Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive330

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 June 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>, <329>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Discussions at Conservapedia...[edit]

... just don't happen anymore.

Have a look at the pages which were edited in March 2014 - 800 pages were edited, only 113 pages gathered at least five edits.

Ns-art-cp-5-2014-Mar.svg

What's perplexing is that there are only five talk-pages in this picture - indeed, only twelve talk-pages were edited at all:

Talk Page #edits
Main Page 135
Age of the Earth 8
Sturmabteilung 7
Nazi Germany and homosexuality 6
Liberal denial 5
Conservative Bible Project 2
Islam 2
Conservative parables 2
Bestiality and Britain 1
Kwangju Riot 1
Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows 1
Terrorism 1

--larron (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's striking that Chuckbum (TerryH) now only uses CP for link-spamming his own blog. Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Now? NOW? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 15:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So ken is back[edit]

And dribbling his shit all over cp again. What EXACTLY is he trying to tell us here [13]? It links to this which links through to this. What is going on in what passes for his mind? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wall Drug is some roadside tourist trap-type thing that you have to see, if you ever have the misfortune to be in South Dakota. Other than that, I can only assume the Inscrutable One is hinting at a countdown to some other even that will never happen. Still, good to see Ken's finished crying in the corner after his last round of lies came home to roost - maybe now he'll provide some more easily refuted lies. I'm guessing that due to illness and death threats from atheists, his long-haired creationist sweetheart wasn't able to finish the booklet, but once she's installed in the new super secret bunker, the booklet will be ready by the end of 2015. Or because numerous organisations are making demands on his time as a spelling-bee winning English instructor, he won't be able to give the project his full attention for the next 3 years. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, to the surprise of nobody, whatever was dribbling out has dribbled away again as he burns the page - again. Way to go ken, I guess you were decided to spend more time on getting your booklet published in the first quarter of 2014 eh? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The next memory hole is approaching fast - or, perhaps, Ken has just forgotten to add www.teapartycrusaders.com to the list cp:Essay:Best News Sources: even Andy is fooled only two out of three timesimg :-) --larron (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
AND gone. Before even capbot had a chance. Welcome back kenny, good to see you've not learnt anything about honesty while you were away. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are the three news items in their full glory. The first one was the juciest, but it's nice that Andy thinks that the second and third are news-worthy...

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

New Jersey Chris Christie Changing Party Affiliation to Democrat. (http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/obama/breaking-nj-chris-christie-changing-party-affiliation-democrat-remember/)


Could U.S. Constitution Be Changed to Eliminate Second Amendment? (http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s-politics/u-s-constitution-changed-eliminate-second-amendment/) The continued push for a constitutional convention is fraught with potential problems.


Muslims say Easter Egg Hunt invitation at a public school violates the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s-news/muslims-say-easter-egg-hunt-violates-u-s-constitution/) America has a Christian heritage so there is no constitutional problem. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LniL7p8Hn0U)

--larron (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
So is TPC a parody site then? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The big question is whether Ken thought the Christie story was real. It's not like him to post a satirical article as "news," and his quick burning of the evidence would support the theory that he thought it was real. That could point in the direction of Asperger's as his mystery affliction. Whoover (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, Ken's mystery affliction is stupidity. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
here in the socialist/atheist UK, ken could have got his head removed from his arse on the NHS years ago, free of charge to boot AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but he would have caught liberal. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
not with his machismo, surely? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
He might of learnt to reed and right properly to. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
^^^I lolled^^^. (have) ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ken is probably going to die from the toxic secular, liberal air if he sets foot in France as well. And the French probably won't want him either unless it's to mock or ridicule him. LEFTYGREENMARIO 17:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Setback for the liberal agenda[edit]

Is actually a setback for the economic recovery. Nice spin Andy.[1]img [2]img --Mercian (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So Ken likes christian songs[edit]

Especially those by Pentatoniximg. So that would be the Pentatonix that support LGBTQ rights and contains 2 openly out members would it Ken? Count down to burning all evidence in 3, 2, ......... Oldusgitus (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he doubled down by adding another Pentatonix "christian" song, but ... burned. It's possible he hadn't seen this thread yet, but that's questionable since he left the other "christian" song up. I guess it's a "christian" song, but it's sort of shabby treatment of the term to accept it from some degenerates. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
aaaand oversighted. Tee hee. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm moderately surprised it took so long tbh. Do try to keep up ken. If we are telling you things it is because they are true and you are a confused liar. Now, about that bookelt you were publishing in the first quarter of 2014. Any news? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
SunTzu, OG. Sun Tzu. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought his ownership of atheism and evolution pamphlet was due in early/late 2012 or maybe last week? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Larron[edit]

Is it possible to see a visualization of how frequently Ken oversights edits or deletes the entire history in a period of whatever granularity makes sense? He can't burn the patrol logs, and checking those diffs will give the familiar WM "bug" message. I would work on a script to do it, but I frequently get fail2ban jailed (or whatever) and have serious server error problems — he really needs to upgrade his hosting plan — it's completely inadequate these days. I suspect that he burns a very substantial number of his actual edits. Not sure whether WM counts such edits for purposes of its counter — if not, it's sad to think of a person as even more deeply obsessed with issues he has to lie about to present according to his cult's bias. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cursory search of his last 50 edits, so definitely not the final word — 36% oversighted. Wow. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Until 2013, I regularly looked up the user contributions - at least of the active editors. Then, it was possible to identify the missing edits, at least for the auto-patrolled contributors. But crawling Conservapedia became more and more cumbersome: nowadays, I'm just gathering the new revisions once a month. If at this time Ken has already deleted a revision, I'll spot it. OTOH, if Ken deletes the revision only after I've stored it away, I'll generally won't know about it. Keeping this in mind, here are two graphics illustrating deletions at Conservapedia:

Ken's edits
Deleted pages
  • The first one shows Ken's edits per month. You find the edits which I know to be deleted marked blue. The brown part includes not deleted edits - and edits which may be deleted (Rumsfeld's known unknowns?) In the background, the percentage of definitely deleted revisions per year is shown.
  • The data for the next graphic is taken from the - public - deletion log of Conservapedia. So it is quite accurate, but it only shows delete pages! In 2010, Ken learned how to hide/delete revisions, and I have no direct way to get this data. Again, in the background, the percentage of deletions performed by Ken per year.

Sorry for the delay, I had stuff to do :-) --larron (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia permanently down?[edit]

ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're just on the giant IP shit-list. Use a proxy. Whoover (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We are the Tea Party extremists - nice work on that[edit]

http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s-politics/tax-day-rnc-sues-irs/

And so the second or sometimes first largest party in the US sues the government (OK, the IRS) over the extremist wing of the party trying to get tax breaks for their political activity. I doubt one in ten of the tea party idiots understand how to set up a non-profit organisation correctly. The other nine are undoubtedly breaking the law. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a spoof site? --Revolverman (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but it appears to be a true story. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 01:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So why can't Eskimos grow fur?[edit]

Probably for the same reason that RoseAnn Salanitriimg can't grow a brain. — Unsigned, by: Ephess / talk / contribs

If you want a serious answer humans living in very cold conditions can wear clothes which no other animal can. Therefore humans don't need to evolve fur. Proxima Centauri (talk)

^ +1 for Proxy. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No. That's not how evolution works. Evolution doesn't work based on what a species "needs." It works by random mutations which provide comparative advantage. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but clothing means that a random mutation to restore our fur would not have been that advantage. The mutation might not have occurred, but had it, it would likely have resulted in her inability to find a date due to long-ingrained behavioral preference, with clothing removing any advantage. Whoover (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think humans have occurred way too recently in history to evolve to have fur. Remember, we have evidence that humans originated in Africa, so having heavy fur won't be much use. Humans have migrated to many parts of the world, so they need something more immediate (clothes) to shelter themselves. LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Why don't they ever cite the lack of Eskimo fur as proof that they weren't designed well? Whoover (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh because wp:Lamarckism, and I know Terry and his goons know better. She's openly misrepresenting the TOE to score some cheap religious point because most rank and file YECs are ignoramuses when it comes to the science. And I look forward to seeing Terry defend the article in comments. Like Rayment, he argues without the least bit of principle. If the "evolutionist" makes a claim or opposes whatever the YEC thinks is orthodox YECism, the "evolutionist" is wrong. QED. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Watching sites like CNAV is like watching a train wreck in process. As a scientist, reading anything Terry and friends has to say on scientific endeavours is always a soul-crushing experience. - Grant (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You're an evolutionist scientist. You don't have a soul. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's true. I'm effectively pure evil. I forgot about that. - Grant (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what they would say about hypertichosis? Ayzmo (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If I can channel my inner PJR for a moment.... LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION! Ugh. That was unpleasant. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that even PJR has an inner PJR. He's so awful. But when I see how for the last 7 years he's gotten on so poorly with creationists and fundies at CreationWiki and CP, and made a career out of cretrolling at WP, it's plausible. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
PJR is right up there with Andy in the ability to send fellow travelers running for the hills. That's the problem with always being right. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of like how he gave Dmitry THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT!!!1! For, as near as I can tell, not very much at all. But wow does that highlight how he'll take any power trip he can get no matter how small. I'm not sure falsely reporting someone for spam really will do much, but it's enough to know that Terry wants him to SUFFER!! --Kels (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Long time lurker (back to the early days), first time editor. Yeah, Terry seemed to extract a real amount of satisfaction from de-registering my wordpress account (for the second time; the first was when I rebutted each of "The Eagle"'s proofs of Obama's secret Muslim agenda). What genuinely confuses me is how he seems to tolerate Fergus tearing him a new cloaca, but berates me for "civility" when I tell him he seems to have no working knowledge of all that he rails against. Ah well, I'm perfectly content to just watch the idiocy flow like lava.
Incidentally, I have next to no wiki-etiquette, so if I break the entire site's formatting or something, apologies in advance. Dmitry (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fergus puzzles me too. Maybe Terry realizes on some level that without him, there's nothing really worth reading on the site. --Kels (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't Fergus here at one stage or am I imagining that? I tend to think coke eyes keeps Fergus there because he needs to be seen to be allowing some disent and Fergus tends to attack Walt Brown and his craziness rather than terry directly. You were kicked into touch because you blatantly told terry he was stupid and needed to educate himself. Remember, this is the man who will own THE GENERATOR when that crafty Obama finaly installs the dictatorship. You should be bowing to him, not telling him he is an uneducated moron. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish that Obama would get on with it. I bought this generator ages ago and now it's just taking up valuable nuclear bunker space. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And sometime overnight MatthewJ has handed Terry and Roseanne a comprehensive combined education and metaphorical spanking. Top work Matthew, I can't wait to see Terry's 2 line dismisal of your opus. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A truly remarkable response from Matthew J. No doubt Terry will be offended, but the tone was perfectly civil throughout. I particularly liked 'Your odds of winning the lottery don’t go up if you really really really need the money.' Worm (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is excellent. Re-reading the original post I had a good laugh at this sentence: "Perhaps [something about transitional fossils is] why Evolutionists fight so frantically for the known errors and hoaxes to be kept in textbooks." Putting things in textbooks: that well-known way of keeping them completely secret. Terry's excommunication of Dmitry ("Let it be known...") is pretty hilarious too. Cantabrigian (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I love that he has fake porn videos popping up on his site (you don't have the required codec scams), very classy.131.107.147.33 (talk)
It's actually rather sweet really, he's taken the option of completely ignoring the educational humilitation heaped on him by Matthew. To an extent I can't say I am surprised, he is one of the most deliberately mendacious 'debaters' I've ever witnessed. And as for the porno vids, I don't get them. Perhaps it's something to do with cookies on the machine? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Now the comments are just a long string of asskickings.img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel terribly sad for people like this. So small, so enclosed, so dead. Their vision of the universe is as myopic as their vision of God. No wonder, no majesty. Just anaemic petty stunted unimaginative piousness. Jesus would give them a good kicking. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a mate of mine who runs a bicycle and motorcycle shop in Reading who is an xian. He drinks, smokes and swears worse than I do. I was speaking to him the other day and his attitude is that 'Do you really believe the disciples didn't swear, they were working class blokes in an incredibly hard land and they most likely swore and drank just as much as I do. And so did Jesus. I cant stand all these pious holier than thou idiots. When I die god will have a place for me because he knows me well enough.' At which point he hawked, spat and set off home to have a nice beer. He'll be in church tomorrow on his kness but tbh THAT is the kind of xian I like. He is quite willing to talk about his faith if you want to do so. But if not then he will talk about his bikes and beer. Give me those xians any day and, please goat, save me from the likes of terry. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Damn right! Can you imagine God's horror at seeing His creations just sitting in the mud and refusing to use the one defining feature that man has - his intelligence? It must really get on His tits. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm trying to reply to his post on the uniform distribution of isotopes and volcanoes but I can't see a box for the captcha :( Ayzmo (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's there, the field just has no border so it's effectively invisible. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wonder if that's intentional to discourage people from posting? Ayzmo (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt Hurlbut knows any CSS. His site is so slow from all the broken javascript from WP addons and ad network stuff that I don't think he knows anything about the web at all. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Coming a little late to this and, responding to the initial question, Eskimos do show some metabolic differences to non-Eskimos. These could be heat adaptations. For that matter other groups show adaptation to high altitude. So while we haven't grown fur, some subgroups have evolved in other ways.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's been pointed out to them in the discussion. But they just pick on one adaptation that hasn't happened - therefore creationism. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You're talking science -- they're hearing lies from the pit of hell. Does anybody understand how embryology got on the short list? Maybe they think embryology is the theoretical branch of abortionism? I do love how the deer seem to be following along with great interest. Whoover (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Embryology suggests that there is some relationship between the bits that form gills in fish and the bits that form the jaw and ear and neck parts of humans. The truth is that the sky wizard designed us forspecial, and our arches and pouches have nothing to do with their arches and pouches, etc. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As much as YECs need to know is what CMI and AiG say about Ernst Haeckel's 19th century lithographs. Not particularly surprising that they would then be prepared to dismiss all the really exciting advances made since the war. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Listen! Don't mention the war!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The level of cognitive dissonance required to hold YEC viewpoints is astounding. I will never cease to be amazed. - Grant (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Next lifetime, I'm going to be an STS anthropologist and do my fieldwork on YECs. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear flying goat. Terry is now quoting The Lord of the Rings to try to justify his increasingly insane crap. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention falling back on the old "but the Chinese characters for boat show 8 people, blah, blah." He's grasping at so many straws, one of the Three Little Piggies is homeless. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've literally no idea how to debate someone who claims that all the knowledge of a catastrophic event being forgotten is evidence that a catastrophic event happened. Never mind the other nonsensical responses, where does one go from there? Ayzmo (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A tiny bit of credit for Terry?[edit]

Can I stick my neck out and suggest that Terry deserves a tiny bit of credit for engaging in debate about his version of YEC craziness? (So long as you keep the tone reasonably civil.) Instead of shutting out people who disagree with him (Schlafly), abusing them as individuals (Karajerk) or abusing the entire socioeconomic group to which they belong (Ken). The fact that Terry's ideas about geology, physics, biology - almost any science, really - make one's head spin is a different matter. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Mad as his ideas are, he's willing to debate them. Even more, when a discussion ends with a comment that demolishes his argument (which is often) he'll usually approve that comment and leave it on the site. He doesn't flamethrower the evidence like the dribbling cretins at CP do.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 13:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Fraid I must respectfully disagree. Credit should be awarded for genuine intelligence and positive ideas, not for being slightly less contemptible and pathetic in one isolated situation than the likes of Andy and Ken. Plus his motives for continuing this discussion are unknown and could be anything from not wanting to look like a coward in front of his fundie brethren to wanting to convert the guy to an actual desire to engage in a debate, and thus probably should not be automatically assumed to have a positive root. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I can really muster more thanthis for a guy who is slightly less of a douche than his comrades in defending a false and dangerous idea. Sorry. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The comments are the only bit that's interesting of most of these blogs; If the Kens opened their comments section I guarantee page views would go up by an order of magnitude...
I think OP is missing that Terry's obvious and admitted purpose in publishing comments is to, in his mind, show "evolutionism" up to be a false doctrine. He's also not permitting free speech in any strong sense — he regularly censors posts from several posters there when they make him look like too much of a fool. Terry's no different than CMI when it publishes comments and then "responds" to them by disagreeing with every point made. YECs have to disagree with anything that goes against their bible; they also seem to reflexively disagree with anyone they think is hostile to their cults, which explains Terry rarely actually fully responding to comments on the merits, but rather addressing the commenters' beliefs and then categorically denying the whole premise of the discussion. They do this without the least bit of principle, notwithstanding their bogus claim to a source of "objective morality". Terry using people as fodder for bullshit apologetics and bad theology isn't laudable. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Terry also has a nasty habit] of selectively responding to comments that aren't so hard to "knock down." He seems to spend a lot of time sidestepping the main thrust of any arguments against him, and instead settles on whatever minutiae he can dismiss easily and without much thought. I believe the purpose of his responses is more to reinforce his credibility in front of those who already agree with him. I can't imagine he seriously thinks he's going to turn "evolutionists" astray with his comments. - Grant (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm fairly sure he doesn't. He's stated his belief that "evolutionists'" hearts are hardened to god and that they adhere to naturalism in order to exclude god. In that regard, he's taken a cue from CMI/AiG, which treat their "ministry" against "evolutionary thinking" as a negative apologetics, i.e. based almost entirely on denial and inappropriate burden shifting. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's why I can't (and won't) give him any credit. His "debating" is just an underhanded tactic to advance the same kinds of goals that Ken and Andy advance, and there's no debating involved. He wants the appearance of a debate just enough that someone who lacks an education in physics/astronomy (or geology, biology, or whatever fits the anti-scientific rant of the day) might think he's making valid counter-arguments. He is not, however, and it only takes a rudimentary knowledge of the science behind the theories he's trying to challenge to realize that he's just making feints to solidify his perceived power base. Being insidious doesn't make one deserving of credit, I think. - Grant (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I did say a tiny bit of credit... I don't want to exaggerate but I do think there's some difference between someone who evidently reads all the contributions on his blog even if he then finds some spurious reason for rejecting what he's been told and, on the other hand, someone who accuses people who don't share his viewpoint of buggering sheep. I agree with Michael Reiss when he said that, rather than simply dismissing creationism as an aberration, scientists [MR said teachers specifically] should take the time to explain why it has no scientific basis. We may make no impact on Terry himself but at least someone reading his blog can see that the total bollocks spouted by people like Rosanne and Bradleee can be rebutted. Terry provides a platform for that discussion, however much he likes to get the last word. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The mind of the Kendoll[edit]

Truly atheism in the UK is doomed. DOOOOOOOOMED!img. The reason is because in 15 years by some dodgy projections somewhat less than one in ten Chinese people might be Christians. And 40K Chinese people immigrate to the UK every year. How ever will we cope with this massive influx of 4000 Christians a year? Gosh, churches might even see double digit attendance each week. I also enjoyed him asserting without evidence that all Chinese Christians are creationists, because why not add baseless assumptions to your complete lack of understanding of simple maths. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this post is a response to him being completely ignored by RW for a couple of weeks. Perhaps he is jealous of Terry who WIGO CP has been focusing on. Must be hard for him having a fellow sysop who challenges him for world's biggest fool.--Mercian (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We can't hear you, Ken! We're too engrossed in the record-breaking debate on CNAV, which seems to have grown from hairy eskimos to encompass just about every bit of wingnutty craziness of the YEC camp: hydroplates, fossil columns, age of the earth etc. etc. (how did that all happen anyway?). We just don't care about your hypothetical long-haired Christian Chinese sweethearts invading Blighty. Ephess (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
He had a shout out on anger bears talk page but because we ignored it he went back and memoryholed all changes there from the 28th March to 17th April. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It has a mind?--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 03:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"They". Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 03:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Khant. Olé olé olé. Nutty Rouxnever mind 04:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you’re all being cruel to Ken. At the end of the day he’s still a human being and we need to remember that. I for one hope that before the year’s out he gets his dance with his long-haired creationist sweetheart and at the end of the dance he whispers something sexy into Ken’s ear. JumboWhales (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I started trying to think of what Ken would interpret as "sexy" but then I got scared and stopped trying. X Stickman (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
never mind that the linked Telegraph article says most of the Chinese are there to attend university, so not really immigrants. — Unsigned, by: 73.181.151.235 / talk / contribs

But wait, there's more![edit]

Aww, he's jumping up and down and capering for us.img. That's, er, cute? Let me say this in the form of bullet points, so Ken might have a chance of understanding:

  • Quoting someone else making the same baseless assumption is not the same thing as actually backing up what you say with evidence. Even when you don't hightlight in red the three previous words where they admit that they're making a baseless assumption. I'm sure you frantically googled to find some evidence that all Chinese Christians were creationists, but you'll have to frantically google some more.
  • You keep saying that atheism has a poor retention rate in the US while completely failing to notice that year on year the number of the godless keeps rising. Haven't you stopped to consider that that means that atheism isn't like religion, that it isn't passed on by childhood indoctrination? You're obsessed with this idea of religion as some sort of venereal disease that you've completely failed to notice that it doesn't fucking matter whether your tribe spits out babies like a tennis serving machine in a thunder storm, religion is still following the trajectory of a failing social network and for the same reasons.
  • Are you really still promising that your "campaign" is actually going to do things? Aren't you humiliated enough by the last two years of promises? Jesus fucking wept.

Also, I'll say it again. Since all you're doing these days is capering for our amusement, why don't you come here and do it? It might help you if you actually had an environment where you couldn't burn the evidence all the time. You might stop for five minutes before opening your mouth and shoving your foot in it yet again. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You know you're arguing with Rainman about not watching Wapner, right? It's not good for your blood pressure. Whoover (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
When has Ken done anything that makes you believe he has awesome math skills? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
He's an idiot savant missing the savant part. Whoover (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
How about we not attack someone for something far beyond their control? Ayzmo (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut that stable door! Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you're reading this, Ken, here is an article debunking the atheist retention rate myth. DickTurpis (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

He sent out a FYI, about 10 edits calling Jeeves out for swearing and calling Trent obese before deleting it all. --Mercian (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What a shit-blasting fucknugget. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
All the hallmarks of a courageous man. Acei9 01:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is since he deleted it. Why the hell does he bother posting it if he's going to delete it? Cow...Hammertime! 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
He does it all the time. Who knows what goes through his mind? He probably thinks he's being mysterious like Sun Tzu or something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I can explain it I think, as I have suffered a similar affliction to him. You get something in your head and the mania takes over and it has to come out somehow, usually followed by guilt and regret and a urge to cover your tracks. It's hard to explain precisely. He can do this at CP, and lets face it, it is a harmless release. Still, no excuse for being a turd.--Mercian (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
But God gave us "free will"! Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 08:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyway: Who is the head person at this website and does he suffer from "an abundance of unsightly flab"? I think we should be told! Ephess (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a revolting personal attack on a single person. How that has anything to do with any point he is trying to make is a great mystery of the ages. Trent's opinions are worthy of being taken seriously because they're well-conceived. Chuck Norris' opinions are worthy of ridicule because they're unprincipled, poorly considered, and rigidly dogmatic. This has nothing to do with one's BMI. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ken[edit]

FYI gentleman Mercian, you have to manually capture and upload pages that already exist. Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you deleted several attempts at an FYI some time late last night. The Americans are pretty much asleep by then, and can't in any event look at Conservapedia without using proxies, so it's a drag that's no longer worth much time. The brits are just getting up to start their days, so they don't have a lot of time to obsessively check CP like you do RW. I'm sure some of us are interested in reading your FYI, but you need to leave it up long enough at a time anyone's likely to see it to get the attention you want. Thanks in advance. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It was the same as the last, substituting Jeeves for D Turpis. Only this time Turpis is bad for swearing. Trent is still flabby and obese, really nothing to see.--Mercian (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's back [3]img. Encyclopedic stuff, I love this line. "Liberals fall for a lot of foolish things such as liberalism". Do you wear motley Ken?--Mercian (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


And deleted at 2.15 in the morning. Well done Ken, but at least you let Mercian screen cap it this time. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Liberals are more likely to believe in astrology, palm reading and evolutionary pseudoscience..." That's brilliant! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I really can't be arsed to even look at a full-screen version of that capture. Nothing that Kenneth does or says is worth wasting my time on as it is just the same old, pathetic, rehashed twaddle. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 09:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus the Atheistic Doctrines of Gravity, Round-Earthism and Pants. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's fun to read old screencaps of his FYI or gentlemen series, just to see how awfully he has failed in his predictions - like The day is coming when you will see anti-atheism and anti-evolution videos on the main page from Dec 2012... --larron (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you read the article Ken (or at least glanced at it). Unfortunately I can't follow the links you provided about the nature of the "nones", as it only exists as a screenshot, but I have a pretty good idea of what it says, and I'm sure it cherry-picks many "facts". I never said the nones don't believe in god; if they didn't they'd be atheists. Nevertheless, most aren't "Christians" in anything other than the sense that they celebrate Christmas and other such holidays, and they certainly are very unlikely to be young Earth creationists, which is what you're always harping about. Additionally, I assume the 26% of atheists are "nones" or some similar non-religious categorization, rather than Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and the like is because if any significant percentage of them did join such groups, it would be highly noteworthy and the the survey certainly would have mentioned it. It did not. Therefore it is quite safe to assume that the number of atheists who converted to these fringe groups is very small - too small to even note. I don't know exactly what they became when they abandoned their atheism, but it wasn't Christianity for more than about 40% of them, totaling well under 1 million people. Finally, regarding your predictable assertion that Christians believe in less paranormal mumbo jumbo than atheists, take a gander at this. In case it proves too confusing for your little mind, I'll sum up the basic thesis for you: the study surveyed paranormal beliefs other than those associated with Christianity. Obviously, if they had included religious paranormal beliefs, the number of Christians believing them would be 100%. This is sort of like saying "other than the crazy beliefs certain people have, they are less likely to believe in crazy things than other people." There are other flaws in the study which are pointed out as well. Now as long as I have your attention, how about providing me with all the evidence for Christianity you're always going on about? You love to link to your Christian apologetics article, but it's an article about Christian apologetics, and devoid of any actual evidence beyond "it's in the Bible". There are a few weak arguments for the existence of a god, but that is very different than evidence for the truth of the Bible. DickTurpis (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

CP is down[edit]

So it looks like CP is actually down. Probably run of the mill problems, but I've always wondered if this is what the end will look like. The last numbers larron showed off were dire. Andy would never publicly concede that his project was a failure, so when it is finally over, is he just going to pull the plug? No heads up to peons, no saving your work, just gone? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Kinda how I saw the end times as well. Just done. Has Andy been editing lately? I don't remember seeing him in the RC much, if at all. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's entirely possible Andy doesn't give a fuck any more. He hasn't been around for the past few days (though Roger made his annual appearance for some reason.) Just ripping the whole thing down is probably easier for him than upgrading mediawiki and fixing all the server problems, not to mention purging the built-up pool of insane sysops. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I asked LAaron to generate a chart of recent mainspace edits not counting Martinez and Conservative. I have a feeling it will be a pretty telling list. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth! Scream!! (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked Karajou's angry dome for a rant about how eviiiil RatWiki terrorists had taken down CP. Alas, I was disappointed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
All I care about is that it stays alive until the next POTUS election, but I'm not optimistic. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's back. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It may have been down because God posted about the conservative bible project on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

Anger bear rolls out the welcome wagon[edit]

He sure knows how to make a user feel at homeimg. Kendoll even manages to look reasonable compared to him. I've noticed that Karajou and Chuckarse both have the same internet-tough authoritative bark. I suppose it's how you prove you're manly when you're a wingnut who isn't quite racist enough to enjoy stormfront. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It always makes me giggle seeing the "You will cease....", etc. Such masterful impotence! Ajkgordon (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh be fair to him, he has a lotta anger to work off after 20 years of being outranked by the average can of navy issue tuna, at least abusing newbies lets him feel a lil like hes a real captain. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Jesus even Martinez posts a creepy I know where you are message. Nutty Rouxnever mind 21:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
He sounds like a fortune cookie.

I smell Markman. Whoover (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals[edit]

Well i'll be fucked[14].http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexualsimg--Mercian (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

One could indeed go to prison in the USSR for homosexuality; unfortunately for Ken the same can be said about a gazillion of different jurisdictions governed by Christians and conservatives. The only thing preventing a "Christianity and the persecution of homosexuals" article on CP is the banhammer. - Bill Rawls (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.... could it be that we are about to witness CP engage in the biggest possible flip-flop imaginable? or is this just another incident of conservatives claiming to protect the minorities they despise more than evil librulz? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it could not be either of those. It is an attention seeking moron wanting a wankfest. He has wholeheartedly supported Uganda's and Russia's "persecution of homosexuals" in the very recent past.--Mercian (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably the latter... But if we are going to assume the unlikely, do you think it might have something do with Ken coming to terms with his inner demons? - Bill Rawls (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The universe will have dissipated into a cool grey haze before Ken could deal with all the demons that occupy what passes for his mind.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 21:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken replies to criticism on the article's talk page.[4]img His response can be summed up in one sentence: "I/we/he are tired of atheism and is/are taking a vacation from it." Never change Ken. - Bill Rawls (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I love how he corrects JerryCa's spelling, while misspelling "sox". --A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Do they still have an article named "Nazi Germany and Homosexuality", about how ... Well, it is just too stupid, and I can't check since Conservapedia loads about 1 times in 50 for me. Are the gays bad or good today in Conservapedialand? Dendlai (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh Ken, you are such a sweet little dancing dollimg. Dance again for your masters will you please. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing JerryCa has grown tired of CP and is deliberately trying to get blocked or something.[5]img He has no blocking rights, meaning that he won't even be able to revert Ken's block once the banhammer hits him. - Bill Rawls (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken, if you are going to try to show how you won a spelling bee prize then when you burnimg your spelling mistakes you really ought to burnimg them properly. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite all his posturing and taunts usually being a good indicator of how much Ken is lying, he is probably telling the truth that he didn't write that article. The prose and footnotes are totally uncharacteristic, in that they're better than his work product, although still pretty bad. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You are getting well and truly pwned by Ken on the article's talk page Nutty.--Mercian (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Back to that bunny hole ken eh? He's just burnt the entire talk page for the article. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I can only imagine and I'm shaking my skinny fists at the sky at how darned angry I am! Also, what did he say? Screencap? I just looked and saw that he deleted the page. Like a weird coward. Nutty Rouxnever mind 07:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I was going to cap it this morning after I woke up but he had already retreated to his intellectual bunny hole and hidden whatever he had been humiliated on. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Here. Had a tab open from before it was deleted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, kind number!
  • "They certainly cannot find a single error in the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles!" - and if they do, Ken only has to pretend to be not available for the next three years...
  • "A rather obsessive member of an obsessive atheist wiki is now declaring that User:Conservative is probably more one person" Perhaps User:Conservative has probably more [than] one personality?
--larron (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is tragic to think of conservative's shite to be a group effort. Less than the sum of its parts. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken, I didn't "declare" that you're more than one person. I said that the article doesn't look like it was written by you because your writing is somehow worse. PS Stop lying so much. It's unseemly. And tee hee to you talking about my credibility! I nearly shot hot coffee out my nose, which I'd have had to send you a bill for. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest on MPR[edit]

Isn't stoning adulteresses to death in the bible?--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in the conservabible. It was inserted by libruls or something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought that NOT stoning adulteresses was inserted by libruls. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
My favorite is the tag-team wrestling verse. God really has some issues. Whoover (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Feh, nothing can beat the classic "Iron Chariots beat up god and take his lunch money" passage. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The stoning adulterers thing is in Deuteronomy Chapter 22, which has not been deemed as liberal (yet). Cow...Hammertime! 13:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Andy[edit]

Seeing as you're big on treesimg and shit (mostly shit though), Google "Old Tjikko" and feast your eyes on a tree that's 9,550 years old. How does that factor into your counter-examples? Or if you want to limit your search to American trees, have a look at Pando, which might be 80,000 years old...

Also, amazing how you're quite happy to take the lamestream media at face value, when they say something you agree with. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to rain on your shit parade (an improvement?), but liberals admit their own errors and someone was wrong on the internet, blah blah blah... By "unitary" I assume Andy means an organism that hasn't vegetatively cloned itself and is counting older clones as part of its lifespan. That is the case with Old Tjikko and Pando, altho with the former the root systems have been verified by carbon dating to be ~10,000 old. A rare example of Andy being technically correct! Shakedangle (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, Andy and friends don't exactly put much stock in carbon dating. This is convenient, since dendrochronology has a rough upper limit of ~11000 years. We have seen before that anything younger than 100 000 years or so is apparently admissible evidence for YEC according to Andy. - Grant (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The other thing being that if the Flood was a thing, wouldn't these trees be about 4,000 years old? And Snarkdandlies, cloned or not, 9,500 years still trumps Andy's 6,000 years for the age of the Earth. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but you're forgetting that some trees and other vegetation (somehow) survived the flood. That's how the animals survived after and stuff, right? - Grant (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No argument from me there Psylocke, but like Grant mentioned, Creationists reject carbon dating. I'm just sayin, and I'm sure you're aware, rubbing their faces in mere facts and evidence just makes them double down harder and further isolate themselves... oh I see, you're encouraging them. Shakedangle (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd think the >4,000 age would be a problem. Most vegetation survived because seeds. But submerging a tree for a year, subjecting it to Richter 12 upheaval and all the radioactivity that Hurlbut is always going on about can't be good for its health. God woulda hada shine his countenance on that tree big time. It's the Jesus of the Gymnospermae. Whoover (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Kenny, kenny, kenny. Really. Do you want to be humiliated again? 4 editsimg for that pearl of wisdom which no doubt you will burn in an hour or so? Was it really worth either your time or bothering anger bear with? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, that reminds me of the time he boasted that CP has a higher Alexa rank than WP. It was similar to today's ranks, 23,396 for CP vs. 7,544 for WP. They're almost four times higher! Take that atheists. Olé, Olé, Olé. Whoover (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Updated capture[15][6]img. Why is he using karajou's page for his shout outs? Karajou always seems to ignore him. There was also a now burnt footnote that suggested a $2000 charity donation should also be included in addition to the sincere public apology--Mercian (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Holy shit, with Ken it has basically been the same text moved around into a new comment so many times now it has lost all meaning. He hasn't had an original thought or message in five years. What a fucking hopeless plonker. Acei9 01:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
And burnt. Back to the bunny hole kenny boy. Olé, Olé, Olé as I think I heard you once say. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
We should honestly ignore him. It is not our fault that it may send him over the edge. RW is not his therapy and if it was by he should have to pay for it, or at least have insurance. He has no audience elsewhere. Karjou ignores him, he is an embarrassment to Andy. That right Ken, two of the biggest twats on the internet want fuck all to do with you. When someone does react, Jamesws for example he blocks them for a week before deleting his acount. First one to react to him is a cad. --Mercian (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 at Conservapedia[edit]

April 2014 was the month of cp:User:Joaquín Martínez:

Bubbles-opt-ordered-ns-0-Conservapedia-201404.svg

His feat is impressive: perhaps a dozen user have made more than 1600 edits in a month. User:Conservative is topping the list with eight month of more than 1600 edits - he holds the overall record with ~3700 edits in a single month...

TeenageWasteland asked '"'Would it be possible to see a list of the number of main space edits per day on CP going back, say, 90 days, minus the edits of Martinez and Conservative?"

Well, here is at least something similar: a 28-days moving average display of the number of edits to all namespaces. 28-days-ma, you may ask? Elementary, my dear Watson: for each day, the average number of edits over the previous four weeks is given. E.g., at the end of April the number for all editors combined is 120, so in the previous four weeks, i.e., roughly the month of April, 120 edits were made per day.

Editors.001.366.735718.14.11.png

(BTW: in these pictures, each month has 30.437 days, therefore they don't align perfectly with reality. Just a matter of laziness)

When we look at the percentages, we see that Joaquín have contributed some 40% of all edits. And have a look at August 2013, when Conservapedia became Kenservapedia, at least for a month...

Editors.002.366.735718.14.11.png

These pics a misleading in one regard: it seems that Conservapedia became dominated by two - three editors only over the last few month. Fact is, that at every time, only a few guys (yep, always guys) contribute the bulk of the edits, but the member of the cast change frequently. So, here is a picture of the contributors sorted by number of edits over the last four weeks (again, the 28d ma) This means the the top tier represents Joaquín in Apr 2014, but Ken in Aug 2012:

Editors.003.366.735718.14.11.png

(For obvious reasons, the missing edits have been omitted). Again, let's take a look at the percentages:

Editors.004.366.735718.14.11.png

What's the result of Joaquíns efforts? Hard to say, but the number of views (according to cp:Special:Statistics) wasn't increased:

Total-views-monthly.svg

--larron (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this, CP had 56 editors in April 2014, 9 of which are blocked. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
After almost a decade of this schtick I am curious as to why JM still bothers, especially since he seems to be one of the more IRL successful and least briefs-shittingly insane bigwigs of the site. Surely there must be greener and happier fields to apply one's talent at nicking images off the internet? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If someone who has no problem with dictators or stealing from small business people is a step up from the rest of them ... Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sadly it is. By a pretty wide margin actually. JM at least in the ballpark of sanity (though utterly remote from any basic decency given the factors you mentioned) whereas the rest of them include a feral ex-deckswabber, a generator fueled randroid who masturbates over the "imminant apocalypse", the man who declared the very word "christian" to be an evil liberal conspiracy along with black holes and the idea Obama is not a muslamic gay negro communist, and Kendoll. Honestly he could better entertain whatever whim he satisfies with CP on any number of other wingnut sites. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 21:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything is 6000 years old[edit]

The best thing about that "news the MSM isn't covering" post is that once clicked, it gives you many living things older than assfly's 6000 year older "bristle anal pine cones"...did i misquote ta assfly?...meh who cares ye seems to be ok with such thingsss...GhostOfJoshJoad (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We've already dealt with that. See "Hey, Andy" above. Spud (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Conservative fails at basic civics[edit]

Because he won a majority of the votes in the Electoral College during the last presidential elections.img That's why. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually not heard that quote before so I went to find it. Amazingly enough, Ken managed not to misquote Obama - although he did use somewhat selective quoting, as the rest of that paragraph concludes 'those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.' Nothing wrong with that really. And to be clear, is Ken taking the position that the future should belong to those who slander Islam? Nice attitude. Probably didn't read back a couple of paragraphs either. Andy would not be happy. 'The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.' Worm (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In the minds of these extremists, who also tend to be YEC for some reason hrmm, you cannot slander a false religion. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Did anyone catch the latest FYI from Kennyboy?172.218.56.70 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, Ken made some threads against Human a while ago (Details, anyone?). Now he is back-paddling. His FYI linked to this text:

A few clarifications and a few sundry items:
1. Never believe the testimony of a bitter person who you think is preoccupied with conspiracies. A member of our collective never planned on cyber attacking or googlebombing a small businesses website nor did he/she pray that someone in his/her church would be ex-communicated.
I know some of you long for a member (or members) of our collective to be unforgiving and vindictive, but it simply isn't so. For example, when the "pesterfester" asked to return to editing a certain website, the person who was "pesterfestered" was not opposed. Life is too short to hold grudges.
2. A member of our collective did pose as Patrick the singing leprechaun mentioned in Shockofgod's video "Leprachaun gets cussed out by angry atheists". Voice changing software was used while singing the song.
"Patrick" was recently asked by someone in his neigborhood to karaoke sing at a local tavern. In 2014, Patrick plans to karaoke sing. Should this occur, two of the songs that will be sung are All or nothing at all and When Irish eyes are smiling.

A couple of hours late, the following was posted to Karajou's talk-page, and deleted shortly after:

very sad
Based on the testimony of someone they say you cannot have a rational discussion/argument with, someone has been accused of being a vindictive/unforgiving person who planned to Google bomb and/or cyber attack a small business's website. In addition, it was claimed that a certain person prayed that someone would be ex-communicated from his/her church. Neither of these claims is true.
Of course, a great irony of the charge is that I/we had no problems with this person returning to be an editor of this wiki as long as he behaved himself. So much for my/our vindictive/unforgiving disposition.
Well, it turns out that your were right about this person. It was probably best he was not given the opportunity to be an editor again. He was not ready to return.
Of course, all he needs to do to be an editor again is to apologize and show fruits of his repentance like emailing us 100 pages of wiki content plus bringing us "a shrubbery". :) I joke about this because we both know it is very unlikely he will be an editor again given his attitude which seems rather entrenched. Conservative 21:45, 4 May 2014 (EDT)

--larron (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A bit of background re: Human. Ken had a very public meltdown on ASoK a few years back and rather backhandedly threatened Human. It got pretty weird but was lost when PJR's server fucked out. Acei9 06:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was lost when PJR deleted it at Ken's request. PJR was so sleazy about protecting him. Birds of a feather flock together. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
" In 2014, Patrick plans to karaoke sing." I'm assuming the planning involves getting permission from your caregivers to go out for the night? Or maybe they'll bring a system in to the home's rec room for you? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 06:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Ken's milestones are so sad and pathetic. Whereas mine are "My wife and I welcomed our first child into the world" or "I'm excited about my upcoming trip to South Africa" Ken's are "I am going to be singing karaoke at a tavern" or "I was third in a spelling bee". So very sad. Acei9 21:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Incidently, you have a new FYI. Brenden (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In case he purges, http://www.webcitation.org/6PN6bbmEv Brenden (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why won't Andy or his goons do anything about a mentally ill weirdo drooling on their site? Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ken! Unless you've forgotten about the Fab Five CP admin group, you aren't in the inner circle either. And even in the old Zeugloden Blues group, nobody replied to your posts. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
First rule of the Inner Circle.... Ajkgordon (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was any possible way on God's Earth I could find out where it was happening, I'd relinquish both of my testicles to witness Patrick the singing leprechaun in action. I could die happy once I'd seen that. DogP (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The latest FYI is the saddest yet...[edit]

So sadimg. The only accomplishment he can list is beating TK in a debate and the possibility of karaoke singing at some point this year. Ken your a sad man. This year I celebrate my 3rd wedding anniversary, my daughters first birthday, I am heading to Raratonga for a holiday in the summer and plan to spend many nights out with friends and family. Those are real accomplishments - you need to get out more. Acei9 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ken, don't fool yourself. I know who you are. After all, Human and I made it our business when we were monitoring whether your meltdown on aSK threatening Human's business progressed to the level of requiring an injunction. Just as you, being a former debt collector, believe you know how to disappear, I, being a consumer lawyer who sues debt collectors for a living, know the tricks. In any event, Buffalo debt collectors are notoriously incompetent at covering their tracks. I find them and I flip them. A word of advice: don't gloat about your bogus anonymity. It's silly. Nutty Rouxnever mind 01:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention that those are the accomplishments of not one man, but a group of people. The saddest group of people in the world. Vulpius (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC
Kenneth. If you want anyone to see your shoutouts, you need to leave them up longer. I don't look at CP that much. Maybe a few times in the evening every few days. I can't and don't want to keep up with every diff. Give us a break, dude. Just be a man and talk to us without the nonsense. {{Nutty Roux/sig}} (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I really can't be arsed to do a capture but this is the latest from Karajou's talkpage [7]img
"Ace the atheist clown"

"Some atheist gentleman named Ace, and I am using the term gentleman loosely, is publicly embarrassing himself by further inflating his already over inflated ego. He is publicly mentioning some planned summer beach excursion with his family to a beach that isn't even ranked one of the top 10 beaches in the world and calling this a "real accomplishment". Atheists have the reputation of being arrogant/socially challenged/pretentious. A reputation that is well-earned!

I feel so sorry for him that he cannot see that he is embarrassing himself. A true gentlemen would be far less ostentatious and not behave like some vulgar nouveau riche clown. Conservative 00:51, 9 May 2014 (EDT) "--Mercian (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Linked at here Brenden (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
wow, that is really sad. Want more ken? I'm top earner for a large multinational as a business consultant, have visited 20 countries in the last 9 years, have a family, a life and fucking hate karaoke. Yeah, my ego is well replenished. Ho ho ho. Why taunt the man? I'm stuck in rush hour traffic and need distraction. Acei9 05:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm permanently broke and all the countries I've visited (apart from California) have been full of people in turbans who tried to kill me. I also like karaoke. However unlike Ken I've managed to write some books.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
And our erstwhile college-English tutor fails with the old "free reign" homonym (amongst several other egregious typos and grammatical errors). Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 13:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Getting stuck in rush hour traffic is typical sissy-boy liberal failure. Conservative he-men beat the traffic by staying in their bedrooms and planning their karaoke nights some time later this year maybe. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Kenneth,
As an Englishman, I find the irony of any American calling someone "nouveau riche" in a derogatory fashion to be hilarious. Please continue your sit-down comic act.
Cheers,
Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 19:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh. "Well, now that I have soundly and repeatedly defeated the delusional denizons of a certain atheist website, I think it is time to move on. No sense beating a dead horse"img. By which I presume he means "profoundly embarrassed myself again." Not to mention made Karajou think you're even more insane. Also, it's spelled "denizens", Kendoll. Better get oversighting, you OCD twat. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Stop picking on the guy with the obvious mental illness. FFS. DamoHi 09:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what. When he stops waving at me I will quite happily stop pointing out his waving idiocy to others. Until then, keep running to that bunny hole ken, I see you've memory holed another whole load of stuff today. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No. Otherwise I'll never feel like a success. Acei9 16:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Vulgar nouveau riche clown. That's you, that is. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah he has my number there - I have no defense. I have never been in spelling bee either. I'm fucked. Acei9 17:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

why are his shout outs done via a link via another link? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sun Tzu? Or to be more precise: Ken is as good as programming as Sun Tzu was. --larron (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
A long time ago (well, not that long actually, maybe a few years ago) I used to care about what people posted to or about me on the internet, I used to get mad/sad/stressed over it... but at some point I realized what most of us have - it really doesn't matter. It isn't worth investing any emotional energy into online debates, feuds, discussions, etc., with people you don't know who may or may not be as they portray themselves. If it doesn't intrude into your real life, it's not important. Once you have this realization, or epiphany, it's very freeing. Refugeetalk page 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't feuding or caring. It is taunting and laughing. Acei9 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I was aiming the comment towards him, not you. He seems somewhat obsessed with you. :p My advice to him is Just let it go, and find a purpose in life that doesn't involve tying your ego up to an internet site. Refugeetalk page 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Todayinfo.jpg
And the problem with that is what? Warning youtube link to lovely kitty. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And he's just burntimg all the history on anger bears talk page back to 27th April to hide his ramblings from public view, once again. I reckon about another 6 hours before his next shout out to us. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, we have the capture (and I took a screen-grab which is on my office PC). Nonetheless I don't mean to boast, I have a pretty average life, better than most but not as good as others, however Ken just makes it so easy with vague allusions to past triumphs at spelling bee's and the possibility of future nights out at karaoke bars. Anyway I should stop fucking around because I have a 3000 word essay on New Zealand's electoral system which due Monday. Spent all day today sleeping after a bit of a bender which ended at 7am this morning so I'll be pulling an all-nighter I think. There's another achievement for you Ken, studying toward a Masters in Political Science while holding down a full-time job, caring for a family and drinking heavily most nights. Boom! Acei9 10:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but you're still not going to one of the world's top ten beaches. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not this year - but I have been to this one. I got drunk at 10am and frolicked in the surf. Acei9 12:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
My eldest has just started work in New Caledonia, next door (relatively) to you. Biggest lagoon in the world, they say - surrounds the whole island. Works for the French ecology ministry. So 35hr week, the rest living the island life. I don't think he's planning any karaoke nights later this year. Only diving, hiking and travelling. Silly boy. He's missing out on a lonely life in a Buffalo bedsit skewering evolutionism on the internets. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I can trace my family back to Tahiti which is why I have slightly olive skin and my daughter has it too. Little know Ace fact - I'm a direct descendant of Fletcher Christian. If you don't know who that is it doesn't matter, but you should probably read more. Acei9 12:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
How about that! I visited a client the other day whose surname is Christian and is a direct descendent. Where his son goes to school, one of the teachers is a direct descendent of Captain Bligh! Ajkgordon (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have always wanted to meet a Bligh descendant so I can rough them up for old times sake. My family branch left Pitcairn first, long before the...unpleasantness occurred. We headed to Norfolk Island then NZ and Aussie. My father has retired back to Norfolk and lives there now. I have made a few trips there to see Fletcher Christians grave (though he was killed on Pitcairn). My families back-story is relatively interesting. Acei9 12:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you related to the Pitcairn islanders Ace?--Mercian (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably most of them - though extremely distantly. Acei9 23:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you be understood in, and understand, freely spoken Pitkern or Norfuk? I'm curious about how long things like that persist in families who emigrate. For my part, I always enjoy having a nice conversation with my three-year-old granddaughter about stuff that interests her. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Um, didn't he just say that? Pitcairn Standard Time (PST) is exactly 12 hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time (PST). This is very helpful if you wish to promise your wife you won't drink before 5:00 PM PST, for instance. It helps to be in California, of course. Whoover (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can't claim any interesting forebears, just a mutt with traces of Welsh or Breton peasantry among other bad influences. Nor any world-shaking achievements neither. I did go to a church basement ground floor coffee hall yesterday evening to play solo fiddle at an open mic, and the crowd was kind. Not much of a churchy crowd, but the Unitarians let their space be used for such purposes, even if one of the fellows sang "Makin' Whoopie" and did it justice. The last tune I gave them was "Whiskey Before Breakfast" and somewhere in the middle of the first time through I heard another fiddle from the back of the room. Mrs. Cogswell continued playing as she strolled up to the front, and we finished it as a duet, complete with a public smooch at the end. Teh crowd went aww.

Today I'm helping around the kitchen as she makes petits fours for tomorrow's recital, where her students will play to friends and family. Later on I will ply her with pinot grigio from Oz while the rice is cooking and at that time I plan to do manly things with a sabatier, a wok, onions, and avian dinosaur's flesh. That should be enough high points for one day. I don't want to strain myself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, to be elderly and in love. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Even better than that, we give daily thanks that we've found ways to live without commuting to a soul-crushing day job in a cubicle, and without kissing up to customers of a business we don't own. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I want to know how to do that! Seriously. :-( I hate wasting my days in a small cube surrounded by 3 walls and by other people confined to cubes who are, for the most part, not very pleasant, continually doing routine work that really doesn't matter, watching the sun cross the sky from my view of the one lone window across the room, while I am imprisoned in my small stuffy cube longing to get out, with my only escape being a half-hour lunch break where I walk around blocks of dirty city streets searching for a tiny park or bit of greenery to refresh my soul... day after day. Refugeetalk page 22:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Sprocket J Cogswell, will you please teach me how to play the violin? Refugeetalk page 22:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be a step in an interesting direction, wouldn't it? Mrs. Cogswell has better qualifications for that than I do, though. Part of our secret is being self-employed, which doesn't work for everyone. At one time I thought the key to life was getting trained at a worthwhile skill, finding a bearable cube job, and setting aside a responsible fraction of wages for future contingencies. Other things happened, but I've got no complaints. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat related[edit]

Ken takes his frustration out on some random user on CP. [8]img172.218.56.70 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

All I see is him purporting to give a new user 27 minutes to do something before he disappeared him. Are there screenshots of anything he burned that might make this more than a big so what? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The new user made an edit to the wikipedia page and ken immeidately burnt both the edit and the user. He did it so quickly that I doubt anyone had a chance to see it. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually spotted it before it got burnt. I didn't screenshot it because it wasn't terribly interesting. It was just disputing the claim that most of the editors of WP are teenagers and unemployed people. I guess that hit a nerve for some reason. Cow...Hammertime! 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ken seems to be missing the irony gene entirely. Thus he demands atheists move to North Korea -- because they're too intolerant for America. Whoover (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

He is getting more brazen. What would the penalty be for breaking your re-instated sodomy laws Ken?--Mercian (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How did we miss[edit]

Thisimg? dwight and terry chuck Rand Paul under the bus as a pesky liberal. Rand sodding Paul is now too left wing for Terry and Dwight, and they wonder why people point at them and laugh. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Were it anyone else, I would say "this should be interesting", but knowing how gutless Andy Schlafly is, we're most certainly not going to see a single word of discussion about a man all of these guys previously celebrated as a Real Conservative. How quickly one's fortune changes in the eyes of these great political experts. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
For there to be drama, wouldn't Andy still have to care? He's pretty much AWOL right now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he's working hard on the Schlafly Beer trademark case - is there any news of that? Cantabrigian (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As of 2nd April heading to trial. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like some of the Schlafly family has an actual sense of humor. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 10:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
#ceaseanddelish. That is great! I wish I could get Schlafly Beer where I'm at, because I'd buy 10 cases right now. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to buy some from ebay but the link on that page doesn't seem to work. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The post was from April Fools Day. I'm guessing the eBay sales ended. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 22:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I didn't notice that. I feel REALLY stupid now. ALmost ken level stupid, but not quite. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You could place your genitalia in a rabid dog's mouth while shocking it in the balls with a cattle prod and still fail to attain ken level stupidity. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you been speaking to my fet friends and associates? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Aww, poor Chucky.[edit]

Seems his partner in insanity has jumped ship to a publication that might get more than five hits a week. Where will he go now for articles that list 10 ways Obama is like the commie-nazis? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt she's gone - these types are the verrucas of the internet - keep turning up in dark, fetid corners. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy reverts JoMar's gallery pages.[edit]

It seems that Andy doesn't quite agree with JoMar on some of his gallery edits. Linkimg and Linkimg. I wonder why, maybe he has finally realized the claimed usage on those images isn't correct now he is lawyering up for his fight against those nasty brewing schlafly's Ghost (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That certainly worked: JoMar hasn't edited since Andy's reverts more than a day ago... --larron (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's Been a Whole Day[edit]

I would have bet that Ken or Andy would have made hay out of Jill Abramson getting canned at the NY Times. It's got it all. Replaced by a black man ("diversity"). Lower circulation ("CP wins"). Lower traffic online (CP wins again over claptrap). It's not as important as more Russian reaction to bearded divas? Whoover (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A Conservapedian, in opposition to an Article V Convention, debated Michael Farris last night before a large crowd[edit]

The Conservapedian is of course no other than Andy himself. The large crowd has gathered in a church, and the debate starts with a prayer. So, if anyone can spare 90 minutes of her or his life to watch the youtube-video, which Andy proudly announces on the main pageimg: I'd be rather thankful to read a summary or a transcript, as I couldn't get over the first couple of minutes... --larron (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can understand the mumbled soundtrack well enough to actually manage to write a transcript they deserve 1,000,000 internets. I tried dropping in and out at various times of the video and the sound doesn't get any better. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Creepy. I'm always deeply suspicious of any crowd who can be made to chant loyalty oaths on demand. I guess that's what comes of daily indoctrination in school. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't so much a debate as the other side giving a lucid statement of his case and Andy saying "no that's not it" and then trotting out a parade of horribles as he narrated an incoherent story that even mentioned him going to the march for life for 6 years. He's a buffoon. Semi-related: I have to finally admit that I was wrong in saying that Andy is the least bit interesting. Mainstream responses to him are interesting. He's a one trick pony. Ken and Terry are the really scary ones. And I have to further admit that I find them more riveting to watch. Ken's always looking for even more extreme nonsense to entertain us with. Terry is just flat out whatever he is. They're the main show anymore as far as I'm concerned. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
But at the end of the day, User: Conservative is what User:conservative is, and that's not really interesting: a guy who struggles with some degree of mental illness saying crazy stuff. The only difference between him and the guy in front of the Metro station with the "Repent Now" sign and the photocopied leaflets is the fact that he seems to be on top of things enough to maintain access to a computer connected to the internet. The most interesting thing about him is his ability to bring out the bad guy in a lot of us here, who are willing to engage with him/goad him/point and laugh at him, when we would probably pass that guy at the station without a second glance. Terry is a boring old crank who basically recycles the party line in of the Tea Party/WND hate-o-sphere.
But Andy has pretty much what is as good an education as is possible in US-America, has at least some vague connections to real power through his family, and in spite of this, is willing to embarrass himself on a regular basis by publicly sticking to arguments that are demonstrably wrong, and does so under his IRL name. And his level of wrong -- Russia as a better place to live than the US, earthquakes as evidence of YEC, underrated sports stars who are the elite in their discipline, the whole CBP, the best of the public, separate exams for girls -- is a sui generis realm of weirdness that even his allies don't buy. To me, that's way more interesting. Father Vivian O'Blivion : Dreamed I was an Eskimo 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I had no idea who Michael Farris is (or an Article V Convention, for that matter), so naturally I looked him up on a completely reliable and unbiased website, where I learn that he is (among other things) "first president of Patrick Henry College, a conservative Christian collage" (emphasis added). Nice work, conserva-guys. Cantabrigian (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Worst. Artwork. Ever. Whoover (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been waiting years for this...[edit]

Somebody, I can't remember who, once wrote on this page that CP would be A Lot More Fun once User: Conservative could embed videos on the front page. Well, unremembered editor, your wish may soon be coming trueimg. Autoplaying flying kitties with every unique visit? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great dodge by Andy. Sure, Ken, you can have videos. Just go away and figure out the technical details. That'll keep the idiot occupied for a few months trying to figure it out. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile in Gotham City three and a half years ago... -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 02:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So now that Ken has finally asked TerryH for help... I have a feeling that sod all will happen. I notice that Ken only mentioned putting videos on the main page to Terry, not sticking them all over the place. I guess we could still get "Atheism is a cat playing a keyboard and doesn't know it!" and "Atheism is a baby called Charlie biting a boy's finger and doesn't know it!" but it's been a while since Ken used any really stupidly captioned pictures, like the firefighter of Atheism being unable to stop the fire of Christianity, I think he might have moved on. Spud (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
He has moved on. He used to show a bizarre creative side to his "work", now he just trolls people.--Mercian (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Meh, CP has already faded into irrelevance, even among the rabid TPers and 'sovereign citizens' it was meant to appeal to in the first place. Can we switch the name of the page to "WIGO_Ken" already?--Umichcynic (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It pretty much is now. Since Joaquin seems to have been given the boot, it's entirely Ken's show now. The changes per day are down to practically nothing. Even their news is just endlessly reprinting the contents of "Teaparty Crusaders." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Correction: right wingers never took CP seriously from day one. It can't even appeal to fringe cranks. It was, in a word, stillborn. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That's right, CP never quite struck the right balance to appeal to anyone, aside from power hungry mini internet dictators, the mentally ill and liberal trolls. Andy's a strange bird. He's much too pro-establishment (with delusional hopes of having a position of real power) to fall into the usual right wing paranoid NWO conspiracy mindset, aside from dabbling in a bit of birtherism, that is. Instead, he prefers his own bizarre personal conspiracies about Castro dieing and the liberal NFL shunning Tim Tebow for his beliefs. This makes him too nuts to appeal to the mainstream chamber of commerce style Republicans or pseudointellectual neocons. Throw in some incompetent leadership and you have the disaster that is CP.

Atheist doctor[edit]

[16][9]img. Is this deliberate ignorance, lies or another trolling attempt? He should be well aware that in atheist hell holes like Germany, The UK and Scandinavia that doctors do not turn you away if you have no or inadequate insurance, not like they do in the conservative paradise that is the USA.--Mercian (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just Ken. He's a fucking moron. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess he found some new clip-art he wanted to use Ruddager (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, for the umpteenth time, can we stop posting every time the Collective of Ken has a brain fart? Now that the booklet is no longer happening / has missed the last declared deadline, etc, etc, we really are his only source of amusement. So the next time, you want to post about something Ken's just written, close your eyes, and picture him masturbating furiously as he reads your comment. Still want to post that comment? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
You bastard!! Even brain bleach won't shift that. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
My work here is done... PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesus is coming? Tell him to piss off[edit]

A nice example of the schizoid Bircher mentalityimg over on Terry's house o' dumb. They really can't decide whether they want the world to end or not. My favourite part is the complete mixing up of the thief in the night metaphor. I guess if Jesus is coming like a thief in the night, Roseann's going to be waiting with her glock of deicide +10. A man's home is his castle after all. Proof positive these nutters have never actually read the Bible. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

with Roseanne and her block and terry and his generator, have these fine upstanding christian patriots decided they are not going to be raptured? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if Roseanne hasn't read the Bible or just ignores the good bits, e.g. welcoming the strangers in your midst, looking after the poor and needy, etc. (Unless they were insertions by some 3rd-century communist anticipating the rule of Barack "Antichrist" Obama...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if they are pre-trib or post-trib believers. If the latter, than they fully expect to have to live through the Great Tribulation, or at least the first half of it (Mid-tribulation and pre-wrath beliefs). I never heard either Terry or Roseanne explicitly state when they feel Christians will "meet the Lord in the air".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Terry believes it will be any day now. He frequently couches statements about ow long some human project might take with "if god doesn't swoop in and float my dewy nude frame to heaven." Nutty Roux (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
That just seems to be the fundie version of Insha'Allah. Kendoll has taken to doing that too of late. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

More history, Andy-style[edit]

Because apparently everybody refers to them as "Polish concentration camps...img

He also says that "Poland was the location of the most concentration camps" - this is clearly untrue, as evil WP tells us that Germany housed nearly double the number of camps that Poland did. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethopia In Africa. Thanks Andy, I thought it was the Ethopians in South America that got invaded. Also " He style caused far more casualties in the enemy than suffered by his troops.". Besides the fucking grammar (I know I suck a grammar, but I'm not claiming to be a god damn teacher) is he saying Patton was the first commander to employ tactics where his men lived, and the enemies' died? --Revolverman (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
How long till someone points out the true ratio of concentration camps, engages andy's "FUCK YOU!!! IM NEVER WRONG" mechanism and causes him to rewrite the historybooks yet again to avoid having to admit "defeat"? or is the userbase of CP so emasculated/non existant these days that no one is left to question him Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a reference to Obama referring to concentration camps within Poland. At the same time, it might also be the conflation of "concentration camps" with "extermination camps". The concentration camps were wide spread. However, the extermination camps were mostly within Poland. The most famous ones were all in Poland. It isn't an uncommon mistake for someone who doesn't know much about the topic, but it is rather remiss in a history lesson. Ayzmo (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The real problem here is that andy doesn't seem to know much about anything really. And what he doesn't know he simply makes up and presents as factual insights. So now the truth in andy land is that the concentration camps were mainly in Poland, if someone points out the difference between the two types of camps then andy will simply redefine extermination to be a subset of concentration and declare victory. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Also noteworthy is Andy mentioning that Poles, "both Jewish and Christian" were the largest group of victims of the Holocaust. Conflating Poles (who happened to be Christians) who were killed for a whole variety of reasons, but were not expressly targeted because of their Christian identity as part of Nazi ideology, with Jews who were killed simply because they were Jews to me reads like someone trying to claim a particular kind of victimhood status that isn't really there. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I cringed when I read victim and Nazi so close together. Don't remind me of you know who. I was so scared that he'd have my professional license taken away. I'm still so scared. Please help. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm here for you. It's okay to cry. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Sob. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Man tears.jpg
(ec)Not to mention that the majority of non-Jewish Poles who were killed was because they were the intelligentsia and aristocracy, which the Nazis wanted to eliminate, so the remaining working class would have nothing to aspire to. And then there's the Russians too... PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Andy will not say they targeted the intelligentsia because of his own disdain for them with his professor values, godless school teachers and liberal elites.--Mercian (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In other news[edit]

Generalissimo Generator link-whores his blog again; something to do with calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Andy slaps it down, saying the Teabaggers are "going in the wrong direction."img Will Terry cower before Dear Leader? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, andy hates the tea party now!? are they too far left for him or has their failure to summarily execute obama and install andy as dictator lost them his support? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 08:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If you look at his comments hereimg he's basically saying that the Tea Party don't know the Constitution. Now there's a surprise. Oh, and something about the evil media forcing legislation through, like the evil 17th Amendment. Because Andy seems to be against democracy. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You know out of all andy's idiocy from the bible re-writing to the black hole thing to the goddamn Lenski affair, only andy's unending hatred of any and all natural allies confuses me. He railed against Foamy Santorum during the last election despite him being about as close to a conservapedia candidate as you can get, he chases more true believers off his blog than can be counted, and now he has decided that the Tea Party, a group which would be so damn easy for him to use as "confirmation" as to all his old rants about how much more conservative society is becoming (because of conservapedia of course) is also his enemy. Honest question, if the Tea Party fail the test, is there anyone save andy who can be deemed a real true conservative at this point? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 09:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I expect this all comes from Mumsy Dearest who is terrified that if there's a constitutional convention then they'll finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment and her whole stupid life will have been for nothing. I must say it's cute that Andy doesn't have any opinions not derived from his mother. Wait, did I say cute? I meant nauseating. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Besides Mommy Dearest, you mean? Didn't they throw Rand Paul under the bus too, just the other day? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sort of. It was roseanne and chucky that threw Rand P away, not andy per se. I get the impression that andy is not really a fan of the TP at all. He is the empitome of inherited privelege and despite all evidence to the contrary that is what the tp claims to be against. You know, the grass roots TP movement that people like Bachmann so much like to pretend exists. The one that actually is bank-rolled by the billionaire brothers. I think andy hates it tbh. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that Andy thinks rewriting the word of God is okay, but changing the Constitution is off limits. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Same, but i have always seen it as a mere matter of time till andy does try to rewrite the constitution to better reflect the far right dominionist dogma of noted christian fanatics like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. Actually im fairly surprised he didnt start with that and then move onto rewriting the bible. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I get the sense that Andy actually has a fairly sophisticated understanding of the Constitution and its significance. I've seen him assert that the founders were Christians, but IIRC Karaturd is the one who's really bought into the Bartonesque lie that the US was founded as a christian nation (Terry too, but he hasn't bothered to make any kind of mark on CP or any of the other sites on which he's a "senior administrator" for years). I'd be interested to know if anyone else can point to instances of Andy actually pressing the issue. I think he sotto voce recognizes the wisdom of "good fences make good neighbors". It's simply too much to deny that places like Philadelphia have long histories of embracing diversity among christians, jews, and muslims going back before the Articles of Confederation. And there's a reason for that — it's good for business. There weren't any jewish founders, but it's beyond dispute that there was to some degree a tenor of embracing multiculturalism. There was enough diversity among christian sects that ensuring freedom of speech and religion was already significant by the time the states were called upon to join the confederation. Andy may spin the legitimacy of Supreme Court authority to interpret the Constitution, but only Terry is bold enough to pick and choose cases he likes by asserting without the least principle that cases he doesn't like are usurpative, or his favor: unconstitutional. No analysis even when pressed by the estimable Nathaniel Roubideaux. Andy actually writes (poor quality) briefs on significant Supreme Court cases. In other words, I think he gets it. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I've always sort of thought that he doesn't want to set a precedent by someone calling a convention. Truth be told I think he knows damn well that reality has that liberal bias he fears so much and he worries that were a cc to be called then it may well end up with results that he, and all the other wingnuts, would prefer not to have. I could easily see a cc in the US endorsing things that wingers really hate and if they had called the convention that approved it then they would be fucked in trying to argue against it. Disclaimer, I'm not Merican, and I don't really understand the slightly bizare way US politics works. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh Jpratt[edit]

Yes, the Raw Story article you postedimg does indeed say that Ted Cruz said Dems are voting to repeal the First Amendment. If you actually read past the headline, it also says that Cruz was (surprise surprise) lying through his teeth and the Bill - which isn't expected to pass - is merely to reverse the damage caused by Citizens United.

Good to see you've picked up the same selective reading skills as your Dear Leader. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep Andy[edit]

The King James Bibleimg(line 152) was so influential that it improved the English language itself. So YOU rewrote it. Because, of course, you are that much better. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank God for the KJV! Otherwise, what would Billy Wobbledagger have referred to, for language tips, when he wrote all those plays? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Billy Wobble... Oh, I get it now. Nevermind. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 17:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh ffs, it gets even better more fucking stupid. Capitalism is now an American systemimg. the fact that On The Wealth of Nations was written by a Scott a hundred years before the US came into existance is of no matter. It's American I tell you....... Oldusgitus (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, and Alexander Hamilton told Smith's ideas to go to hell. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I sort of meant a hundred years before the civil war. History is not my strong point, although my weakest history is better than andy's strongest. My bad, subtract 100000 internets and I will accept my punishment gladly. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No more scrumptious faggots for you, then, not until you've mended your wicked ways. Now, if asked to choose between Wobbledagger and delicious Bacon butty, which would it be? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, obviously Bacon, seeing as he wrote all of that imposter Wobbledagger's work too. Listens to sound of exploding heads. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No, that was Oxtail. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Andy changed the definition of capitalism "an economic symstem whereby..." to "an American system based on..."? What a mindless nationalist. Reminds me of the time he said this to another editor: "You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding....". --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

World History Study Guide from 1648[edit]

This study guide is riddled with errors. The best way to conserve such errors - and to prevent any improvement by other editors, is to call Andy out on them in no uncertain terms. Then, he'll dig out some fringe source, misinterpret it, and stick with it for eternity. So, let's make a list:

  • The format is shite: neither chronological, nor alphabetical, but roughly in the order the terms appear in his lectures. So, capitalism is not only an American invention, but comes just after Louis XIV (ruled 1643-1715) and just before Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543).
  • Prussia: a very militaristic nation-state in Europe very militaristic, but never a nation-state! Doesn't even fit CP's definition CP:nation state, but plays into Andy's idea that Prussia is another name for Germany...
  • Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte (1808-1873) President of the French Second Republic and nephew of Napoleon, but better known as Emperor Napoleon III of France

a start - please improve :-)

--larron (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

US constitution, the oldest working constitution in the world. Excepting of course that of San Marino which was written 187 years previously and is still in force today and is itself based on a document dating from 1300. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Reconquista (AD 722-1492) the Christian retaking of Spain and Portugal from Muslim control, after the Islamic takeover of the peninsula in 1711-18. This is the only territory taken back by Christianity from Islam. So they took it back 300 years before the Muslims took over?
  • Weird terms - should caravel really be in a list of important events and people?
  • No mention of how the conquistadors wiped out the Aztecs and Incas and destroyed their civilisation and culture.
  • Stalingrad after their defeat the Germans "were subsequently sent out of Russia." Dafuq? He makes it sound like they were spanked and told to go home.
  • He mentions Hiroshima by name, but not Nagasaki. Ditto Fat Man, but not Little Boy.
Urgh! The whole thing is a mess - no coherent pattern, not even chronological. It's just a bunch of random sound-byte facts, presented with no context. As with all his other failings, Andy's no history teacher. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the page.img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It tells us that you're a cunt, Terry[edit]

Ah, thanks to Terry Generator, we have a new reason for the California shooting: Hollywood values.img because his dad was "no other than the second-unit director for The Hunger Games. What does that tell you?"

Just that you're a loathesome cunt, Terry.

Oh, and video games get a mention too. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And now Andy jumps on the violent video gamesimg bandwagon. No mention of his PUA background, or his feelings of entitlement, of course. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You know he hated PUA's, right? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Only because their techniques weren't working fir him. That's what the HatePUA forum was about - not anti PUA, just bitching that it wasn't working for them. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't The Hunger Games a great conservative movie? Don't tell Andy. I worry too much cognitive dissonance will make his head explode--"Shut up, Brx." 19:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's down as "debatable as conservative," despite Andy once lauding it as a critique of Big Government. I'm sure that'll soon move to liberal movies. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is World of Warcraft even violent? My psycho ex was obsessed with it and she seemed to spend most of her time doing random, pointless elf stuff and chatting up teenage freaks who never came out their bedrooms.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 23:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculously violent. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No, not really. It is standard action-fantasy violence. It doesn't compare to the average FPS game; there is no real graphical depictions. It is violent, like the Lord of the Rings movies are violent. Sure it isn't Hello Kitty Island Adventure, but it isn't Mortal Combat either.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sakes' Karajou[edit]

In Karajerk's world "Obama signs bill - in secret - restricting free speech."img

In reality, the Bill (HR 347), was passed unanimously by the Senate, then the House (who voted 399-3 in favour), and was then signed by Obama in Feb 2012. How exactly is this a big secret, you paranoid piece of shit??

In addition, HR 347 does not restrict free speech. Nor does it make it "illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present," as your "source" claims. That law has been in effect for years already (look up 18 USC 1752). The new law actually relaxes these terms and conditions - changing "willfully and knowingly" to "knowingly" and defines the phrase "restricted buildings or grounds" to include "the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds.

In addition, and this is something knuckleheads like you can't seem to grasp - just because you have the right to demonstrate (which you still do), doesn't mean that the authorities can't take action against you when you act like the ignorant thugs you are.

Now then, bow that you've been shown to be at best misled by your source, or at worst, lying through your teeth, how about taking that story down?

Yeah, I won't hold my breath. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not content with link whoring his hate blog on CP Main page.[edit]

Terry can't even be bothered to check his edits are correctimg before wandering off. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seven hours later, still broken on the main page. Then again, it's not like Ken is going to lift his arse and do anything except his own projects, do you? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It won't change until andy comes along and deletes it. Anger bear is too busy bullying a peon for disagreeing with ken, ken is too busy dribbling his insanity all over cp and terry simply doesn't care as long as he gets clicks through to his blog. Some credit to Joaquín Martínez though for acknowledging that Maya has died. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that CP has an article on her, of course. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Orphans" wigo[edit]

Any of the so called "invisible" pages can be found by searching for the topic.— Unsigned, by: 73.181.151.235 / talk / contribs

Baseball an American original[edit]

[10]img. He has obviously not heard of rounders.--Mercian (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Rules rather than a clock"? I don't know what that means but he's obviously never been to a cricket match. And baseball lovers overwhelmingly conservative? The crap Andy pulls out of his ass! Whoover (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
He really is full of shit. I wrote an eBook about baseball quite recently and had to do some fairly extensive research. It's an English game; been played there since at least the mid-18th century. It probably developed as a regional variation of rounders, which in turn shares a common ancestor with cricket. Which is called stool ball, and is very weird.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 11:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait... isn't this totally conservative sport, the same one where the players are all on steriods?? How does that fit into conservative culture? PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Because insights.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 11:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think, due to the lengths he goes through to justify them, that Andy believes his "insights" to be flashes of thought directly from god. And what's the case if apparent "facts" contradict said insights? Liberal conspiracy! Checkmate. Shakedangle (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Concurred, or at least his megalomania has progressed to the stage where he believes that as "he" is the one true conservative on earth, any thought or hairbrained insight he has is thus also perfectly conservative and thus the absolute truth. Any mistake on his part in these insights would mean he is not the conservative messiah and thus any part of reality which disproves said insight is a filthy liberal lie. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Nah. He's just an activist with an over-inflated opinion of himself and probably educated beyond his intelligence. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys[edit]

Most of you won't remember me - ... but given that it was a frequent topic of debate between Andy and myself, I had to come back to point out the headline:

The purchase of the L.A. Clippers by a white Microsoft billionaire is not what the liberal media wanted, and they begin looking for a new headline about something else.

Ironic that this was posted on the same day that Andy's favorite player, Kevin Durant, and his Thunder lost the fourth game to the Spurs after only winning two, to come short of making it to the NBA Finals. Durant missed a three pointer that could've tied the game into a second overtime. Don't get me wrong, Durant is still a great player - and MVP of this season, but since holding him up as a conservative hero and God's chosen player doesn't lend itself to nuance - it seems Andy has begun looking for a new headline about something else.--IDuan 17:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How could we forget you and the ass kicking you regularly handed ou to the enlightened one. And all the headline goes to show if andy's goldfish long memory and attention span (and yes, I know it's not true about carp having short memories). He's moved on, completely forgetting his last great insight. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Since this insight doesn't link to anything does anybody have a guess as to what Andy thinks the liberal media wanted, if not this sale? Did The New York Times demand that Sterling sell to blacks? Michael Jordan? Oprah? Is Ballmer insufficiently invested in the gay agenda? Usually, the insights from Andy's ass have some truthiness germ but I missed this one's. Whoover (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Nahh, I reckon it's that the liberal media got upset because the previous owner said some things that true conservatives support and liberals hate. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There was talk that Magic Johnson was going to be part of an investment group who was looking to buy the team. I am sure Johnson is the "prototypical liberal" in Andy's view.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget the added insult to injury. "Overrated Sports Star" LeBron James and the Miami Heat did make it to the NBA finals unlike Durant and the Thunder. I also like Durant but admittedly wanted to see his team lose only because it only further cripples Andy's narrative about sports.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Complete lack of knowledge from the man who speaks e languages[edit]

Pardon me for not ignoring his lunacy, but the multi-lingual Ken's[11]img.latest is the UK's ultra violent crime rate, 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate compared to more than 4 times the homicide rate in the USA at 4.8 per 100,000.[12]img. And FYI Ken, carrying knives in public without a good reason has been banned since 1988. Time for you to burn this embarrassing article I think.--Mercian (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just heaping on for what it's worth: the User:Conservative account doesn't know one language reasonably well, let alone 3. 5 is a pipe dream. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the multitude-known-as-Ken's dismal grasp of English, what are the 3 languages he's fluent in? Hint: Ken - using Google translate doesn't count as speaking a language. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I presume English, lying and speaking in tongues. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
English? Shome mishtake, shurely? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 15:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"English", lying and speaking in tongues. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Holy cow! Thanks to Mercian's comment, I looked up the UK Law. You can't even carry pocket knives with locking blades in public in the UK. That's a pretty strict (and overreacting, in my opinion) law, but it ain't my country. Phiwum (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would you want to carry a knife? Is short-notice hog butchering a thing that happens where you're from? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Many members of my family always carry knives. They're practical. Unlike firearms, they're not used solely for killing--"Shut up, Brx." 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I always have a lock-blade pocketknife in my pocket. I use it to open boxes, cut bait, cut rope or fishing line, cut hockey tape or other tape, cut electrical cable ties or remove the tags from newly purchased clothing, whatever a blade makes easier. I don't use it every day, but it's often useful to have in my pocket.
Not sure why you are stunned to learn that a cutting implement can be useful for all sorts of things besides butchering hogs. Or why you think that a lock-blade pocket knife would be the tool of choice for butchering, for that matter. Phiwum (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's relatively simple tbh. Due to our moderately intelligent gun laws many younger gang members don't like to carry guns. So they instead carry knives, machetes, bread knives etc. Then several years ago a chap called Stephen Lawrence was murdered by some racist thugs, and then a London headteacher was stabbed to death outside his school by a gang member and in true knee-jerk fashion and a moral hysteria whipped up by the daily fail carrying knives was banned. To be honest I'm not that bothered. The days when we carried sheath knives to play split the kipper are long gone. Children today are far too willing to stab you, so to some extent I'm not unhappy that they get bird if they are caught carrying. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
to my knowledge you cannot even carry screwdrivers (going equipped) or blunt objects like hammers or bats without good reason AMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You can't carry anything that could be used as an offensive weapon with the intention to use it as such. I was once prosecuted for having a rolled up Sunday newspaper in my pocket - I was accquited. Admitedly I was attending an anti national front demo at the time but I actually genuinely had it as a rolled up newspaper, I had been reading it and was saving it for a wine tasting article in it. I even showed it to the magistrates in court to prove it had a wine article in it. A rolled up newspaper is colloquially known as a Millwall Brick due to the propensity of MFC fans to use it during the 1970's to break the noses of the opposing fans. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that knives present a real public safety problem. People in the US generally carry knives that are so dull they're dangerous. If you want to safely stab someone, get a variety of waterstones up to 12,000 grit and stop cutting boxes, cable ties, and tape. Newspapers? What's next? Clothes hangers? Phonebooks? Hoses? What is this, West Side Story? Nutty Roux (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The Millwall Brick. It f'in well hurt to be smacked with one as well. It easily smashed a nose across a face and if it had 'added extras' it became really quite nasty. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
From that article, "The Millwall brick is used similarly to a shillelagh..." is possibly the best comparison between any two things I've ever seen. You know you're dealing with something interesting when the closest point of comparison is the shillelagh. - Grant (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Have gun laws desensitized the UK thugs to knife violence? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the knife laws have desensitised them to rubber band violence. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
[ECx4 or 5] Some days I don't mind going without an Italian waiter's style corkscrew, but I feel naked without my Opinel Nº8 in a trouser pocket right next to a little LED torch (or flashlight, to my fellow USAns.) That one has a blade a bit shorter than my index finger, and locks with a twist of the ferrule. Someone (a nanny, oddly enough) once saw it and asked me if I thought I needed protection. Only response I could give was a blank gaze, since an eyeroll or facepalm would have been rude. The most recent task it helped with was scoring a piece of masonite hardboard for an accurate snap. Also comes in handy when the lovely & talented Mrs. needs the tag sliced off of a bit of new stage wear. It mostly stays shaving sharp, but if there were a battery terminal with green fuzz needing to be scraped off, I wouldn't mind using it for that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Stanley knives have very short blades and can be used most viciously. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
..and they lock in several different protrusions. Would I get in trouble if found in possession of such a tool on some random street in an English town? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Potentially, yes. Thing is Stanley has been used by Liverpool and (espeically) Everton fans. If you really want to make a mess you tape two stanley blades together and then slash with them. it causes two parallel cuts that are too close together to be effectively sticthed. Not so bad in todays terms where there are butterfly bandages and artifical skin. In the 'old' days it left a very nasty scar. Without a good reason to be carrying it you would likely be charged. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone's taken to carrying a cunningly chipped piece of flint, just in case. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought a flint or obsidian skinning knife would have been part of your everyday carry when you came across the Bering Straight to populate North America with your people during one of those major ice ages. Mammoths had tough skin, didn't they? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Makes it sound like our island is swarming with police searching every pocket. The reality is the police have to have good cause to stop and search. They tend to target events or groups of people who they are pretty sure are looking for trouble. Outside airport security, I have never been searched. People being armed in the UK is just not at the level of the US. It's not in our culture. While it might seem strange to others, it's quite normal for us. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Gun culture in the U.S. is weird. By comparison, Canadians are armed to the teeth, but restrictive firearms and knife laws produce a public culture that's far more in line with the UK with regard to guns. - Grant (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights Ajkgordon (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh absolutely AJK. I don't mean to suggest the UK is some kind of battle ground, in most cases it self-evidently isn't. But I've had more knives pulled on me/shown to me on the streets in the past 15 years than I had in my first 35. And for several of those I carried a sheath knife routinely. It not the battle ground that downtown Chicago is by any means but if I was walking through Reading this evening I would be cautious and self-aware. In a way I wouldn't have been 25 years ago when I first moved here. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? I've never had a knife pulled on me or shown to me. Ever. And I often go to Reading or Basingstoke or Camberley in an evening. You're a knife magnet! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
its always the small towns that get Leary at kicking out time. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Knives are a weird one. I've carried one for years. People often criticize me for it. Right up until they want to cut something, then it's "Fergus, can I borrow your knife?"--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 13:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind do you carry? Are there any restrictions in Germany? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I carry either a Leatherman super tool or a 4" lock knife. There are some restrictions but they're not too onerous - you can't carry a dagger, a lock knife with a one-handed opening mechanism or a fixed blade over 12cm long in public, unless you have a reason to or it's in a locked container. Basically not far off what it was in the UK 20 years ago.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Society changes, I was in the Scouts and carried a sheath knife - a German one in a metal scabbard that I bought in Cologne - something that is genuinely useful when you're camping or in the woods; carrying one around town, however, is a completely different matter. I also used to always carry a Swiss Army knife while travelling because it was a useful tool but now they languish at the back of a drawer. Lock-blade knives - in particular, flick-knives - have been illegal in the UK for as long as I can remember, which is back to the 50s. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Flick knives have been illegal in the UK for a long time, but not lock knives. As far as I know they're still legal. They're certainly openly on sale.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)