Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive329

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Ukraine

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=1079102^img "Pushing the Ukraine into the pro-gay EU is part of the homosexual agenda".--79.211.111.219 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken's started an article on Treblinka

[1]^imgThis should be interesting. His perspective on a place that is not well documented due to only a handful of survivors. It goes along side his new masterpiece, Adolf Hitler's homosexual goons[2]^img Dangerous territory Ken, you are bound to upset people.--Mercian (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He lives for bothering people, especially here. He's clearly out to prove once and for all that Hitler was a liberal evolutionist. Being gay is a symptom. Whoover (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he should ask Ed. He seems to be a fan of The Pink Swastika. CP seems to be getting ever more loathsome as it decays, it's like a machine to distil crazy juice over there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Going all out now, its splashed across the main page.destructo33 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fundraiser

"An atheist wiki only met 17% of its winter fundraising goal despite the fact that winter is over in 13 days. Atheists are cheapskates![2] See: Atheism and uncharitableness"- On the main page.-ZeroIsLogic (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said on the fundraiser page, he pulled the same lame stunt for attention last fundraiser. We rolled our eyes just the same. Especially since that bar only moves when Stabby updates it. Hell, the fundraiser could be over 100% finished right now, but we wouldn't know it because our treasurer's in his jammies watching reruns of Doctor Who--"Shut up, Brx." 04:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus, the fundraiser has been running for like three days, not all winter. Apparently liberals deny but conservatives lie. Whoover (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When I saw the bar yesterday, I was wondering how long it would take for Ken to make some shit up. Ken, it's been running for three days. Maybe you should have a look at the Tea Party Community, where they've raised a massive $770 (out of $8,000) in 2 weeks, for the Patriots Rally for Freedom... and they've only got a week left to meet their target. A whole 27 people, out of 150,000 registered on the site have donated. If you're looking for cheapskates... or maybe it's because the TP is full of inbred, penniless hillbillies. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 06:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

He does this shit every time, and every time he never acknowledges when we actually make our goal. He's such a breathtakingly dishonest douchenozzle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rafael calls him out on his liberal claptrap. Captured before Ken deletes it.[3]^img--Mercian (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy just "trimmed" a bunch of Ken crap, including the fundraiser idiocy--"Shut up, Brx." 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If andy wants to 'trim' a bunch of ken's crap he would need to delete almost his entire hate blog wiki. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "wiki hate blog"? Spud (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Ken. I made my donation this morning. StarFish (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: The TPC have managed to raise another $5, in the time we've raised $1,000. Good to see all those generous conservatives donating to a cause they believe in. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 13:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

CP vs. WP, many years on

I seem to recall Andy saying in the early days of Conservapedia that it was growing much faster than Wikipedia was at the same stage. It might have been true at the time, as WP didn't have the publicity that CP was getting, and no one knew what a wiki was in 2001. But more than 7 years on it's clear his exponential growth has long since petered out. Can anyone out there do a comparison at where both projects were at their 88 or so month point? (Larron, I'm looking in your general direction here). I'd be curious to see specific figures on just how poorly CP has fared. DickTurpis (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just come straight out with it: " Hey, LArron, will you ..." Scream!! (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Needn't be him, but I admit he is the most likely candidate. Perhaps I will drop him a note later. DickTurpis (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

year wp	#articles	year cp	#articles
2002-01-01	19,700	2008-01-01	21,000
2003-01-01	96,500	2009-01-01	29,500
2004-01-01	188,800	2010-01-01	33,800
2005-01-01	438,500	2011-01-01	36,400
2006-01-01	895,000	2012-01-01	40,800
2007-01-01	1,560,000	2013-01-01	43,000
2008-01-01	2,153,000	2014-01-01	44,200

• Numbers for en.wikipedia.org taken from wp:Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia#Annual_growth_rate
• Numbers for Conservapedia include some redirects and some deleted articles. The actual numbers are lower - according to cp:Special:Statistics, the current number of content pages is just 40,325.

--larron (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, LArron. It's pretty clear that CP was a ghetto from the start. After a short initial burst of interest, it's been abandoned for all intents and purposes. Where WP was roughly 109 times larger after 7 years, CP barely doubled. What conclusions can we draw from this? I think CP was theoretically a good idea. Principled conservatives could have done something acceptable with it. To me, the current state of affairs stands for the abject poverty of Schlafly and his goon's perversion of "conservatism". 00:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the annual increase has been so constant since the first burst finished. While that would corroborate well with the idea of a small cabal creating most of the mainspace articles, I was under the impression that most of the cabal in power doesn't do much of the article creation shtick (except Ken, of course). - Grant (Talk) 04:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparing entries on WP with CP is comparing "articles" to "farticles". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well of course. I'm just surprised that CP managed to put out such a consistent number of new farticles (up until this year) despite how much the internal power structure has rocked back and forth over the years. - Grant (Talk) 15:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot LArron, your work is always terrific. Now, I assume the CP "articles" includes stuff like essays, debates, mysteries, lectures, homeworks, etc., right? And WP is just mainspace articles (since they actually create separate namespaces instead of just putting a word and a colon in front of a regular article)? DickTurpis (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

600 essays, 400 debates, 50 mysteries, 80 lectures, 1200 homeworks... --larron (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So CP has 37,995 content pages which are actually considered as articles. - Bill Rawls (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably fewer. I was just doing a random pages sample test to see what the articles are (for some reason I lost the ability to access CP in the middle of it; still waiting for it to come back). There are other non-articles that aren't so easy to separate out, like dictionary definitions, lists of terms, disambiguation pages, and stuff like substubs, which hardly qualify as articles (especially those Ed Poor gems). Certainly WP has some of these as well, but they seem to be a higher proportion of CP entries. I'll see what I can find. DickTurpis (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

60% of the articles have fewer than 1000 bytes, 26% fewer than 100 bytes (redirects are not included.) Lots are just templates describing (insufficiently) birds or battles. --larron (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Ken has literally written the words "Gay-Dolf Hitler" on front page of Conservapedia^img. The trusworthy encyclopaedia, your source for playground insults. Family friendly, of course. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The screenshot is missing. Why is that? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

because. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I got the screen shot anyway. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Ken has been feeling unloved and a little ignored by us, so now he's jumping up and down even more, trying to get our attention. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 08:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Be nice to him, the home probably doesn't let him download anything to watch.--Umichcynic (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they do. Its the porn filter he can't get around. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Whence Roger?

From Brother Roger: New Cosmos TV show is anti-religion propaganda. Instead of real science, the first episode of the Carl Sagan remake emphasizes the obscure medieval monk Bruno, claims that he was persecuted for believing in an infinity worlds just like Earth, and argues that he was proved right by the multiverse.^img

Of course, no such claim was made. Although "multiverse" was mentioned somewhere in the episode, Bruno's "contribution" was merely opining that the sun was one star among many and the Earth one world among many. Bruno was no scientist and the segment was sort of a waste of time, but I thought Tyson went out of his way (or was ordered out of his way) to give religion lip service. He mentioned the dates of "birth" for Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. (Maybe that last mention is what really got Schlafly's goat.) In any case, I know he thinks Einstein was a quack. Is he YEC? Is he an anti-science scientist? Is he to physics as Andy is to law? Or is he just hatin' on Tyson for some reason I can't possibly imagine but has nothing to do with race? Whoover (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Roger's always been slightly more pro-science than Andy - look at the times he's torn Andy a new one over relativity. But that doesn't make him any less of a gibbering idiot. He posted somewhere that Einsteim was just "a poster boy for E=mc² and his fight with Dinsdale over the Trail of Tears, shows that he has ideas just as reprehensible as Andy's. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 21:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats the funny thing about conservapedia. Compared to the omnibigotted and omnihateful shitstains who make up the "tru believing" inner circle, even Rick Santorum would look a tower of reason and progressive ideals if he visited. Since Roger does not make it his mission to reject ALL scientific principles, theories, and observations simply because he has arbitrarily decided "science is evil and liberal and thus super duper evil", he is indeed miles above his brother....and thus still somewhere below the bottom of the barrel. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 04:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Beer War to provide RW readers some entertainment in coming months

This should be fun to watch. With Andy representing his own mother in court, there should be plenty of gibberish being thrown about. DogP (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're late coming out of hibernation. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It was already archived. Whoover (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another Fantasy Conspiracy

Another player who fled communism joins Major League Baseball, but the lamestream media conceal that fact.^img The cited article mentions (of course) that he's Cuban. Is the lamestream media concealing that Cuba is communist? That Cubans who make millions playing ball are not good communists? That baseball's been bery bery good to him?

Is making up shit to get angry about because it feels good a definition of paranoia, or is it a more general symptom of various mental pathologies? Whoover (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just motivated thinking reinforcing hatred of the "other". Steven Novella just remarked on a study of anti-vax parents being confronted with various messages about vaccination. It turns out that even mentioning that there are no risks has a significant effect on further souring these parents. The study didn't reach this point, but the authors speculated that it actually caused them to somehow feel compelled to justify their position. I wonder if this kind of motivated thinking extends to someone being able to message himself — how does one convince oneself of the truth of objectively false claims? Terry Hurlbut's claims about various UN policies, birth certificates and his misrepresentations of the constitution and natural law, Obama being the first president to arm scads of new federal officers so he can create a secret army, etc. also come to mind. I've shown him that he was absolutely dead wrong on some of his legal claims and all he did was stop responding, just like Andy, only to go and repeat the false claim some other time. 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a bit of a left wing nut who believed in some minor conspiracy theories - in fact I still am a left wing nut. But this lot really stump me. I simply do not understand how it is that they can be shown to be wrong time and time and time again. On points of law, science, religion and just about everything they 'stand for' and they still refuse to admit they are wrong about anything. I wonder, deep down, does terry know he's spent his entire life wrong about so many things? But to admit it now would be to blow his carefully constructed facade of victimhood to pieces. It must be hard to be a red-neck conservative failure. And to know that it's fundamentally all your fault, you simply aren't good enough at anything. So he has constructed this liberal conspiracy that is keeping them down and they HATE us for it. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Terry still believes he's going to be God-Emperor of Aynistan when it all goes down because of his Generator. He's too far gone to realize he's ever been wrong. --Revolverman (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dwight's got Terry's back. London Grump (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you update the screenshot? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of conspiracies, that's some Thunderball shit right there...

Terry and Co.'s^img theory on where Malaysian 370 went is that Iranian terrorists hijacked it, flew it to their secret volcano lair and plan to turn it in to a giant nuclear missile. I'll give them this, as crazy as they are they still come up with better plots for James Bond books than the people who are actually writing them now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Xenu updated the DC-8's to 777's. Whoover (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean to say ThunderBIRD rather then thunerball Jeeves, because only a Bumdrunk could jump to a conclusion like that. --Revolverman (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Dwight Kehoe is a Tintin fan. --Horace (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely, if passengers' smartphones are still ringing then they can locate their position? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I love Terry's comment on that 'article'. Basically he says 'No, youre right I have no idea what happened and I used the word swarm incorrectly but who give a f. I hate Iranians so on the basis of absolutely no information at all I will blame them because............' He truly is one amazingly stupid person. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly with such breathtaking naivete and puppy-like acceptance of what his peers say and write, how the fuck does Terry think he will cow the masses under his generator-powered heel after the obamageddon? I have never heard it argued that being a cringing doormat is the trait of a future mad-max style warlord. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 04:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By the time we get the disintegration of society-as-we-know-it that Terry craves for, he will be riding round on a mobility scooter rather than a souped-up Harley. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Terry doubles down on his conspiracy theory. Now it's not just a possibility, it was definitely hijacked by evil islamists and flown to their volcano lair for use as a human guided missile. It's always fun watching them evolve a whole new strain of crazy then convince themselves their wild speculation is the truth. Gives a nice insight in to how they come to believe so much garbage. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am now setting the fundie clock to count down to when he declares Obama to be the true culprit. Anyone wanna wager how long this will take? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 21:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

They'll be playing catch-up. Whoover (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeeves, it seems to be just a case of taking the line that anything is possible and then just picking the one that best suits your dogma/paranoia/prejudices. As a conspiracy theory, it's not that outlandish. It seems quite possible that somebody could plot something like this - steal an airliner mid-flight and then use it later as a guided missile of some sort. Sure, there are lots of technical difficulties but it's feasible in principal. There are 101 other things that could have happened too but this one is much more appealing to that type of mind. You're right, it's an interesting insight. What always surprises me though is how someone who's reasonably well educated can keep believing these wishful-thinking fantasies when they've been shown to be nothing but fiction so many times before. Is it just the trip he gets from being *taps nose* in on the secret? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This could be like Lenski, but with physics…

From the Guardian: Gravitational waves: have US scientists heard echoes of the big bang? Discovery of gravitational waves by Bicep telescope at south pole could give scientists insights into how universe was born.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to how this turns out (both the actual science, and the responses). - Grant (Talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Conservative responds to criticism

Here is the diff.^imgMinoreditor (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken acts like a douche. Film at 11. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There's one slightly newsworthy thing there. He left the critical comment about him there for five days. It looks like he took a brief break from being a twat. Spud (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Presumably he didn't notice, the fact he's burnt it is pretty good evidence in my view. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the whole revision where he deleted the comment is gone, and the actual deletion is merged with the next diff so it looks like PeterKa did it while he was adding the Malaysian Plane section. I don't know much about wikis, but I thought that wasn't how they were meant to be used. Minoreditor (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, we don't have oversight so I don't think ay of us understands it that well, but I reckon it's like hiderevision and that Ken knows how to use it about as well as any of us does. Which is not that well. 00:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Classic Ken-Doll

Liberals and atheists and machismo^img oh, my! MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 11:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bestiality too, what with the dog in the bedroom. Just need to add obesity for Ken to claim a full house. Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But obesity is there. He wrote, "fat cat". What more could you ask for? Spud (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably pointless, but most people don't want to harm their pets, Ken. It's sort of the same reason I give the Canada geese that nest around our lakes a wide berth. They're nasty, disagreeable creatures, it hurts like hell when they get onto you, and I'd rather add 50-feet to a walk or run than have to fight and possibly kill one that's chosen a stupid place to have its offspring. Personally, I don't know how to subdue violent animals without harming them. I probably wouldn't call Animal Control and then 911 for a cat, but maybe a rottweiler or something. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken wouldn't know what to do with a pet, just like he has no idea what to do with a real living person. He's the kind of person who would buy a guinea pig and then forget to feed it before wondering why it suddenly died one day. He has the social skills of a thing that has no social skills, which is why he still thinks Richard Dawkins, the man who managed to catch one of the most desirable Doctor Who side kicks of all time, somehow lacks machismo and is a failure with women whilst the completely heterosexual Ted Haggard is such a smash hit with all those lovable xian men ladies. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Even the dogs lack machismo:) Dogs that lack machismo is a good thing you turd. A "macho" dog is the sort who attacks babies in prams and savages old, and not so old ladies[8]. --Mercian (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Where's the screenshot? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I added the capture tag. MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 21:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A nice reply[4]^img. I am not sure if he is a parodist or a lunatic.--Mercian (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots not working again. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, when I click on the image link, the preview is of the screenshot, but when I click on the original file, it's burnt.

Does anybody know what's going on? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be a function of how RW caches static content. I will email the technical guys. 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The fucktard is dissing Romana now. Surely he goes too far. Whoover (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Was she the amazonian type with the 4th Doc?--Mercian (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that was Leela. This is Romana. Actually Romana II. Romana I was hotter but Romana II is out of the class of Ken's dreams as it is. For those who've missed it Romana II (actually the Honourable Sarah Ward aka Lalla Ward) was married to Tom Baker (the 4th Doctor). That marriage ended in divorce and she's been married to Richard Dawkins for over 20 years. The couple was introduced by Douglas Adams. This is as close to nerd royalty as it comes, and it eats Ken alive. Whoover (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It must eat Ken alive that Ward is a charming, extremely intelligent, and extremely articulate person in her own right. No surprise that Ken can't even recognize that she's a human being. In his world, a woman is either a long haired creationist sweetheart who likes ponies, or she's a non-entity whose man must be ridiculed for his association with her. It's also odd that Ken calls Dawkins "elderly". It must just eat him up that Dawkins is 72 years old, yet he's not showing a bit of his age (if being elderly is even something worth nothing about an ideological enemy except as a hateful riposte). Dawkins still more productive and effective at continuing his role as a science educator than any of Ken's cult leaders will ever be. 18:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken's just jealous, because the only woman he's ever been close to currently has a puncture. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 05:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken included (I won't say "made up" because he probably stole it from somewhere else) a funny line in that response which actually made me chuckle. He then went and ruined it by explaining the joke, "The cat definitely knew who was boss in that household and who was the biggest pussy. The cat was the boss in that household and the liberal 'man' was the biggest pussy in that household!" I guess he thinks us liberal atheists would be too thick to understand it otherwise. I also wonder if that's the first time that the word "pussy" has appeared on The Family Friendly Encyclopedia's main talk page. Spud (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Psygrimlin, why are liberals so intellectually slovenly? You are engaging in the fallacy of exclusion by conspicuously failing to mention that a user/users of the User:Conservative account will dance with a long haired creationist sweetheart in 2014. You have shown that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot adequately answer the 15 Questions which evolutionists cannot adequately answer and Shockofgod's question that atheists/evolutionists fear most. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. I think we both know that you have none and that like all atheists/evolutionists posers you are not sincere in your atheism and are attempting to dilute the definition of your atheism. Why do you claim to hate God when you claim that you do not believe in God? I think we both know the answer. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." See HERE. "As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God." See HERE. You may safely be ignored. The editor/editors using the User:Conservative account is/are laughing at you! :) Olé olé olé. Conservative 18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way Psygrimlin, I/we noticed that you claim I/we am/are jealous of Richard Dawkins. Are you psychic? The whipped dog yelps the loudest! Everyone knows that atheists/evolutionists are prone to being superstitious. Bible believing Christians have no need for throwing bones. Atheists/evolutionist God-haters are just jealous that Bible believing Christians will be saved. We all know where atheists/evolutionists go when their meaningless/purposeless existence on Earth comes to an end. :) We all know where Bible believing Christians will go because they are saved through Christ while atheists/evolutionists rebel against God because they can't stand being accountable for their depravity/sin. :) Conservative 18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaaand memory holed. Who's the pussy, Ken? 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

More on the Schlafly Beer case

For your reading pleasure. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

.....wait a moment, didnt andy claim Obama's supposed lack of drinking alcohol made him a muslim at one point?! and now he declares how immoral alcohol is........ OH MY GOD ANDYS A COVERT JIHADIST!!!! SOMEBODY WARN TOSSBOTTY!!!!!! Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A tradition dies

I am disappoint. Kendoll didn't tell us to beware the ides of march this year. Of course he couldn't very well claim he was himself doing something today after more than two years of pretending his question evolution group existed, but he might have come up with something. How's that textbook coming, Ken? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken's already stabbed Andy with all the other admins, that's why! Caesar is dead! Sadly, Andy has no children, his wife was cheating on him with Stephen Colbert and Augustus is Ken. Just like the real Caesar!--The Madman (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Irrefutable proof that Ken reacts and responds to Rationalwiki and that we are his only audience. Sad sad man.[5]^img--Mercian (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

hahahaha. That's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen him do, and over the years I've seen him do a lot of pathetic things. I thought it was bad when he spent months boasting about things that everyone knew were made up, and then trying to memory hole all his boasting when his self-imposed deadlines came and went. Now he's literally just jumping through hoops for our entertainment. He's our own personal circus clown. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OTOH he left us a fascinating word puzzle in his QE post. I've already finished the Jumble for today, so let's see..."Neptune skyrocket hysteria". Yep, that's about on par with Ken's usual output.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see him now...

That alternative-history 19th century Andy, sitting in his Jersey basement cranking out pamphlets about how Tennessee rejects the anti-slave agenda and votes overwhelmingly to join the pro-Christian Confederacy^img. I wonder if he'll live long enough to regret being such a bigot? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you love Russia so much you should:1984: "Go live in Russia you left-wing commie." 2014: "Go live in Russia you right-wing fundie."Quite a turnaround.--Mercian (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots still don't work --A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jeeves: At least your hypothetical 19th-century Andy would appear to have a reasonable grasp of what the US Civil War was about. 21st-century Andy's analysis of the current Crimean situation seems a little confused, to say the least. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is 'a little confused' the same as 'deliberately pig ignorant'?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean Putin isn't out to save Christians from the gay agenda wherever he can? Whoover (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy! Hopefully he'll invade the US next--"Shut up, Brx." 02:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tis an interesting question whether Andy would have supported Putin had he invaded New Jersey/the east coast instead of Ukraine. Frankly his obsession with shrieking hatred against all things he deems liberal and the Negro Usurper who (in his mind) most epitomises these things, coupled with his decision to actively delude himself into thinking Putin epitomises all things conservative make me think that andy would pretty much be falling over himself to apply for the job of chief propagandist for the new order. Then again his cowardice would probably drive him to take refuge with other wingnut internet tough-guys/revolutionaries within Hurlbutt's basement. (and yes I know the invasion scenario is literally about as likely as Ed Poor becoming a steam-punk style cyborg and conquering the Moon with a legion of trained gerbils) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 05:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny how a good deal of those Crimeans were also marching around with Soviet Union flags, belting their love for the union, and Andy just turns a blind eye to that the whole while. Brenden (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this really the type of site CP wants to associate with?

Someone, I'd guess Ken, links to this Putin vs Obama article, describing it as "classic Internet humor". (This is the best diff I can provide.^img Sorry.)

Well, first, it's just one more example of the American right's increasing, disturbing lionizing of Putin. But the rest of that site is NWO crap and pretty blatant Hitler sympathies and apologies. This is one of those times CP goes from laughable to disgusting. MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A caption from the website placed next to a picture of Obama with a black baby reads "Even black babies hate Obama." This is even worse than when Andy supported apartheid. I wonder if Schlafly will trim this once he finds out, or alternatively do nothing. - Bill Rawls (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, andy's support of apartheid still ranks several thousand miles above this. Its in the same league as him voicing support for the KKK. Frankly the only other things he has said that match that in loathsomeness are his giggling displays of glee whenever someone who belongs to a group he despises dies, thus giving him a chance to triumphantly claim "hollywood/liberal/professor values" and dance on their graves, or pretty much everything he has said about women and why they are dumb untermench. At least ken has the "excuse" of being mentally ill. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Classic Internet humor" indeed. I'm fairly sure Ken's not an overt racist. I am certain he is so filled with hatred for more competent, intelligent, and influential people and groups than his hateful CMI cult bosses espousing his hateful religion of young earth creationism that he is blind to a source that reinforces his hateful biases also containing the kind of revolting racism he deceitfully ascribes to "evolutionists". Ken's as dishonest as the day is long, but I think this is really just an example of motivated thinking. 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I liked how it described Obama as "flabby" right above a picture of him wading in the water shirtless, sporting a six pack. Actually Obama looks like he is in better shape overall, although damn he really does have really skinny legs.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I like how it made a jab at Obama's skinny legs, referring to an image of him playing golf in which his legs were very obviously Photoshopped, yet includes another image from the same round of golf showing that Obama's actually got reasonably athletic legs for a guy who sits behind a desk all day. In any event, he's not built like a brick shithouse like Putin is, but to lie about the guy just to make 90 pound weakling jokes has got to be the bottom of the intellectual barrel. 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken not being a racist is, at least as far as his online persona is concerned, one of his only redeemable traits. For this reason alone he is slightly less despicable than Andy.--Mercian (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

His regular discussions of how thin Asians are, as well as how well Indians dance, are arguably a form of racism, though certainly not the most vicious kind. Phiwum (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't think he is, a few minor racial stereotypes apart. He would not care if someone were black, white, asian or any other as long as they followed his dogma of hating atheists and gays. Certainly more Fred Phelps than Nick Griffin. Somebody I feel would get on very well with Andy. --Mercian (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

When I see Putin shirtless on a horse I don't think 'This guy is manly'. I think 'This is a tyrant engaging in such a ridiculously over-the-top staged photo. Who would take this shit seriously?' Apparently, America's right-wing. Congratulations, guys! You're modern Russia's useful idiots. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You tell me what you see. Personally I, and several of my friends, see someone who just possibly is protesting slightly too much. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I won't say it's impossible, but culture matters. For Putin, "as a result of these images some people West of Berlin think you're gay" is not important next to "as a result of these images lots of Russians think you're manly as fuck". I remember listening to an Italian woman explaining how it was possible for this odious little man Silvio Berlusconi to have many Italian women falling over themselves to support him, not just to get a pay day (which is understandable to us I think) but to support him politically even down to ordinary women voting for him rather than an opponent who promised them policies they supported. Berlusconi did things which resulted in non-Italians saying "This guy is a corrupt piece of shit, the Italians will surely rid themselves of him soon" but in Italy the reaction was "Wow, Silvio really showed those boring pencil-pushers what a real Italian man is like, I'm voting for him". Berlusconi understood that he needed Italian votes, not say, British press support. Likewise, Putin needs millions of Russians to believe he's the strong leader that will ensure Russia's continued importance in the world, and if a few million Americans think he's a lunatic, or a closeted homosexual or a space alien, that's not really a problem.

Now, if the briefings going to the White House said "This guy is actually a lunatic and might do anything" that's a real problem, because Russia has nuclear weapons. But so long as the director of the CIA is saying "This guy is a cold-hearted murderer, and I wouldn't trust him to babysit my kids, but he's sane" everything works out OK for Putin regardless of whether he's wearing a shirt. Tialaramex (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Government propaganda in nations with free speech has to be sophisticated, since citizens or political opponents can point-and-laugh at it. Without that check the propaganda becomes INSANE. You get things like North Korea saying birds were mourning the death of Kim Jun Il, Iran photoshopping missile tests, or the bombastic "Comical Ali" claiming to journalists there were no American soldiers in Baghdad even though they could literally see them from where they were. Actually, the same idea applies to Conservapedia, where anyone who questions the sysops is banned. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Hell you could almost think of free speech and a free press to act as a "constructive criticism" system to help governments not end up looking worse than Borat's Kazakhstan. In a state like russia with a near complete lack of freedom of the press and speech, Putin can get away with propaganda antics that would have David Cameron, Obama, and any western leader laughed out of office because there is not enough free media to point out how fucking pathetic it is for a world leader to strut about without a shirt trying to make himself look badass as if he were some online wannabe navy-seal. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This should be good

Can't wait to see andy's take on this. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine how, but I bet it will be Conservapedia Proven Right. Whoover (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the second "can't wait for Andy to comment on this" thread for exactly the same discovery. Stop making these please. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How do these so-called "scientists" know? They weren't there! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm half-expecting a comment about how inflation is liberal. Ayzmo (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You saved a whole half expectation for future use.^img Whoover (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy seems to be just about the only far-right Christian whackjob who's gone down the whole denial "They haven't found anything" route. All the others are in complete revisionist history mode screaming that all along that they had been saying this would be proof of god, and to them I have to ask, "Finally given up on all your YEC crap, have you?" (The answer is, of course, no. The levels of cognitive dissonance must be reaching head burster point round about now, or it would if they ever bothered examining any of the crap they come out with).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Founding Fathers! Constitution! Revolution!

Look, chaps. If you want to say spam your friends with tea party crap, just say that. You don't have to dress it up as a thing your ancestors would want you to do. It seems like every week they learn something new about the American Revolution and decide that's the thing they really ought to be doing now. Last week they were cosplaying as a "black robed regiment", now they're forming committees of correspondence. I like the 18th century too, but this is more like a fetish. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I like how they put this under the editorial category. As if anything on their site is anything but editorial.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

*rubs temples*

[6]^img Ajkgordon (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Capture didn't work :-( Can someone fix for those of us who are CP-blocked? Heresiarch (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Scientific evidence challenging your dogma? Never fear, CMI is here to tell you what to think^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The reality is far less spectacular." This really says it all about YECs. It takes a tremendous amount of fear and self-doubt to be more comfortable in a world without the least bit of wonder than to admit that actual legitimate science, not bogus creation "science", opens our eyes to awe inspiring spectacles all the time. George Liquor, American (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

^^This. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Urgh. I'd almost forgotten what a bitter, twisted little ignoramus Karajerk is. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I love Anger Bear's rampant hypocrisy with his "did they go back in time by piling into their DeLorean and flipping on the flux-capacitor" comment - remember, this is a guy currently sucking on the government tit to pay for his studies into anthropology and archeology at TSU. I wonder how often he's going to jump into his Delorean to see exactly how things were done back in the day? PsyGremlin^Sermā! 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The truth is that this latest discovery just made it more difficult for YECs to dismiss the Big Bang outright; they are already reduced to grudgingly admitting it happened but try to repaint the event as "look, the universe has a beginning, and Genesis said creation has a beginning! Ergo, the Bible is accurate in science and our god is true!"--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think YECs do that, do they? They just dismiss it completely. Non-YEC Christians have accepted the BB for a long time and lovingly show how it fits with the creation story. Which is OK. It's what LeMaitre did in the first place. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Going by CNAV's response, it would appear terry is giving a very reluctant, grudging acceptance there was some sort of "Big Bang', but is trying to shoehorn it. (and the latest inflationary findings) into the genesis creation tale.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. LeMaitre didn't do that. The pope (Pius XII?) argumented along this lines, but Lematitre explicitly asked the pope not to use that line of reasoning. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.132.17.194 / talk / contribs}

While it's true Lemaitre dissuaded the pope from using his theory as proof for God creating the universe, he often referred to the Big Bang as the moment of Creation. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to expand on what I meant before. I love the Lemaitre story because it shows how educated intelligent Christians can see the beauty of God's creation without having to shoehorn scientific theory into their theology or reject scientific theory because it contradicts literal interpretations of scripture. It's what makes creationism so stupid - they literally rail against reality. Think outright denial on CP or the extraordinary intellectual gymnastics of the likes of PJR. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

More Insanity

It's perfectly fine for Russia to take over Crimea because....homosexuals^img

One woman marries her dog...therefore Britain is full of beastiality and depravity^img

Finally, "I can do "science"^img".

What the hell is wrong with these people? Hobby (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You want a list? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(evolutionary biology majors. Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip Mum mum mum mum mum mum. Get a job!)[7]^img From a man, proven by his editing patterns on CP, has not had a job in at least 5 years--Mercian (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The screenshot didn't work, let's try it again.^img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No dice. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If capture bot already has an image of a page it does not capture it again. It already has an image of mainpage right history so it will not cap the version you want it to. Far better to capture the actual edit summary^img instead. No need to thank me for this information, someone else pointed it out to me some time ago when I tried the same thing :-). Oldusgitus (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tried that, didn't work. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So you did, appologies. How strange, it worked for me. Perhaps cp was in one of it's dont talk to me phases when bot tried to cap your one. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's weird. Over in CNAV land they are actually calling Putin a dictator and a strongman for Crimea; although they are laying the ultimate blame at Obama's feet. At least they acknowledged the sham Russia pulled as wrong. Andy on the other-hand has nothing but praise for Putin; calling Russia a conservative and Christian nation; it almost sounds as if Russia is the model Andy wants America to be just like.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

it amuses me when people in the land of the free bang on about freedom rights and democracy then think fuck that whenever it doesn't suit their purposes. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They see it as their constitutional right to make the lives of gays miserable. Freedom of religion is freedom, right? But I sense that Andy doesn't have his heart in the argument that Putin is saving Crimeans from gay marriage. It's much more logical that he sees Putin as a "Republican" because oligarchs. He dreams of an America where the Kochs can do what they want just because. What would be wrong with one person, say Putin -- or Andy, being the single call a "job creator" has to make before doing some creatin'? The Russian 47% loves Putin, proving that this is the ideal democracy. Andy is just sane enough to realize he can't say this out loud, so he goes with the gay thing. Whoover (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more simple than that. Andy hates Obama and will support anyone who opposes him. Be it Snowden committing treason or Putin working very much against America's interests. He was even quiet about the whole Manning affair, a gay pre-op transexual, an abonimation to him.--Mercian (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --The Madman (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)The Madman

There’s nothing more psychologically speculative than psychological speculation, and a great deal of fun it is too, but now that God has chosen to lift the Lord’s servant Pastor Phelps unto his bosom I’d like to see Louis Theroux follow Andy around for a year. Frankly, I’d prefer him to do it with a production crew but I must admit that even I’d follow Andy around just out of curiosity. JumboWhales (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a show I'd love to see. I can just hear the soothing tones of Louis Theroux saying, "But Andy, this user's obviously mentally ill. Don't you think you should offer him some help?" Spud (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually

CP's love-in with Putin isn't surprising. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A substantive response

Andy, on Saturday: You raise interesting issues that require further discussion. I plan on posting a substantive response tomorrow.^img

Andy, on Sunday: Reagan got more conservative!^img MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 16:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone ought to add that to "Conservapedia Proven Wrong", although in fairness he only said he was planning a response. I still reckon it'd be a funny stir though Ruddager (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Update for Ken

Next time you want to carry on about stingy atheists, just remember RW have raised nearly $6,000 in something like 2 weeks. Your friends over at the Tea Party Community raised a grand total of $900, out of a requested $8,000 to help fund the "Patriots Rally for Freedom." A whole 30 people donated to that cause, which has now closed. 30 people out of 142,000 registered users...

Maybe conservatives are better at spouting bullshit than actually putting their money where their mouths are. Or maybe they're just stingy? PsyGremlin^Sermā! 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How many registered users are genuine? London Grump (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No one noticed I was psycho Malcolm McDowell from Fallout 3. Hell, alot of them seemed to quite agree with John Henry, and the Enclave, even when I directly posted stuff from the game itself. --Revolverman (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Eden is a liberal, he is obese, taking up an entire room and his goal is the extermination of ghouls and super-mutants and only liberals are capable of genocide. Oh, when he was a "boy" he and his dog Lucky walked and had fun and did not bark at and savage gays or atheists, therefore lacking machismo--Mercian (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Im guessing ken will now start spamming about how he "tricked those obese asian-lady spurning atheists into throwing their money away". Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken, that personification of Christian kindness, did anyone catch this:?

Joaquin: Conservapedia is #1 on a Google search on American seascapes. Andy: Cool!^img Ken: Joaquin, you misguided slut, you don't know nothing.^img

In fact, even depersonalized, American seascapes is one of those rare first-page hits for CP. It's the only one I could find other than Flying kitty, Obese atheists or some with "Conservapedia" itself in the search string. It may be hit number five and not number one, but it's a search that somebody doing genuine research might have made. Of course, Joaquin defers to "Respect my SEO authoriteh!" What a weird society. Whoover (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I caught that. Ken lamely tries to pass it off as "helpful" "information," but it's obvious to anyone he's just trying to piss on Joaquin's well earned parade. Can't give an inch, always takes a mile. Poor Joaquin, he's one of the few who contributes legitimate content on CP but all he can manage in response is "Fine... thank you!" Shakedangle (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since when have plagiarised images counted as "legitimate content"? Also, I like how Ken took 7 edits to get that post right but still manages to misspell Joaquín. Генгис^pillaging 08:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what plagiarized means here — some of these images are flat out stolen. I offered to help a couple who rely for their entire income on social security and what they earn from licensing candid photos of scenes from nearby cities they travel to. Joaquin flat stole one of their images. Stole. It. They felt that it was too much trouble to enforce their intellectual property rights to defend their livelihood. It made me sad. I would have been happy to press the issue since they were small business people. What's worse is that Joaquin misrepresenting the license status of some images may make them appear to be "available" to be freely copied, thereby making situations far worse for artists. 00:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of the work I do involves interacting frequently with local artists. Most artists don't exactly make a lot of cash, and many are akin to very small businesses, even if not registered as such. It saddens me to see or hear about abuse of such artists and their works. - Grant (Talk) 01:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Joaquin I notice he has uploaded another image claiming public domain^img. The source in question is from http://www.invaluable.com and their copyright page specifically states that all work is copyrighted and may not be used or copied. And JM is one of the better editors in that cesspit of dishonesty. Really, what did jebus have to say about theft Joaquin? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the painting is from 1645. So the painting is public domain. But does the picture of the painting count as copyrightable? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to cut Joaquin some slack. It could just be he just does not understand all the copyright issues (I certainly do not) and perhaps assumes someone would tell him if he is doing some wrong or incorrectly. Unfortunately, the other pricks aren't going to put him right because that might mean some effort. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay and nay. Joaquin explicity states the image is public domain. The site itself explicitly states that images are copyrighted and protected by digital watermark. Either JM assumed the image was PD because the painting itself is so old and didn't bother checking, in which case he is a lazy copyright theif, or he checked and saw the copyright notice and ignored it, in which case he is no better than those who download from torrent sites. Now conservatives are supposed to be in favour of the rule of law and liberals aren't but he seems to care neither way. Disclaimer, I am not claiming moral high ground here, I use torrents occasionally to get some films etc. But then I don't claim to be an xian conservative and better than all the other sinners. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IANAL (especially not an American one), but

• you Americans are quite lax when it comes to educational purposes, and these copies at Conservapedia will be covered by this term
• then, a mere photograph of a piece of art - which is done only with the intent to reproduce this piece without adding to it - is not considered to be copyrightable on its own.

--larron (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong country ya hoser. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Really, Ken, you just make it so easy sometimes

Fat lesbians starve children. Why are homosexuals allowed to adopt?^img

Fundamentalist beats adopted child to death. Why are Christians allowed to adopt? MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

at this point it really is best to just ignore conservative lest we encourage the delusional and hateful gobshite. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And why is it only California lesbians he's worried about? 50.23.65.53 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In defense of the couple who beat their children to death, I see nothing in the cited article to suggest that they were fat. Can the user/users of the MDB account please show evidence of obesity? Also, it is interesting that MDB lacks machismo. Minoreditor (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Minoredetir, why are liberals so intellectually slovenly? You are engaging in the fallacy of exclusion by conspicuously failing to mention that a user/users of the User:Conservative account have provided ample evidence that atheism is madness! You have shown that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot adequately answer the 15 Questions which evolutionists cannot adequately answer and Shockofgod's question that atheists/evolutionists fear most. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. I think we both know that you have none and that like all atheists/evolutionists posers you are not sincere in your atheism and are attempting to dilute the definition of your atheism. You may safely be ignored. The editor/editors using the User:Conservative account is/are laughing at you! :) Olé olé olé. Conservative

Stop that, it's creepy. Brrr. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So Nutty, do you feel comfortable blowing your cover like this? Or do you think that Andy is so delusional that even if someone shoved this page in his face, he'd just brush it off as Liberal Deceit instead of Liberal Sockpuppeting? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The thought that Conservative and Nutty could be the same person is frightening, to say the least. Or perhaps Nutty is simply one user of the User:Conservative collective. Gasp! - Grant (Talk) 06:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Frightening, but incredibly obvious. I mean Blatantly Psychotic, Nutty? Obsession with obesity, Roux? Jesus, is Nutty going to have to pull a Bugler before Andy notices the evidence slapping him in the face? Oh, P.S. Can Conservative's next binge be about how soy is an estrogen-rich Marxist plot to faggotize American boys? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A Reel Liberterien, You are an atheist poser and you are not being intellectually honest about your atheism. See Is Richard Dawkins an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist? and of Richard Dawkins HERE (Agnositicism of Richard Dawkins). You have failed to point out a single error in any of my articles about your atheist religions of atheism and evolutionism, which is/are religions and you can be safely ignored. See HERE and here. Michael Ruse is a leading anti-creationist and atheists/evolutionists evolutionist and Michael Ruse admits that evolutionism is a religion. The atheists/evolutions Michael Ruse declared: "‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." See HERE and HERE.

Finally, your armchair psychology is unconvincing and it is not surprising that an atheists/evolutionists thinks he has ESP! Regarding irreligion and atheism and superstition, the Wall Street Journal declared: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians." See HERE. Why are atheists/evolutionists so illogical? Atheism is madness!

Nutty Roux the editor/editors of the User:Nutty Roux account is/are laughing at you! You have been skewered on the Internet! Olé olé olé! :) 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

^^^Almost perfect! ħuman 04:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You need help, dude! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't stop skewering you on the Internet! Olé olé olé. But getting out of character a bit and totally unrelated, I am happy to take credit for teaching Ken how to properly spell olé a few years ago. I suspect he doesn't know how to type a é on his keyboard and has to cut and paste it, but he's such a clown that I'm glad to help him do anything that makes him more ridiculous. 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite good, but you should start at least half of your sentences with "also", "furthermore", "for example", etc.

"getting out of character" "doesn't know how to type a é" worst pun ever! --larron (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite good? It's positively unnerving! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

But there was one dead giveaway that it wasn't Ken - it didn't take 50 edits to make one post. -Nets awesome (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Netsawsometalk, I/we have been reasonably requested to use the preview button and I/we am/are trying to be aware of using the preview button because it is a reasonable request. In regards to the unreasonableness of atheists/evolutionists, you are being unreasonable and insincere in your atheism. Did you do your due diligence to determine that there is a single person using the User:Nutty Roux account or are you employing atheist superstition? The user/users of the User:Nutty Roux account is/are laughing at you! :) The Wall Street Journal declared that atheists/evolutionists are 13% more likely to be superstitious than Bible Believing Christians/Creationists. In regards to your superstition you are being superstitious by assuming you have ESP and know who the editor/editors of the User:Nutty Roux account is/are. This is not surprising because Bible Believing Christians/Creationists are more likely to engage in healthy lifestyle choices in regards to health choices. See Atheism and Obesity and Lesbianism and Obesity and Health Effects of Obesity. Medical science declares that obesity effects mental performance. Are you doing your diligence in regards to medical science and exercise science? Here is a picture of atheist guru PZ Meyers and atheist PZ Meyrs holding ale/lager and he has some extra weight in his midsection. :) Here is a gallery of pictures with captions of your atheist leadership and there are many atheists leaders who are overweight. See HERE. Atheists/evolutionists have no basis for morality and are unreasonable and insincere in regards to atheism/evolutionism. It is no surprise that there is a significant problem with Atheism and Obesity in regards to Darwinist atheism and atheist gurus. :) Nutty Roux

I think he's got you there, Nets. - Grant (Talk) 16:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're fat. Bashing children is pleasant in the eyes of the Lord. Who can argue with this? Or this? On the other hand, fat lesbians are eewww! Whoover (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, How Does Andy Operate?

This is so typical that it's really not interesting, but I got to wondering about Andy's "approach" to facts.

"Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban predicts NFL implosion in 10 years." As the NFL increasingly becomes a tool of the liberal media, expect more empty seats at playoff games.^img

Of course, the cited article says the opposite, that the unprecedented popularity of the NFL is leading to greed-induced overexposure.

My question: does Andy read these articles and ignore their contents, hoping his followers won't click through? This would be the "overtly dishonest" theory of MPR.
Or does he not even bother reading a citation, not wishing for any facts to interfere with a truthy fantasy? This might be characterized as the ADHD theory of MPR.
Or is he so far gone that he read the article but thought it was about the liberal media? The Ginger theory of MPR. Whoover (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually know the answer to this one. Basically Andy thinks he possesses the ability to read through the "bias" and "spin", that liberals invariably insert into news articles, and is able to tease out the real Truth. He also claims he's able to do this with scientific papers as well. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. He's certainly the master of physics, given his "masterful" understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity... - Grant (Talk) 23:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember how he reacted to Super Bowl's record breaking ratings? Yes, anything that contradicts his worldview is liberal deceit. Vulpius (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I theorize that he has long since come to the understanding that since he is the truest conservative on earth, his mind is divinely attuned to god himself and thus any (and every) thought, idea, and insight that his mind spews is the word of god and any piece of reality that disproves this is thus a satanic liberal lie. This is why I believe he defends his most groin-flayingly idiotic "insights" to the bitter end against all sanity and even fundie logic, since to admit defeat would be to confess he is not so divinely inspired. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty good definition of insanity. And I'm nicking "groin-flayingly idiotic" for use elsewhere,ta. Sphincter (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We know that the right wing plays low information (and/or paranoid) readers. If you get your news from WND, NRO, Breitbart, etc, that's pretty much exclusively where you get your news. If they say something blatantly false, and any other news source debunks it, either it never gets back to the low information reader or it's never believed by the paranoid reader. On the other hand, I believe Andy still hopes that his readers don't click through, but for different reasons. As was said above, he's an expert at identifying liberal bias and his readers could become confused by the actual content of the article. I'm surprised that Andy even provides the link sometimes. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is crying out for the creation of a "Andy Schlafly, America's Best Conservative" parody account - like the Mrs Betty Bowers - America's Best Christian one. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 06:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I always take it that Andy hopes people won't click through not because he thinks he's fooling people, but because he takes it as a personal insult that you aren't willing to take his word for it. Every MPR item is a little referendum on the readership's faith in him. --Kels (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Best of the Public

The person universally considered the best baseball player in the world is now Best of the Public^img. Snrub (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the new genus of "Best of the Public": good baseball players from northern states, who are never drafted out of high school since they could not play during the winter months, but ultimately get paid $150 million. I assumed that meant Trout was a fundie, but I don't see any evidence. Focus on the Family had a Mike Trout, who crashed in a sex scandal. I wonder if Andy confused them? I have no idea what BotP means when applied to athletes. He doesn't have an advanced degree in outfielding? Whoover (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy: Brains. It's good to have at least one. ħuman 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Best of the Public... Drafted right out of high school to the Los Angeles Angels. Andy says he was "overlooked by 24 teams" but he was still drafted in the first round (25th overall). That isn't some nobody who was picked up off the street, or some journeyman turned into an elite player, or a diamond in the rough found in the very late draft (like tom Brady, who Andy views as overrated but wasn't picked until the 6th round in football). this is an elite player seen as a professional baseball prospect while in high school. This guy has already done two years in the minors and three years in the majors, two of which as an all-star; he isn't some rookie, he is instead the definition of elite.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All aboard the outrage train.

I see Ken, or at least CMI-by-proxy is outraged^img, OUTRAGED! that in uk hospitals they incinerate aborted foetuses. This is so bizarre I have no idea what to make of it. What are they supposed to do? Would they be less offended if the medical waste incinerator used didn't use the waste heat to power hot water system? How the hell is this any different to any other cremation? Isn't this exactly what happens in every country? I can't imagine any place that provides abortions gives the remains back to patient to dispose of themselves. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember that in their minds this is exactly the same as ripping the baby from its mother's arms and tossing it onto a bonfire, whilst engaging in wild sexual orgies in front of an altar bearing the picture of Dawkins. Or maybe not - given the complete lack of interest the right have for a baby's welfare after it's born it's hard to say. They'd probably throw the mother on the bonfire for being a whore and have the baby sent to a special home where it's raised as free child labour in Koch Industries.

Whatever, as I said in the FB discussion on this - it's medical waste, of course it has to be burned. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 14:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is also an example of starkly black and white thinking that, were they interested in liasing with their coreligionists, extremists like CMI might consider avoiding. The great majority of "liberal evolutionists" are christians. They're just not the right kind of christians, so it's ok to ascribe all kinds of beliefs to them when you've really got no idea hat you're talking about. Good times. 14:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In their minds, it's not "medical waste," it's a dead human body and, presumably, should be treated with the appropriate respect/reverence. Everyone remembers how Rick Santorum brought home his wife's miscarried fetus so that his/her siblings could see their baby brother/sister (I forget the sex ....) before the funeral, right? Someone who in their heart of hearts believes that abortion is no different from infanticide--and there are lots of folks who see things that way--is not going to accept treating an aborted fetus in the same manner as a removed appendix. Anti-choice activists are often working from a position based on a veneration of the human being -- typically, the human being as God's greatest creation. But even a secular person can maybe appreciate the central position of respect for human life, as they understand it, at the heart of the anti-abortion movement. To them, treating an aborted fetus like "waste" just makes what they see as an already profoundly dehumanizing process even more so. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They didn't just bring a corpse home to show their children. That alone would be creepy enough. No, they brought the corpse home and slept with it. According to Santorum, that wasn't just "some crazy thing." Let that sink in. That's how extreme adherents of this death cult carry on. 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I ain't saying there isn't some real weirdness at play here -- I mean, if Grandma died, would you bring that stiff home and sleep with it? -- I'm just saying that if one believes that aborting a fetus is no different from killing a day-old baby, then you can't really expect them not to be a little skeezed out when said fetus is treated no differently from a tumor or a bum gall bladder or something. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with TeenageWasteland. If you believe that the aborted fetus is a child, then the idea of simply throwing the body into an incinerator like trash is abhorrent. To pro-lifers, it would be no different than dumping bodies without dignity into some open pit mass grave and just lighting it on fire and then using that to cook your food. Sounds a bit extreme, but this is what they honestly view such disposals as.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a pro choice liberal but I find this abhorrent. To an extent I agree with their outrage.--Mercian (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

this was in the news about a week ago. It seems that the main issue is that the parents of aborted or miscarriaged fetuses were not given any options as to the ultimate fate of the refuses and the insensivity at what I assume to be a very trying time for the parents. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, a new mystery.

It's been a while, but it was worth the wait^img. Wow, that was plenty of fucking stupid in a small number of bullet points. Andy, your "pro-aborts" don't exist. Nobody actually wants there to be more abortions, they just recognise that it needs to be a safe, legal option in case of disaster. Plus, the problem isn't the number of clinics, it's the number of ridiculous laws designed to curtail legal abortion by the back door proposed by rabid god-botherers like yourself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Twenty-five-hundred-year-old property"

Means you can uproot a whole people--"Shut up, Brx." 23:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the Welsh can use this argument to take over England. Seahenge, therefore fuck off Saxon scum. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind the Welsh. What about the Sioux, Mohawk, Navajo, Nez Perce, Inuit, Cree, Apache, and Iroquois? TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's high time those plucky Gauls kicked all the Romans out. --03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I have to figure out whether I'm a Gaul or a Roman--"Shut up, Brx." 03:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you like roast boars and menhirs, you're probably a Gaul. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a vegan living in a plaster home. I can't even remember the last time I wore braies or braided my hair. I have shamed my ancestors.. Oh well, maybe I'll work on booting the Lombards from Genoa or whatever an irredentist Roman would want to do these days. --"Shut up, Brx." 05:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Columbus go home! Columbus go home! Columbus go home! --A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on that but it's an inarticulate dipshit obliquely suggesting that the Eritrean man who drove him to that dipshit hillbilly rally should go home. That was the first 25 seconds before I wondered why you asked me to click that link. 04:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the transcript. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You learned me good. I take it all back. The kid's a genius. I love it! Thanks for sharing. 20:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Does Terry know Israel's claim to the land is supplanted by that of the Canaanites?--"Shut up, Brx." 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Red telephone for Kendoll

Hey, Ken! It's the end of Q1 2014. You know, that date you said your textbook was definitely going to be published by? How's that going? You said we'd be eating humble pie, so I presume today is your big launch day. I can't wait to read it. Or, you know, you could apologise to everyone on your blog for your months of lies. And then apologise to us over here for lying about our fundraiser, yet again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

He's lying for Jesus. He doesn't need to apologise. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't ya know? Taunting and posturing is Christ's mission on Earth for kendoll--"Shut up, Brx." 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Countdown begins for forceful and mocking pushback on the definition of "end of Q1 2014", "publication", and "book". DogP (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just a Fun Sue quote and a victory truffle shuffle for pwning Darwinism again. Robledo (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

However did I end up with a bunch of screenshots of Ken's blog posts that, for some reason or other, no longer exist? Am I imagining things? Heh, as with everything else in his life, Ken was very very sloppy in his effort to burn the evidence of years worth of gloating about great YEC victories and allies that would never be. 23:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHA

“”Yet, to my knowledge there has never been an anti-evolution booklet/book widely distributed across the globe in multiple languages.

—[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/desolating-global-evolutionary-belief.htmlimg]

00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you expect an announcement today? Tomorrow seems much more likely. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.147.33 / talk / contribs}

I see what you did there.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cue "Atheism and Impatience," "Atheism and Premature Exultation," "Atheism and Bad Timekeeping." PsyGremlin^Sermā! 01:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Psygrimlin, I see that you are engaging in the liberal fallacy of ... oh fuck I can't do it anymore buddy you're my friend and I like you and it hurts channelling that psychotic shit talking at you and I'm sorry Psy. 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you even attempted to put yourself through that for lil' ol' me! Much man love here - we're talking RPG buttslap man love. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 10:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here should produce a question evolution booklet for ken. He's clearly struggling and I loathe to see dumb animals suffering. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh. He's still pretending...

... That his inability to actually produce anything he promises is a sign of his flexibility^img, rather than what happens when he lies about everything he ever does. Robledo wins the Kendoll lies sweepstake by correctly predicting that he'd trot out Sun Tzu to explain how he's being stealthy and subtle. Oh, and he'll be announcing glorious creationist victories in 2014. As opposed to 2013's squalid lies I suppose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I anxiously wait the fall of "Darwinism." That said, for some reason I doubt evolution will collapse in 2014... Or in my lifetime... Or ever. - Grant (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the input of Germanic efficiency^img, promised for 2013:

But the absolute icing on the cake is assistance we will be receiving from an expert in getting out messages to the general public. He is providing assistance to us because he wants to see Christianity have a wider audience in the public square. This expert is a very sharp individual with a wealth of knowledge and believe me we are definitely going to put his knowledge to good use. So we not only will have excellent resources and content, we are going to have the ability to get this material out to the public with Germanic efficiency!

I'm fed up with all these redundant announcements. Furthermore, I'm fed up with all this redundancy... --larron (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What's he going to do? I don't understand how or why 2014 will be the worst year for evolution. What are his plans? Has he ever said he was going to do anything concrete other than the book, which he's mostly (though definitely not completely) memory holed? I'm not being a smartass. I genuinely want to know what Ken is trying to communicate. 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

UK incinerated babys! Oh my

Does this makes less sense to anyone else? I mean its cremation...what would they say if they just threw em out with the bath water...so to speak? Silly pro lifers.....^{— Unsigned, by: 71.234.88.83 / talk / contribs}

See above Scream!! (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also plural of baby = babies) Scream!! (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Babbys. --Kels (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

it's Whoover (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Goddamn it, the thread title made me remember this song and I cant get it out of my head. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious April Fool's joke

Also, I think Andy's up past his bedtime^img--"Shut up, Brx." 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not not an April Fool's, this is an April Fool's. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Andy, an April Fools' joke is only effective if you don't actually say April Fools immediately afterwards. Then again, Andy's the kind of guy who has to say "It was a joke!" whenever he says something he thinks is funny and everybody else just looks at him, like an old dog you've just shown a card trick. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 06:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The question being: Is Andy really this obtuse about attempting a joke, or does Andy honestly believe the average audience for Conservapedia is so stupid, he has to explain the sentence is a joke in the same line as the joke?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy probably would feel extremely uneasy posting an April Fool's joke without immediately confessing it - in his eyes, that would be deceit, which would make him a liberal. Plus, the man has no sense of humor, so don't expect (intentional) comedic anything from him. --Sid (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I dunno about no sense of humor - the man has an absolutely hilarious laugh?. DogP (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That aint a laugh, thats the hoary depths of Ryleh itself creaking open to unleash its unspeakable evil onto the world. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought that in the leaked secret groups Andy said the whole "Jesus invented comedy" thing was a joke. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Schlafly: Officially a moron

No joke, he says^img, an independent Scotland will be driving on the right. The rest of the world with functioning brains disagree. I love his idea that driving on the left is "leftist." What a moron. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like seeing the inner workings of his mind. And it ain't pretty. Poor man must struggle to put on matching socks in the morning. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy is not alone in believing that. Apparently some in the UK Labour Party do too. Auld Nick (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even the Sun doesn't call their current rule "leftist." What will Andy say when cars must switch from RIGHT hand drive to LEFT hand drive? Whoover (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the lefty Piers Morgan^img! --larron (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And he bought it,then deleted it. Moron indeed.--Mercian (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Does... Does Andy seriously think Left lane driving laws are Leftist... because they both use the word left? Does this make NASCAR the fucking Comintern because its all Left Turns? --Revolverman (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The man who thinks general relativity isn't true because of moral relativity? Do you even need to ask. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If Bill Bryson's "Made in America" is to be believed, the only reason Yanks drive on the wrong side of the road, is that in the early days, the most popular cart/buggy/wagon/thingy forced the driver to sit on the left, so naturally they gravitated to driving on the right of whatever roads there were. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Falling for an April Fool's that obvious is pretty stupid but not exceptionally so. It's the whole driving-on-the-left-is-leftist nonsense that makes it a classic. In fact, the reason Brits drive on the left is so that a gentleman may use his right arm to wield a sword to fight off oncoming vagabonds. That's the sort of conduct Andy would normally admire, right? Heresiarch (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And driving on the right is, in Europe at least, a Napoleonic thing. It allowed soldiers to prepare to fire their muskets without tripping over each other. London Grump (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Another theory is that the tendency was for most people to drive on the left because of the sword thing, both individual riders and horse team drivers. During the French revolution, everybody switched to the right so as to not be mistaken for a member of the aristocracy. Then the French conquered most of Europe and voila. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I've mostly seen such claims by Brits. Who... would have an interest in describing leftside traffic as the natural state of affairs and rightside traffic as a perverse Napoleonic inversion of it :p In fact, wouldn't it make more sense to have traffic so that the sword arms don't meat each other? Or the whips of postillons, for that matter. Octo8 (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a British thing particularly. There were Roman keep left laws. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

driving on the left, like drinking tea, is a mark of an advanced civilisation. Driving on the right and drinking coffee is a thing of savages. This is why I will be voting ukip. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon was left handed so drew his sword on the other side. The claim I heard was, that as well as the sword thing, a gentleman always carries his hawk on his left arm and so riding on the left allowed him to keep his hawk on his left arm and his right arm free to draw his sword/rapier should that be required. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In other news, I see the story has been "trimmed" and oversighted. You're welcome! PsyGremlin^Sermā! 11:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding that driving on the left was the norm but that Napoleon and his armies - for reasons which are not abundantly clear - switched much of Europe to the right when they conquered countries. But Napoleon did not conquer all of Europe so that other European statesman, Hitler, converted much of the rest. Portugal was invaded by neither of the above so the right-wing dictator Salazar had to impose it by himself. So any prizes for guessing who switched Russia to driving on the right? Stalin of course. (It is possible that some of this is urban legend of course.) --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the various theories or myths about Napoleon are a red herring. My understanding is that the switch from the traditional left side of the road to the right had much more to do with Henry Ford. Early automobiles usually had a central steering wheel for a driver sitting in the middle, but Ford designed the Model T with a left-side driver's seat and other controls to the right of it (with right-handedness in mind). As everyone knows, the Ford Model T was the first car with mass popularity, and other manufacturers immitated the design, including the left-side driver's seat, which makes driving on the right-hand side of the road most practical. This was formalised with driving laws on this in the USA & pretty much everywhere else cars had become popular. The UK & British Empire were among the only places to keep to the old left side way of driving, possibly because the automobile market was already well enough established in the UK when the Model T craze kicked off that it was easier to keep to the left side of the road & build cars with right-side driver's seats than switch to the opposite set-up. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, Britishly, that more than half the world's population lives in countries which drive on the left. Or, in the case of Chennai the last time I went there, are supposed to drive on the left. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

About a third, I thought. And only 10% of miles driven are driven on the left. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Big countries which drive on the left include India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan, Nigeria, UK, South Africa, Malaysia, Thailand, Kenya, Uganda, Australia... & others. Not sure where that's got to but it's more than 2.3bn (one-third). Maybe not quite as much as half but it's not far off 50:50. (NB I'm counting auto-rickshaw drivers in India as if they should be driving on the left.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it meaningful to cite the total population of countries like India, nigeria, Kenya and Uganda to make a case for how many people drive on one side of the road when the number of people who have ever driven a car in those countries is pretty low? When you say "they drive on the right in the US, you're talking about way more drivers than when you say "they drive on the left in India." Overwhelmingly, people don't "drive" at all in India. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

An awful lot of people use buses and autorickshaws which allegedly drive on the left. Hundreds of millions of people each day in India alone. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But they don't "drive." They could conceivably spent their entire lives not being quite sure what side of the road one is meant to take. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they make sure they always close their eyes any time they spot a moving vehicle. Also, yes, autorickshaws do drive on the left. They are ridiculously common in Bangalore; you can't go anywhere without seeing them all over the place. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do love the way

That Fergus repeatedly shows Terry up in these conversations and the way that Terry repeatedly puts his fingers in his ears and shouts LA, LA Can't hear you. Top work Fergus. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely Terry took physics in college. How can he actually be arguing against Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, or am I misreading? Forces may be small, but they exist. Surely he knows how, at least on paper, to calculate what he's claiming are or are not relevant forces using vector equations so he can do more than wave his hands and deny? 15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Terry studied medicine. I'll let that horrific thought sink in for a moment. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can more or less understand why he has this opinion (beyond ignorance). While calculating gravitational forces is fine and all, orbital mechanics on this scale require some significant effort and a bunch of calculus. It's easy to hand-wave things away as "the forces cancel out", because to low-order approximations they effectively do. If he had some rudimentary knowledge of physics (say a first year physics course), he would likely know how to calculate these orbits perhaps to first or second order, but no farther.

Keep in mind that his argument isn't that "these forces don't exist", but rather "these forces cancel". It may not seem like a big distinction, but it really is. Proving the latter to the nth degree requires integrating the gravitational forces over every time step, since the trajectory of (and thus the net force on) a body depends on the gravitational force it experienced earlier. This kind of calculation is too long and rigorous for your average first year class. - Grant (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the 'forces average out' part is just a recent attempt to make his ignorance seem less pathetic. Regard his earlier quotes:

"And at the time of this writing, Comet ISON feels only the gravity of the Sun and not the gravity of any of the planets, satellites, or asteroids! (Reason: an object closer to the primary than other objects in orbit cannot feel the gravity of those other objects. Not until its own course track takes it outside their orbits again.)" "The gravitational attraction on any orbiting body depends on the mass closer to the barycenter of the system. Anything further away might as well not be there. ISON cannot feel anything but the Sun pulling on it. And as massive as the Sun is, the masses of all those planets that it is “inside” is not negligible." "ISON will feel the Earth pulling it in toward the axis when it passes Earth. It hasn’t done that yet ... Here’s why: orbiting mass beyond any one object exerts no pull on that object."

No 'forces average out' stuff there. Walt Brown feeds a line to Terry, who parrots it back without any understanding of his own. As soon as the line is challenged, it's easy to see that Terry is totally at sea, which is why he can't see the massive problems with Walt's 'theories'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I stand corrected on that point. However, it doesn't change the crux of my point, which is that the physics involved is likely well beyond Terry in general, so it's not so surprising that he doesn't show any understanding of it. Does it surprise me that he continues to spout it after he's repeatedly proven wrong? No, because as long as his source (Walt Brown) continues to spout this stuff, Terry has no reason to believe he's wrong. I don't think this is cognitive dissonance so much as it is ignorance, as this kind of viewpoint is often seen when undergraduate students try to parse upper level material. They find a source they like, and if that source is wrong, they don't have the requisite background to parse evidence about that, and so they ignore it. - Grant (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I love how every time Terry posts on MPR, he cites his own identical article on three different websites. It's good to know that he isn't even trying to hide anymore the fact that all he uses CP for is to linkspam for his own stupid blog posts. Snrub (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I love how he repeatedly uses the two words "creation" and "scientist" together as if they were compatible. Scream!! (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what branch of medicine Terry is a specialist in, so I can make sure I don't injure that part of my body when I'm next in New Jersey. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pathology. By the time you see Dr. Hurlbut, it's already too late. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

World History Lectures

Andy is doing his World History Lectures at the moment. He is "improving" his material, and it is a nice blast-of-the-past to reread the old comments on the talk-pages: Does anyone remember Talk:World History Lecture Nine^img with the discussions on "which language is the best" and "are German composers the greatest"? Or Talk:World History Lecture Eleven^img, where Andy improved Einstein's Postulates of Special Relativity? Lecture Eleven gave us Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model^img, where Andy struggled to answer questions like "How won WW1?" and was "Canada a colony during WW1?" I just hope that his pupils not only read the lectures, but visit the talk-pages, too. --larron (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Any parent who allows Andy to "educate" their child is guilty of abuse. Andy's insane ravings are bad enough in some inane "article," but when he "lectures" impressionable students about the hoax that is relativity he's the lowest of the low. Whoover (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure Andy wants the best for his students as do their parents so abuse goes a little far, though I agree he should not be allowed to teach, certainly not without stronger "liberal" scrutiny and regulation.--Mercian (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

These "captures" are mostly broken, sadly. ħuman 04:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I just captured the articles manually, but when I try to upload them as a new version at File:Capture 58a8a6a1a4bb82b74bf4be4b9308767c90e4f20d.png or File:Capture 4a9b464599e53a6e37f886923b8c1ed80a41bdca.png, I get the message You don't have permission to access /w/index.php on this server. :-( --larron (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it... --larron (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(reset) From Lecture 11 'What is your favorite battle' and 'french (sic) piece of junk'. Doubleplus ungood.

No mention of the Brazilian Acontribution to WWI (see [9] if you are interested). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And Lecture 9 and discussion - Tony Blair did not abdicate (and 'everybody' expected him to switch after a decent interval), while Thatcher was Methodist and Gordon Brown was Presbyterian. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

He is teaching his Reader's Digest version of history, perpetuating anecdotes ("Courageous Polish soldiers on horses defended against German tanks!") which have been proven to be wrong. It comes handy that he doesn't state any sources for his "facts" --larron (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Terry and *cough* Medicine...

You have to love the irony that one of today's essays on CNaV has to do with a theory connecting autism with ultrasounds, even as conservative pro-lifers push for ultrasound laws. --DinsdaleP (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And finishing the latest CNaV trifecta of blather is Walt Brown suggesting that teaching evolution be criminalized. The best bit is a citation from "Nature," wherein a British spelling is flagged as an error: ... all efforts should be channelled (sic) into protest ... I wonder if it was Brown or Hurlbut. Such erudite commentators. Whoover (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, she was doing so well when she got to the bit about the mercury in vaccines myth being debunked... then she went and dived off the deep end. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 08:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not CP ...

... but demonstrates Andy's reading methodology. :NPR All Fools Day prank . He's not alone! Scream!! (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

CNAV is like cringe comedy

Sometimes it's just too much to bear^img--"Shut up, Brx." 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

His farcical shrieking about COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM!!!! combined with his obsession with the apocalypse and becoming generator warlord of the wasteland, im thinking more and more that tosser was some Fallout boss character who somehow emerged into the real world and started a blog. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind whether Tossbotty and Bradleeeee have no idea what communism really is/was or if they're just using 'communist' as an all-purpose insult. Possibly both. So far as I know, Obama hasn't (yet) engineered a man-made famine killing tens of millions of people but I'm Terry will be able to fabricate some evidence that he's done so. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought Obama was a Nazi in their eyes. I am genuinely confused.--Mercian (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In their eyes, you can be a communist and a Nazi at the same time. Once you accept that Hitler was a liberal, this becomes natural. Whoover (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Obama is the guy right between the ends of the horseshoe. TeenageWasteland (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys really should watch the show Revolution. I think that Terry wants to be General Monroe from the show. Ayzmo (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Conservative rewrites history

Well, at least he purges the archives. From cp:User talk:Aschlafly/Archive57, he deleted four sections, starting with this one:

@User:Conservative

(n.b.: User:Conservative doesn't have a talk-page on his own, but advises editors to go to other administrators) I moved the following from cp:Talk:Project 200 plus according to cp:Conservapedia:Manual of_Style#Talk pages and_Archiving: „Sometimes discussions lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. In discussion remember to always be civil. Personal attacks should be replaced with the personal remark removed template.”), as it hasn't to do anything with the article, and is therefore "talk-page pollution". --AugustO 02:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT) :AugustO, is it just a matter of timing? The Question Evolution! book for middle school students second draft is going to the second group of students.[10] And I cite: "The significant expansion of the Question Evolution! Campaign in 2013 due to the soon to be published Question Evolution book for middle school students couldn't have come at worse time for atheists/agnostics." [11] "To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence." - Sun Tzu. Plus, there is some fluidity to their plans. I cite: "Earlier, I promised some news on May 15, 2013. I chose to announce some news today instead. The unexpected happens in war and the creation vs. evolution ideological war is no different!"[12] :) Also, "An essay discussing Sun Tzu declares that Tzu promotes 'fluidity, flexibility, surprise,,, and intelligence over sheer military might.'"[13] It must be frustrating for evolutionists to never know what is going to happen next! Conservative 21:49, 16 May 2013 (EDT) AugustO, since you have failed to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, should we just delete all your whiny objections to the Question evolution! campaign? Conservative 21:55, 16 May 2013 (EDT)- cp:User:Conservative

From cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/128, four sections from August - October 2013 were eliminated, which included questions for the upcoming publication of the much-anticipated release of the "Question Evolution! booklet for middle schoolers".

From cp:Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News, he surprisingly seems to have cut only one item: the "news" that the "Question evolution! campaign book authoress receives a death threat from an atheist at Facebook". His imaginary girl-friend became the one who cannot be mentioned....

That was just a cursory look, perhaps I'll take a closer one later. Just a conclusion (and a shoutout!): Ken, seek help! --larron (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks LArron for further exposing this guy for who he is. "It must be frustrating for evolutionists to never know what is going to happen next!" We know exactly what is going to happen with you next, from this moment on and forwards, forever, Ken; a lot of talk talk talk and pointing at other people's "accomplishments" and a whole lot of inaction from you. Any frustration comes from the monotony. Shakedangle (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As per the quote box above, I think we need to call this guy Ken of the common herd. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor old Ken, having to scurry around and hide all traces of his bullshit. It's not like the old days, where you could just delete and restore an article, is it Ken? What a sad little creature you are. Just admit there is no booklet. PsyGremlin^Sermā! 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he just deleted cp:Talk:Hugenex2000, where GregG gave him a beating:

cp:Talk:Hugenex2000

It appears there is a broken Reference link in the article. However it seems you have protected the article for some odd reason so can you either fix it or un-protect it so I can fix it ? Dvergne 08:37, 15 January 2013 (EST) I fixed it. Conservative 08:50, 15 January 2013 (EST) Awesome. Any idea when the Question Evolution! booklet is due out. I remember you saying it would be out by around mid January. Cheers Dvergne 08:51, 15 January 2013 (EST) Did I claim a booklet would be out in January 2013? If so, where? Conservative 09:59, 15 January 2013 (EST) [14] "Evolutionists will soon be behind the 8 ball. Eighth chapter of upcoming Question Evolution! booklet has been completed" (May 14, 2012): God willing, since there are 12 chapters left that would mean the booklet could be completed in 2012/2013. [15] "The seventh chapter of the Question Evolution! booklet is completed plus the upcoming demolition of the house of Darwinism" (May 1, 2012): The seventh chapter of the upcoming Question Evolution! Campaign booklet has been completed. The booklet will be about 75 to 100 pages and feature the 15 questions for evolutionists. At a bare minimum the person who is writing the Question Evolution! Campaign booklet wants to write a chapter a week, but he hopes to make faster progress. God willing, since there are 13 chapters left that would mean the booklet could be completed and ready for an editor to review it as early as August of 2012. [16] "S.S. Evolution! passengers get on your life jackets! A barrage of 100+ page Question Evolution! booklet torpedoes is headed your way!" (August 29, 2012): Attention all S.S. Evolution passengers! Get on your biblical creation life jackets and get in the biblical Christianity lifeboats, a barrage of 100+ page Question Evolution! booklet torpedoes is headed towards the SS Evolution! The booklet, written by a member of our Question Evolution! Campaign group, has been completed and has been sent to an editor. In addition, the Question evolution! book for middle students is almost finished with two remaining chapters to be written. GregG 10:36, 15 January 2013 (EST) EDIT From a deleted revision of cp:Talk:Main Page, September 15, 2012: User: Conservative response Christianity has been effectively defending its claims for about 2,000 years. There is a whole discipline devoted to this called cp:Christian apologetics. On the other hand, there is no proof and evidence that agnosticism/atheism are valid worldviews. A good hockey team also has a good defense and a good offense. Personally, I love "scoring points against the opposition" by removing spurious stumbling blocks to the gospel. Judging from the Question evolution! booklet and books soon coming out, other creationists do as well. And there are 15 nets of the opposition that are totally indefensible. Do you think that creationists are not going to put puck after puck in these 15 wide open nets and not do it in a very public and assertive manner? If so, I think you are mistaken. [[cp:File:Señor-Dawkins-in-his-intellectual-bunnyhole.jpg|center|thumb|300px|"With today’s 24/7 news cycle, failing to respond quickly is tantamount to conceding the opponent’s claims."[17] Keep hiding in your intellectual bunny holes prominent evolutionists. However, not effectively responding to the 15 questions is not going to make them go away. By the way, why is cp:Thunderf00t so silent about the 15 questions for evolutionists? (photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)]] “You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.” - Abraham Lincoln "By learning where to place your shots, you tend to put your team in more of an offensive position versus consistently being on the defensive. As a general rule, the more you and your partner hit down on the ball (offensive) and force your opponent to hit up on the ball (defensive), the more often you will win." - Michael McFarlane, Director of Tennis "The scientists and other staff of Creation Ministries International have decades of experience and the 15 questions for evolutionists were carefully developed and chosen by their ministry team. The 15 questions are fantastic and consistently stump and stymie evolutionists as can be seen by this video. Want to know why evolutionists are angered about the campaign? It is because evolutionary pseudoscience wilts under questioning and cross-examination. During the beta stage of the Question Evolution! Campaign we have been gathering data to determine how to best present the 15 questions for evolutionists in terms of their order of presentation, wording and general presentation. For example, the popular YouTube video maker thinks question #9 dealing with the fossil record should be moved to the head of the pack and be made question #1. The order of the questions is very important as we want to lead with our most powerful and popular punches first. In addition, it is important to attack Darwinism in a manner that will cause maximal damage. Factors such as timing, geographic locations of attacks, methods of attack have been considered in terms of a plan of attack on Darwinism."[18] See: Our group's plan, strategy and tactics for advancing the Question Evolution! Campaign - 15 questions for evolutionists right|200px "If you have not guessed already the "third gear" stage of the Question Evolution! Campaign is absolutely going to be my favorite stage of the campaign. It is going to be YouTube Christian and motorcycle enthusiast Shockofgod's favorite stage as well as he likes going "full throttle". If you haven't seen the video "My challenge to atheists and evolutionists" which has over 13,000 views and is featured below, I would definitely recommend watching it. In the third gear stage of our group's Question Evolution! efforts, which officially starts today, our efforts to recruit more volunteers and/or more widely disseminate the campaign via other methods is going to move faster and faster and faster until it moves as fast as a cheetah pursues a gazelle. God designed the cheetah so it can move at 70 and 75 mph (112 and 120 km/h). The cheetah is able to go from 0 to over 62 mph (100 km/h) in three seconds. Creationists, the time for stalking evolutionary quackery is over. It's time to move in for the kill!" [19] = 15 questions for evolutionists "Dogmatic atheists and evolutionists, we know that you cannot answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so it must be very mentally debilitating to see the grassroots Question Evolution! unfold before your eyes..."[20] - 15 questions for evolutionists "They know their weak ideologies cannot withstand cross-examination." [21] - 15 questions for evolutionists “You've got to take the initiative and play your game. In a decisive set, confidence is the difference.” - Chris Evert 150px|right "In our June 3, 2012 article we wrote: 'In addition, it is always a good idea to unleash surprises on the opposition so we have some of those planned as well.' Evolutionists, do not be surprised if the SS Evolution! receives a flurry of creationist torpedo attacks. Of course, this will happen at a time of our choosing and not yours. Some of the members of our campaign will be running silent and running deep."[22] -15 questions for evolutionists center|thumbnail|500px|EJamesW, it's coming and and you are your fellow evolutionists/atheists/agnostics are not ready for it.[23] EJamesW, I don't think you are going to cause the supporters of the cp:Question evolution! campaign to lose their focus - especially at this point in time.[24] You attempt to divert and distract failed. EJamesW, by the way, you wrote: "You don't need me to tell you that disproving evolution wouldn't make creationism true - you're too smart for that". What is the most probable alternative position to the creation/evolution positions and what proof and evidence do you have for it? If you do have a compelling alternative position, I do find it very telling that you have not been ardently letting us know about it. Conservative 04:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT) GregG 10:45, 15 January 2013 (EST) As GregG has kindly shown above you have promised it will be published numerous time. Do you know what in timeframe it will be published ? Dvergne 21:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

--larron (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

LArron wrote "Ken, seek help!" unfortunately [25]--Mercian (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Ken, instead of running around frantically deleting evidence of your lies, just stop lying. It's much easier in the long run. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tee hee [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Etc. etc. etc.

Heh, got Philip facing a conundrum. eh?I 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I nearly had forgotten all about "Project 200+"

This third draft is fantastic and we are looking very forward to receiving the feedback forms. We expect the book to be published in 2013 or at the latest the first quarter of 2014. 2013 is far more probable. The anticipation and excitement is building and it will be raging like a roaring river leading up the eve of its publication!

And of course, on the eve of the book coming out we will go full blast on expanding our Project 200+ campaign which will be a worldwide and fast growing coalition of creationist groups. We will have our supporters in the Bible belt states of the United States assist us since we have found that they have a lot of fire in their belly.

yeah, right! --larron (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For good measure, Ken deleted the user and the talk-page of cp:User:AugustO. Did he become an unperson? Here are some excerpts:

You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration
You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration. conservative 11:09, 20 June 2011 (EDT) Thanks. Just one point: please respect this talk-page as my castle and refrain from tearing it down, and building it up again. So please, don't delete/recreate it! AugustO 11:14, 20 June 2011 (EDT) BTW, for those wondering: I made two points at conservative's talk page, namely: not using the preview button is not only annoying for other editors, it wastes resources (i.e., disc-space) deleting/recreating of pages messes up the article histories (like this), the list of user comments (like this) and some special functions (like credits). AugustO 11:23, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Obsolete information on abortion talk page
That was obsolete information on the abortion talk page. After January 25, 2013, the Conservapedia Pro-life Project may be substantially increased in terms of its various efforts such as content and other efforts. Feel free to increase the size of the current articles and create new ones. The Pro-life Project could exceed all previous efforts at Conservapedia. The pro-life cause is one of Andy's top issues. I recently heard that Conservapedia was dead. "The report of my death was an exaggeration" - Mark Twain Conservative 14:49, 14 January 2013 (EST) Talk pages are full of obsolete information. That's why they get archived. The information became relevant by your deletion: You wrote “”Starting this week, Admin Conservative will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! conservative 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT) This statement is more than two years old - so now we should be able to see the fruits of your activities. If there is't any to show, this reflects badly on your current string of announcements about the cp:Question Evolution!-campaign. OTOH - if you have got something to show, this will increase the confidence in your announcement. So, what is it? How did you spread awareness? --AugustO 14:58, 14 January 2013 (EST) (EC) There were some hick-ups when I edited this section - I hope, no information was lost. AugustO Setting aside your extraneous comments to the matter at hand, feel free to underestimate the Conservapedia Pro-life Projects prospects if you wish. That will not stop the project from moving forward though. Conservative 15:30, 14 January 2013 (EST) So you won't comment on the success or failure of your efforts in 2010? Though this isn't surprising, it is still disappointing. And it is not a good omen for the upcoming undertakings. --AugustO 15:44, 14 January 2013 (EST) [[cp:Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The cp:Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to cp:superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in cp:pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."[38] ]] re: good omens Unlike members of shrinking Protestant denominations such as yourself, conservative Christians don't foretell the future using omens. From the Wall Street Journal: "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians...."[39] Conservative 15:56, 14 January 2013 (EST) Ronald Reagan famously said: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. If your efforts haven't been successful in the past, why should I trust you announcements for upcoming projects? Especially when you are seen trying to hide the record of past failures, it doesn't take a fortune-teller, but only someone with a little knowledge of statistics to predict future short-comings. --AugustO 16:06, 14 January 2013 (EST) When Douglass MacArthur returned to the Philippines a second time, he prevailed. Unlike liberals, conservatives are not quitters! Conservative 16:21, 14 January 2013 (EST) General MacArthur had a little bit more in his CV than being driven out of the Philippines in 1941. You, User:Conservative, are just heaping announcement of announcement (since at least 2010), but when General MacArthur made an announcement like "I came out of Bataan and I shall return", he followed through.... --AugustO 16:38, 14 January 2013 (EST) Advanced copies of the cp:Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students has been sent to young people in America, Canada and Australia.[40] You do know what the creationists will be saying soon, don't you? Veni, vidi, vici! 2013 is going to be a VERY BAD year for Darwinism![41] It is already happening, just like it was predicted![42][43][44][45] I hope that clears things up. :) Conservative 01:29, 9 March 2013 (EST)

It's amusing to see that when accused (in a deleted discussion on deleted discussions) of merely "heaping announcement on announcement" without following through, Ken mentions the Question evolution! booklet as a counterexample. Indeed, Ken, "that clears things up"! --larron (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

One good thing about this fiasco for Ken is that due to his extreme embarrassment he has now not edited cp for almost 24 hours. When was the last time that happened? Ken, really, we know you are a liar. We know you are a blowhard. We know you need rest and medication and help. You have had 24 hours of relative normality, do yourself a favour and don't edit for another 24 hours. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A boring, obvious liar. I looked up cp:Project 200+. Here a short excerpt:

Significant expansion of Project 200 Plus planned for the latter half of 2013

On July 9, 2013, a Question Evolution! Campaign group involved in Project 200 plus indicated that the campaign will see its biggest expansion in the latter part of 2013 or the early part of 2014: “”Today, we sent 3 creationist groups the third draft of the Question Evolution! Campaign book for middle school students. The last feedback form we got back from a young person was for the second draft of the book and the feedback form rated the book an 8 out of 10. This third draft is fantastic and we are looking very forward to receiving the feedback forms.... We expect the book to be published in 2013 or at the latest the first quarter of 2014... And of course, on the eve of the book coming out we will go full blast on expanding our Project 200+ campaign which will be a worldwide and fast growing coalition of creationists. We will have our supporters in the Bible belt states of the United States assist us since we have found that they have a lot of fire in their belly. References: The publishing and promotion of the Question Evolution! book in 2013 will be glorious! The rapid expansion of the Question Evolution! Campaign is drawing near. Also, a few reasons why global atheism deserves to keep on shrinking

Ken, remember, the internet is like Las Vegas: what happens on the internet, stays on the internet. Forever. --larron (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ronald Reagan famously said: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Lol, no he didn't. GWB tried to say and bungled it, other than that, it's an old saying. ħuman 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Along with others before him and since, James Doohan certainly said it, in his character as chief engineer of the starship Enterprise. That other actor, the avuncular bumblefuck Reagan, may have said it, but it was neither a memorable nor famous occasion. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's as old as the hils. My mother used to say it to me when I was still wearing short trousers to school and I've not done that since the start of the 1970's. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken bores me to tears. It's the same old crap week in week out, year in year out. His bizarre writing style, his empty delusional promises and threats, his remarkably uneventful and colourless fantasy life. He has the originality and imagination of a breeze block. At least Schlalfy occasionally comes out with new and inventive stupid. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the same crap, alright. And he doesn't even bother to make up any stories anymore when he is caught red-handed (especially nicely done by GregG, answering to Ken's question "Did I claim a booklet would be out in January 2013? If so, where?"). No "I haven't slept for three weeks" or "I've to be away from the computer for three years" when presented with his lies. Todays, he just soldiers on, showing the world the worst side of self-righteous Christianity ("I only lie to infidels - that shouldn't count. And if I mislead Christians, well, those aren't TRVE Christians, so, it doesn't count neither") --larron (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)