getting bored. And yet, RationalWiki lives on, perhaps even thrives - and to think we used to be so worried about a post-CP RW. Tielec01 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

'Gentlemen' - what about women, young persons, persons in other categories, plebs, milords and miladies, union reps... 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ken most reminds me of "Rainman." If you point out that the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated in the US have risen 25% in five years, he answers about the failure of internet atheism recruitment, as if that's a thing. It's like any mention of a car evoking, "I'm a very good driver" from Dustin Hoffman's character. Whoover (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you're slipping[edit]

Obama visits a bookstore to buy Christmas gifts and you don't

  • Declare that books are all full of liberalism
  • Ask why he didn't just buy a stack of Bibles
  • Point out that Muslims have been known to give gifts, so this further proves the Big Bad Barack is a Muslim!

MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I like how they no longer feel any need to be consistant with eachother. Liberal, anti-capitalist atheists declared war on christmas early this year by encroaching on the sacred holiday of Thanksgiving to buy Christmas gifts. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Andy does point out that Obama was on GQ's least influential list at #17, which is funny because that list has Andy's BFF Tim Tebow at #12. -Nets awesome (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama ate all the pies?[edit]

I'm sure in Ken's mindimg this all makes sense. I'm not sure how though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't he call out Obama for eating burgers the other day? Ken's weirdness aside, the whole "Michele Obama is fat" trope that you see among some US-American conservatives is perhaps the strangest bit of hatred I've ever encountered. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's part of the Obama-is-gay trope. Making Michelle out to be ugly makes it more believable that she's just bearding. The ultimate expression of this is Michelle was born Michael. I love the pictures of her playing college football. Whoover (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the second one has Poe'd you. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For someone who is 50 next month she looks bloody good.--Mercian (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
She bathes in the lifeblood of conservative children to retain her youth. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Karajou talks about a girl not being allowed to beg for braces.[edit]

[3]img Karajou, in a decent 21st century society a girl would not have to raise money for braces, the state would provide them for her, free of charge. But that would mean you would have to pay a little extra tax, can't have that can we.--Mercian (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Havent you clued in by now? The Victorian society that those like Dickens railed against for its abandonment of the poor and the plight of poverty stricken children is in fact the utopia Kara and the CP crew crave to bring about (aside from Terry who wants a full on Jackbooted national revolution first), and any filthy liberal who dares take issue with children begging in the streets is just another name to add to their list of subversives for when "the purge" comes. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What's the big deal here? This is the Portland Saturday Market - it's on park property rented out an outfit that charges vendors for space to set up shop. Not a big deal, right? The girl didn't rent a space and she also didn't buy a city permit. Case closed. As for begging, the Portland Park District spokesman claimed that it permits that because begging "is a form of free speech, protected under the First Amendment." You would think a right wing dipshit like Karaturd would embrace this reasoning. A private outfit can regulate the use of its rented property however it wishes (within reason). Both Ayn Rand and actually reasonable people would applaud this, oddly for similar reasons. A citizen is nonetheless apparently entitled to engage in Constitutionally protected speech on rented property accessible to the public. Same as fundies standing around sidewalks in front of "abortion clinics" (where the vast majority of services performed relate to wellness, not abortion) passing out tracts and lying about Planned Parenthood making all its money from "murdering babies." That's much more extreme (and fundamentally dishonest) speech than begging, yet some of these fundies flock to it. I guess Karaturd is a hypocrite. I don't he's really even thought his incoherent position out. Good thing this kind of feigned outrage does a tremendous disservice to their already pitiable message. A reasonable person who actually reads the article, rather than buys what clowns like Karaturd might call "liberal media hype" if they could spin it to somehow impugn "conservatives," would shrug and say "ok, but what's the actual problem here — she didn't follow the rules — so what if she's a kid and needs braces — these merchants have kids who need braces and they paid the fee and bought their permits as the law requires." Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
They remind me of an argument I once had with a staunch conservative who happened to work for a body here in the UK called the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. The entire remit of the IBAP was to go into the market when prices were falling and buy them up using tax payers money to artifically prop up the price paid to farmers. This is sort of what led to the wine lakes and butter mountains of the 80's and 90's within the EU (not exactly but sort of, I'm being slightly simplistic I know). He steadfastly refused to admit that the entire ethos of his job was in direct opposition to the free market he claimed to support. I actually gave up after 2 hours and walked away, he simply could not see the disonance in his view that intervening in a market to artifically maintain prices was in any way not a free market activity. Anger bear is the same. He simply can't see what it is that he is saying makes people point at him, shake their heads and walk away muttering WTF to themselves. People like AB genuinely believe they are consistent in their views because they are completely unable to understand the contradictions. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)