Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive328
Thermodynamics for Dummies[edit]
Quantum mechanics is based on Murphy's Law.img I can't get enough of this stuff. Whoover (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The funniest part of all is that almost all of the arguments Andy thinks would have been so effective if Ham had used them are listed in AiG's "arguments creationists should never use" article. Andy's almost the poster child for the slack-jawed yokel type of creationist, and he apparently somehow managed to get through Harvard law. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is the population increasing? How are dumb vegetables and cows becoming intelligent human beings?— Unsigned, by: 131.107.174.243 / talk / contribs
- Very slowly. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is babby formed? How girl get pregnant? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work? A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- How are apparently intelligent (and hopefully educated) humans reverting to superstitious ignoramouses unable to understand basic science? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work? A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is babby formed? How girl get pregnant? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Very slowly. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is the population increasing? How are dumb vegetables and cows becoming intelligent human beings?— Unsigned, by: 131.107.174.243 / talk / contribs
The unnatural power of fridges!img (I have a screen grab saved. Do I need special permission to upload it?) Minoreditor (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I saw that. I considered pointing it out but I thought we avoid outing parody. But if those morons are too dense to recognize it in all its wonderful truthiness, that's newsworthy too. Whoover (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Taunting[edit]
Apparently, this is what Christianity has degenerated to.img You guys remember the parable of Jesus making fun of the sissies, right?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't entirely obvious, "CMIFan" in Kendoll's twitter handle. The "American, Christian conservative" he's referring to is himself in the third person, linking to his own blog. So, in the spirit of Ken's usual ramblings about machismo, here's the atheist Bruce Lee beating up the sissy Christian Chuck Norris:
- Olé! Olé! Olé! Fuck you, Ken. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can't watch that video in the US--"Shut up, Brx." 05:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dear idiot, type "Enter the Dragon" into the Googlemachine.
16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- chuck Norris appears with Bruce Lee in 'the way of the dragon' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's true. I had those on the dusty end of my Wu Tang shelf. Today I am the idiot. 19:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's true. I had those on the dusty end of my Wu Tang shelf. Today I am the idiot.
- chuck Norris appears with Bruce Lee in 'the way of the dragon' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dear idiot, type "Enter the Dragon" into the Googlemachine.
- Can't watch that video in the US--"Shut up, Brx." 05:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Jesus was really big on getting your revenge in first, beating up sissies, etc: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39 - or is that verse just in the lieb'rul Bible?) Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am enjoying the fact that Conservapedia sunk so low that Ken's bleeting about his own tweeting to shell his own little blog is what is deemed "front page news" there.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Ken, from cp:Liberal Style: "12. Over-reliance on mockery"
- Good to see you behaving like the true liberal troll you are, Ken. 18:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- (aside) showing on the same diff: what does he think "cornucopia" means? Scream!! (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Despite claiming to have been a college-level, English language tutor, Ken's grasp of grammar, good writing style and all-round vocabulary is extremely low-grade. His spelling is only passable because of browser spell-checkers - if you routinely have to rely on machine analysis to check your screeds, then you're only a third-rate scribbler. I've not seen one of Ken's essays that shows any spark of originality or creativity.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 
19:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kendoll couldn't write his way out of a paper bag to save his life. ħuman
02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kendoll couldn't write his way out of a paper bag to save his life. ħuman
- Despite claiming to have been a college-level, English language tutor, Ken's grasp of grammar, good writing style and all-round vocabulary is extremely low-grade. His spelling is only passable because of browser spell-checkers - if you routinely have to rely on machine analysis to check your screeds, then you're only a third-rate scribbler. I've not seen one of Ken's essays that shows any spark of originality or creativity.
- (aside) showing on the same diff: what does he think "cornucopia" means? Scream!! (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Ken[edit]
Aren't youimg a welfare queen? Nobody with gainful employ can spend 24 hours a day editing Conservapedia--"Shut up, Brx." 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- As well as the hypocrisy of an unemployed and unemployable old geezer bitching about "welfare queens", it makes me angry to see so many people up in arms that the poor have basic amenities. Pray tell, how do you function in the US without a car? I've tried it, and the only place it works is New York, and that's just as a tourist. Even in San Francisco it's near impossible, in Buttfuck, Kentucky I guess you'd starve to death. How do you find a job these days without a computer? Most of these people aren't even on welfare, they're the working poor. Fuck self-righteous randroids. Fuck them in their preaching arses. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Only time not having a car worked for me was in the city of Chicago, thanks to the multitude of buses and the El, and that only worked out well thanks to Peapod.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but does he have air conditioning? I'm guessing not.--131.107.147.33 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- With Ken, there are a couple possibilities. Self loathing, like all those closet gay evangelicals. Clinical unawareness, like Andy harping about Orwell while CP is a study in Orwellian totality. Justifications, like Ken was at one point a productive citizen and he feels that society owes him now. Delusion, like he thinks this is a job. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Science and the Bible[edit]
Nice picture of Andy driving a car... --larron (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- And one of him watching football. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy is god now? Shit, we're in serious trouble. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Translation Please?[edit]
I can't link it because I'm blocked, but Andy added a new insight to the Climate Change article. (If you don't know, "climate change" is Liberal Deceit because the fact that it's colder in South Carolina than at the Winter Olympics has nothing to do with Al Gore, who refuses to accept that snow disproves global warning.)
Anyway, the new insight is:
Climate change is the new name used by liberals for their global warming hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming. The modification in terminology is identical to what liberals did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as climate change is.
I get that "climate change" is an attempt to move the global warming goalposts. But how is "change over time" a similar deceit? What did "evolution" mean before liberals redefined it? Overnight flying kitty appearances? Seriously, I can't even imagine what's in his head with this one. Whoover (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Climate change" isn't an attempt to move the global warming goalposts. It's a more descriptive term for a phenomenon that is widely misunderstood. It's apparently difficult for people to grasp that even small increases in the average temperature on earth cause erratic weather patterns, such as ... harsher winters, as we're having in the US ... and ... tough summers, as we've also had in the US and as caused out of control bushfires in Southeast Australia this summer and last. 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do I really need an "irony" tag? Whoover (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently. 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently.
- Evolution as understood by many laypeople, on both the left and right, is an amalgamation of ideas that include, but are not limited to, "getting better" "getting more complex," "getting bigger," "survival of the fittest." In reality all evolution requires, as a definition, is the change in allele frequency within a population over time due to natural selection. Speciation and all that other junk is derived from that one mechanism. Andy, as per his "best of public" mentality, seems to think that the layperson definition of evolution is the true one, and this change over time nonsense is just liberal scientists trying to cover their asses.
- Do I really need an "irony" tag? Whoover (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm continually amused how Andy will not shut up about topics he has absolutely no knowledge about, whether it be sports or physics or biology. He gets schooled all the time by the likes of Augusto and Iduan and Lensky... I think he's convinced himself that as a man of god nothing that pops into his head can be wrong. He's an awesome example of the power of cognitive bias. Shakedangle (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. So "why are there still monkeys?" disproves evolution unless the "new" definition. Thanks. Whoover (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, good point. Shakedangle (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. So "why are there still monkeys?" disproves evolution unless the "new" definition. Thanks. Whoover (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm continually amused how Andy will not shut up about topics he has absolutely no knowledge about, whether it be sports or physics or biology. He gets schooled all the time by the likes of Augusto and Iduan and Lensky... I think he's convinced himself that as a man of god nothing that pops into his head can be wrong. He's an awesome example of the power of cognitive bias. Shakedangle (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, wonderfully, "climate change" as a term was invented by the heartland institute to make global warming seem less bad, according to focus groups. The fact that "the term keeps changing" is lumped on scientists' shoulders never ceases to amuse me. Ikanreed (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
His latest editorial masterpiece.[edit]
[2] If Rationalwiki is so irrelevant why does Ken spend much of his time posting and even more time obsessing over it? probably [Rationalwiki obsessive compulsive disorder]. I suggest he is ignored from now on, take away his only reason for posting such tripe. Sure he will stamp his feet, shout "I hate you" and throw his teddy in the corner like a two year would but it may do him some good in the end.--Mercian (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- This has been suggested so many thousands of times... it's a great idea, but we do worry about Kendoll's mental health should his "audience" suddenly disappear. Schalfly sure as hell isn't going to pay the Buffalo Nickel any attention. ħuman 02:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- (repeat previous comment)/EC ħuman 02:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I love it!
1. Will the editors of RationalWikii man up and admit their error?
- That we understand evolution versus life origins and you don't?
2. Why aren't followers of the evolution religion aware of major proclamations of their own high priests?
- It's not a religion, you dumb stupid asshole, and we have no "high priests".
3. Will the sissy boy editors of RationalWiki pick up the gauntlet thrown down to them and finally try to rebut this origin of life article?
- What huh? Are you serious, Ken of the cheap apartment in Buffalo? I dare you to type that on your high priest's site, Conservapedia. Verbatim.
- Keep an eye out for cars with cameras near your home with the NH license plate "HUMAN", you little lost monkey. ħuman 02:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I seem to recall a couple years back someone providing some evidence that Ken does not reside in a random apartment in Buffalo, nor a parent's basement, but was in fact a denizen of a mental institution. Am I remembering incorrectly? DickTurpis (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would anyone here answer his questions? It is unlikely he understands what he is even writing; remember, he is just stealing the questions of the CMI website authors verbatim and then tossing those sentences into a giant word salad, which he than repetitively vomits like a bulimic all over every similarly uncreative entry he makes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd ask who in Lyell's name you are all talking about, and why I should care, but I really don't want to know. Alec Sanderson (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I know you guys have discussed this before, but from what I can tell it's likely this guy is genuinely clinically messed up (precise medical term there). Assuming that's the case, why not just leave him alone to write his little rants? Doctor Dark (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how the internet works. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- A good point, certainly, but one could also counter with the fact that a complete shitbag is a complete shitbag, regardless of the amount of padding on his walls. I'll remain neutral on this topic for the time being. DickTurpis (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I remember once we ignored Ken for a good two weeks. His activity on CP grew increasingly unhinged, as he became more and more desperate to get our attention--"Shut up, Brx." 06:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Every mention of "Sissy" has mysteriously disappeared replaced by the almost affectionate "Fool". Seems he went too far even for Andy.--Mercian (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit that targets our friend Human is not even posted on C P's news page[3]. He's been told to back off, by a fundy nutcase like Andy. --Mercian (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Haha he's burned a day and a half's worth of MPL edits. Tell me ken, is your adherence to your version of Christianity derived from your cowardice, or is it the other way around? Shakedangle (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit that targets our friend Human is not even posted on C P's news page[3]. He's been told to back off, by a fundy nutcase like Andy. --Mercian (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Every mention of "Sissy" has mysteriously disappeared replaced by the almost affectionate "Fool". Seems he went too far even for Andy.--Mercian (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Ken, I'm only going to remind you once. You need to cease harassing Human. I will reach into your personal life to teach you how serious I am if you can't be convinced with this polite threat. 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. Doing good. 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy and Schrödinger[edit]
Andy claims that a new Belgium law allows euthanasia of a minor " even against the child's will"img. Of course, he made up this bit, and is called out by Iduanimg. Andy's reaction: "As long as I haven't seen the actual law, it can say everything I want it to sayimg. But obviously, I won't look for the text..." [paraphrased] :-)
--larron (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even The New York Times points out problems: can a child understand what death is? and how do we know that a child won't do what he thinks his parents want him to do? Reasonable people can debate the merits. Andy finds it easier to make up shit. Once again I'm amazed someone with his intellectual laziness and dishonesty has ever won a case. Whoover (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reasons to feel very uncomfortable with this law as it actually is. (Andy, if you're reading this, there's a good summary on the BBC News website - not too hard to find, eh?) This is a case where Andy could make a well-informed, moral argument without having to make up a load of fictional problems - but that would involve him having to read about it instead of relying on his prejudices. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Guys, this is andy remember? he would find a way to fuck up the arguments that "water is wet" or that "fire is hot". He does not operate in the reality populated by sane people, and thus he is utterly unable to make a rational/non bullshit argument about ANYTHING. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's astonishing that his response to someone pointing out that the story he's citing directly contracts him is "well, the media have been known to put positive spin on liberal things." He just reads whatever he wants to read and just doesn't care about the facts. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Guys, this is andy remember? he would find a way to fuck up the arguments that "water is wet" or that "fire is hot". He does not operate in the reality populated by sane people, and thus he is utterly unable to make a rational/non bullshit argument about ANYTHING. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reasons to feel very uncomfortable with this law as it actually is. (Andy, if you're reading this, there's a good summary on the BBC News website - not too hard to find, eh?) This is a case where Andy could make a well-informed, moral argument without having to make up a load of fictional problems - but that would involve him having to read about it instead of relying on his prejudices. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy's misrepresentation is appalling. "Aborted". Really? This is an astonishingly inaccurate characterization of the law.
Here's the bill itself (French) (took me 5 minutes to locate this and the 2013 amendment - truly hard work). It extends the Belgian Act on Euthanasia of May 28, 2002, so you will only see insertions and deletions to the original Act (English). The 2013 law expands the 2002 law to ensure that an unemancipated minor "with the capacity of discernment is in a hopeless medical situation resulting in death shortly and reported a constant and unbearable physical suffering that can not be appeased and that results from an illness or accident serious and incurable disease."
As any literate person can see from reading further, the statute is actually very clearly laid out and certainly doesn't allow a child to be "aborted" against his or his parents' consent. Andy's representation to the contrary is either a lie, some kind of incomprehensible motivated thinking, or just slovenly thinking.
The child must have capacity; consult with a psychiatrist who agrees with the child's diagnosis and that the child has capacity; the psychiatrist must inform the child of the consequences of his actions; and the psychiatrist must speak with the child's parents, who must agree with the outcome.
Andy never ceases to amaze. 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is iduan a friend of the family or something, how does he get away with it?
Andy's latest (I refuse to give him another section) "Conservapedia Proven Correct" is that the Texas anti-abortion law prevents abortion. While you might think that this could be an entry in "Chipped Teapot Proven Correct," Andy's rationale is that, unlike Conservapedia, "clueless liberals paid no attention." I guess he missed that whole Wendy Whats-her-name episode. Whoover (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should we start calling the "death penalty"..."abortion on capital crime convicts" ? Sounds about right to me. LibInTheSun (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I still can't post it, but someone should link these last edits on Talk: MP. GregG posted the law, in French and English, rebutting Andy's contention that a guardian can decide to abort their child against his wish. The child himself must ask "voluntarily, repeatedly, and reflectively" for death. Andy's response: "Thank you. I win." Whoover (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here.img A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back old friend![edit]
Same-sex marriage leads to fewer medals, just look at how badly the US is doing, because those poor athletes are being led astray by pro-gay politics.img
Or maybe God took time off from screwing over the Broncos, to push some Yanks in to the snow. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, if Andy actually knew anything, he'd know that Germany allows registered partnerships for same-sex couples and the Constitutional Court has issued rulings in favour of equal rights to married couples. So in Andy's world that doesn't affect sporting performance, only when they actually get to say "I do" that totally unrelated sportsmen start performing badly. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, the UK is having a bumper haul of medals for the Winter Olympics, and we're all for the samey-sexey, bumpy-grindy, recognition that two adults have a piece of paper saying they have entered a legal contract with each other. Admittedly we are coming off a low base (Eddie-the-Eagle-Edwards anyone? If you don't know him, look him up, trust me, it's brilliant).--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 12:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, in order to make his hypothesis work, Andy's set the bar for what "doing well" consists of so high that it's almost impossible to meet. Being both the host country and the most anti-gay of the contenders, Russia basically has to win everything by a huge margin, or be "underperforming". Of course, that implies Andy is consistent, so I guess this point is moot. DickTurpis (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Canada has one-tenth the population of the US but a pretty comparable medal haul to date. Are we therefore the best of the public, or are we underperforming because of gay marriage? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really need to ask? You guys embarrassed yourselves with only 26 medals in 2010. You'll need at least twice that to have an OK Olympics this year. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- No kidding, it was completely pathetic of us to have only set the record for most golds by a single nation in the winter Olympics. --Revolverman (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really need to ask? You guys embarrassed yourselves with only 26 medals in 2010. You'll need at least twice that to have an OK Olympics this year. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Canada has one-tenth the population of the US but a pretty comparable medal haul to date. Are we therefore the best of the public, or are we underperforming because of gay marriage? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, in order to make his hypothesis work, Andy's set the bar for what "doing well" consists of so high that it's almost impossible to meet. Being both the host country and the most anti-gay of the contenders, Russia basically has to win everything by a huge margin, or be "underperforming". Of course, that implies Andy is consistent, so I guess this point is moot. DickTurpis (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, the UK is having a bumper haul of medals for the Winter Olympics, and we're all for the samey-sexey, bumpy-grindy, recognition that two adults have a piece of paper saying they have entered a legal contract with each other. Admittedly we are coming off a low base (Eddie-the-Eagle-Edwards anyone? If you don't know him, look him up, trust me, it's brilliant).--
Did anyone (including Andy) actually follow that link? It has nothing to do with the US faring badly. It's about new events. I have no idea how gay marriage can be a factor in that article. Whoover (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- check mateimg--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm blaming autocorrect - I had it right in my edit comment--Danielfolsom (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
At this moment, 4 of the 5 top medal count countries, accounting for 65 of 83 medals, have gay marriage rights. Whoover (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln: Liberal.[edit]
According to Andy, Lincoln is a liberal false godimg, as opposed to Washington who is apparently a real god, or at least demi-god in Andy's pantheon. Damn those liberals starting the war of northern aggression, robbing good white folks of their god-appointed slave holdings. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Washington "was a kind of saint". Of the Church of Satanimg. Or something. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Odd. Like he does with Orwell, Andy likes to claim what he sees as the great names in history for his own. I'd expect him to do as other conservatives do and usurp Lincoln's legacy and perversely frame him as a conservative stalwart. --Marlow (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nah. They hate Lincoln in the South. Since that's the heart of Conservatism today, you can only praise Lincoln when you're making the point that Republicans are the party of inclusion and Democrats the party of slavery. But most of the time, conservatives yearn for the good old days when States' Rights meant you didn't have to have any pesky trials when a white guy kills an uppity black kid. In that context, Lincoln was the Obama Antichrist of his day. Of course the fact that some very red states officially celebrate Presidents' Day proves it's just another of Andy's delusions. Whoover (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- "What kind of a saint was George Washington?" -- JohannesZ
- "The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of Joan of Arc?" -- Andy Schlafly (emphasis mine)
- Right there tells you all that you need to know. Andy will view someone who is Christian as worthy of sainthood for the fact he won wars. Never mind that the country Washington fought against was just as Christian; or that it was a secular war over taxes, trade, and representation.
- I dislike the idea of President's Day, just as I dislike having a holiday of any single president. It comes off too much like glorification and leader worship, despite the fact all the presidents are just supposed to be the heads of the executive branch of the government and public servants. Give them a lifetime pension, health care, and a state funeral when they pass in honor of thier service, but don't start giving them special days in commemoration.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- But shouldn't saints of the church of Satan be given a holiday?
- On a more serious note, I agree with you. Presidents shouldn't be deified. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lincoln was an evil freedom-hater because he freed the slaves and as every goodthinker knows slavery=freedom.
- Which is why Andy likes Orwell, because he's so Orwellian. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- JohannesZ diedimg trying to get Andy's insight into the George Washington article. Good times. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I love the Conservapedia-Newspeak reasons too. Conservapedia and North Korea truly are kindred spirits.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- mother of bahamut.....ok guys at this point we can safely say that Andy has officially become nothing but a far shitter, less competent, less intelligent, and less sane version of Comstock from Bioshock infinite and conservapedia is officially his columbia. I mean.....goddamn it, Andy's ideology has reached the point where he is spouting LITERALLY the same shit with total sincerity, that a team of writers created to give voice to an insanely evil nazi/klansman/self proclaimed prophet, right down to Lincoln being the antichrist and Washington being a saint. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Church of Satan? What the fuck, is Andy drunk or something? That just seems so extraneous to bring up all of a sudden. Why is he talking about the Church of Satan? I am confused.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- My first thought on seeing that "maybe the Church of Satan does" was that Andy's account had briefly been hacked. Thinking it over, I guess that, in Andy's imagination, followers of the Church of Satan consider being a saint to be a bad thing. In Andy's make believe version of Satanism, its saints exemplify all the things that Satanists despise. But I'm probably over analyzing Andy's twattery again. Spud (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I love the Conservapedia-Newspeak reasons too. Conservapedia and North Korea truly are kindred spirits.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- JohannesZ diedimg trying to get Andy's insight into the George Washington article. Good times. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nah. They hate Lincoln in the South. Since that's the heart of Conservatism today, you can only praise Lincoln when you're making the point that Republicans are the party of inclusion and Democrats the party of slavery. But most of the time, conservatives yearn for the good old days when States' Rights meant you didn't have to have any pesky trials when a white guy kills an uppity black kid. In that context, Lincoln was the Obama Antichrist of his day. Of course the fact that some very red states officially celebrate Presidents' Day proves it's just another of Andy's delusions. Whoover (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What the heck does "Presidents' Day does not exist," mean, anyway? What more is necessary to make it "exist" than the act of Congress that created it? (Aside from Andy's approval, of course.) Phiwum (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Act of Congress made "Washington's Birthday" holiday. Some states and, mainly, mattress and car dealers, call it "Presidents' Day" and follow it with "Sale." Whoover (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but Lincoln's Birthday was converted to MLK Day, and then Washington's B-Day became President's Day, right? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 did away with Lincoln's Birthday and added MLK Day and Columbus Day as well as making all those three-day weekends. It said nothing about celebrating Lincoln on Washington's Birthday. Some states did choose to do that and renamed Washington's Birthday "Presidents' Day" but it is not official at the federal level. Because Washington is seen as more severe than Lincoln, sales are always "Presidents' Day" even when they're nation-wide. Honestly, it's mostly about Abe being a better shill. Whoover (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even then, Lincoln's birthday is often celebrated at the state level. Growing up in Illinois, we always had Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday, and it still so today, and Illinois is pretty damn blue.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's the best example. ... You know Illinois is basically Lincoln's de facto home state, right? He wasn't born there but his entire career started there. (member of the Illinois House, Representative of Illinois, Whig leader)--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even then, Lincoln's birthday is often celebrated at the state level. Growing up in Illinois, we always had Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday, and it still so today, and Illinois is pretty damn blue.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 did away with Lincoln's Birthday and added MLK Day and Columbus Day as well as making all those three-day weekends. It said nothing about celebrating Lincoln on Washington's Birthday. Some states did choose to do that and renamed Washington's Birthday "Presidents' Day" but it is not official at the federal level. Because Washington is seen as more severe than Lincoln, sales are always "Presidents' Day" even when they're nation-wide. Honestly, it's mostly about Abe being a better shill. Whoover (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but Lincoln's Birthday was converted to MLK Day, and then Washington's B-Day became President's Day, right? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The total lack of self-awareness...[edit]
... is one of the things which makes Conservapedia so amusing. Take the headlineimg:
Another significant blow to internet Darwinism and internet atheism? Major news outlet reports Wikipedia's viewership may be sliding.
Ken (not surprisingly the author of these lines) links to an article at his blog, catchingly titled Another significant blow to internet Darwinism and atheism? Major news outlet reports Wikipedia's viewership may be sliding
Here he states some numbers from the Time of India:
"Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia used by millions around the world, lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's a decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013."
Using the wayback machine one can see that Conservapedia lost only 129 million views over the same period - or more than a freaking 85 per cent of its page-views: last year there were only 31 million page views for their group-blog!
Using Ken's line of reasoning one has to conclude that 2013 was a terrible, terrible year for Creationism.
- if ken finds a shiny new penny he interprets it as a terrible year for Darwinism. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Ken remembers to breathe he interprets it as a terrible year for Darwinism. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Jesus came down from heaven and said "evolution is true and Charles Darwin was my second coming", Ken would interpret it as a terrible year for Darwinism A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Ken evolved a backbone, he would interpret it as a terrible year for "Darwinism". 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ken, a few days back you posted on Andy's talkpage that you had stopped posting stories about atheism and darwinism which you went on to burn. Why the change of heart?--Mercian (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- The manchild doth protest too much, methinks (in the Shakesperean sense, that is). 67.80.8.197 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ken, a few days back you posted on Andy's talkpage that you had stopped posting stories about atheism and darwinism which you went on to burn. Why the change of heart?--Mercian (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Ken evolved a backbone, he would interpret it as a terrible year for "Darwinism".
- If Jesus came down from heaven and said "evolution is true and Charles Darwin was my second coming", Ken would interpret it as a terrible year for Darwinism A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If Ken remembers to breathe he interprets it as a terrible year for Darwinism. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a group delusion...[edit]
|
Andy:img: "All of the above comments on this subtopic are superb, from differing perspectives. The Alexa link is interesting, too: it confirms that Conservapedia visitors have a higher percentage of graduate school-educated people, and a higher percentage of women, than the internet at large.
I've always expected Google to down-rank Conservapedia, so we have never been dependent on Google for any more than a small percentage of our traffic. If people want run-of-the-mill, cp:lamestream media-type stuff, they go to Google or Wikipedia. Our traffic has always tended to be self-motivated people who are willing to put in an effort to look for the truth, and they find it here." |
You are nearly right: For information, people look at Google and Wikipedia, while your traffic comes mainly from people who put in an effort to look for a good laugh - that's why (according to Alexa), even now, after all your efforts, a significant number of people come to you directly from RationalWiki (11.2%) and reddit (3.9%)
--larron (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think a more telling example of why people go to Conservapedia is the fact that Cracked.com is a related site. Ayzmo (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Operation: Block the World back on?[edit]
I haven't been able to connect at all to Conservapedia for a couple days now, which hasn't happened since the last spree of major range blocks. Is anyone else experiencing this? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, but RW has been wicked slow lately. 68.116.195.252 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Block the World was never off: it has become their preferred method of getting rid of "troublemakers" ... --larron (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I got blocked again recently after months of access. Whoover (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced it's a block. My access comes and goes on an almost daily basis. I can't see Andy being that pro-active to block and unblock IPs on a daily basis. I think the more logical answer is there's some sort of server fuck-up on their side. PsyGremlinParlez! 03:18, 19 February 2014 (UT
- I've been blocked for 6 months, but they used to always think I was Horace anyway Ruddager (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's automated. In my case, I was viewing the site when I got one of the common 500 errors. At that point I was locked out. Rather than admit that their server setup is inadequate, they seem to capture IPs that suffer a 500 and apply some other algorithm, like is the http referrer rationalwiki? In any case, they have some analytics that determine you should be added to the firewall or .htaccess to block the IP. Apparently they clean up the blacklist now and then, giving you access until your next combination of 500 and whatever else they use to determine you're "attacking." Whoover (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect a semi-automatic process:
- IPs which refer to RationalWiki to many times are blocked and
- Andy - and most probably Karajou - add IPs to the list if they don't like their editing
- I got the impression that in the first case, the ban is lifted automatically after some time, while there is no automatic pardon when your IP falls into the second category.
- --larron (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe that's what's happening though. I've only visited CP via links from here since I was banned and I have yet to have been blocked from viewing the site. I should have been blocked by now. Ayzmo (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't think there's anyone connected with CP with the nous* to automate anything.
- nous: common sense; practical intelligence.
- Scream!! (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- What is that, French? We speak 'Mercan around these parts, you dirty commie fascist surrender monkey. Shakedangle (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- its a fairly common English term in these parts, where ever it may have originated from. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even their top technician Ed Poor wasn't able to update his bot in 2010 when a wikimedia update occurred which introduced a higher level of security and famously, Andy wasn't able to understand Philip R. Rayment's guard-dog program,
- But Andy is able to change some settings if his provider gives him an easy enough interface. And Karajou became quite good at using the check-user function: creating a black list could be his favorite past-time....
- --larron (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's also the French first person plural pronoun. I was getting 500 errors semi-regularly before the recent block, just not right before. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- What is that, French? We speak 'Mercan around these parts, you dirty commie fascist surrender monkey. Shakedangle (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe that's what's happening though. I've only visited CP via links from here since I was banned and I have yet to have been blocked from viewing the site. I should have been blocked by now. Ayzmo (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect a semi-automatic process:
- It's automated. In my case, I was viewing the site when I got one of the common 500 errors. At that point I was locked out. Rather than admit that their server setup is inadequate, they seem to capture IPs that suffer a 500 and apply some other algorithm, like is the http referrer rationalwiki? In any case, they have some analytics that determine you should be added to the firewall or .htaccess to block the IP. Apparently they clean up the blacklist now and then, giving you access until your next combination of 500 and whatever else they use to determine you're "attacking." Whoover (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've been blocked for 6 months, but they used to always think I was Horace anyway Ruddager (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced it's a block. My access comes and goes on an almost daily basis. I can't see Andy being that pro-active to block and unblock IPs on a daily basis. I think the more logical answer is there's some sort of server fuck-up on their side. PsyGremlinParlez! 03:18, 19 February 2014 (UT
- I got blocked again recently after months of access. Whoover (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Block the World was never off: it has become their preferred method of getting rid of "troublemakers" ... --larron (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Busiest article at Conservapedia in 2013[edit]
|
These 15 bubbles represent the articles (i.e., pages in the main name space) which attracted at least 100 edits in 2013. If a single editor contributed at least 50 % of the edits, the percentage is shown. |
|
The same graph for 2007. |
|
And a picture for RationalWiki in 2013. Pope Francis was the article which was edited the most - in stark contrast to cp:Pope Francis. |
--larron (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Only 15 articles managed to get >100 in the whole year? And almost half of them are Ken and Markman? That's impressively stifled. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- And the other two that weren't Andy were OscarOimg and Bmbaker88img, who haven't shown up since November 10 (and with only 6 edits since April 8) for OscarO, and since March 22 for Bmbaker88.
- Plus Bmbaker88 is obviously a spammer, he only edited to promote that "documentary"
- So, heck of a job CP. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
What the fuck are you on about Ken ?[edit]
- It's sort of weird, does he think Google is a Creationist site or something? Especially given that any search on evolution leads me directly to Wikipedia. --Kels (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, Ken! If a shift toward accessing the internet via mobile phones and tablets is going to lead to a decrease in contributors and readers to Wikipedia, what do you think its going to do to other wikis, like the stupid one that you've managed to make so much stupider? Spud (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey man truth seekers will always find a wayimg--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can you capture that for those of us who can't access the site directly? ħuman 03:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can you capture that for those of us who can't access the site directly? ħuman
- Counter-point: Google bubbles the heck out of users, showing them the results they want to see. Political biases are now built into the search algorithm. It's plausible, nay probable that real conservapedia users see anti-evolution pages when they search. Ikanreed (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah. Google Search only does what it says, it tries to find stuff you are looking for. Don't try to use it to generate insights into what's popular, or whether people can spell, or who will be the next US President, it doesn't claim to do any of those things and for a good reason. Google offer separate tools that can used for real statistical insights, and those are labelled and have caveats about exactly what they do or don't measure. Tialaramex (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
CPs idea of god is really poor[edit]
While their sports cheat god is fine intervening in such frivolities as sporting events, he still allows a super secret Muslim to be elected, all kinds of crimes, wars, famines and disease, choosing instead to take a purely hands of approach. Moves in mysterious ways in deed. He also seems to be protecting iduan despite his now open contempt for Andy. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fundies are often like that. They cut their God down to size. Witness all the stuff about gay marriage causing a bit of flooding in the Thames Valley. I mean, how petty can you get as an all powerful avenging God? Lack of imagination, see? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- What always get's me about the idea of an interventionist god is that he will bother to intervene to help someone win the superbowl or a gold medal. But he can't be arsed to help starving families or to help researchers find a cure for cancer, or aids, or DMD or any one of a thousand other diseases. That is always left to those (frequently atheist) scientists. Tell you what god, show me a bunny in the pre-cambrian and show ME how to cure dementia and I promise to become your greatest advocate. Deal? Otherwise I will have to continue in my belief that you simply don't exist despite you apparently 'loving' me so much. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, Ajkgordon. Young Earth Creationism is another facet of that. Isn't it funny that those people who claim to praise and serve an allmighty God are the same ones who hold His supposed creation to be so very much large, old, complex and simply grand than the Universe really is? They say "Ours is a small God creating small things", basically. A really poor idea of a god indeed. Octo8 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- But we're supposed to have diseases because of The Fall. Curing them is just Playing God and asking for trouble. That's why He made AIDS; it was a replacement for smallpox, and as a bonus a load of gays got it. Eventually we will make an AIDS vaccine, and cruelly imply that our kids are gay by giving them the vaccine, and there will be volcanoes all over, er, Devon or somewhere. Minoreditor (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- well there was an earthquake the other day in the Bristol channel AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which is definite proof of Young Earth Creation. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- well there was an earthquake the other day in the Bristol channel AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A little something fun for our statistics loving Conservapedian[edit]
Homophobia correlates with lower education and a higher risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease--"Shut up, Brx." 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- What would it take for Ken to acknowledge information that contradicts him? What was that he used to accuse us of, the "fallacy of exclusion?"--"Shut up, Brx." 03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Countdown to Iduan's un-personing by Angerbear[edit]
any minute nowimg. Bets, please.Shakedangle (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- -Blocking after arbitrary time limit (he said right now!)
- My vote Shakedangle (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dammit.img On a different note, I love how Iduan just doesn't seem to give a shit anymore. And he's gotten away with a lot recently that would've had anyone else memory-holed into oblivion a long time ago. Shakedangle (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- My vote Shakedangle (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- -Blocking after Iduan's response
- -No blocking
- Karajou doesn't have the balls to block Iduan, only Ken does. Andy would warn him first if he was going to do it personally and it would only be for a short time. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- -Preemptive blocking by Ken
- I bet half a hooker on this option. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which half? Shakedangle (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I bet half a hooker on this option. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
IDuan posted on Andy's page about not be able to access the site - maybe Karajou is trying to block his IP? Unclear since he's still editing.--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, he's probably getting the same 500's several of us are. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see that rather than address any of the points Iduan actually raised, Koward has revertedimg to the old "your beliefs aren't EXACTLY the same as mine, therefore this debate is OVER!" cut and run tactic. For somebody with military training (if swabbing decks counts as military training) he really is a yellow, spineless cur. PsyGremlinParlez! 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- At the low rank he was, he was used to being told what to do and to doing exactly what he's told with no question. You can understand his surprise that editors don't mindlessly follow his orders, especially considering the military government they have in place at CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- "If you want to label me as a way to overcome the fact that I win the vast majority of debates on here..." daaaaayum, son. If Iduan was holding a mic when he typed that, he would've then dropped the mic at Karajou's feet then stepped back. X Stickman (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Gosh, it's like 2008 all over again, as Andy weighs in with the classic "Do you support or censor classroom prayer?"img Because that's totally relevant to a discussion of the gay Olympics. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know that Iduan can answer for himself but I'm sure that he has said that he is not a believer but just wants to make CP better, an idea that most people here were force to abandon many years ago. Генгисevolving 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- CP is turning into North Korea, where inexplicably 3/5th of population has zero respect or fear of the dear leader no matter how many heads he chops off. --Revolverman (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Used to say Conservapedia was governed like a feudal hierarchy with Andy as king, with his sysops as ducal vassals, jealously guarding their fiefdoms and the right to rule within them without question. The rest of the users were the peasantry, despite promises and laws to the contrary, had no real rights or recourse. Lately though, with the demand for ideological purity and thought becoming more and more pronounced as the primary condition to be continued the "privilege" of being part of Andy-land, the way the main page news is written as skewed propaganda, and the way Andy Il Duce himself is painted as some revered prophet and dear leader, it really does feel as if they have gone full Kim mode.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- CP is turning into North Korea, where inexplicably 3/5th of population has zero respect or fear of the dear leader no matter how many heads he chops off. --Revolverman (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I know that Iduan can answer for himself but I'm sure that he has said that he is not a believer but just wants to make CP better, an idea that most people here were force to abandon many years ago.
- Gosh, it's like 2008 all over again, as Andy weighs in with the classic "Do you support or censor classroom prayer?"img Because that's totally relevant to a discussion of the gay Olympics. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- "If you want to label me as a way to overcome the fact that I win the vast majority of debates on here..." daaaaayum, son. If Iduan was holding a mic when he typed that, he would've then dropped the mic at Karajou's feet then stepped back. X Stickman (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- At the low rank he was, he was used to being told what to do and to doing exactly what he's told with no question. You can understand his surprise that editors don't mindlessly follow his orders, especially considering the military government they have in place at CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see that rather than address any of the points Iduan actually raised, Koward has revertedimg to the old "your beliefs aren't EXACTLY the same as mine, therefore this debate is OVER!" cut and run tactic. For somebody with military training (if swabbing decks counts as military training) he really is a yellow, spineless cur. PsyGremlinParlez! 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Karajou is a very silly bitter little man. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Aaaaand blockedimg for 2 weeks by Jpatt for complaining too much. Why the fuck does anyone bother editing there? Cow...Hammertime! 18:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then strippedimg of rights by Andy. Brenden gets caughtimg in the crossfire for his outrageous use of the 0-second blockimg.Cow...Hammertime! 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like Andy had a lot of pent-up frustration, getting continuously schooled by Iduan. I'm semi-surprised Jpatt was the one to do it though, he's been fairly inactive for a while. Oh Iduan, it was your mistake for engaging with Andy as if he were a rational and fair person. Shakedangle (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy wouldn't do it himself. I'm a little surprised Karajou didn't do it, but I think Brian is starting to fear having no one to bully, and IDuan was the perfect masochist. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like Andy had a lot of pent-up frustration, getting continuously schooled by Iduan. I'm semi-surprised Jpatt was the one to do it though, he's been fairly inactive for a while. Oh Iduan, it was your mistake for engaging with Andy as if he were a rational and fair person. Shakedangle (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually Karajou tried to block me - not on the books, but we had a little disagreement so he blocked my IP after insisting "you will take a week break from this site". I started using my phone to edit and I guess he didn't care enough to go further. My guess was he didn't want to ask Andy to strip me of rights, so he did it the only way he could - because I could've unblocked myself if he had done it straight (perhaps he thought Andy and I were closer - I'm sure Andy's been desperate for a user to block me for some time now). To be clear though they have different reasons for blocking me - JPatt (interesting I don't interact much with John) was for "90/10" and Karajou accused me of inserting deism into the site (because of that one edit when I mistakenly referred to myself as a deist. Given that I've never edited religious articles ... I'm not sure how I was inserting deism into the site, but oh well).--IDuan 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Retirement and thanks - IDuan[edit]
Hey guys - I'm posting this here because I've been blocked at CP. I've only been blocked for a short time - two weeks - but I'm just throwing in the towel and retiring. Brenden, if you read this, I'm sorry you got caught up in things - I appreciate the defense. JPatt posted to your page that English must not be your first language - I instead question whether statistics is his strong suit. See the beauty of the 90/10 rule has always been you can pick an arbitrarily short timeline and say "90/10" - it's easy to run with. Andy and John both know if you look at my contributions as a whole - I don't come close to approaching 90% talk edits. Those of you who have been around long enough know this - from templates to university articles to Supreme Court Justices (I made almost every page we have!) to officeholders, whether I've made substantive contributions isn't actually a question. But this given month have I done 90% talk? Yes - definitely. But of course Conservapedia doesn't have an "on a monthly basis" rule - that would be too consistent - so why was I blocked today? What made today different than yesterday? Well, I posted about Kevin Durant losing a game to Lebron James, and we know how Andy sometimes does with inconvenient facts.
To any Conservapedia users - I've enjoyed working with a lot of you. I miss those of you who are gone - Philip, Terry, Fox - but I'm glad I could work with you while I could. I started working on Conservapedia as a sophomore in high school - 2006. I didn't use my real name - because, hey, that was before Facebook was ubiquitous and internet privacy wasn't an oxymoron. Not using my real name led me to some notable hiccups - like the teacher recommendation scandal - but I must say given the one account on CP - Conservative - refuses to acknowledge its gender or whether it's even one person, that my real name was demanded seemed ... well I guess inconsistent is the word of the day. For those of you hoping I'd come out as a parodist - I apologize; I was a true contributor. I'm proud of a lot of the work I did on Conservapedia. I know you all haven't always liked me - I know I used to block too aggressively, but I've appreciated a lot of the feedback, and I think I've changed for the better as a user over the years. Thanks everybody! Hey if someone wants to throw a retired template on my user page - I'd appreciate it! (But let's be real - I'll probably be blocked for an infinite amount of time after I post this and they'll say I was fired. So it goes.)--IDuan 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think anyone thought you blocked agressively. I certainly didn't. Thing is you can't argue with crazy and sadly, VERY SADLY, andy and his cohorts are a small microcosm of current American thought. And they are crazy with a big C. Now, join here edit more and show them up for the morons they are for rejecting the single intelligent non-parodist thay had on their hate blog. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think Andy and his cohorts are a microcosm of any significant string of American political or cultural thought. Outside of Conservapedia, have you ever encountered people so buried in ridiculous convoluted conspiracies? Never meant anyone else who believed things like the NBA was downplaying Durant because he was Christian (like most NBA players), or the Broncos got ride of Tebow so Colorado would be more likely to go Obama in 2012, or that black holes were created to sell magazines, or that earthquakes are not the result of plate tectonics but somehow because the earth was young, or that plants shutting down chlorophyll production in the autumn somehow disproved evolution because the resultant color change looks pretty to people, or relativity as a theory of science drove people from the Bible, or the implication the universe is no more than 6,000 light years in radius.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think anyone thought you blocked agressively. I certainly didn't. Thing is you can't argue with crazy and sadly, VERY SADLY, andy and his cohorts are a small microcosm of current American thought. And they are crazy with a big C. Now, join here edit more and show them up for the morons they are for rejecting the single intelligent non-parodist thay had on their hate blog. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Questions?[edit]
If anyone wants to ask me about my time at CP - I don't know much - I had 0 contact with Andy after 2008 - but I'd be happy to answer things!--Iduan (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to see you blocked for what you've correctly described as bullshit reasons (is there any other at CP?) but I, at least, am glad to see you cut your losses and move on from CP. I've followed CP for a long time and you were among the many that fell into the category of reasonable people staying at CP for unreasonable amounts of time. Why did you stay for so long? It seemed near the end you were there mainly to call out Andy's bs, but you made efforts to stick around (making non talk space edits). I'm just interested in your motivations. Shakedangle (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think if you go back far enough you notice I used to have Conservative (the user) - like editing binges. I didn't sleep a lot in high school. Especially when I was initially editing with Terry, I was racking up a lot of edits and putting in a lot of work. So I've considered retiring plenty before - and even posted messages (all while in high school) - but it's hard to leave what seems like a substantial amount of work behind. Then, when I stayed around, I would end up working even harder on more things (the officeholder template especially comes to mind) - so that would give me more reasons to stay. I would frequently get frustrated or annoyed at some things, so it's not like I was always in an article writing mood - and especially less so now that I'm going to school full time and working two jobs - but every now and then I'd want to contribute.--IDuan20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I kind of figured as much; reluctance to abandon something you've put so much effort into. Understandable, but I'm sure that's the description of some recognized cognitive bias... Shakedangle (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Iduan, no worries, I've been considering a retirement from CP for a while now. I only recently got interested enough to poke Ken and friends over the whole "Gay Olympics" thing, and now, I just don't care enough to bother with CP anymore. Brenden (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you think you can actually stay away? In two weeks when Andy says something brutally stupid and easily debunked, how will you hold your tongue? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well I just got another job - I'm working at Starbucks again! - and a new girlfriend as of new years ... so I might not have time to even look at Conservapedia. That's something I've learned though - Andy's comments - and to be clear, Andy has passed a bar exam; my sister and her fiancé are both lawyers in Virginia and they are some of the smartest people I know, so I have no doubt Andy is super intelligent -they don't get any more less informed. Is him saying that hating gay people gives you more Olympic golds any less informed than saying Tim Tebow was better for the Broncos than Peyton Manning or the media has a collective bias against Kevin Durant? Or that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Or Kenyan? Things don't get better or worse; at some point it loses its shock value. When I was younger I used to be surprised by everything; now I'm jaded.--IDuan 21:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Passing the bar exam doesn't mean you're particularly smart. It just means you're good at passing bar exams. --Kels (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no doubt Andy is super intelligent Please take a look at the following pages (and their talk-pages):
- Andy generally can't be convinced by any argument which didn't origin in his own head. That is not smart! --larron (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can be plenty smart (information retention, understand complex concepts, debate), but there is no defense against cognitive bias. This is why perfectly smart people (not that I'm arguing Andy to be one of them, but he is probably much more intelligent than a lot here give him credit) hold inconceivably stupid opinions like climate denial, anti-vaccers, homeopathy, etc. Check out that link, you'll see Andy exhibiting at least half of those biases in a day's worth of edits. Hell, a single MPR addition even.
- Passing the bar exam doesn't mean you're particularly smart. It just means you're good at passing bar exams. --Kels (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is that these biases are almost inescapable; they've been hard wired into our brains as part of our evolution. They may cause us to act irrationally but there are good reasons they exist, and normal social interactions prevent them from getting out of hand. Shakedangle (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't pass the bar without an intimate knowledge of the law. You don't go to Harvard or Johns Hopkins without having a good head on your shoulders. I don't mean to say Andy is correct in these articles, but to some extent this is far outside his specialty. Ben Bernanke probably doesn't understand poetry either. That being said, Andy's stubbornness is a flaw; I actually can't comment on any of those topics because I have no understanding of them myself - but I've seen Andy's opinions on other things (previously stated) that are outside his expertise, so I know he's not always correct.--IDuan 21:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am curious, as a Christian IDuan, how did you feel about the Conservapedia Bible Project and Andy's political intent with what most Christians, at least to some degree, view as sacred holy writ?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I recall CBP started during one of my absences - I remember coming back - and there it was. I know Terry and Andy have worked really hard on that project - so I don't mean to diminish it too harshly, but frankly it seems intellectually disingenuous. There are different interpretations of the Bible just as there are different interpretations of the Constitution. One isn't necessarily right, there are arguments for and against everything. There is debate - which is fine - just because there is debate doesn't mean one side is wrong. I love debate, and I think it's something Conservapedia should encourage more. There is more than one type of conservative, but it is considered weakness to express differences on CP - because on CP there is a black and white "good and evil" "right and wrong". I enjoyed working with Terry, but frankly some of the fault goes to TK - he's the one who really started the "no disputing on site - it shows weakness" thing. Thus all the private email groups and everything.
- Back to the topic - it's easier to say "this is definitely right" than to acknowledge ambiguity. The CBP seems to be a way of pretending ambiguity doesn't exist. To some extent it is a political translation - the crew's interpretation of the ambiguity of the Bible might be correct - but the CBP removes it, and says there was never any debate. I'm actually surprised they haven't done a Constitution project - rephrasing the Commerce Clause to trivialize it - and perhaps adding "This Amendment should be regarded as the most important." to the 10th Amendment - or removing the "regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment.--IDuan 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes money and good connections are sufficient to explain how someone got into a good school. I also know people who are smart when it comes to test taking, but dumb everywhere else. Still, all Andy's intellectual achievements (getting into Harvard Law, passing the bar) seem to be in the distant past. I'm of the opinion that he's changed much since then. Maybe he had meltdown or a serious head injury, but whatever the cause, I cannot believe the person he is today could ever make it at an Ivy League school. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Iduan, it has been a pleasure to see you challenging Andy recently. On Andy's 'intelligence', just because he had a particular type of education that enabled him to achieve certain qualifications only means that the education was successful. In the UK we see this all the time with our Public Schools (they're the private ones in reality). They 'cram' a certain type of knowledge into their pupils which enables them to get high qualifications. You only have to look at our present government to realise that these qualifications don't really indicate 'intelligence'. Andy's real problem is his unshakable belief in himself. Whatever unfounded notion comes into his head is automatically 'fact' and is not to be disputed no matter what evidence is against it. One particularly memorable one he came out with was that The Great British Public welcomed Hitler's occupation of the Low Countries despite that it enabled The Blitz to be even more murderous. Absolutely no evidence and a permaban for me when I contradicted him with a few facts. Anyway, good luck with your future endeavours. And by the way, I am surprised to see that you are as young as you are, I always assumed from your style and contributions that you were much older, that's a complement. Sphincter (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think your comments about UK Public Schools is a little off. It's not that they cram a certain type of knowledge into their pupils. It's that they have more resources to spend on education. There's a big range of private schools offering different types of education. While they still have to deliver the national curriculum, they do have more flexibility in how they teach it. Some schools will concentrate on getting as many of their pupils into Oxbridge, others will be more focussed on public service, some on sports or arts, and more recently many on a more holistic approach. They can afford to do these things because of the money many of them have from their fees (although not all of them are wealthy), while state schools are funded to deliver the standards set by government. Looking at a very very small set of privately educated government ministers isn't going to give you a good overview of the quality of private education generally. It's not a representative sample. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about andy and his 'insights' and more and more I am drifting towards the conclusion that he actually is seeing himself as some kind of christian/conservative (in anyday land they are of course the same thing) prophet. I am beginning to wonder if he genuinely thinks he is having insights from his god and that others will only understand his genius once he is dead. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
IDuan... I remember you. I got banned myself. Twice technically, if you count yours. Haha. I 'm sorry you got banned. You really seemed like a good guy.74.83.124.115 (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- ^Me. Still not good at editing. ChrisB00/ZeroIsLogic (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Iduan, it's been a pleasure working with you. I think Andy respected both of us for our many many contributions in the past, and that's what gave us the ability to spar with him to a degree that other people couldn't get away with. But it came to an end. SamHB (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Wait, What? Olympics Edition[edit]
For the first time since 1936, no American man or woman won a medal in singles at the Sochi Games. Instead, the pro-heterosexual nations of Japan, Russia, and South Korea swept the top figure skating singles medals.img In other words, we're too gay to do well at figure skating. Oh, for the good old macho days of Brian Boitano. And a few dozen others. Whoover (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- When I was a lad we had the macho men Robin Cousins and John Curry, who later died of AIDS, staring for GB in ice skating. Though Christopher Dean was a hard copper.--Mercian (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Winter sporting nations do well at winter olympics. It must be the gay that caused that. The only question is why the gays spare Canada their wrath every time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wanted to post the link, but my internet connection is wonky at this hotel. The SNL "heterosexual figure skating" skit is relevant to this. DickTurpis (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Link to SNL's heterosexual figure skating sketch. (Thanks for telling us about it, Dick.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wanted to post the link, but my internet connection is wonky at this hotel. The SNL "heterosexual figure skating" skit is relevant to this. DickTurpis (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Winter sporting nations do well at winter olympics. It must be the gay that caused that. The only question is why the gays spare Canada their wrath every time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- When I was a lad we had the macho men Robin Cousins and John Curry, who later died of AIDS, staring for GB in ice skating. Though Christopher Dean was a hard copper.--Mercian (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This is so stupid it literally hurts[edit]
More biblical scientific foreknowledgeimg. Apparently stars can only be 6000 lightyears away, and the oldest known star is! Forget all those other stars that are much further away! You know the one the article reference explicitly says exist. Stop, Andy, you're hurting my brain. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't even consistent with what the more prominent YEC cultists like AiG and ICR say. Hey Ken, your master is spouting nonsense that's different than the nonsense your CMI cult leaders spout. Chop chop! 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Using light-years as a unit of distance only works if the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, i.e. relativity is true and Andy is wrong. Truly his doublethink skills match no other. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's ignorance rather than doublethink--"Shut up, Brx." 03:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose God didn't create Andromeda then. Fundies truly do want a small, pathetic god. Octo8 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's like he has ADHD. He reads about a star with a metal-poor signature indicating it's 13.6 billion years old. It's 6,000 light years from Earth. Andy's takeaway: "universe proven 6,000 years old." I mean no insult to ADHD sufferers, by the way. Whoover (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I love how he only says "6,000 years" and not "6,000 light years away". None of this surprises me though. Back when I edited there, Andy's greatest contention with my posts were about stating as facial, any stellar object's distance which was greater than 6,000 light years. He would regularly expunge distances from my articles that suggested a greater distance, ranging from the Crab Nebula, all the way to the Andromeda Galaxy itself. No surprise, he never actually explained how a whole galaxy appeared so distance if it was indeed, so close. Implied in all of this is the idea that the solar system (or perhaps the Earth) is at the center of the universe. I often wonder if Conservapedia officially leans towards a geocentric universe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hurlbut's view:
- "The earth need not be the center of the universe to be the center of Divine attention. But the Galaxy is likely the center of the universe. We know now that the entire universe rotates about an axis that is not only parallel to but coincident with the axis of rotation of the Galaxy, and in the same direction."
- I was jokingly going to call this view 'galactocentrism', but apparently Google informs me that creationists seriously refer to it as galactocentricity. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No Terry, there is no conclusive evidence the universe rotates, let alone is parallel to the Milky Way's axis of rotation. As far as we can tell, the net angular momentum of the universe is zero, within statistical uncertainties. If we do discover it is rotating, we have certainly not found any center of rotation, let alone one through the Milky Way. "Galactocentism" is just YECs moving the goal posts in order to maintain that we, as humans, have some special favor since their old fallback, Geocentrism, is so thoroughly disproven. It is the same line of thought that brought us "micro evolution", since the evidence for natural selection is so overwhelming, they can't deny it anymore.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the more "sophisticated" young-earth creationist models has Earth (and thus the Milky Way) at the center of a colossal gravity well that would (they claim) account for the old apparent age of the distant Universe -- i.e. billions of years could have passed out there on the fringes of the Universe but only 6,000 years would have passed here on Earth, thanks to time dilation. Even if this matched what we could observe of the Universe (it doesn't) other YECs aren't fond of the idea since it essentially means that 99% of the Universe has experienced billions of years of history, and only Earth and its immediate environs would truly be young.Tacitus (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have heard this as well. This is even a more pronounced example of what I said above. Creationists are forced to move the goal posts. Science says the universe is 13.88 billion years old because <insert the overwhelming volumes of evidence here>. Creationists are now realizing the evidence for the universe's age is stacking against them more and more, to the point that saying it is 6,000 years old is preposterous; so they come up with increasingly convoluted ideas to explain the order of magnitude discrepancy between their holy book and reality when it comes to Deep Time. What they don't realize is how weird and incompetent that makes their god look. Why go through the effort of running a universe for 13.88 billion years only to slow time down in one solar system (because absolutely no way it just be the Earth) to 6,000 years? For what purpose? Just to mess with people? It's ridiculous.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yuppers. YEC is bad theology, not just bad science. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have heard this as well. This is even a more pronounced example of what I said above. Creationists are forced to move the goal posts. Science says the universe is 13.88 billion years old because <insert the overwhelming volumes of evidence here>. Creationists are now realizing the evidence for the universe's age is stacking against them more and more, to the point that saying it is 6,000 years old is preposterous; so they come up with increasingly convoluted ideas to explain the order of magnitude discrepancy between their holy book and reality when it comes to Deep Time. What they don't realize is how weird and incompetent that makes their god look. Why go through the effort of running a universe for 13.88 billion years only to slow time down in one solar system (because absolutely no way it just be the Earth) to 6,000 years? For what purpose? Just to mess with people? It's ridiculous.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the more "sophisticated" young-earth creationist models has Earth (and thus the Milky Way) at the center of a colossal gravity well that would (they claim) account for the old apparent age of the distant Universe -- i.e. billions of years could have passed out there on the fringes of the Universe but only 6,000 years would have passed here on Earth, thanks to time dilation. Even if this matched what we could observe of the Universe (it doesn't) other YECs aren't fond of the idea since it essentially means that 99% of the Universe has experienced billions of years of history, and only Earth and its immediate environs would truly be young.Tacitus (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- No Terry, there is no conclusive evidence the universe rotates, let alone is parallel to the Milky Way's axis of rotation. As far as we can tell, the net angular momentum of the universe is zero, within statistical uncertainties. If we do discover it is rotating, we have certainly not found any center of rotation, let alone one through the Milky Way. "Galactocentism" is just YECs moving the goal posts in order to maintain that we, as humans, have some special favor since their old fallback, Geocentrism, is so thoroughly disproven. It is the same line of thought that brought us "micro evolution", since the evidence for natural selection is so overwhelming, they can't deny it anymore.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I love how he only says "6,000 years" and not "6,000 light years away". None of this surprises me though. Back when I edited there, Andy's greatest contention with my posts were about stating as facial, any stellar object's distance which was greater than 6,000 light years. He would regularly expunge distances from my articles that suggested a greater distance, ranging from the Crab Nebula, all the way to the Andromeda Galaxy itself. No surprise, he never actually explained how a whole galaxy appeared so distance if it was indeed, so close. Implied in all of this is the idea that the solar system (or perhaps the Earth) is at the center of the universe. I often wonder if Conservapedia officially leans towards a geocentric universe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's like he has ADHD. He reads about a star with a metal-poor signature indicating it's 13.6 billion years old. It's 6,000 light years from Earth. Andy's takeaway: "universe proven 6,000 years old." I mean no insult to ADHD sufferers, by the way. Whoover (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose God didn't create Andromeda then. Fundies truly do want a small, pathetic god. Octo8 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's ignorance rather than doublethink--"Shut up, Brx." 03:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Using light-years as a unit of distance only works if the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, i.e. relativity is true and Andy is wrong. Truly his doublethink skills match no other. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Ice hockey latest: Reality 1 Schlafly 0[edit]
Conservapedia: Pro-heterosexuality Finland, which has repeatedly rejected same-sex marriage, wins a 5-0 rout against the American men's hockey team, for a medal at the Winter Olympics.img Reality: 58% of Finns support gay marriage and the Finnish Parliament has started debating a bill to legalise it. I'm waiting for the Wrath of Schlafly to come down on the gay-luvvin' Norwegians, whose gay-luvvin' has caused the Lord God Almighty to demote them to second place in the Winter Olympics medal table. (Or maybe the Russians are very good at ice-skating but perhaps that's a bit simplistic.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if Andy really is just the hardest working troll in history and we've all fallen for it. I have trouble believing anyone can be this stupid. Snrub (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that means Sweden, with it's legalized same-sex marriage, is even more "pro-heterosexuality" then. Vulpius (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the pot-smoking Dutch from the Netherlands, the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage, and their complete and total domination of the Olympic long-track speed skating competition, blanking the USA for the first time since 1984. I guess it doesn't count, since it's not a "real sport", or something... Tacitus (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- So does this mean Andy officially has given up on fighting gay marriage and gay rights here in America, and just accepted the good ol' U.S.A as a nation that will accept the LGBT community as equals and part of America sooner rather than later (or never)? What happened to the idea of everyone in the world becoming more conservative?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's part of the pattern of history. 100 years ago, Andy would have been railing against the suffragettes and the scourge of women with the power of the vote, 50 years ago he would have been fighting the good fight against interracial marriage. Another 50 years from now, Andy's kids (Lord help them) will have some other right-wing conservative cause to go to battle over -- say, the routine implanting of contraceptive nanotech devices into teenage girls that allows them to turn on and off ovulation at will -- and they too will lose to the inevitable march of history.
- Andy's only real hope is a widespread collapse of civic society that would allow a religion-fueled right-wing dictatorship to clamp down on those pesky liberal freedoms. Absent that, he has no hope.Tacitus (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wager if push comes to shove; Andy still thinks giving women the right to vote was a very bad thing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would further wager that if push comes to shove; andy still thinks giving any of the common rabble outside his WASP elite the vote was an even worse thing given how enamoured he is with autocracy, feudalism, and his own dictatorial way of handling his lil fiefdom. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, how long before Andy discovers and embraces Neo-Reactionary thought? --Revolverman (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you were part of the "dark enlightenment", would you want him as any sort of public face of your beliefs?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wager if push comes to shove; Andy still thinks giving women the right to vote was a very bad thing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- So does this mean Andy officially has given up on fighting gay marriage and gay rights here in America, and just accepted the good ol' U.S.A as a nation that will accept the LGBT community as equals and part of America sooner rather than later (or never)? What happened to the idea of everyone in the world becoming more conservative?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the pot-smoking Dutch from the Netherlands, the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage, and their complete and total domination of the Olympic long-track speed skating competition, blanking the USA for the first time since 1984. I guess it doesn't count, since it's not a "real sport", or something... Tacitus (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that means Sweden, with it's legalized same-sex marriage, is even more "pro-heterosexuality" then. Vulpius (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Tacitus, re your first comment: if countries which allow gay marriage win, it's not a real sport. Countries which oppose gay marriage always dominate real sports. QED. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Makes me wonder, those two metals above Bronze, Silver and Gold, what happens to those? Oh thats right, Canada and Sweeden. --Revolverman (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never quite understood the mechanics of this to be honest. America hasn't been "pro-gay"
everfor long enough for a new generation of athletes to grow up and be sissies under it, these athletes were growing up and training while America was still largely anti-gay (for the past 20-30 years or so). Does he think that cultural attitude shifts will drastically affect their performance in such a short space of time? Or is it god affecting their performance as punishment? Or does pro-gayness generate a field that actively impedes athletic performance, in which case wouldn't they all be doing great since they're all in anti-gay russia? X Stickman (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)- Stickman, I think Schlafly seriously believes your Option 2, that God will damn the inhabitants of nations which approve gay marriage to the point that their aggregate sporting success is a little less than they would ideally have wished (yes, He's a very small God). I think Conservative believes in something like your Option 3, that gay athletes and anyone near them are infected by some kind of "gay under-performance field". See his stuff on Main Page Talk etcetera and so forth ad nauseam. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's really simple. Gay rights involves stifling the "competition" that is homophobiaimg and therefore makes society anti-competitive, unlike Christianity. God loves sports, and personally determines the outcome of every game. He let the lions beat the Christians because it was a lock at his bookie. Whoover (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- And of course, their Omnipotent God gets involved in the Winter Olympics because he can't be bothered with Syria, Ukraine, the China/Japan thing or the Central African Republic... Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well duh! None of those conflicts involve the gheys. Didn't you know, their god is far more concerned about buggery and tribbing than the suffering of millions from war, murder, terror, rape, or disease; at least the people doing all those things are so totally hetro, so in their god's eyes, that mitigates what they are doing (unless they start raping the same sex, then it's on)!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- And of course, their Omnipotent God gets involved in the Winter Olympics because he can't be bothered with Syria, Ukraine, the China/Japan thing or the Central African Republic... Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's really simple. Gay rights involves stifling the "competition" that is homophobiaimg and therefore makes society anti-competitive, unlike Christianity. God loves sports, and personally determines the outcome of every game. He let the lions beat the Christians because it was a lock at his bookie. Whoover (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Stickman, I think Schlafly seriously believes your Option 2, that God will damn the inhabitants of nations which approve gay marriage to the point that their aggregate sporting success is a little less than they would ideally have wished (yes, He's a very small God). I think Conservative believes in something like your Option 3, that gay athletes and anyone near them are infected by some kind of "gay under-performance field". See his stuff on Main Page Talk etcetera and so forth ad nauseam. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never quite understood the mechanics of this to be honest. America hasn't been "pro-gay"
Autoparody[edit]
"Russia came top 'cos their government doesn't like gays."img © A. Schlafly. A genuine RatWiki prediction proved correct. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- And Opposite-marriage Finland winning a bronze is more significantimg than gay-loving Canada and Sweden winning those other two medals because Finland doesn't have any hockey traditionimg. Whoover (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh fuck you, Andy. You may spout all kinds of hateful bullshit for all I care but don't you ever belittle Finland's hockey tradition again. Vulpius (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- This comic came in mind at the mention of Finland's hockey tradition... Proud Finland - Scandinavia and the World 166.62.183.10 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh fuck you, Andy. You may spout all kinds of hateful bullshit for all I care but don't you ever belittle Finland's hockey tradition again. Vulpius (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy in 2010: Gay Canada only wins 14 gold medals (most ever). Embarrassment.
- Andy in 2014: Homophobic Russia wins 13 gold medals. Flawless.
- Oh, and yeah, he's getting too predictable.--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy and Rand Paul[edit]
Not sure if this has been posted but here's Andy with Rand Paul. Acei9 02:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there go his presidential aspirations if anyone ever combines that photo with a link to Conservapedia. Vulpius (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, i do hope this somehow gets andy more media attention on his blog. There are few things funnier than andy squirming on a camera. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Na, this is from 2012. Acei9 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of Elections, who do you think Andy will cast his political weight behind? I half suspect it will be Gingrich again, even if he isn't around anymore. --Revolverman (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm hoping for Ted Cruz, if only to watch Terry try desperately to wiggle out of everything he's been saying about citizenship for the last 6 years. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy has always liked to pretend he is a "big player" in right wing politics so when election season rolls along he will once again back whomever he thinks will both win and also reward andy's loyalty once in the white house. Last time twas gingrich because he both seemed "more electable" to an utterly clueless and out of touch imbecile like andy, and given how his mother and gingrich appear to have been quite chummy over the years its possible Andy has also had a friendly conversation or two with him, which to a power mad and narcissistic moron like andy would be more than enough to convince him he is Newt's BFF who will be richly rewarded with power and authority when he wins the election. Of course this is all idle speculation, and it could well be he picks his candidate based on any one of his many insane whims yet unknown to the sane community. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- He bears a resemblance to Nutty in that picture. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hope somebody like McConnell or Boehrer gets the nod, if only to watch their CP articles magically transform from RINO to GREATEST CONSERVATIVE EVAH!! and back to RINO after they lose. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- He bears a resemblance to Nutty in that picture. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy has always liked to pretend he is a "big player" in right wing politics so when election season rolls along he will once again back whomever he thinks will both win and also reward andy's loyalty once in the white house. Last time twas gingrich because he both seemed "more electable" to an utterly clueless and out of touch imbecile like andy, and given how his mother and gingrich appear to have been quite chummy over the years its possible Andy has also had a friendly conversation or two with him, which to a power mad and narcissistic moron like andy would be more than enough to convince him he is Newt's BFF who will be richly rewarded with power and authority when he wins the election. Of course this is all idle speculation, and it could well be he picks his candidate based on any one of his many insane whims yet unknown to the sane community. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm hoping for Ted Cruz, if only to watch Terry try desperately to wiggle out of everything he's been saying about citizenship for the last 6 years. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of Elections, who do you think Andy will cast his political weight behind? I half suspect it will be Gingrich again, even if he isn't around anymore. --Revolverman (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Na, this is from 2012. Acei9 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, i do hope this somehow gets andy more media attention on his blog. There are few things funnier than andy squirming on a camera. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Lovely article, that. "Conservatives are not all homophobes, which I will demonstrate with this homophobic article." DickTurpis (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Judge Holden[edit]
Would you care to explain why you deleted my comment on this thread and replaced it with your own? MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 15:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, ignore the rolledback comment from me. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I had no idea i did that. my bad Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- (Sh)It happens once in a while - something like an edit conflict. Nowt to get in a strop about MDB. Scream!! (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Apology accepted, Captain Needa." MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- (Sh)It happens once in a while - something like an edit conflict. Nowt to get in a strop about MDB. Scream!! (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I had no idea i did that. my bad Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
From an Assignment Graded "57/60"[edit]
Christianity began before Jesus was born. It most likely started to spread around 300 B.C.img Could Andy be training the next generation of parodists? Whoover (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- That or it was an semi-ironic comment on how Christianity was rebuilt to suit the Romans, given 300 BC is roughly the start of the Roman Republic. --Revolverman (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- "When Islamic parents raise there children, they're not just influencing religion." I'm not even counting the use of the wrong "there." This is a sentence written by a HIGH SCHOOL student? That is amazing. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- -1 for thinking Christianity started three hundred years before Christ? Talk about grade inflation. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Who are these people who care so little about their Kids' education that they're prepared to hander them over to Schlafly's house of mis-education for several hours a week? Surely even Christian yo-ho parents must be aware that nobody is actually learning anything in his little classes? Do they really look over these pathetic excuses for homework and pat little Jimmy on the head for his diligence rather than angrily demand their money back? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Reading that link.... And they are worried that public education is dumbing down children?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it was unwritten policy to leave the kids out of our ridicule? That being said, it is rare to see a low-graded assignment. I get the feeling you could leave it all blank and pass. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- 95% while missing a question the answer to which is fundamental to understanding the entire concept of "Western Civilization" is a "low-graded assignment?" TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying this in particular was a low grade, but that it takes a lot worse to get a low grade (say, 30/60). Aboriginal Noise (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- What are these "Dark Ages", anyway? They were only "Dark" in Western Europe. Literature, art, law, science, history etc all continued in the Byzantine, Persian and Chinese empires, Indian kingdoms, the Muslim Caliphate, etc. (Oh but that last bit is dangerously lib'rul.) Schlafly, you're at least 40 years out of date in your historical thinking. (Am I surprised...???) Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah. That's why that term is a term for a local era in Western Europe. You might as well complain that the name "Warring States" for that era in China makes no sense because after all, the Eastern Med was doing okay with its Hellenistic Period. Pre-modern history is always local. Global references are irrelevant. Octo8 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many historians of medieval Europe who got their PhDs in the last 20 years who use the term "Dark Ages" to describe the period they study. It has really fallen out of favor. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- True, but not for the reason Fang said. Mostly, the name is just too silly dramatic. "Early Middle Ages" is more appropriate. And the student did put Dark Ages in "". As a description to make a point it's still good enough. In any case, you'll also be hard pressed to find a historian who wouldn't agree that all pre-modern era terms are local in nature. Octo8 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that the student says, 'I find the term "Dark Ages" fitting' and Schlafly responds by saying this is a good answer. A decent teacher in even moderate command of the material could have treated this as an opportunity to open the student's eyes to the abundance of advances in this period, such as law and mathematics. "Dark Ages" doesn't even describe Britain, where the Roman Empire really did decline and fall - think of Bede, or Anglo-Saxon goldsmithing, or the system of government established by Alfred the Great. Parents should be aware that Schlafly's teaching amounts to no more than making children conform to intellectual laziness and stereotypes. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I do think you can describe the Early Middle Ages as "Dark Ages" reasonably well. It's too dramatic as a name, but if you want to make a point, it does fit. And while there were some legal codes being written (mostly legal codes of the Germanic peoples that had set up states on former Roman territory) there was practically no advancements in science, at least not in the regions the term 'Dark Ages' is applied to. And while the Anglo-Saxons might have had some fine smiths, their craft was not really an advancement over what the Romans had. To be clear: We're not talking about the whole middle ages including High and Late Middle Ages here, just the Early Middle Ages until, oh, 1000 or so, give or take. Those are the 'Dark Ages'. And those were dark indeed, even beyond stereotypes. Octo8 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Octo, all perfectly true but the flip side is that legal systems were being developed in Byzantium and maths in India. (I don't agree with you about Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship; they had arguably the finest goldwork and book illustration anywhere before the 11th century.) Schlafly could have made the point that civilisations come and civilisations go, and what's "dark" in one place (Europe, especially Britain) shines brightly elsewhere. The US will one day crumble too, like Ozymandias. (But I expect, being decades out of date, he still adheres to a whiggish view of history with the USA as the summit of perfection.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- But as noted above, the term "Dark Ages" never applied to Byzantium or India! Just as the Warring States period is a period of Chinese History, the "Dark Ages" are a period (if not called that anymore) of West European history. What happened in Byzantium or India is hence completely irrelevant! Besides, some "dark ages" (lowercase) do have the tendency to be global, since they're often connected with climate changes and hence (worldwide) worse harvests. Octo8 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Octo, all perfectly true but the flip side is that legal systems were being developed in Byzantium and maths in India. (I don't agree with you about Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship; they had arguably the finest goldwork and book illustration anywhere before the 11th century.) Schlafly could have made the point that civilisations come and civilisations go, and what's "dark" in one place (Europe, especially Britain) shines brightly elsewhere. The US will one day crumble too, like Ozymandias. (But I expect, being decades out of date, he still adheres to a whiggish view of history with the USA as the summit of perfection.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I do think you can describe the Early Middle Ages as "Dark Ages" reasonably well. It's too dramatic as a name, but if you want to make a point, it does fit. And while there were some legal codes being written (mostly legal codes of the Germanic peoples that had set up states on former Roman territory) there was practically no advancements in science, at least not in the regions the term 'Dark Ages' is applied to. And while the Anglo-Saxons might have had some fine smiths, their craft was not really an advancement over what the Romans had. To be clear: We're not talking about the whole middle ages including High and Late Middle Ages here, just the Early Middle Ages until, oh, 1000 or so, give or take. Those are the 'Dark Ages'. And those were dark indeed, even beyond stereotypes. Octo8 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that the student says, 'I find the term "Dark Ages" fitting' and Schlafly responds by saying this is a good answer. A decent teacher in even moderate command of the material could have treated this as an opportunity to open the student's eyes to the abundance of advances in this period, such as law and mathematics. "Dark Ages" doesn't even describe Britain, where the Roman Empire really did decline and fall - think of Bede, or Anglo-Saxon goldsmithing, or the system of government established by Alfred the Great. Parents should be aware that Schlafly's teaching amounts to no more than making children conform to intellectual laziness and stereotypes. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- True, but not for the reason Fang said. Mostly, the name is just too silly dramatic. "Early Middle Ages" is more appropriate. And the student did put Dark Ages in "". As a description to make a point it's still good enough. In any case, you'll also be hard pressed to find a historian who wouldn't agree that all pre-modern era terms are local in nature. Octo8 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many historians of medieval Europe who got their PhDs in the last 20 years who use the term "Dark Ages" to describe the period they study. It has really fallen out of favor. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah. That's why that term is a term for a local era in Western Europe. You might as well complain that the name "Warring States" for that era in China makes no sense because after all, the Eastern Med was doing okay with its Hellenistic Period. Pre-modern history is always local. Global references are irrelevant. Octo8 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- What are these "Dark Ages", anyway? They were only "Dark" in Western Europe. Literature, art, law, science, history etc all continued in the Byzantine, Persian and Chinese empires, Indian kingdoms, the Muslim Caliphate, etc. (Oh but that last bit is dangerously lib'rul.) Schlafly, you're at least 40 years out of date in your historical thinking. (Am I surprised...???) Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying this in particular was a low grade, but that it takes a lot worse to get a low grade (say, 30/60). Aboriginal Noise (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- 95% while missing a question the answer to which is fundamental to understanding the entire concept of "Western Civilization" is a "low-graded assignment?" TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it was unwritten policy to leave the kids out of our ridicule? That being said, it is rare to see a low-graded assignment. I get the feeling you could leave it all blank and pass. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Reading that link.... And they are worried that public education is dumbing down children?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Who are these people who care so little about their Kids' education that they're prepared to hander them over to Schlafly's house of mis-education for several hours a week? Surely even Christian yo-ho parents must be aware that nobody is actually learning anything in his little classes? Do they really look over these pathetic excuses for homework and pat little Jimmy on the head for his diligence rather than angrily demand their money back? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- -1 for thinking Christianity started three hundred years before Christ? Talk about grade inflation. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- "When Islamic parents raise there children, they're not just influencing religion." I'm not even counting the use of the wrong "there." This is a sentence written by a HIGH SCHOOL student? That is amazing. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Darn those lesbians![edit]
Why, just yesterday, Ellen Degeneres personally consumed about fifty acres of the Saharaimg, and God help us if the Indigo Girls ever play Vegas! MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently wrapped up in his own fantasy stereotypes, Kendoll is blissfully unaware of the prevailing lesbian stereotypes. Actually, it'd be easier for him to go with the "athletic lesbians aren't long-haired creationist sweethearts" argument. But it seems that since he's spammed CP with all those poorly-written correlation articles, and he's going to use every single one!--"Shut up, Brx." 15:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- No obese "desert scarfing" straight people won any medals in Sochi either--Mercian (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- What a disgusting, confused little child. ħuman 02:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Minus the confused, and the child. I am sick of excuses being made for him. At least the other twats over there are capable of basic behaviour modernity.--Mercian (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- They all believe the same core things. The fact that Ken expresses it in more childish ways ("HURR GAYS ARE FAT LOL XD") rather than pseudo politeness ("I'm not saying gays are bad, just that it should be illegal and also they make everyone bad at sports (and also they're bad)") doesn't make Ken worse than them, it just makes him more childish. X Stickman (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Minus the confused, and the child. I am sick of excuses being made for him. At least the other twats over there are capable of basic behaviour modernity.--Mercian (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- What a disgusting, confused little child. ħuman
- No obese "desert scarfing" straight people won any medals in Sochi either--Mercian (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jan Brewer is a RINO, now[edit]
Apparentlyimg, we were never at war with Eastasiaimg--"Shut up, Brx." 03:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because in Andy's world, being a Republican totally means supporting Jim Crow laws. Still, it's nice to see the little man wear his bigotry on his sleeve. Then again, when you look at how lily white his homeschool class is (as per YT videos), is it an surprise? --PsyGremlinParlez! 05:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Romney, too. Eventually, the true Republicans at CP will be Andy, his Mom, Terry and Ronald Reagan (grandfathered in because he's Reagan). Ken's stepped off the reservation a few times so he might not qualify. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Romney only ceased to be a RINO for the elections, because the Republicans knew they needed at least a semblance of unity if they wanted to win.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- and he was declared Non-RINO by the man, Andy himselfimg Seems the "misperception of Romney somehow being a conservative" is Andy finally realizing he was wrong? I'm sure this could lead to some interesting mental gymnastics/double think. LibInTheSun (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't Andy already declare even Reagan to be a RINO? I'm pretty sure I remember that happening. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeedimg. Jpatt wasn't having itimg, though. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dunno about Andy, but I think Ken once declared Warren G. Harding the last true conservative president. Vulpius (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Raygun had painful experience of what an idiot can do if he's allowed to get hold of a gun. I really don't want anyone to take a pot-shot at Schlafly but it just might make him switch his brain on regarding gun control. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't Andy already declare even Reagan to be a RINO? I'm pretty sure I remember that happening. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- and he was declared Non-RINO by the man, Andy himselfimg Seems the "misperception of Romney somehow being a conservative" is Andy finally realizing he was wrong? I'm sure this could lead to some interesting mental gymnastics/double think. LibInTheSun (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Romney only ceased to be a RINO for the elections, because the Republicans knew they needed at least a semblance of unity if they wanted to win.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Romney, too. Eventually, the true Republicans at CP will be Andy, his Mom, Terry and Ronald Reagan (grandfathered in because he's Reagan). Ken's stepped off the reservation a few times so he might not qualify. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh Ken. How do you handle the painful disconnect between your own self-loathing and boastfulness? It's heartbreaking that someone could end up such a pitiably flawed creature.[edit]
Ugandan officials broke into loud applause as President Yoweri Museveni put his signature on an anti-homosexuality bill. Why so bitter and angry about Uganda liberals? Are you in favor of multiculturism?—Ken D. Demyerimg
Dear Ken,
People of conscience are angry because imprisoning someone for life for engaging in consensual sexual conduct is what one would expect in Dark Ages Europe, not any nation that purports to pay homage to empowering principles of the Enlightenment. That's why it's a remarkable minority position, which is indeed why you take it as a triumph in advancing your own hateful theocratic agenda. How utterly pathetic that you've abdicated your own innate moral sense to your own arbitrary ideas about what a savage desert (not dessert, moron) phantasm might wish for ancient people. 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure Ken and company aren't huge fans of the Enlightenment, given that it set the stage for the slow decline of religion that followed. I imagine they would far prefer that brief period of time between the Reformation and the beginning of the Counter-Reformation. - Grant (Talk) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- He's not that sophisticated. He's shown over and over that he's basically a cloistered cultist who's incapable of critical thinking. Anyhow, he asked. And the most common response being what it is, he ought to self-reflect a little and ask whether he wants to live in a country that would imprison so many of the people around him, possibly even him, that he didn't even know were such abhorrent miscreants. 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the likely answer to that last question would really be... - Grant (Talk) 19:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- What a cunt. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The man is just hate. I am sure his only love in life is being hated by others. I have no doubt if he had his way he would line up every gay, overweight, liberal, moderate christain, non christain and various other groups against the wall and have them shot. God may hate fags but this twat hates everybody. You know I don't think Godwins Law applies to him, If he were German and around in the 1930's or 40's he would be a member of the SS. And before you guys berate me for over-reacting, look at his vile record--Mercian (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The SS was considered an elite organization. Didn't it have some kind of competency requirement that he would probably run afoul of? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Except that on-line personas are often just a fantasy and they bear little relation to the real person, even if they could carry out their hateful ideas. You really can't make the connection from vile little petty on-line hatreds to becoming a member of the SS. For the vast majority of trolls, which is what he is, it's just fantasy. Horrible nasty vindictive fantasy. But fantasy nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can't I? Membership of the SS, including the Waffen SS numbered around 400,000 in a then population of around 40 million or 1%. He is almost certainly one of the 3 million most hateful bastards in the USA, or 1%.--Mercian (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware you could excuse yourself from Godwin's Law. There are better ways to discuss a subject like this. ... 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think you can make the connection. There is simply no evidence for it. He's an internet loudmouth and a crank with weird grammar and writing style. Until he actually starts threatening gays or Catholics or liberals or whatever, then that's all he is. Sure, one to keep an eye on, but that's what the likes of RW do, right? And please, equating modern America with Nazi Germany is what his silly CP colleagues do. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kid yourselves all you like, he is just a cuddly teddy bear that is misunderstood. Poor man.The only reason he has not directly threatened these people because he is savvy enough to know it will get him into trouble with the law--Mercian (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody's saying he's a nice person. However, I too disagree with the idea that Ken would actively make threats if he were able. I also think a comparison to the SS is unwarranted, and Nutty's point about Godwin's Law stands. There are some comparisons that should be reserved for issues of far greater magnitude than one man railing away on the Internet. - Grant (Talk) 23:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Kid yourselves all you like, he is just a cuddly teddy bear that is misunderstood. Poor man.The only reason he has not directly threatened these people because he is savvy enough to know it will get him into trouble with the law--Mercian (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think you can make the connection. There is simply no evidence for it. He's an internet loudmouth and a crank with weird grammar and writing style. Until he actually starts threatening gays or Catholics or liberals or whatever, then that's all he is. Sure, one to keep an eye on, but that's what the likes of RW do, right? And please, equating modern America with Nazi Germany is what his silly CP colleagues do. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware you could excuse yourself from Godwin's Law. There are better ways to discuss a subject like this. ...
- Can't I? Membership of the SS, including the Waffen SS numbered around 400,000 in a then population of around 40 million or 1%. He is almost certainly one of the 3 million most hateful bastards in the USA, or 1%.--Mercian (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Except that on-line personas are often just a fantasy and they bear little relation to the real person, even if they could carry out their hateful ideas. You really can't make the connection from vile little petty on-line hatreds to becoming a member of the SS. For the vast majority of trolls, which is what he is, it's just fantasy. Horrible nasty vindictive fantasy. But fantasy nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The SS was considered an elite organization. Didn't it have some kind of competency requirement that he would probably run afoul of? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The man is just hate. I am sure his only love in life is being hated by others. I have no doubt if he had his way he would line up every gay, overweight, liberal, moderate christain, non christain and various other groups against the wall and have them shot. God may hate fags but this twat hates everybody. You know I don't think Godwins Law applies to him, If he were German and around in the 1930's or 40's he would be a member of the SS. And before you guys berate me for over-reacting, look at his vile record--Mercian (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- What a cunt. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the likely answer to that last question would really be... - Grant (Talk) 19:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- He's not that sophisticated. He's shown over and over that he's basically a cloistered cultist who's incapable of critical thinking. Anyhow, he asked. And the most common response being what it is, he ought to self-reflect a little and ask whether he wants to live in a country that would imprison so many of the people around him, possibly even him, that he didn't even know were such abhorrent miscreants.
- In many backward commie hellhole countries, like Germany, The UK, France etc he would have already done enough to earn himself a criminal record, if not a short prison sentence. The guy is a 24 carat wanker. My point stands.--Mercian (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You know what would be cool, should some state go ahead and enact the "religious freedom to discriminate" law? If one of us Jews would refuse to accept Christian customers. You can't get much more in the Torah's face than worshiping a false messiah. That's even one of the ten commandments (don't make me look up which one, but my guess is #1). Let's say I ran a water company in Arizona or Kansas or Missouri, and I got to say Christians drinking my water upset me grievously. No water for you. I wonder how Ken would distinguish this scenario ("persecution of Christians") from his ("protection of religious liberty"). Whoover (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't a State almost do that? But was vetoed by the Governor? ħuman 07:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Silly vacuum cleaner type person, don't you know that religious liberty only applies to Christians? It's in the Constitution, which God wrote. All those Jews and Muslims have to do is convert and they'll have all the religious liberty they like. PsyGremlinParlez! 09:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- God may have written it but I hear Aschlalfy thinks He didn't get it quite right. So he's going to start a Conservative Constitution Project. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- thats utter bullshit gordon, thats like saying andy would rewrite the damn bible to be more "conservative". Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would never suggest that Aschlafly would do that! They're completely different! One was written by old men in funny clothes for a society very different to today's. And the other is the Bible. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Likewise, even though 'Judeo-Christians' try to claim them as belonging to them, the authors of one were to a large part people who had a very different conception of "God" than either Christians or Jews do nowadays. The other one is the US constitution, of course. Octo8 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would never suggest that Aschlafly would do that! They're completely different! One was written by old men in funny clothes for a society very different to today's. And the other is the Bible. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- thats utter bullshit gordon, thats like saying andy would rewrite the damn bible to be more "conservative". Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- God may have written it but I hear Aschlalfy thinks He didn't get it quite right. So he's going to start a Conservative Constitution Project. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Silly vacuum cleaner type person, don't you know that religious liberty only applies to Christians? It's in the Constitution, which God wrote. All those Jews and Muslims have to do is convert and they'll have all the religious liberty they like. PsyGremlinParlez! 09:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Kendoll, do you expect me to talk, talk, talk?[edit]
No, Mr. Goldfinger, I expect you to die!img.
It's amazing how long he survived. Don't any CP admins watch movies? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The entire Greatest Conservative Movies list says no. Vulpius (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why does Andy, who is reasonably well known, and is respected by some, put up with his bollocks? I thought free speech was something he valued. Ken is allowed to bully, belittle and down right insult whoever he pleases, calling them sissies, heathens and even wishing, no praying for their demise and any response from them, a response he actively fishes for, results in a ban, usually for trolling. He is so big a troll that there is even a webpage somewhere where Karajou calls him (I paraphrase) "One of the biggest trolls on the web" and his old mate Rob Smith described him as "Demonic" --Mercian (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because andy has noone else. The only other 'contributors' are anger bear and coke eyes. And coke eyes only turns up to spam his hate blog. There is noone else. All the home skoolers have already walked away in shock, Jomar only turns up once in a while to try to post something about art, even johnny sedition has run away in shock and rarely bothers anymore. There really is noone else except parodists and kenny. So if andy gets rid of kenny then he will have to sit in his room all alone, and when you harbour the kind of feelings towards yourself that I suspect andy does that is a scary prospect. I enjoy solitude, I welcome it because it allows me to look at myself and criticise what I am. I doubt andy has that capability within him. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- But that makes no sense, from his point of view, as there are those with reason who would follow his lead. Even in his failed bid for congress he polled 11% or so, poor result perhaps but stills thousands backed him and people do try to contribute and improve CP, even if in fundy and unhinged ways. I have known a few online and in real life who were otherwise perfectly reasonable people, and I would class Andy himself in this category. But when these people try to contribute Ken starts a hate filled bulling campaign against them. Andy is cutting off his nose to spite his face.--Mercian (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are assuming he has sense. I do not know him but the impression I get is a massive feeling of entitlement and serious but hurt because he is not getting whta he feels he is entitled to. The entire CP fiasco looks to me like a child shouting out to mummy and daddy (and the GOP) to show how important he is. And noone is listening. Except ken and he's an idiot, and andy knows it. If you went to Harvard and ended up 'teaching' in a basement and being laughed at worldwide because of cp how would you feel and would you really throw the only genuine contributor to your (failed) project under the bus? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- No one has seriously tried to contribute to CP for years. Andy cleaning house now would be a futile gesture and he knows it. Besides which, he's demonstrated time and time again that he'll never take any positive leadership decision unless it's forced on him, and then he'll take whatever route gives him the easiest life. Reforming CP would be hard. Letting Kendoll bully whoever he wants is easy. CP will just continue its gradual slide towards abandonment. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The exception is that Joaquin guy who quietly builds his art gallery. Now and then he says something nice about a sociopathic dictator, but he mostly uploads paintings. He doesn't manifest the symptoms of, say, Ken polishing a turd for 48 hours straight. Joaquin seems earnest in an only slightly creepy way. Whoover (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- But that makes no sense, from his point of view, as there are those with reason who would follow his lead. Even in his failed bid for congress he polled 11% or so, poor result perhaps but stills thousands backed him and people do try to contribute and improve CP, even if in fundy and unhinged ways. I have known a few online and in real life who were otherwise perfectly reasonable people, and I would class Andy himself in this category. But when these people try to contribute Ken starts a hate filled bulling campaign against them. Andy is cutting off his nose to spite his face.--Mercian (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because andy has noone else. The only other 'contributors' are anger bear and coke eyes. And coke eyes only turns up to spam his hate blog. There is noone else. All the home skoolers have already walked away in shock, Jomar only turns up once in a while to try to post something about art, even johnny sedition has run away in shock and rarely bothers anymore. There really is noone else except parodists and kenny. So if andy gets rid of kenny then he will have to sit in his room all alone, and when you harbour the kind of feelings towards yourself that I suspect andy does that is a scary prospect. I enjoy solitude, I welcome it because it allows me to look at myself and criticise what I am. I doubt andy has that capability within him. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why does Andy, who is reasonably well known, and is respected by some, put up with his bollocks? I thought free speech was something he valued. Ken is allowed to bully, belittle and down right insult whoever he pleases, calling them sissies, heathens and even wishing, no praying for their demise and any response from them, a response he actively fishes for, results in a ban, usually for trolling. He is so big a troll that there is even a webpage somewhere where Karajou calls him (I paraphrase) "One of the biggest trolls on the web" and his old mate Rob Smith described him as "Demonic" --Mercian (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- His latest news story [1]img. How is it in anyway not a response to this topic Ken? Again taking all your negative points and somehow making out you are the victim. Your news stories are now about you. All hail the personality cult of Ken Demyer, you need to keep that head swelling under control or it will get stuck in the door. I think that proves it. CP is nothing but a troll site for a sociopath to vent his spleen. I don't think he can bare his news not being the headline. Jpatt's wishful thinking but reasonable news item was headline no longer than a few minutes.--Mercian (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Capture please for those of us not just banned but blocked from the amusement park? ħuman 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want me to show you how to add capture tags to a link? It's not too hard. TeenageWasteland (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- If it is so easy, please do it whenever adding a CP link. And thanks for the link, I appreciate it. ħuman 01:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- If it is so easy, please do it whenever adding a CP link. And thanks for the link, I appreciate it. ħuman
- "Study shows how narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic internet trolls are.A copy of the link" Aboriginal Noise (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the one responsible for that, and I created another account name at CP that should be almost as obvious. Let's see how long it takes this time! 67.80.8.197 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want me to show you how to add capture tags to a link? It's not too hard. TeenageWasteland (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Capture please for those of us not just banned but blocked from the amusement park? ħuman
Doesn't Andy Have to be a Parodist?[edit]
When Isaiah says "forget" he obviously means "abort."img This is better than anything Markman did to the Holy Word. Can Andy possibly be so taken with Isaiah's prophesy of the Texas 30-mile rule that he doesn't see the problem with drawing mustaches on the Good Book? The only other possibility is that between earning Harvard and Princeton degrees and now he suffered a stroke. Whoover (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Who stroked him and where? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have to remember at this point even Andy realises he'll never be a politician. With Obama on his way out the highest office for a second time, Andy's not so much as been elected as dog catcher. He can vomit out whatever he wants now he knows this. He was always this crazy and now there's enough evidence of him flip-flopping on every subject under the sun to kill any run at an electable position, nothing's in place to hold him back. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- If andy was a parodist or deep cover, id ask "was it really worth completing discrediting your name for all eternity?"--Mikal | lakiM 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's Ken Demyer's Law: anyone who puts extreme efforts into parody and pretending to be insane is actually insane. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- If andy was a parodist or deep cover, id ask "was it really worth completing discrediting your name for all eternity?"--Mikal | lakiM 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have to remember at this point even Andy realises he'll never be a politician. With Obama on his way out the highest office for a second time, Andy's not so much as been elected as dog catcher. He can vomit out whatever he wants now he knows this. He was always this crazy and now there's enough evidence of him flip-flopping on every subject under the sun to kill any run at an electable position, nothing's in place to hold him back. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Funny, I thought God likes abortion. How else do you explain Numbers 5:12-31? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really find abortion in those verses, but damn, those ancient Jews sucked at relationships, didn't they? Match.com is far superior. ħuman 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Check the New International Version, "When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse" --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really find abortion in those verses, but damn, those ancient Jews sucked at relationships, didn't they? Match.com is far superior. ħuman
Anyone heard from Ed?[edit]
No post in over a month--Mercian (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- TOW Scream!! (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since it's Ed, that probably means things are going well for him and he has no need to come vent his frustrations by beating up innocent users. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
To the surprise of no one.[edit]
Andy sides with the Russiansimg in Ukraine. Wasn't his old lady like, like, a serious Cold War fighter? TeenageWasteland (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Patriotism requires love, as in a love for your country and its people. andy only knows hate, and only shows support for those who hate as he hates. since the american people have "failed" andy by failing to hate who he hates with his fanaticism, he will happily throw himself behind countries like Russia and Uganda. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 04:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- He's had a massive mancrush on Putin for a while now, and has been a Russian shill for years. Kinda funny, since Andy still talks about the evil's of the USSR and Communism and Putin has spoken many times on how he feels that the breakup of the USSR was a mistake. --Revolverman (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- at this point I doubt andy has even enough affection and human warmth within him to form mancrushes. Instead he fixates on those he can easily vicariously live through, be they mighty symbols of aryan perfection (i.e. Tebow) or authoritarian dictators who give lipservice to conservatism in order to further their own domination (i.e. Putin). In both cases he presumes each has the exact same dogma as andy and thus uses them as further "proof" that his dogma and bigotry is perfect and infallible. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Before we throw our support for the new Government in Kiev, lets not forget the fact that East Ukraine disagrees with the Western-backed government in Kiev. Putin may be a dictator, but under him, he restored the living conditions of the Soviet Union (Sadly, including the political repression). Brenden (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether or not I support the new Ukrainian government, but I do know that an internal disagreement on policy or a lack of support on the part of some citizens for a new regime is not usually justifiable grounds for an armed intervention by an outside party. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ask Anna Politkovskaya about Putin and the way he has restored living conditions in Russia. Oops, very sadly for her you can't. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Obama is too busy pushing the homosexual agenda to understand what is really happening in the Ukraine". Markman or Ken would have been proud of that headline. I would guess that Obama has a very good idea what is going on. It is down to the EU being pro gay and Russia anti. If the situation were reversed with Russia being pro he would be shouting tyranny from the rooftops.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I loved how he dissed the POTUS and the Secretary of State before blaming it all on "perversion". ħuman 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm absolutely certain Obama is so focused on pushing the homosexual agenda (and not letting the courts and states do the work on their own as has been happening over the last eighteen months or so) that he's ignoring every single call from the Armed Services Committee and the Joint Chiefs that he must be getting semi-hourly, at least. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I loved how he dissed the POTUS and the Secretary of State before blaming it all on "perversion". ħuman
- "Obama is too busy pushing the homosexual agenda to understand what is really happening in the Ukraine". Markman or Ken would have been proud of that headline. I would guess that Obama has a very good idea what is going on. It is down to the EU being pro gay and Russia anti. If the situation were reversed with Russia being pro he would be shouting tyranny from the rooftops.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ask Anna Politkovskaya about Putin and the way he has restored living conditions in Russia. Oops, very sadly for her you can't. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether or not I support the new Ukrainian government, but I do know that an internal disagreement on policy or a lack of support on the part of some citizens for a new regime is not usually justifiable grounds for an armed intervention by an outside party. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Before we throw our support for the new Government in Kiev, lets not forget the fact that East Ukraine disagrees with the Western-backed government in Kiev. Putin may be a dictator, but under him, he restored the living conditions of the Soviet Union (Sadly, including the political repression). Brenden (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- at this point I doubt andy has even enough affection and human warmth within him to form mancrushes. Instead he fixates on those he can easily vicariously live through, be they mighty symbols of aryan perfection (i.e. Tebow) or authoritarian dictators who give lipservice to conservatism in order to further their own domination (i.e. Putin). In both cases he presumes each has the exact same dogma as andy and thus uses them as further "proof" that his dogma and bigotry is perfect and infallible. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- He's had a massive mancrush on Putin for a while now, and has been a Russian shill for years. Kinda funny, since Andy still talks about the evil's of the USSR and Communism and Putin has spoken many times on how he feels that the breakup of the USSR was a mistake. --Revolverman (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Liam Neeson on a Plane[edit]
If you have any interest in seeing the new action flick with Liam Neeson, the air marshall busting heads, avoid CP until you do. (Lady Mary Crawley is in it, which might have been a reason to sit through it, but probably not.) Anyway, apparently the bad guy is not a Muslim or other liberal and Karajou is so pissed that he spoils the ending in a MPR post. That's an asshole having a fit of pique. Whoover (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Link please? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm blocked, so it's always dicey. But I couldn't bring myself to even try because the spoiler is so egregious. But it's on MPR, a few items down. Someone else can link it. Whoover (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I read the real plot synopsis on a real wiki and it's nothing of sort. Nothing to do with 9/11 families and 2 soldiers are the baddies, not the US military. Just another case of Angry Bear live blogging a movie while possibly drunk. Because nobody sober would misread a plot that badly. PsyGremlinParlez! 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Leftist! Big Hollywood! 9/11 9/11 9/11!!! Disrespecting the Props, er... Troops!img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm blocked, so it's always dicey. But I couldn't bring myself to even try because the spoiler is so egregious. But it's on MPR, a few items down. Someone else can link it. Whoover (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
So Andy is representing his momma in a federal trademark dispute[edit]
Don't know if this has been posted here yet, but see: [4].
Phyllis' nephew, Tom, owns a beer company named Schlafly Beer (and they actually make some really damn good beer, too). Tom wants to trademark the name, but Phyllis believes in free market principles so much that she wants to put a stop to that. She has hired our old friend Andy, who is also her son, to represent her. Andy even gets quoted in the article.
I do know that there have been some minor squabbles between the Schlaflys that have made it into that newspaper before, and as far as I know the beer-making side of the family tries its best to distance itself from the fundamentalist wingnut side. Also it's kind of hilarious how much she gets destroyed in the comments. The commenters o that newspaper are usually pretty conservative, but they rail on her to no end here. Probably something to do with Wash U giving her an honorary doctorate a few years ago. As an aside, I do have to say I'm proud to be from Missouri - we give an honorary doctorate to this windbag, put up a bust of Rush Limbaugh in the state capitol, try to bring back the firing squad, try to arrest federal agents for enforcing gun laws, all within a few years!
Anyway, I'm getting a bit off topic with all of that. But I thought you guys would enjoy this. Apologies if you've already seen it.--Websitegenius (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it anywhere but your mention. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! It's fun to see that the doctor son is also at odds with both Tom Schlafly and Phyllis Schlafly. I would add to the analysis that one faction is a coterie of odious turds. The other represents a thriving business founded by the son of St. Louis progressives (if I understand things correctly). Fun stuff. 03:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hilarious. Mummy Schlafly doesn't actually have a case though, does she? I mean, I don't think she's ever represented herself as a brand, or tried to trademark her own name, or dabbled in the brewing business. Seems like she has no better case than any other random Schlafly on the street to stop their application. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- A mark that is primarily merely a surname isn't susceptible of trademark protection unless it has secondary meaning or distinctiveness (it's been 15 years since I took these classes in law school so I don't remember which and what exactly that means anymore) among the "purchasing public". E.g. there's a legal question I don't have the answer to whether Phyllis' use of the surname has any bearing on purchases. It certainly does have relevance to the "public", but in this ignoramus' estimation it's potentially a battle of the brands. I should probably learn more about this stuff. 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can imagine The Onion headline: Phyllis and Andy Schlafly Worried Cousin Is Ruining Family Name --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- 89 comments on that article and not one mention of Conservapedia. I am disappoint, Internet. TeenageWasteland (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not as much as Andy. --Revolverman (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- 89 comments on that article and not one mention of Conservapedia. I am disappoint, Internet. TeenageWasteland (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that Night Jaguar's hypothetical Onion headline is actually true: "In connection with its usage as a surname, it has the connotation of conservative values, which to millions of Americans (such as Baptists and Mormons) means abstinence from alcohol.” Cantabrigian (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mom is aware of Andy's abysmal courtroom record, right? Or is she about to find out hand? I can just see him now, "But, your honor, my mother wrote this letter... and it's heartfelt..." PsyGremlinParlez! 10:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Methinks andy has somehow been able to keep her in the dark about his success record and has claimed victory each time he loses in court (not too dissimilar to how he deals with failure online). As for the case....yeah I cant see any way how phyllis might convince the court that she owns the Schlafly name or that her reputation will be damaged given her complete lack of fame outside the fringe tea-party/sceptic community. It sounds a bit like if I were to try suing a well known and well established company because they share my surname because I happen to be famous in the furry-bdsm community and claim it will hurt my reputation. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if Mom's aware of Andy's online record. If she finds out Andy's been rewriting the Bible, claiming relativity is a liberal theory and having an "encyclopedia" with articles about fat lesbians and the relation between bestiality and atheism, would she be like, "Fuck this. Our family name being associated with alcohol peddling would be a step up!". Yeah, probably not.
- Anyway, any doubts about Phyllis losing this were gone when I found out Andy was on the case. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Methinks andy has somehow been able to keep her in the dark about his success record and has claimed victory each time he loses in court (not too dissimilar to how he deals with failure online). As for the case....yeah I cant see any way how phyllis might convince the court that she owns the Schlafly name or that her reputation will be damaged given her complete lack of fame outside the fringe tea-party/sceptic community. It sounds a bit like if I were to try suing a well known and well established company because they share my surname because I happen to be famous in the furry-bdsm community and claim it will hurt my reputation. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mom is aware of Andy's abysmal courtroom record, right? Or is she about to find out hand? I can just see him now, "But, your honor, my mother wrote this letter... and it's heartfelt..." PsyGremlinParlez! 10:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can imagine The Onion headline: Phyllis and Andy Schlafly Worried Cousin Is Ruining Family Name --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- A mark that is primarily merely a surname isn't susceptible of trademark protection unless it has secondary meaning or distinctiveness (it's been 15 years since I took these classes in law school so I don't remember which and what exactly that means anymore) among the "purchasing public". E.g. there's a legal question I don't have the answer to whether Phyllis' use of the surname has any bearing on purchases. It certainly does have relevance to the "public", but in this ignoramus' estimation it's potentially a battle of the brands. I should probably learn more about this stuff.
- Hilarious. Mummy Schlafly doesn't actually have a case though, does she? I mean, I don't think she's ever represented herself as a brand, or tried to trademark her own name, or dabbled in the brewing business. Seems like she has no better case than any other random Schlafly on the street to stop their application. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer. But I can understand that Andy and Phyllis are arguing against their own best interests. The purpose of the trademark is to make sure that other people don't distribute stuff with your brand name on it. Andy argues that he doesn't want to grant the trademark because then strangers can use the family name. So... either EVERYONE can use the family name with no trademark, or ONE company can use it with the trademark. I suppose the real question is - does anyone want to create a non-trademarked competing brewery? -Lardashe
- I've got an amber ale in the basement that I plan to bottle on the weekend. We could start there.TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- He's explicitly said that but the context of the litigation puts his cousin Tom Schlafly, who is a partner at a prestigious St. Louis law firm, as the only "stranger" in the equation.
- I'm looking forward to seeing how far Phyllis Schlafly will get in attempting to destroy a 23 year old brand owned by one of her lawyer husband's family members that she's known about for as long. Her husband, John Fred Schlafly, died in 1993, so also likely also knew about his nephew's use of his own family name in promoting his business. I don't to what extent state common law defenses apply in Lanham Act litigation or whether there are statutory or federal common law analogs. If so, it seems to me that Tom Schlafly would at least have extremely strong laches or waiver defenses. I hope that Phyllis Schlafly failing to file her own affirmative Lanham Act claim for 23 years has some bearing on her opposition to Tom Schlafly's application.
- In any event, Phillis Schlafly signed herself up for a disappointing result. Andy Schlafly is going to be massively outgunned. Tom Schlafly has been practicing law in St. Louis since the late 70s — I have absolutely no doubt that he is well enough connected to have his pick of top notch intellectual property counsel, probably from national firm with offices in DC since (I think) this is where the litigation will take place. In contrast, Phyllis Schlafly has a man with a mediocre track record in general who doesn't specialize in intellectual property. As with any other highly specialized field, that's not a recipe for success. Neighborhood lawyers can't step into defending cases in my practice area — they get clowned. 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've got an amber ale in the basement that I plan to bottle on the weekend. We could start there.TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I know there's a saying that "the attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client." Does that hold true for representing close relatives? MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- maybe Phyllis is only doing this so Andy can feel like he is doing something useful for once. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- That would be my guess. I've never gotten the impression that she holds him in particularly high esteem (remember that brief bit he did on her talk show to promote CP?)--"Shut up, Brx." 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's pure wingnut welfare in action. I would be willing to bet quite a lot of everything I own that mama has somehow found a way to get the eagle forum to fund this. Way to get the donors to her to fund her failure of a son. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Family values = Lawyer up. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reckon it's just a case of Andy finally having to justify his retainer from his mom and her Eagle Forum. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reckon it's just a case of Andy finally having to justify his retainer from his mom and her Eagle Forum.
- Family values = Lawyer up. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's pure wingnut welfare in action. I would be willing to bet quite a lot of everything I own that mama has somehow found a way to get the eagle forum to fund this. Way to get the donors to her to fund her failure of a son. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- That would be my guess. I've never gotten the impression that she holds him in particularly high esteem (remember that brief bit he did on her talk show to promote CP?)--"Shut up, Brx." 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- maybe Phyllis is only doing this so Andy can feel like he is doing something useful for once. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"To get the trademark, Schlafly beer must show its goods are not likely to be confused with goods sold by others". Beer... Nutjobbery... Nope, don't think they can be confused. Although too many beers might lead to nutjobbery around 11pm. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Holy Poe's Law, Batman![edit]
Is it just me, or did Andy just defend Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland?img MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Like, he literally just did. Damn--"Shut up, Brx." 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Recently here on RW I got a bit of a hammering comparing certain members of CP to the Nazis. In the last two months Andy has defended apartheid and now the Third Reich. He has also viewed 1930s Germany favourably compared to 1930s Britain. I wonder what is next.--Mercian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's getting harder for me to view Andy as a lovable idiot.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt it. Dollars to donuts he's not even aware of what happened in the lead up to World War 2. I bet he thinks it started when Germany invaded France. --Revolverman (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- if there was a republican in the white house, Putin would be worse than Hitler. Andy would then suffer mental collapse while he tries to reconcile Putin being both bad (I assuming repubs have no love for Putin) an d good for his anti gay stance. Or something about the homosexual agenda. Who knows? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every Conservapedian knows the war started at Pearl Harbor. TeenageWasteland (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Andy's latest is indeed that Europe is trying to steal Ukraine from Russia to get it into the pro-gay camp, but true Ukrainians won't let it happen. Whoover (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Andy's current thinking on who is most conservative is that the more virulently anti-gay you are, the better. In that line, who could be more conservative than the Nazis? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union, since they never liked the gays, either. The Nazis instead just had a thing for big butch blond boys in combat boots.-- 194.81.33.17 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I love quizzes. Is it Ken? JumboWhales (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't Andy consider Fred Phelps a liberal? Vulpius (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC correctly, it was TK who tied to get Phelps labeled a liberal, now it just says that liberals and the majority of conservatives reject his vies. Ironically, he's in the "Democrats" category, and the last entry in the article states "Phelps considers Obama to be the anti-Christ." As Democrats are wont to do. PsyGremlinParlez! 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Felps was a registered democrat at one stage and stood for election for them. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ken could link it together in one of his crappy blogs. Something stupid like "Even Democrats openly admit their gay, alien, abortionist, Muslim usurper is the anti-Christ!". 194.81.33.17 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC correctly, it was TK who tied to get Phelps labeled a liberal, now it just says that liberals and the majority of conservatives reject his vies. Ironically, he's in the "Democrats" category, and the last entry in the article states "Phelps considers Obama to be the anti-Christ." As Democrats are wont to do. PsyGremlinParlez! 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't Andy consider Fred Phelps a liberal? Vulpius (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I love quizzes. Is it Ken? JumboWhales (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Andy's latest is indeed that Europe is trying to steal Ukraine from Russia to get it into the pro-gay camp, but true Ukrainians won't let it happen. Whoover (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every Conservapedian knows the war started at Pearl Harbor. TeenageWasteland (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- if there was a republican in the white house, Putin would be worse than Hitler. Andy would then suffer mental collapse while he tries to reconcile Putin being both bad (I assuming repubs have no love for Putin) an d good for his anti gay stance. Or something about the homosexual agenda. Who knows? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt it. Dollars to donuts he's not even aware of what happened in the lead up to World War 2. I bet he thinks it started when Germany invaded France. --Revolverman (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's getting harder for me to view Andy as a lovable idiot.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Recently here on RW I got a bit of a hammering comparing certain members of CP to the Nazis. In the last two months Andy has defended apartheid and now the Third Reich. He has also viewed 1930s Germany favourably compared to 1930s Britain. I wonder what is next.--Mercian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not just the Sudetenland, but Poland as well. DickTurpis (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And, he indirectly compared Reagan to Hitler. I don't think there's anything that will top that. DickTurpis (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think Andy wants war between Russia and The EU, if not hot then certainly cold. The EU for all it's faults has overseen Europe change from the most unstable war torn continent in the 2nd millennium to one of the most stable in the 3rd. I don't think Andy likes that for some perverse reason.--Mercian (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Andy hates the EU because it represents a stable democratic bloc that happily gives two fingers to its religious right without any significant electoral consequences. It's his nightmare scenario for the US (cf. Ken's wank fantasies about the religiosity of new immigrants causing a major shift in the EU's socio-political balance of power). Robledo (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think Andy wants war between Russia and The EU, if not hot then certainly cold. The EU for all it's faults has overseen Europe change from the most unstable war torn continent in the 2nd millennium to one of the most stable in the 3rd. I don't think Andy likes that for some perverse reason.--Mercian (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And, he indirectly compared Reagan to Hitler. I don't think there's anything that will top that. DickTurpis (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)