Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive331

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 July 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>, <330>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Made my morning when...[edit]

Helsingin sanomat, Finland's biggest newspaper had an editorial about anti-science movement today and, not entirely surprisingly, mentioned Conservapedia and its stance on theory of relativity as an extreme example. Andy is giving right-wing conservatism a bad name all over the world. Vulpius (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing conservatism gives right wing conservatism a bad name all over the world. --Umichcynic (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah he does. What other conservative groups of any significance is willing to associate themselves with Conservapedia?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
How do you say "liberal claptrap" in Finnish? Whoover (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

liberaali hölynpöly Sphincter (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy hölynpöly. Thanks. Whoover (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been wanting to mention ducks for 5 years. Opportunity scored. Win. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I read the same article. It also mentioned creationism, anti-vaxxers and climate denial. The article was titled 'the return of the Dark Ages is nearer than ever' or something like that. (link) --AntiTheist (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fuck me[edit]

Kenny has just deleted talk main page. Who upset him them? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He's probably just deleting his lies about how many languages he speaks because we were taking the piss out of him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
He's created an archive page which has effectively burnt the last 2 days of Talk Main Page. FFS ken, how deep is the bunny hole you live in? However deep Richard Dawkins 'bunny hole'is it has nothing compared to the chasm you hide in does it. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Will the British nannystate ban household knives and force their citizens to eat government provided gruel and puree? Conservative 18:39, 3 June 2014 (EDT)
Did your carers do that? JamesWS 19:58, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

JamesWS, today I ate: 2 servings of fruit, a grilled chicken sandwich, some basmati rice and some vegetables too. I also worked out over an hour today. I plan on eating healthy the rest of the week and working out at least an hour a day also. Such a lifestyle is dramatically different than the lifestyles of many Western atheists/evolutionists (see: cp:Atheism and obesity and cp:Atheism and alcoholism and cp:Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese).

James, why do so many atheists/evolutionists ignore the findings of exercise science, nutritional science and medical science? The British agnostic and evolutionist cp:Erasmus Darwin was so obese that he cut a semi-circle in his dinner table in order to accommodate his girth! Conservative 23:23, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

Curioser and curioser... --larron (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What a weirdo. Imagine if Wikipedia let people like him be admins. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

JamesWS got a 5 year block, possibly for this:

Conservative, I noticed your suspicious reluctance to say whether the aforementioned meals went anywhere near a blender before you ate them! Why do you try so hard to distance yourself from atheists/evolutionists, when a true Christian like, say, Andrew Schlafly doesn't need to do that? We all know Andy is not an evolutionist but you have to keep asserting the same about yourself. JamesWS 18:35, 4 June 2014 (EDT)
P.S. I'm glad they let you out for an hour.

and his insightful article about heat engines was deleted. So now they have an article about atheism making people fuck animals but nothing about heat engines. Fonzie (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I captured this[11], it continued to say Jamesws was blocked because his article on the "Heat Engine" was not up to Conservapedia's high standards.--Mercian (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
We've been through this before, although I can't remember if the last offender was you, Mercian - Hide the tabs on the screencap of your browser, unless your intention was for me to google "Alexis Amore" and get myself into trouble at work. Shakedangle (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He was on borrowed time since this snarky editimg. Whoover (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To get rid of a couple of lines of text, Ken just deleted 16,400 revisions starting in June 2011 - ca. 1.5% of all of Conservapedia's revisions of all times... --larron (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Emotions, much like electrical current, tend to take the path of least resistance. So in Ken's mind, it's much easier to delete broad expanses of CP, rather than refute the claims that he enjoys group-home served... blender-prepared meals... Fascinating. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I would love Andy to do a new interview about CP, 8 years on, with a proper Paxman type host and see him gibber trying to defend it. --Mercian (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
And Andy has not done a god damn thing. --Revolverman (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would involve Andy having to manage one of his hand-picked goons, which happens never. PsyGremlinSprich! 06:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I know, I know, but in one move, to wipe out 1% of the entire wiki, and how much history, over being proven wrong? How can a man who is so god damn sure of himself and his beliefs also have ZERO backbone? --Revolverman (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you've just identified the problem right there. How can a man who is so god damn sure of himself and his beliefs. Perhaps he's not as sure as he makes out. Or perhaps fundamentally he is a coward who avoids personal confrontation at all costs. Or perhaps he's scared of confronting ken as he may lose control of the single thing he is known for outside of wingnut circles. Whatever it is it is rather sad. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That's why he sticks to CP and his blog. He has total control of the discussion there. If he had any "machismo" he'd come here on this page to make his claims. But he's petrified of us--"Shut up, Brx." 12:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Relax, Andy's back. Not to do anything about the man-child deleting 1% of his blog but to correct a minor punctation errorimg Oldusgitus (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

French Open[edit]

Ooh, looks like the impious Nadal won the French Open, and the Christian Federer (that the media totally hates) dropped out early. Must be because it's the French Open. The odds were stacked in favor of atheistic socialism--"Shut up, Brx." 17:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot say I am a tennis or in deed a sports fan, but my goodness nadal is a good looking man. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Cop Killer[edit]

He was homeschooled by religious Christian parents. Apparently so was the latest Seattle school shooter. Where's the CP declaration of Conservapedia Proven Right? How will they do it? False flag? Video games? Or will they go with the Justin Bourque was a Canadian Patriot line? Whoover (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They won't even mention anything negative about their side while probably blaming video games or something about liberal athiestic values. If they do mention anything about their side it's just the liberals trying to disparage homeschooling or somesuch.--Miekal 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
They need to show how these do not answer this challenge: Challenge to liberals: Give me the name of one serial killer who had one of these backgrounds: 1) A Christian home schooler 2) A student who graduated from evangelical Christian private schooling 3) Amish/Mennonite Conservative 03:13, 27 May 2014 (EDT) That's why to make this Conservapedia Proven Right they have to mention it, so they explain why it's not really as it seems.
I'm sure "patriot" is appealing. If he was assassinating tyrants, he's not a killer but a soldier. Whoover (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Conservative will never admit this can happen. He relies on the no true Scotsman fallacy - and last time someone called him out on that he showed a lack of understanding of what that fallacy is. By default if someone is violent and has a distorted perspective or drug history or gay aunt - conservative will say they're not a true christian.--Danielfolsom (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I did love it when he said he had never been to Scotland. What about that bloke who bombed the 1996 Olympics? Of course he was not a mass killer as only one person died but it was not for want of trying.

OK, the results are in. The Conservapedia Truth Extermination Committee obviously met and decided to go with "his brief attendance at Riverview High School negated the years of Christian home schoolingimg ." Good choice. Whoover (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ken's declaration of victory [1]img. It is hard to respond when you have banned anyone who has evolutionist beliefs and account creation is disabled. Anyway to answer you I give you Eric Rudolph. — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs
Good old Kendoll. Moving the goal posts after he's been proven a blithering moron yet again. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And it's gone. [2]img. Nice to see you admitting defeat Ken.--Mercian (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's back, along with a shout outimg to us. And can I say how nice it is to see a Spanish international footballer finding time to edit CP. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
He is rumoured to be going to Chelsea, and with Mr Abramovich being a friend and political ally of that great conservative Vladamir Putin it is only expected that he would make a CP account.--Mercian (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A gift to Andy and Conservative from the National Post: The shooter "had gone off the rails since he stopped going to church with his large, devout family." Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And now the Las Vegas cop killers, identified as white supremacist "revolutionaries," are clearly liberal because Hitler was an evolutionistimg. Whoover (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that WWII was some sort of liberal golden age. FDR was a leftist. Hitler was a leftist. The fascists were leftists. The Russians were commies. There wasn't a conservative on the planet. Whoover (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Winston Churchill was the only one. It's true. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But Churchill was not, not really. As much as I admire the man he was a political flip flopper switching from the Liberals to the Conservatives if it suited his needs.--Mercian (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Winston Churchill was a commie!!11!!1 --A Real Libertarian (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The denial must be strong over at CP - the killers were gun-lovin', Cliven Bundy-lovin', anti-government, Tea Party-lovin', right wing fuckheads. Then again, given the vitriol the teabaggers and the militias have been spouting, are we really surprised that somebody finally took all the talk to heart? PsyGremlinSprich! 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
they did something bad, therefore they are liberals. That is the depth of logic over cp. Doesn't matter what they did, why they did it, what they believed, his and where they were brought up, do something bad, you are liberal. Its just as well we are CP's only audience because such dehumanisation of your foes never ends well. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It gets better - Shooter was part of the militia defending Bundy. PsyGremlinSprich! 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Who says that Ken is dogmatic? He corrected the item to account for Hitler survivingimg and settling in Argentinaimg.Whoover (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Alger Hiss[edit]

Oh look! We got Ken to put the Alger Hiss articleimg on the Featured section. Dance, you eejit, dance! DogP (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It was featured article many years ago, wasn't it? SophieWilderModerator 14:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Occasionally they like to honour that FOIA weirdo for his years of unstinting work plugging away at single issue articles, turning them in to mountainous walls of text no one cares about. Not by making him a sysop, or talking to him at all, mind. Just occasionally a little nod to say that he exists. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
CP articles are either two-line stubs or long enough to make a book, so they must have to recycle the featured ones. SophieWilderModerator 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Aren't all Ken's articles just recycled in the first place? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 08:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Time for Terry to be torn apart again?[edit]

So Terry posts a link suggesting that because Obama denied something then it MUST, say MUST be true. To which Fergus and CowHammer naturally point out how and why coke eyes is being mendacious again, points which of course terry ignores. But if someone denies something according to terry it must be true. And how many times has he denied that he and his friends over on CNAV are raving idiots who continually distort facts to suit their bigoted agenda? So using his logic all those claims must be true. Fergus, if you read here would you care to point out to him his cognitive dissonance? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Terry has cited NaturalNews! Take that, liberals! MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 11:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was pretty hilarious. I didn't bring it up because I try to keep things simple when arguing with him because if I don't, he'll latch on to a tiny unrelated point and ignore the larger point, which is him (again) making things up.
Also funny: I've argued with him about this same crap before, and it's amazing how many times I've looked up which president granted a particular government agency authority to carry firearms and the answer is Ronald Reagan. I guess we found our tyrant arming all these government agencies, but it seems he died in 2004. Cow...Hammertime! 16:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Died? Please! He ascended. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
As Reagan was, realistically, about as right-wing as Obama the fact that he's now worshipped by these crazies must have him spinning in his grave.--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 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. "Hitler confiscated everybody's guns". Are these people allergic to history books or something?--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 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

According to anger bear[edit]

Citingimg Fortune magazine is now classed as inserting false informationimg. Way to go anger bear, soon everyone will be lying except you true conservatives. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Popeye not understanding the meaning of debateimg. Opinions are welcome, it says on the page. Except apparently if they're the wrong opinions then you get blocked for "pushing your religious beliefs on this site"img. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
While Karajou's censorship is lame, Arnie's argument is pretty silly, too. I have all sorts of beliefs about non-existent things -- for instance, I believe that there is no computable function which "solves" the Halting Problem. Phiwum (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think it's silly? It's a classic argument illustrating the appropriate default position as to any truth claim. If unproven, it's not true or false, it's just not accepted. Now, there are good reasons to doubt the existence of Yahweh such that it's fair to even state that it doesn't exist, but even this is no more a religion than the example this CP editor gave. It's a very simple deductive argument, whether Karajou accepts the form of it or not. The only response christians can muster is to reassert the existence of their god, which ultimately means these discussions go nowhere when it comes to attempting to rationally discuss the basic philosophical premises. So, discussing anything like this on CP certainly is silly, but I don't think the argument itself is. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Folks over there, like Ken and -- militantly -- Karajou, redefine "religion" to mean worldview. Atheism is a religion only if we all have a religion, like a blood type. Presumably, we all have a world view -- why we're here, where we'd like to go, how we can determine truth, what should be our behavior, etc. Rename that "religion" and atheism is one. So is Christianity. So fucking what? Whoover (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The "so fucking what" is that, in their logic, if atheism is a religion, "then the atheism inhering to the methodological naturalism of physical science cannot be given excessive government support. That would violate the establishment of religion clause. So, evolution education would have to allow students freedom to dissent from the "orthodox" scientific view that human beings evolved from earlier forms of life without any intervention from God." Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand what they're trying to accomplish. And if our leaders go along with redefining words like "religion" to be what the founding fathers would have called "philosophy" we're truly hosed. And I can just see the originalists in the court standing on the shoulders of Ken to do that. But that's politics, not ideas. As an idea, it's tripe. Whoover (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
To Nutty: what's silly is the question, "If something doesn't exist, how can one be said to have beliefs about it?" In particular, Arnie is apparently suggesting that the statement, "I believe God does not exist," is nonsensical, since one cannot have beliefs about something which does not exist.
This is patently silly. First, one can have beliefs about things which do not exist, simply by virtue of mistakenly believing they exist ("I believe Santa has red hair."). Second, one can have the belief that a particular thing does not exist. Third, one can have more complex beliefs about non-existent things, (e.g., if there were an oracle which decides the halting problem, then there would also be a means of solving this other problem).
Arnie's argument consisted of a spurious bit of fluff that seemed vaguely plausible only if you don't actually think about it. Phiwum (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's wheels within wheels, man![edit]

CP heads deeper in to the conspiracy woods every day. The average CPer is now utterly indistinguishable from the average Alex Jones cultist. The latest exampleimg has Anger Bear citing fraudulent "ex-terrorist" Walid Shoebat saying that basically the anti-Islam video that supposedly sparked the Benghazi attack was actually produced by a secret Muslim agent of the US. But that it didn't cause the violence anyway... what? I can barely keep the nutty things they believe straight. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I love thisimg one as well. Somehow the war that all the conservatives so deperately wanted and out of which hole Obama has spent years trying to dig the US with some remaining shred of credibility was all in fact Obama's fault after all. It's nothing to do with Rove and Bush lying to take the US (and Bliar lying to take the UK) into Iraq, it's nothing to do with the fact that Obama only had to spend money 'continuing the war' in order to try to leave something decent from the fuck up that the conservatives caused, it's all Obamas fault. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Now now, they don't think it's all Obama's fault. Some of the blame belongs to Clinton. And Carter. Vulpius (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness to "them," I think it's Ken. Even the linked article doesn't imply Iraq is Obama's fault. And it doesn't say that Obama wants to spend more. Only that he is contemplating using anti-terrorism funds to send token aid to Maliki. The Tea Party couldn't care less about foreign policy, so McCain demanding we get back into this war and Ken calling Obama for getting us into it in the first place aren't even part of the three-ring circus. It's a sideshow that can't be mapped onto the RINO-through-True-Conservative continuum. That fact, that they don't even pretend to have a position on foreign policy may be the scariest thing of all about the American right. Whoover (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I see Ken has doubled down on MPR, demanding Obama bring the troops home from Iraq now! Whoover (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
EC. Never mind the foreign policy angle -- the Tea Party doesn't even have a coherent set of domestic policies that aren't reactions to Obama. "Get rid of the ACA" isn't really much more of a policy than "resist attempts to control firearms." They don't want to do anything, they just want to make sure the other guy can't do anything, or to undo the stuff he's already done. That's not policy. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but at least they all agree on getting rid of health care for black people. They don't pretend to care about foreign policy. But you're right, it's all pretty scary as a platform for running things. Whoover (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Ken misses that the article he cited puts "We want our troops home now" in the mouth of Obama, with irony. It's calling for more involvement. I think Ken was tripped up by his Asperger's again. Whoover (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hell[edit]

Freezes overimg with an admission from Ken that Obama is not entirely to blame for everything. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could be there just once when Ken flips that switch, just to see what it looks like. One minute he's being a complete stupid wanker with all smileys and "atheists are FAT and DUMB and YOU ARE TOO" insults all over, complete with deleting all his posts like a coward and refusing to acknowledge the topic when someone (either here or on CP) points out something he got wrong... but then then he can switch and start making relatively well reasoned, thought out posts that don't include pointless arrogance or insults, he's showed some backbone in the past by disagreeing with Andy over certain things and refusing to back down over it etc... Really makes me wonder what's going on there. X Stickman (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Ken has always had this conservative dove streak to him, at least with regards to the Iraq War. It was what predicated his famed confrontation with TK. I'm waiting for him to say a nice word about evolution, that's when the infernal legions will be breaking out the scarves and sledges. Grumblejaws (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Honestly its his rare moments of sanity and his occasional subtle (for him anyway) insults aimed at Andy and co which make me believe for just a moment he is a long-term deep-cover troll (or conglomerate of long-term deep-cover trolls)......but then I remember how the length and obsessiveness of any such troll campaign would make him just as pathetic as if he was for real. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression that Ken is actually a relatively intelliegtn bloke with a few issues. As usual in those situations the religious have moved in for the kill (I have seen this happen so many times with people close to death, people with severe personality disorders, those who have suffered a bereavement etc) and have used the vulnerability of the victim to fill their head with utter tripe. Ken then regurgitates this (as close as he can) verbatim. But get him off topic and to think and you see a different side to him. I know a person who suffers from quite sever bipolar and they caught him. Now he goes to church but talk to him and he admits that the xian myth is essentially just that. But the church are one of the few orgainsations that accept him (largely) without judgement. So he goes to have soemone to talk to other than the voices in his head. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Pssst! Karajerk...[edit]

If I was you, I'd be less worried about engaging in liberal name calling and IP stalking and more about learning the difference between "your" and "you're."img

Ooh, "nancy boy". Cutting put down. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he's literally from Nancy. Or maybe Popeye is just a git. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I got a look at the post. The poster agreed with Ken's assertion that the Iraqi Army was being massacred because they were trained by nancy boys saying the US Army would get there bottoms kicked by the British and Israeli Armies. Karajou being aggrieved by this responded as he did not wish to pull Ken up directly.--Mercian (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice to see kara's toadiness to Andy and the other CP editors overrides any pride or protectiveness in the military he spent 20 years swabbing poop decks for (and before you ask that isnt a jape about him being gay, just a jape about him being a failure). Honestly when I saw Ken proudly announce to the world that he(and by extention the whole of CP) now considered the US military to be filthy, liberal, pussified faggets because obama, I thought even Kara could not possibly let that stand....but no, so long as something tries impotently and pathetically smear Obama/Andy's personal enemies, there really is no depth the CP crew wont delve and no self professed ideal they will betray. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 06:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This stance sinks Conservapedia to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church. They already had the same view on gays, muslims and Sweden, now they share the view on the US Military being "fag enablers". I wonder how long it will be before Ken actually applauds the death of American soldiers. Is this what you want Karajou? Scumbags like Ken ridiculing your former comrades at arms? And you just sit by and let him get away with it.--Mercian (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this is always a stupid question to ask...[edit]

But why is Ken deleting all of Philip J. Rayment's talk archives? - π 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

After he got away with nuking Main Page talk, I guess he's going to wipe every god damn embarrassment he can from that site. --Revolverman (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Because kenny is a timid little bunny most comfortable hiding in his intellectual bunny hole who then, on the odd occasion he does venture out, deletes all evidence of his intellectual stupidity and cowardice. Keep dancing for your masters ken, shall we speed the music up a little for you? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
To make room for CP's "Article of the Year"[3]img--Mercian (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Hasn't CP had "article of the year" before, or something very similar, like "bestest articulah evah"? Or is it just my memory playing tricks on me? Dendlai (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think they had an article of the decade once. Ken Krap, obviously. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Article of the year??? The article is less than a week old and the year isn't even half over. Not to mention it's utter crap by pretty much any objective standard one could apply to an encyclopedia article. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be the article of the century, since it spells the logical defeat of atheismimg beyond any hope of recovery. Or not. The whole "if atheism is not a religion, then why are there atheist cults?" thing was removed after twenty or thirty minutes of air time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The pearl clutching is amusing.[edit]

"But we never knew!"img wails Roseann "Obama is a Commie-Nazi" Salanitri about the PATRIOT act. You know who could have told you, and indeed did tell you, that it was a gross overreach in invading everyone's privacy? EVERY FUCKING LIBERAL. You think you might want to repeal it now? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

CNAV needs better editing. Disbursement is something done with money. Military assets may be dispersed in the field, but "deployed" is probably a better choice of word. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
CNAV needs a lot of things, I reckon that bottom of the list is better editing. It needs fewer dwight kehoe type racists, less terry getting hammered in every discussion without once responding to the actual points put to him, less bradlee dean whining his butt hurt that Rachel Maddow slandered him in the most terrible way accurately quoted him and then won court cases saying she accurately quoted him. There's a lot that CNAV needs, when they sort all the other things out they can think about turning to better editing. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You overestimate her capacity for remorse. The Patriot Act was never designed to invade the privacy of Christians, only terrorists. And under a true American president, there were no problems. It's just that they were too naïve to imagine what a Commie-Nazi despot could do, twisting this benign law to his Satanic ends. Did you see her other piece, linked by Terry, in which she wonders out loud whether God is more like her Conservative side or her Libertarian side? If she had any idea what "God-fearing" meant, she'd be afraid to get out of bed after such musings. Whoover (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Yeah, that twice-elected Republican er, Neoconservative er, RINO er, Democrat George W. Bush tricked God-Fearing Americans into giving Obama all that power. Folks like Salantiri are holy and blameless in this, of course.
Fuck 'em. They asked for this, without thinking of the consequences, and now we're all trapped. Too little, too late. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This military assets transfer thing has been going on since 97, now they care. I reckon Ed Brayton was blogging about this back when Bush was president. It is not just that they ignored it, it is also they thought it was essential for citizens to own AR-15s. Now the police respond to a unknown situation and the guy could be armed with a gun capable of putting bullets in a car at 400m. - π 03:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We've always been at war with Eastasia[edit]

Turns out, Andy was against invading Iraq all alongimg--"Shut up, Brx." 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ken vs. the Booklet[edit]

Now that Ken has deleted the history of Conservapedia's main talk page, he goes on to purge his wiki from any mentioning of his greatest success of 2012 - or at least early / late 2013: THE BOOKLET. Indeed, the very word booklet has become as unwelcome as any mentioning of RationalWiki. To keep for posterity a version of Conservapedia in which THE BOOKLET was still a vision of the ultimate weapon to destroy atheism, here the parts of the archives which Ken just deleted:

cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/113
Man's "downhill genetic slide"

[...]

JHunter, biblical creationism and cp:global Christianity are growing in the world while the ideologies of evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism are growing weaker and weaker relatively speaking.[12] For example, in the cp:UK (which is the birthplace of Darwinism), much to the chagrin of the cowardly evolutionist cp:Richard Dawkins and the cowardly British Humanist Society (see: cp:Atheism and cowardice), creationism and evangelical Christianity are both growing in the UK while the prominent evolutionists/atheists in the UK hide in their intellectual bunny holes [13][14] (see: cp:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates). In addition, some cp:Question evolution! campaign supporters are about to go on a major offensive against Darwinism given a Question evolution campaign booklet and book are on their way to being completed. [15] Accordingly, I very much doubt that some compromise by some nameless and likely obscure evolutionist is going to have much appeal at this time to creationists. I suggest coaxing some prominent evolutionists out of their intellectual bunny holes and offering a far more appealing debate offer. Conservative 19:23, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

[...]

cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/117
Main Page Left - general thoughts

[...]

let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night - if only someone at QE also read Sun Tzu we wouldn't have this issue! :P Instead it's strategies this, booklet that, New Zealand, etcetera WilcoxD 18:54, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/126
Numbers

I did a quick text search over the source for MPR and found that there are ...

  • 238 instances of "----", meaning 239 articles in total (260 instances of "http", so some articles have more than one link)
  • 75 instances of "questionevolution.blogspot.com"
  • 58 instances of "www.conservativenewsandviews.com"

Given that Andy occasionally trims some blog articles I think it's safe to say that most of what gets added to MPR is blog related and not necessarily news. This is not right. I don't mind reading the occasional opinion piece, but it's not news. WilcoxD 00:25, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

What is your point? Conservatives often use radio and the Christian/conservative blogosphere to bypass the liberal media. Are you saying that this is wrong? Oh dear, I don't think this is going to go over well! :) Conservative 00:37, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
I think you are going to have to get use to this.
"In addition, given the upcoming Question Evolution! Campaign for middle school students which will be published in 2013, we will dramatically increase our campaign outreach into the Christian blogosphere. According to Creation Ministries International creationism is already being significantly spread through the Christian blogosphere: Blogosphere battlers". [16]
"Furthermore, given our recent alliance with a Christian who is one of the premiere people in the field of spreading a message to the public, we are very excited about learning about blog marketing from this gentleman and experts in blog marketing."[17] Conservative 00:40, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
My point, as stated directly above, is that the items in these blogs (particularly your QE blog) are not necessarily news, yet most of the MPR is being dedicated to these things, and this detracts from news that is actually interesting.
If you disagree then perhaps you could answer these questions: what concrete events or happenings have come of the exciting phonecalls and social media strategies that are reported? How's project 200+ going and what has it achieved lately? What do you have to actually show for all the announcements about the school booklet, or when is it due? When can we expect to see you accept any of the debate challenges that have been issued to you?
My point (again) is that these things which never even happen are diluting the news to the point where it is annoying to look through. As I've said, I think it makes a good source of Conservative news for someone like me who doesn't otherwise have access to a consolidated Conservative resource, and for that reason I think it's worth making noise about the quality of this resource.
If you still don't understand my point I'll just have to let someone else explain it to you - I will not be drawn into a talk page discussion that you can use to ban me for breaching the 90/10 rule again. WilcoxD 02:48, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

WilcoxD, you are obviously wasting my time with pointless questions. For example, your question on Project 200 Plus is easily answered. You merely need to go to the cp:Project 200 plus article. By the way, I hope you don't think you whining will stop the inevitable collapse of Darwinism and the continued rapid expansion of biblical creation belief in the world because it will not.[18] And you have given me no compelling reasons to not report on events related to this matter.

As far as debate challenges, I weigh them on a cost/benefit basis. Make me an offer that I cannot refuse. Debate offers to debate obscure atheists/agnostics/evolutionists (without them bringing something very substantial to the table) are uninteresting to me given the continued dying state of their respective foolish secular religions and the continued rapid expansion of biblical creation belief in the world.[19] See also: cp:Decline of atheism

I hope that clarifies things for you. Conservative 13:35, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Those questions were rhetorical, Conservative. I am fully aware that I can go to the Project 200+ article and see that nothing has been achieved. As I suspected, you don't seem to understand my point. WilcoxD 02:37, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/127
Atheist wiki editor admits evolution is disputable. Wants 200 years more years for Darwinism to have adequate evidence

Atheist cp:wiki editor admits that the cp:evolutionary cp:paradigm is disputable. Other atheist wiki editors don't challenge his assertion.[20]

Furthermore, notice he declared that evolution might be evidentially undisputable 200 years from now and this statement goes unchallenged as well.

"My dear atheist and evolutionist friends, biblical Christianity has an abundance of rock solid evidence right now! See: Evidence for Christianity"

As much as I hate to say it, once again biblical Christianity is victorious! :) Conservative 01:35, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Gentlemen, by the way, the 15 questions for evolutionists have really chiseled away at any miniscule hopes you had in your Darwinism bunkum. You are hoping that 200 years from now some solid evidence might finally be found for Darwinism, but of course in your heart of hearts, you know it will not. :) Conservative 02:49, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
I know we lock horns now and again about the tactics of the QE! blog, but I'm glad you're sticking around. Your spirited attitude is an inspiration! Rafael 08:06, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, due to my current priorities and time management concerns, I have chosen to lock horns less often on this talk page.
Second, you wrote on your user page concerning CP. "It has already changed my thinking about science and, in particular, has helped me to understand why evolutionism is wrong." Rafael, when did you decide to become an ex-evolutionist? Also, what content at CP caused you to change your mind about this matter? Was it the cp:evolution article? Conservative 11:20, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, by the way, I notice that Fergus Mason is really starting to get rattled and has descended into using uncouth communication now. Wait until a grassroots creationist community increases the frequency of its "depth charges" via greatly expanding their outreach subsequent to the cp:Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students being published.[21] Other books/booklets certainly may be published as well.[22] Captain: "No, It's working alright. I almost wish it wasn't. All ahead for attack Mr. Wier. Maybe we can rip him open in the middle of waltz."[23] :) Conservative 13:10, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

I notice that the cp:Mainstream media has totally failed to cover Rafael's conversion away from evolutionism (as noted on his User Page) which was inspired by Conserapedia. Perhaps a news item on the Main Page is warranted? --HyramF 22:23, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Conservative: there wasn't one individual thing that made me question evolution and start exploring the concept of intelligent design, more a steady drip drip drip. Coming on here to get the conservative perspective on US news, I was / am constantly exposed to ideas that aren't easily found elsewhere. It's a shame you won't be around so much, but I'll still challenge you now and again! Rafael 10:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

"Aussie Christians beats atheists in debate"

This headline has a grammatical error, the kind of grammatical error a university writing tutor would be able to catch. GregG 23:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

The error appears to have been fixed. I have put the somewhat off-topic comments in a hidden div. Move along, nothing to see here... GregG 00:59, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

The 15 questions for evolutionists point out elementary errors in Darwinism that an informed middle school student could catch. I am looking forward to the cp:Question evolution! campaign book for middle middle school students being widely promoted in 2013 and beyond. Conservative 14:52, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
We're in the middle of 2013, and I have seen neither hide nor hair of any QE booklet distributed (booklets on HM the Queen not withstanding). brenden 15:00, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
It's been 150 years since Darwinism was launched and creationists still haven't seen any credible evidence. Some evolutionists recently said in another 200 years they will have indisputable evidence.[24] Bible believing creationists have rock solid evidence right now for their worldview.[25] Conservative 16:03, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
1. "...creationists still haven't seen any credible evidence". And yet the actual scientists who work in the area almost unanimously agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Perhaps the creationists have difficulty understanding the science.
2. "Some evolutionists recently said..." By "Some evolutionists" do you mean a single anonymous poster to a wiki talk page? --HyramF 17:21, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
Your reply, user:C does not discredit my argument - waiting for QE's booklet seems to be an excercise in futility. brenden 17:47, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
I have flicked through the Question Evolution BlogSpot because as an uneducated creationist I am hoping to learn more. I observe that out of the last 20 posts or so only a handful were about questioning evolution and the rest are about websites doing badly, someone making a fool of themselves or lacking manliness. I am all for taking on atheists about their beliefs, not so much for unconnected reasons. Perhaps if you stuck to the core issue(s) instead of going of at tangents you would have more support and success.--Tomqua 18:28, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

Tomqua, your post sounds suspiciously like an evolutionist.

By the way, in the recent posts at the blog in question, there were 17 videos and numerous articles offered on the creation vs. evolution issue. Judging by your post here, it doesn't appear as if you watched those 17 videos nor did examine the wealth of other resources offered. At best you "flicked though" which is not all impressive as it does not show diligence. And of course, it doesn't take 17 videos to see the world is designed. Even Japanese schoolchildren can easily SEE this matter. Conservative 19:21, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

HyramF, you said, "Perhaps the creationists have difficulty understanding the science." Darwinist mumbo jumbo isn't science. There are no repeatable biological experiments showing macroevolution. And as far as the million of expected transitional fossil forms, evolutionists don't have them. So Darwinism fails on the historical science front too. See: cp:Evolution Conservative 21:04, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
Do my eyes deceive me? Is User:Conservative debating me in relation to evolution? Oh frabjous day! Let me address your first point first. You say "There are no repeatable biological experiments showing macroevolution". Wrong. A quick look at the evil Wikipedia shows the following highly referenced sentence in the Macroevolution article: "Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. cp:speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature". As to your second point, I suggest that you take a look at their Transitional fossil article which names a number of prominent examples. If you could explain to me why those examples are not examples of translational fossils I would be grateful. It seems to me that, in one sense, evolution being what it is, every fossil is a transitional fossil. I guess the irony there is that one day you might be a transitional fossil! Wouldn't that be amusing? --HyramF 22:59, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

HyramF, speciation is not the evolution of one major kind of animal/plant to another! Young earth creationists believe in speciation.[26]

Second, very prominent evolutionists have commented on the dearth of transitional fossils. See: cp:Evolution.

Game over HyramF! Feel free to engage in cp:last wordism! Conservative 00:24, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

I see HyramF at least dug up some references. Your reply not only did not support itself with evidence, but ignored Hyram's point entirely - the evidence for Evolution is compelling, even more so than the "evidence" that your precious "creation.com" has. Finally, you have not even attempted to attack the arguments at the top of this thread: QE's booklet is dormant, and has been delayed over and over again, ergo, you can stop trumpetting it like it's the next piece of breaking news.brenden 08:49, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Brenden, your post was incorrect. And here is a more precise citation rather than citing the entire article as I did previously: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms
Second, biblical creation belief is getting stronger by the day in the world and hardcore Darwinism is getting weaker by the day relatively speaking.[27] Creationists can methodically and patiently create a Question Evolution! book for middle school students and ignore the petty impatience of Darwinists. "Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience he stands waiting, With exactness grinds he all." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow :) Conservative 10:14, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
I honestly believe you have no desire or intention of your campaign succeeding, either that or the campaign is so poorly managed that it has no chance of succeeding. You ask for help but turn down any offer of help. When someone offers constructive criticism you insult them. Surely this campaign is not supposed to be conducted in a clandestine manner yet you reveal no details on who has read your booklet or who it has been distributed to. Why the secrecy? This is not a matter of national or economic security, this is a message that should be spread at widely as possible, with the ability to be able to make contact with the organizers if queries or doubts arise. To the outsider the QE BlogSpot appears to be nothing more than a vehicle to insult or belittle those you do not agree with. I am willing and eager to assist in this campaign but think I will look for another avenue to do so. I have nothing more to say on this matter.--Tomqua 13:10, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Tomqua, still not impressed with your "flicked through" shoddy examination of the blog in question ("Flicked through" - those are your words and not mine). Conservative 13:12, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Well, it's a shoddy blog. Most of it consists of links to another page full of links. Why waste any significant amount of time on it?
A creation museum is helping out the Question Evolution! Campaign by supplying young people to review a draft of the upcoming book

A creation museum is helping out the cp:Question evolution! campaign by supplying young people to review the 3rd draft of the upcoming Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students. [28]

The anticipation of the explosive growth of the campaign is building! Conservative 16:11, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Mhmmn. You haven't addressed the issue of seeing neither hide nor hair of the booklet, despite previous announcements stating it would be released in the first half of 2013. brenden 17:23, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Strategies/tactics/plans/timing of events change in both ideological wars and military warfare.[29] There are countless examples of people/groups changing there strategy/tactics/plans and then going on to victory. This seems upsetting to you. I suggest you get over it. One thing for certain, global creationism is expanding and is flowing into the Western World (even in secular France and Europe) while global atheism/agnosticism shrinks. [30] Conservative 19:30, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Incidentally, on the front page it says that the timing of Project 200+'s expansion has been "revealed" - I believe you meant to write "revised". WilcoxD 19:43, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps the true scope and impact of Project 200+ and the Question evolution! campaign have been "revealed." Wschact 16:37, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
cp:Talk:Main Page/Archive index/128
Kobe Bryant

[...]

So then, it doesn't matter if you fail. As long as you are more enthusiastic about your Christian beliefs, you win! Using this logic, shall we consider the QE booklet, the QE campaign, and Conservapedia itself to all be monumental successes?--FredZ 12:53, 16 December 2013 (EST)

FredZ, Tebow had a respectable track record with the Broncos.

Darwinism was stopped dead in its tracks with question #1 of the Question Evolution! Campaign which deals with the cp:origin of life.[31] Both cp:PZ Myers and Nick Matzke, who are prominent evolutionists, agree that abiogenesis is a part of "evolution" (evolutionary cp:paradigm).[32] And the agnostics, cp:Richard Dawkins and cp:Francis Crick both embarrassed themselves with their "little green men"/cp:panspermia "explanation"/hypothesis for the origin of life. Where did the little green men come from pray tell? Little blue men? Face it, you have an infinite regress of little green/blue/red/orange/etc. men! In short, Darwinists have failed and the Question Evolution! Campaign continues to be triumphant. Darwinists continue to be stumped 15 times via the 15 questions for evolutionists.

Furthermore, cp:VivaYehshua, a biology student at a major university, gloriously defeated the evolutionist Fergus Mason who agreed to debate him on the 15 questions for evolutionists and then evolved into a chicken and backed out of the debate. VivaYehshua won by forfeiture.

FredZ, you are an atheist/evolutionist/liberal who is obsessed with CP because you cannot find one factual error in the cp:atheism, cp:evolution and cp:homosexuality articles. On the other hand, I merely see these particular articles as tools to inform people about these errant ideologies. And there are so many tools to do this that are available that I could never be obsessed with these articles like you are. It would be like worshiping a hammer in my tool chest! FredZ, just admit it, deep down you are a frustrated man who knows that God exists. There is no sense denying it.

Next, if providence should deem another creationist booklet to be written by a creationist that would just be icing on the cake at this point. Creationists have already won the intellectual argument and the timid, little Darwinist, bunny Fergus Mason who backed out of his debate with the Darwinism skeptic VivaYehshua is a living testimony to this fact! To my knowledge, Mr. Mason has never redeemed himself by fulfilling his promise to debate VivaYehshua. Fergus continues to wallow in his cowardice while VivaYeshua stands tall knowing that he won his debate with Mr. Mason hands down!

FredZ, please feel free to engage in cp:last wordism at this point. Conservative 15:00, 16 December 2013 (EST)

feel free to engage in cp:last wordism at this point., indeed --larron (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Ken really is scrambling to cover up all his past bullshit, now that it's blatantly clear there never was, nor never will be a book in any shape or form. Congratulations on once again lying for Jesus, Ken, just a shame your only audience - us - didn't buy it at all. Now then, little man, carry on dancing for us! Let's see just how much of Andy's blog you can delete before he slaps you down. My money's on all of it. PsyGremlinSprich! 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This might be Andy's sly way of killing the wiki without being seen as the assassin. --Revolverman (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And he has now killed Archive 110 in it's entirety. Way to go Ken. Ghost (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And GregGimg continues to bravely point out both kens's mendacity and andy's snivelling acceptance of ken shitting on his blog. How long before GregG becomes the latest unperson? I notice kenny has just unpersoned JinxM. Oldusgitus (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance task[edit]

cp:User:Conservative asked cp:User:JoeyJ to help him with a little maintenance task:

JoeyJ, I know you like to do wiki maintenance tasks. I started a maintenance task, but I don't have the time to do it all myself.
There is a list of editors/users here: http://conservapedia.com/Special:ListUsers
If you go through the list and put delete page tags on the user pages and user talk pages of users who have been inactive for 5 years, then those pages can be deleted. Conservative 04:43, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Arrrgh:

  • Is their any reason for purging these pages?
  • Conservapedia has 58,800 registered users
  • More than 25,000 of those have edited these pages at least once
  • Nearly 14,000 of those have not been active for over five years

How does cp:User:Conservative expect JoeyJ to perform his task?

  • At cp:Special:ListUsers, you can spot the editors who have their own user page (4900 out of 58,800 - or 8%)
  • 1500 of those user-pages belong to inactive users
  • But what you cannot spot easily are those who have their own talk-pages: there are 8900 of those, 3500 being inactive for over five years

At the bare minimum, JoeyJ has to inspect the user-contribution of 4900 editors, and mark 1500 of those as to be deleted... And afterwards, still a lot of unchecked talk-pages would still be out there...

And all this to perform a task of a robot like cp:EdBot - who should be able to do this in minutes were it not for the technical incompetence of all sysops involved in the project...

The reason behind this seems to be to create a smokescreen to hide the deletions of pages which contain the word booklet, as cp:User:Conservative has bragged about this on various talk-pages.

--larron (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much the reason behind it - Ken hoping his deceit will be camouflaged amongst all the other deletions. On the subject of EdBot, I see Smeg Ed's last edit to CP was on 31 Jan. So either things are going very well over at WP, he's done a TK, or everybody's favourite Moonie has decided that Andy's blog is too distasteful, even for him. PsyGremlinSprich! 10:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The lack of a spine and balls for Andy is mindblowing, for a man who believes every insight of his is divinely inspired. He has all the cards. At any second, he can end Ken on CP for as long as he wants. There is no reason to not do so, as Ken's antics have been a drag on the site for years. He won't though. Why? Perhaps god only knows. --Revolverman (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy's too far invested. He's at least tacitly condoned Ken's actions for so long that banning him or otherwise publicly chastising him now would be invalidating too much of Andy's past behavior. I'm sure Andy has long ago internally justified Ken's antics via some conservative insight mental gymnastics. Shakedangle (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy has already justified Ken's actions - claiming that his article bring many pageviews to CP - handily ignoring that most of these are either people coming to laugh, or clickbots, pushing Ken's drivel up the rankings. However, now that Andy seems to have given up lauding each months "record" number of visitors, etc, etc... that might become irrelevant. PsyGremlinSprich! 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point in the game, Ken has expended more energy promoting, telling lies about, and attempting to remove all traces of the aforementioned lies and promotions - than it would have taken to actually write the booklet.--Inquisitor (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

When you constantly deceive and lie you have to be consistent or it will come back to haunt you. Very few of us are able to pull it off and Ken certainly is unable to. Thing is, if he had left it to quietly die people would eventually forget, these latest edits just bring it back to everyone's attention. Just let the sleeping dog lie and it would have quietly gone away but now even more people are aware. I can imagine Andy and Karajou burying their heads in their hands right now as everyone else has a laugh at their expense. It takes something very special to embarrass Conservapedia but he has managed it, way to go.--Mercian (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I especially like his shout out's to both us and to karajou and andy. He's now askin gthem if they can contact uncle Ed to sort out the software. Failing that he has a 'friend' who will charge him to do it. Ken, friends don't charge friends for simple tasks like configuring wiki software. Tehy either do it for free or refuse to do it. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
And once again our dancing fool creates a FYI page. This one redirects hereimg rather than actually being a page on cp. And of course his google page redirects to this gibberishimg. Ken, really. If you want to talk to us just make an account ehre and talk instead of spending your time running to your bunny hole and creating multiple re-directs. Now, waht dance steps will you perform for me now little dancer? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
He's got an account here: user:Newton if I recall aright. Scream!! (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So it's still on track. I am hardly a rich man but if Ken can produce the booklet with solid plans on publishing details I will donate £50 to the cause, roughly $75.--Mercian (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I love it. The booklet is about two years late and it's still "coming soon." Ken, don't you ever get tired of lying? Also, lying your arse off then going round frantically deleting the lies is not a strategy. You can pretend you're being mysterious all you want, but this is about the sixth round of the same behavior we've seen from you. You're as transparent as glass. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
AND...... burnt. Well done ken, those were exactly the dance steps I was directing you to take. Now, see if you can follow the latest dance instructions today. Oldusgitus (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PSST! Ken! Get your matches and dancing shoes out, you missed some burnin': HIGHLY FLAMMABLEimg. You're welcome. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And Ken's just awarded himself "Article of the Year"[edit]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH *gasp* AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH Ruddager (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah every time they do that, it reminds of some cult of personality authoritarian leader having his country give him the highest award. Conservapedia is the closest thing to a virtual North Korea on the Internet.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
IIRC back in the day when CP still had featured articles, which changed weekly, Ken somehow managed to get an article of the month, year and (correct me if I'm wrong) decade on the mainpage. Because the little tyke wasn't getting ALL the attention. PsyGremlinSprich! 18:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The funniest part IMO is that he buried the change from "month" to "year" surreptitiously among a pile of other small changes when he made the edit. The saddest part is that it's not even the end of June and he already seems to have resigned to the fact that this shitty article is the best he (or any other editor) can musterRuddager (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, this could be the Article of the Year. Think about it... Andy, Karajou, Terry and Ed don't write articles, so there are no other core editors in the running. That leaves some minor player or a young interloper. Any article outside CP's fields of interest (atheism, anti-liberalism, creationism...) will get ignored. But if some fool does write something that falls within Ken's wheelhouse, he'll shit all over it and lock everyone else out. Thus, making it his article anyway. CP Editor of the Century would be a worthy title, IMO. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
And now he starts treating cp as if it is some kind of blog for 5 year oldsimg. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
And thereby kicking JM in the nuts by usurping his role as CP art correspondent. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 00:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ken who? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Aww how sweetimg. I can think of nothing better than pressing karajerks buttons by 'asking' him to do military articles. Go on Brian, you know you want to please ken and you know you are his bitch. 19:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
For once, Kendoll made laugh with him and not at him. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg i mustn't run away i mustn't run away i mustn't run away 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AugustO's Last Stand[edit]

After a year's absence, AugustO returned. He apparently couldn't take one of Andy's clueless CBP translations. Or maybe AugustO was drunk-editing. In any case, he got blocked for trolling. An ignominious end for one of CP's very few serious editors. Ever. Whoover (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Update. Ken unblocked him and he promised to be "diplomatic." Whoover (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Which Ken just burned. He seems to be looking for AugustO to have his way with Andy. He had said "I'm rooting for you :)" on AugustO's talk page, and burned it when AugustO replied. What a clown car. Whoover (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"Clown car"...I like it. Acei9 05:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
And who should step out with the biggest, floppiest shoes? Karajou, who just reverted the latest AugustO edit. So the lines are drawn. Whoover (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If Ken is on AuguestO's side, even secretly, then he's got nothing to fear. He could just make Karajou disappear with a few quick burns. --Revolverman (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I would hardly call being blocked by pretty dodgy parodist like JamesWilson being that life threatening to your "career" at conservapedia though, especially for AugustO. I'm surprised Ken hasn't decided to fiddle with Karajou, Ed Poor, and Aschlafly's archives given there are mentions of ken's stash of porn the booklet on those pages. Ghost (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Ken's most lucid moments have been in his criticism of the CBP. He does not like it and has not held back in telling Andy that.--Mercian (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, so did Koward - although that was mostly in the seekrit admin space and once he knew Andy wasn't backing down, he tucked tail and decided not the risk the only bit of authority he's ever had in his life. PsyGremlinSprich! 09:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The man behind the screen has finally responded to AugustO's argument (that "son of man" in Greek doesn't translate to "son of God" except in Andy's imagination.) Andy's rebuttal: "I'm right." The only thing I don't understand is why AugustO thinks that he's having a logic-based debate. Andy has never once deferred to facts and never will. Why would he when God tells him to ignore the evidence? Does AugustO have some problem reading people? Is he Ken's mirror-image Aspie? IS HE A SOCK OF KEN?? Whoover (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that august is a serious editor, that's all.--Miekal 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any editor left for whom Schlafly had officially created his wiki: a (home-schooled) pupil who wants to contribute to articles, wants to work through the ranks of this bullycracy, and is willing to be schooled by the old sysops.
Instead, you have got the obvious trolls, who want to have fun at the expense of everybody else (like JamesWilson).
AugustO is one of the better editors left: not of the kind which Schlafly had envisioned, perhaps he stumbled into the mess having some serious concerns. Why he is still tilting windmills, I don't know. But the Bible is a big deal for many ;-)
--larron (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about August. I really can't work him out. I tend to the attitude that he is a well educated person who dislikes seeing blatant idiocy passed off as conservatism and christianity. So when he see's andy writing drivel again he can't resist himself. Either that or he is a consummate troll, driving andy to ever more idiocy as he tries to defend his insights. I notice he is prodding andy with the shitty stick again over E=mc2 Oldusgitus (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to lean towards the latter. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Mixture of both: he seems to care about his bible (and his physics). If so, correct and credible articles on these things would be the best. The second best are incorrect but incredible articles - and while he may aim for the former, he at least achieves the latter: most hurtful for a subject are those articles which are quite wrong, but rather credible... --larron (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And now kenny has deletedimg August's talk page. Did anyone catch what drivel the man-child is oversighting this time? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

He did it a second time. This time, cp:User:GregG caught it:

A message from Conservative to AugustO
Although I can be blunt at times and mock foolishness when it is called for, I can also be diplomatic when it is called for. If you want to pursued someone who has more power than you in a given situation, the phrase "I am afraid you are still wrong" is not going to cut the mustard. Consider reading THIS.
I hope you find this information helpful. Conservative 13:02, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

Ken is trying to play soccer-mum. How cute...
--larron (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting Ken in a position of power proves Andy should never be in charge of anything. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Getting advice from Ken on effective persuasion is like learning sex techniques from the Pope. Or from Ken, for that matter. Whoover (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Im sure there is a fleshlight salesman who would vehemently dispute your assertions as to Ken's lack of sexual activity. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bitchslap!img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You know Conservapedia is over when...[edit]

England put in their worst ever performance at the world cup, and we hear not peep out of Andy about atheistic Britain and underachieving. He just doesn't give a shit any more. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'cos he'd have to explain how religious, conservative Spain and Italy are also out. Not to mention South Korea, with it's long-haired, sweet-voiced, creationist sweethearts... Oh yeah, and those evil Dutch topped their group... PsyGremlinSprich! 19:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way Psygremlin you still owe me a pint over my prediction that England would retain the Ashes. Oh wait.--Mercian (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Dutch are much more religious than the British, outside Amsterdam. In towns all along the Waal valley, shops are closed on Sundays and many people go to church twice. And they win their World Cup group. QED. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When you say British I assume you have not taken into account the Unionist community in NI. A very religious bunch.--Mercian (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just about every shop in Germany is also closed on a Sunday and it's not exactly a hotbed of piety. It's just the law.--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 09:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Mercian: I said 'British' advisedly, not including Ulster. You're right. (So why is N.Ireland's football team so rubbish? Ha! Got you there, Schlafly.) Fergus: I take your point but in many rural areas and small towns in the Netherlands, religion is still a big deal for a substantial minority. Creationism is much more common in the Netherlands than in the UK. Who is still in Brazil and who has flown home?! (Presumably, there's an alternative explanation for Germany...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"Creationism is much more common in the Netherlands than in the UK." Is that right? I was under the impression that it was more that there are a few big name creationists who happen to be in the Netherlands, that they had a bit of a nutty Education Minister a few years back who thought it might be a good idea to teach creationism in schools (which was soundly and roundly rejected by parliament and her own party), and that there is a small fundamentalist Calvinist minority. But mostly that the likes of AiG have been bigging up creationism in Holland because, well, mostly because the Dutch are a pretty tolerant lot most of the time and anyone can say pretty much whatever they like without anyone getting too wound up about it. Is this perception not the whole story then? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Conservative Russia went out at the expense of muslim Algeria. Point to me:) The reason Andy is not pushing this is because he realises it is bullshit.. --Mercian (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
But most of what andy says is bullshit and that doesn't stop him. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Go Desert Foxes! But to give Andy an explanation, Russia's goalie was blinded by a laser pointer, so clearly there was some liberal deceit involved. Vulpius (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@AJK: I know many more creationists in NL, which I've visited occasionally for work over 25 years, than I do from a lifetime in the UK. Perhaps my impression is coloured a little by the fact that I've mostly worked in places between Rotterdam and Arnhem, one of the areas where Calvinism is very much alive and well, but the Dutch tradition of public tolerance is the counterpart of often strong private beliefs. And the Lord has blessed the boot of the Mexican defender who brought down Arjan Robben, QED. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, a little anecdotal. But many thanks, Your Eminence. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy has come up with But Spain did not enjoy long-term success: it was eliminated early in the 2014 World Cup, failing even to advance to the second round. Since gay marriage was legalized in 2005. Since 2005 Spain have had the most consistent success in the history of world football.--Mercian (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Same logic that declared Canada's performance in the 2010 Olympics (you know, most gold medals of all time?) "Disappointing". Because Gay Marriage. --Revolverman (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A little study shows, out of 8 quarterfinalists 6 allow same sex marriage, Columbia allows same sex unions and Costa Rica looks to be going that way. Eat that Andy.--Mercian (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How long will this one last?[edit]

I see the new 'markman' has appeared and is busy pretending to be an honest contributor. He's already been called out on his game of thrones name, and denied it, but is now busy creeping up andy's arse and arguing with AugustO. I wonder how long before he gets block rights and starts picking fights. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Each time a new troll appears - usually more blatant obvious than the last one - I think: "wow, there is no way that Andy doesn't spot this one". But, no, a couple of nice words about his bible project, and Andy starts swooning over him, just to get his heard ripped out a couple of days or weeks later. --larron (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Although they have been loathe to grant full sysopships these days... I think DouglasA(dams) must have been the last one. PsyGremlinSprich! 12:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would they bother? Their userbase is so tiny that there's no reason they need to have more sysops. They've long since given up on trying to grow the site through more users. Cow...Hammertime! 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
And andy entirely predicatably comes down on the sideimg of the latest parodist who promptly ticklesimg andys sweet spot. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This new cat has torn a page out of the Markman playbook and is running with it. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy has entered that place where he's indistinguishable from a parodist. His argument as to why Jesus's words, "Son of Man" in the Greek, should be translated as "Son of God" has pretty much been, "I'm right." Poor AugustO has been set on by Andy's cult of personality, which has, in turn, given Andy a sort of liquid courage. He has finally responded with logic, to wit, that "Son of Man" uses the archaic word "Man," whereas "God" is more modern (presumably because it's Conservative). And if you don't update Jesus the kids will presumably read Einstein insteadimg. AugustO continues to sputter towards the brink.Whoover (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Please, answer my points above (repeatedly stated), or stop calling your actions a translation, call it what Jesus Christ should have said: a Gospel according to Andrew Schlafly!" Surely he doesn't think that he can win this fight. It seems to me that he has grown tired of CP, and wants to go out in a bang. Going MexMax on everybody is beneath his level, so he's trying to push Andy to his breaking point by exposing his foolishness. - 92.222.24.250 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little mindsimg:

Andy, it's nice to see how your reasoning has developed: In 2010, you stated that άνθρωπος should generally be translated as "man" or "men", and "human being" or "people" would mean to "just repeat and parrot increasingly liberal sources". Now, in 2014, you say that "man" is archaic, and that "Strong's confirms that the primary meaning of ἄνθρωπος is "a human being." It should not be translated as something else." Luckily, both opinions are partly wrong :-)

Thank you, August, you made me laugh. --larron (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To the surprise of nobody[edit]

Markman Mark II gets block rights. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If only we had another Bugler-scale happening. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
And Andy takes a few victory laps rubbing weird Son of Man translationsimg in AugustO's faceimg. And while he's at it, more evidence that the Bible foretold the Second Law of Thermodynamicsimg, or at least Andy's version in which a massive inflow of energy has no effect on a system. This enhances the main reason to translate "logos" as perfection: Microsoft Word. I fear that AugustO has returned to his cave for good. Whoover (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You'd think Andy would've learned by now. But noooo, stroke his ego and you're in. It's beautiful to watch. PsyGremlinSprich! 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. PetyrB blocks AugustO
  2. AugustO unblocks himself to protest
  3. AugustO gets his rights revoked while there is a pending investigation
--larron (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesus christ, Andy. Are you really going to fall for this yet again? Wow. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Some people have a superhuman ability to not learn from the past: libertarians/neoliberals, vaccine denialists, communists, Andy. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature of moral choice. 22:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy to MM Mark II: Please piss all over the Word of Godimg. "I am the Son, a human being." That sounds like Jesus introducing himself at the refreshment table at Mary's piano recital. Such poetry in Andy's soul. Whoover (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The deed is done. But Mark II went even farther than Andy condoned, changing "the Son of Man" to "the Son of God, a man" (where the italicized words were not in Andy's work order). It's time for AugustO to go postal. I wonder if "son of Mary" will become "son of God, a Mary." Whoover (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Looksimg likeimg it's onimg. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
for someone apparently pretending to be in the middle east, he sure has a very US time zone edit pattern. I wonder if he's been checkusered yet. of course he'll be using a proxy to hide his covert ops identity no doubt , though I'm confused why he would use his real name in that case...
The edits peak late evening ME time. Don't forget that the site is locked down for our night. On the other hand, we have seen parodists in the ME. Whoover (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
"real name?" --A Real Libertarian (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
AugustO comes back guns blazingimg (for him anyway). This could get interesting when markman2 wakes up and reads that. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
And Bloody hell the stopped clockimg steps in to support AugustO. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
My prediction: Andy will oversight this entire thing and it will be gone as if nothing happened... Until Littlefinger will raise his head again. - Bill Rawls (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Delicious replyimg by Markman II. "Do you find hints of parody in any of the edits I have made so far?" Nicely done. Shakedangle (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the odds that Andy admits he's wrong greater than the remote chance that PetyrB is a sock of Andy himself? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You realize Ken did that because he read about the whole sordid affair here.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Kenny's 100% record consists entirely of reading here when we identify the latest obvious troll who is tickling andy just where he likes to be tickled. Add in Ken's obviously deeply felt belief that andy is basically commiting blasphemy in the cbp and bingo, he will stand up for August against the obvious troll. I don't like ken, I think he is ill. But he obviously beleives that the cbp is a big mistake both for cp and religiously. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At least he has that redeeming quality, which is more than Andy has.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that "Son of man" is poetry and could be Homer or Shakespeare. "the Son, a human being" sounds like a google translation. Except that google doesn't translate that badly. Go Andy! Whoover (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

^^This. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Something to add to the long list of things JPatt doesn't understand.[edit]

Sports.img Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fucking points tables, how do they work? PsyGremlinSprich! 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
To be mildly fair to Mr Sedition the redhead (female as it happens) who sits behind me at work asks very much the same type of questions. This is not to say females do not understand football, more to say that someone from England who happens to be female does not understand football. And surely it would be shorter to list thngs JPatt does understand rather than trying to list all those he doesn't. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sports idiocy on CP always reminds me of Aschlaly's contention that rugby must be atheist/liberal/evolutionist/whatever and therefore not a conservative sport because players can't pass the ball forwards. Made me giggle. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? Because apart from the initial throw from the QB, you can't pass the ball forward in gridiron football either--"Shut up, Brx." 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I remember him saying it as well. IIRC it was around the same time, if not in the same discussion, that football was declared liberal because offside. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
A lateral or backwards pass happens in American football so rarely it can be considered an anomaly, like when a Democrat wins an election. In rugby, it happens over and over, shamelessly, like men in jock straps at a Pride Parade. Whoover (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Jpatt also doesn't appear to understand the NFL playoffs either, unless it is a joke sport. For example, the Cardinals missed the playoffs despite winning more games than the Packers last year but the later made the playoffs. - π 07:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A new Angrydome![edit]

As per usual, Karajou's only topic of conversationimg is what some drive-by wandal did at Conservapedia. Who does he think he's writing for? Andy? Ken? When your blog audience is limited to about 3 people, why would you even bother writing? You could send them all an email or something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I love the sound of impotent rage in the morning. PsyGremlinSprich! 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is he blaming RW for something that was posted on CP?--Mercian (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Because in his mind, all vandals are from here, all Germans are Sid, everybody else is Ames, and even if an image of horeseman in Egypt was camera flare, or photoshopping, it's a sign Jesus is coming any day now. PsyGremlinSprich! 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop trying to make 'Otisburg' happen. It's not going to happen. Grumblejaws (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
We are his only audience. Do you think Andy or anyone else on Conservapedia reads his dribble? Well perhaps Ken does, and through doing so has lost respect for Karajou and thus occasionally mocks our favorite angry sailor.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Why on Earth do they put the external link on its own after the topic, rather than making the topic the actual link? It looks like the external links are just footnotes. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 09:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Because they have no real idea how to edit a wiki nor create a hyperlink. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

football is a sport for gays[edit]

fucking imbeciles AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

AngusT, working Andy like a pro, brother jack dude. --Revolverman (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
(Better link) - also, I think Angus is pissing on Andy's "allowing gay marriage ruins countries' spors abilities" bullshit. I rather like how Andy's sole defence is that Spain didn't manage to defend their title. PsyGremlinSprich! 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Justin Fashanu was gay and he stopped playing 25 years ago. Even a good while after his death, John, Justin's brother gets angry and goes into denial mode if this is mentioned. Since then I can think of a grand total of zero gay footballers. By the way, the American goaly Tim Howard put in one of the best goalkeeping displays I remember but his beard, how Muslim is that?--Mercian (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
And Clint Dempsey's goal against Ghana will be remembered long after Conservapedia is so much cyber dust. Mind you, nobody will forget Iran holding Argentina by the balls for a long time either. London Grump (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I love this! He is simultaneously playing to Andy's pet theories and paranoia while pissing all over them at the very same time. Goes to show you can thrive on Conservapedia through trolling as long as you stroke Il Duce's ego at the same time, even if it's via mockery.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

homosexual sports trumping conservative ones[edit]

That's what I imagine Andy thinking if he sees this. More Americans watched the World Cup thing than the NBA finals. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand Martinez at all.[edit]

How in God's name did he imagine that thisimg was a suitable link for CP-MPR? (It took about 20 minutes for Schlafly to nuke it). Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 21:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

He really doesn't seem to notice what a bunch of racist twats his compatriots are. Either that or he's pretending not to notice their racism in return for them pretending not to notice his antisemitism. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've said it before, JoMar is just as weird in his own way as the rest of the CP regulars. Politically though, he's a completely different kettle of fish. And he either hasn't noticed or just doesn't give a shit and sometimes treats Conservapedia as if it's his personal blog, using it to spread love for dictators or putting a pictures of a skeletal dude on the main page two days after Halloween.
I find it interesting that Andy replaced JoMar's story with one about the World Cup. It looks like he has a new man crush in the form of Christian sports star Tim Howard. Will Andy now become a soccer fan and complain that the American lamestream media isn't giving enough attention to that Christian sport? Spud (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The whole civil rights movement and the resulting migration of southern democrats to the republican party is something that a lot of conservatives like to pretend never happened. Not because they don't like blacks but because they don't want you to know they don't like blacks. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems fun, or going to be fun.[edit]

Especially when the user itself isn't blocked.img K61824What is going on? 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh. Why is he deleting all of that content? AyzmoCheers 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
From what I remember, this particular parodist specialized in redirects. My guess is that it's fairly unimportant redirect pages being removed, not real content. There's no great reason to do even that, except to assert dickishness. Whoover (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy Gets it Backwards[edit]

Andy's going on about ziggurats being Biblical Scientific Foreknowledgeimg and Greatest Conservative Wordimg because they were unknown before 1877. He's confusing the first citation of the word in English with the very ancient awareness of these Babylonian towers; they were just called "towers of Babylon" before that date. He's missing the association of "tower of Babylon" and "tower of Babel," or rather, reversing it. He's claiming the Tower of Babel predicted towers in Babylon. I guess that's why they had to name the place Babylon.

In fact, Herodotus wrote of them and Nebuchadnezzar (he's in the Bible, right?) built a famous one that scholars think was the source of the Tower of Babel story. It was certainly well known throughout the Biblical world and period.

Andy is adding ancient Sumerian to his resumé, alongside ancient Greek. I think AugustO will let this one slide. Whoover (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Really backwards. The largest ziggerat known was the Etemenanki, built sometime between the 14th and 10th centuries BCE and rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar II, it was around 91 meters tall (even the ziggeraut of Ur, built in the 21st century BC, was only a little over 30 meters tall). By comparison, the Great Pyramid, built in 2560–2540 BC was originally 146.5 meters tall. So why isn't the pyramids seen as the "tower of Babel" given their comparative age and greater heights? Well, we know the answer, they just don't fit well into the narrative Andy has created for himself.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't click on the "famous one" link, I see. But it's worth repeating in line. Whoover (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Presumably if you believe like Andy, then you have to believe it's the thought that counts. God doesn't smite us when we built skyscrapers or launch space ships, because we aren't stupid enough to believe that we're going to get to heaven in them. So a ziggurat that's dwarfed by modest hills is still the tower of babel in Andy's twisted little mind. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, PetyrB, tell Andy yes, it should be the Ziggurat of Babelimg. Whoover (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

CBP Funnies[edit]

I'm reading a lot more Bible than I ever did since I discovered Andy's version. It has so many wonderful howlers. This oldie is still current: "We really nailed it...,"img said by the Jews considering handing Jesus to the Romans for crucifixion. Andy clearly has a cavity where most of our brains detect irony. It's the root of the CP lulz-fest. Whoover (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I finally understand what the CBP is about. Its a bible for idiots. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian nations are the best in the World Cup again, dominating the top four.[edit]

At least according to Andy.[4]img How the fuck is he able to twist the fact that theses liberal gay marriage loving nations reaching the semi finals to be a positive for his worldview? I've heard it all now.--Mercian (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I really have trouble telling whether Andy is just clutching at straws to save face and keep his only Christians are good at sports lunacy or is genuinely delusion. Bona fide medical condition delusional. I am by no means the sharpest knife in the draw but surely an idiot can see how weak is arguments are let alone a graduate a prestigious ivy league university. I am often embarrassed by my lack of education but Andy really is proof that education is not the same as intelligence. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been rooting for the Netherlands, and now I really hope they win. I love seeing Andy calling them, one of the least religious countries in the world, "Christian." I also notice that Kendoll has purged the World Cup article of its mention of gay marriage countries and their success, and banned the author as well. Right now 3 of the 4 are full gay marriage countries, while Germany is civil union. DickTurpis (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We kick this around and joke about it and talk about how it's not funny to joke about and how we're not doctors and can't diagnose people on the internet, but Andy almost certainly suffers from grandiose delusional disorder. There aren't a lot of treatment options beyond therapy, which, from my experience having dealt with a family member with bizarre delusions, is basically impossible to get them to agree to. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
He suffers from Being A Pillock Who Always Has To Be Right Disorder. It's in the DSM V book. Or at least it should be. Casionaut (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Something called "grandiose delusional disorder" seems like a reasonable effect of being born with the possibility of doing anything you want--literally no obstacles in terms of educational and professional opportunity--and ending up doing pretty much nothing with that. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to dignify it with a new section, but Andy's victory lap on Djokovic's win ("Greatest Conservative Sports Star Novak Djokovic dedicates his Wimbledon championship to his unborn child, in another setback to the liberal mindset") reminds us that he really believes liberals consider every live birth a missed opportunity. "Pro-choice" is Newspeak because pro-aborts want more abortions and every intended pregnancy is a setback. There's disease there too. Whoover (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that there's any doubt at this stage who's going to win the Brazil/Germany match, but it's win/win for Andy. Germany wins, therefore gay marriage has ruined Brazil. Brazil wins, therefore Christians beat atheists. It's so easy when you can don't have to make any predictions and can adjust your argument based on the result. Won't stop there from being a new entry in "Conservapedia proven right" regardless of the final outcome. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't football a liberal game because there are no clear winners? I'm confused now.--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 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally![edit]

The idiots finally figured out that PetyrB, aka Markman Mark II was actually Markman Iimg. Why did it take them so long to checkuser? Whoover (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Who bets Andy reverses it? --Revolverman (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, isn't sad that Ken has by FAR the sharpest eye on CP when it comes to spotting parodists? --Revolverman (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
He's like the Aspie at a school for the autistic. Whoover (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. All he does is come here to read who is a parodist, which makes him seem smarter than the other two leftover loonies. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey, at least that means he's far more aware then Andy, who only needs a good asshole tonguing to be totally convinced someone is 100% on the level. --Revolverman (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Also since CP is only capable of attracting parodists at this point... it doesn't take a whole lot of clairvoyance to figure it out. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ken you really should have locked up the database instead of trying to unblock yourself and block Markman, would have been more effective. Also I notice the PhyllisS is still blocked and SharonS finally has had her admin rights revoked after 5 years of inactivity. It seems Brenden is finally permabanned as well. Ghost (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Kenimg but it clearly wasn't. How's the booklet coming along ? #wanker If you're going to say something be a man and actually say it rather than hiding in your bunnyhole Ghost (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
TK is still unblocked. - 79.177.99.20 (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Nevermind, Ken just blocked him again. - 79.177.99.20 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell us what he said, Ghost? The capture is just of the error message. Spud (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Is CP Down?[edit]

I am getting 500's from it. Is it just me? K61824TK = Terry Koeckritz 13:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm getting it too. - 79.177.99.20 (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reaching it. Phiwum (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see it just fine. Spud (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be only short-term outage. I can see it fine now too. K61824"6+18=24" 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Delusions of the Lexicographical Kind[edit]

Athbesity.img A completely made-up word that the liberal dictionaries don't list. Whoover (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My favourite part is where he inserts it at random in to Andy's big list o' phrases and breaks the sorting. No, scratch that. My favourite part was where he immediately decided his creation was so important it needed its own "essay" to record it as well. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
the internet is full of new portmanteaus that are clunky and ugly when written or spoken ('manufactroversy', popular here, is a particularly egregious one). On top of that they are often used like memes in place of actual argument (again 'manufactroversy'. Jesus fuck I loathe that word and its slap dash usage). At least ken and cps new abominations won't be uglying up the language anytime soon because no one reads shite shite. Except us. And if catch any one using 'chillax' or 'guestimate' I will find you and break a glass in your fasc and twist it around a bit. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Try decaf, OMG! I'm with you on "manufactroversy". It's all over things like the GMO article and royally fucks it up. I thought this was supposed to be...... etc. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
its not decaf I need, but its equivalent for the tina I've smoking all night. I wonder if that accounts for all the typos and missing words in my edits? Or could just be my nexus AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Schlocumentary gets my goat. Altho, I think "refudiate" does need to enter the lexicon. PsyGremlinSprich! 10:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Celebrity couple portmanteaus are the worst. You know, Brangelina and the like. Casionaut (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The best game to play is to add an extra word to a completed 1600 layer and watch him try to tell you why it's not "conservative". Occasionaluse (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you pronounce this word? is the first syllable like the one in "athletic" or like "eighth"? (I am sure they won't come up with just one answer.) K61824CP≠Child Porn? 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Has this Clickhole columnist...[edit]

.... been reading Ken? MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideologically, he couldn't be more different from our friend at CP. But If he writes like that all the time, he's just as big a twat as Ken is.Spud (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Literally Unbelievable. Burndall (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What About James Wilson?[edit]

Now that PetyrB has been unmasked, what about his ally in defending the Conservative Bible against all non-believers, like Ken? James Wilson smells strongly like a parodist at times, but at other times he seems a sincere fruitcake. How about his "clarification" that recreational sex within marriage is fornicationimg? This would seem to doom old marrieds who are sinful enough to continue doing it past menopause to hell. I don't know of any organized religion that's quite this screwed up about sex. I suppose James Wilson could just be very zealous. Parodist or fruit cake? Whoover (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken should checkuser Wilson, maybe he's got a previous CP life just like PetyrB had. - 79.177.99.20 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
[5]img--Mercian (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Ken definitely has Talk:CP in his favorites bar. Whoover (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What a bootlicker. 100% accuracy, Ken? How about some credit where credit's due? Oh, I forgot. You like to lie. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's time for me to say something. First, Hi, Ken! I haven't had the pleasure of conversing with you for quite a while. Are you still running away from my mathematics and physical fitness challenges? (I won't bother you with the URLs, I believe there were 4 of them, you should have no trouble finding them.)

Anyway, it happens that I have had fairly extensive email conversations with both James Wilson and Pinhas Markman. I believe that James was, in the long run, sincere, though he was incredibly hostile at first. We discussed his penchant for recreational trashing of Ameriwiki and its denizens. I think he was just having fun being an asshole. It's easy to do on the internet, and many people, as I'm sure you all know, do it. His placement of a huge picture of Joseph Stalin on someone's talk page, with the caption "Joseph Stalin loves Taylor Swift", or whatever it was, really needs no further explanation.

He actually is very interested and knowledgeable about music, particularly Elvis, and wrote some good material on him. But, as part of his destructive persona, trashed Taylor Swift and anyone who liked her. James, you realize that no one is hoing to read your articles on Elvis, don't you? For the same reason that they will never read my articles on science and math--one glance at the front page drives people away instantly. I just want to be sure you know that. It's too bad, because you write well.

On October 6, 2012 he told me that he had a number of health issues, and would be leaving CP. (He had been a member since November, 2010.) I was skeptical at first, but he did leave CP, an hour and a half later, in a manner completely consistent with what he had told me. So it's possible that I know more about this than Andy or the others. He also said "I'm actually a fairly liberal guy too. I come from an extremely conservative family. I decided to try to understand the conservative movement by editing Conservapedia. But I was given more rights, and thought I had to be a conservative." True? I don't know.

I believe he was sincere in much of his communication with me. James, if you're reading this, welcome back to CP, and I'm glad you are doing well. But please don't go back to being a jerk, as you seem to be doing.

Now, as for Mr. Markman, or "Markman Mark I". I have no particular knowledge of whether he is/was PetyrB. Much of his communication with me was clearly insincere. But I believe he lives/lived in Israel, is a "Messianic Jew", and has various strongly felt opinions about Israeli and American politics.

He viewed editing on wikis, especially CP, as nothing more than a video game. You do whatever you can get away with. You "kill" the other "players" when you get a chance. As such, I consider him to be amoral, whereas James Wilson was just misguided.

After he got booted, he told me that he would like to come back to CP eventually, for more fun and games. He even wanted me to intercede with Andy for him. Which of course I wouldn't do. So did he come back? As PetyrB? Hard to say.

Now PetyrB had a lot in common with Markman, but so do a lot of people. That kind of sycophancy/brutality mixture is extremely common there. They are not hard to spot. AugustO had no trouble seeing such people, nor did Brenden, GregG, JoeyJ, Iduan, and dozens and dozens of others that I can't think of at the moment. Ken, I'm glad that you are beginning to be aware of this. I hope you will continue rooting out the losers. Starting with yourself, of course :-) When you see someone being a jerk, tell Andy. Andy doesn't seem to be able to figure it out for himself.

SamHB (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

SamHB, I really respect your responses to the relativity insanity over there and thank you for the effort. I'm sure many people do. Markman and PetyrB are the same person. I believe he's an ordinary, very secular, Jew in Israel. Whoover (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You're both wrong, I follow The Seven. - PetyrB (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should say something. I wasted my time trying. SamHB makes an extremely valid point that nobody's gonna give a rat's ass about my Elvis article because it is buried underneath a bunch of indefensible drivel I tried to defend. It's sad all the effort I put into one of the most complete articles on the site was for naught. I could've better wasted my time idly watching "reality" television. I am done for good this time as no one appreciates my efforts. As for Ameriwiki (RIP Ameriwiki as well as George) I trashed it because atheistic hardline liberals dishonestly stole it and deviated it from its purpose as a conservative encyclopedia. I issue an apology to every former Ameriwikian (save SamCoulter, SharonW and AndyF who need no apology) and yes, I went way overboard with the Stalin/Taylor Swift rubbish. Truth be told, the only issue I with CS was his libertarian politics and to be completely honest part of that drivel as inspired by the notion that Mikaloswhatever alleged: I am a closet Swift fan. Nonetheless, I apologize to anyone who deserves it and if there are any more questions, feel free to ask. --Elvis is King (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

James Wilson's blocking rights have been revoked[edit]

[33] He also lost his Edit and Rollback rights, though he still has skipcaptcha. Not like it matters, nobody is going to overturn his self-imposed infinite block. - 79.181.151.152 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What's with Andy drooling all over an overrated sports star?[edit]

[6]img[7]img--"Shut up, Brx." 19:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy wins. Clearly he has built his entire life on trolling. Nevermind that the metaphor doesn't actually work (in the parable the son wastes his fortune ... here Lebron comes back richer than he ever could have been had he stayed) or that this is a questionable time to call out character (I realize that's the narrative, but the reality is the guy is leaving a Miami team that thought it was turning itself into a contender by adding Danny Granger ... the West is way better than the East ... and Miami couldn't close that gap ... a young Cleveland team in a year or two though ...) ... this is all a joke to him. To whoever says he's predictable - did anyone see that New World Order shit that's further down MPR. No way. This guy went to Harvard. He's a lawyer. He's fucking with everyone.--IDuan 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean thisimg i guess? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The ONLY other option is that he wants to drum up Cleveland so much that he has ditched his overrated sports star mantra on James ... but surely he knows his site isn't capable of doing that ... I mean, Jesus, ... it's Cleveland.--IDuan 19:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy's not quite a troll... OK his behavior may appear trollish, but his motivations are entirely different. He comes from the school of thought that "if liberals hate it, it must be right!" So when people point out to him that all of his "insights" are stupid, he doubles-down because he thinks that he must be really on to something. You know, like your garden variety crank. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What is andy's take on Australia? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
He already declared all swimming events to be joke sports after the last olympics. This probably won't do much to change his mind. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy is so predictible[edit]

Conservapedia is proven rightimg, despite never making an actual prediction. Yes, one of the 90%+ of countries that do not allow same sex marriage won the World Cup. How prophetic. Kind of like predicting that a country whose name doesn't start with "N" would win, it was truly unprecedented foresight. Never mind that same sex marriage countries dominated the World Cup overall, accounting for 75% of semi-finalists, and 63% of the quarter finalists, despite being less than 10% of all nations. And, contrary to what he said, most did not see their performance decline, but rather advance, notably Argentina and Brazil, which finished 2nd and 4th this year, while not finishing in the top 4 last time around. Sure, Netherlands went from 2nd to 3rd, but still did very well. In fact, of all the semi-finalists in the past 2 world cups, only Germany doesn't allow same sex marriage, just civil unions which grant most of the same rights. Can't wait to add this to Conservapedia proven wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Germany about to do full on barrage anyway? I guess anything less then a 25-0 score at the finals of the next world cup will show how much Gay Marriage has ruined Germany. --Revolverman (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Germany is currently passing laws for SSM. However, at FIFA 2010, the results were
Ranking Team Introduction of SSM
1 Spain 2005
2 Netherlands 2001
3 Germany N/A
4 Uruguay N/A (2013)
So, here, the anti-SSM countries did worse than their more liberal brethren. CS Miller (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Everyone always talks about Ken possibly being mentally ill. Honestly, I think Andy might be the one who could have some sort of mental illness. At the very least, he has a severe case of narcissism. Snrub (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I do hope England(and Wales) reinstate the gay marriage ban then they might actually win something. PS, I am being facetious. Ken has his say also [8]img A country where bestiality is posing a real problem[9]img So god not only prefers atheists to gays but sheep shaggers also. But what if that sheep is male?--Mercian (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure which is worse - Uncle Ed's obsession with prepubescent girls, or Ken's obsession with bestiality. PsyGremlinSprich! 14:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Conservapedia is awesome. I'm going to ask them for next week's winning lottery numbers. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would love to hear Andy describe which numbers are conservative and which are liberal. Vulpius (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy one time claimed atheism was responsible for Britain doing bad in the World Cup (I think he means England; he tends to confuse the two). Pretty strange then that the winning country had the world's most Godless area? Maybe God does have a sense of humor. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

More Trusworthy Truthy News[edit]

70 Democrat congressmen are card-carrying socialists!img Three years ago this was debunked as "Communists, Socialists, Progressives -- What's the Difference?" bullshit. (It's an old roster of the Progressive Caucus, not the Democratic Socialists of America. And the "Socialist Party of America" didn't issue the list, the Tea Party did.)

How these clowns manage to see themselves as the unbiased source in a world of liberal deceit is the great psychological mystery of our time. Whoover (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was suspicious--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be gone now. Phiwum (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

God Has Spoken[edit]

Germany has a 40.5% religiosity index, while Brazil's is 86.5%. Which one did God pick in the World Cup? That's right, Germany ftw.img God hates gays more than atheists. Whoover (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad a really Christian nation like Uganda or Russia didn't even make it to the finals. God must have been busy motivating Republicans to grill Obama on Benghazi or something--"Shut up, Brx." 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You just can't fucking win with these guys, can you? THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Sorry if I piss you offDolan.png 03:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And Germany got Civil unions to boot. Does that mean somehow Civil union is okay but marriage isn't? K61824CP≠Child Porn? 04:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Germany is the only country without same-sex marriage in the final 4. Guess someone wants the Germans to win. ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 04:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And the defeat had nothing to do with them missing two players, Neymar (hacked down in the game against Columbia), and Thiago Silva (automatic suspension)? BTW Germany are passing legislation for same-sex marriage as we speak. CS Miller (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
True, with Neymar and Silva in the team it would have been closer, perhaps 4-1 or 5-2. Germany were good but never needed to move into 5th gear, Brazil were a shambles. When I awoke this morning I had to check the result again in case I was dreaming. The thing what stands out most was Neuer and his defence shouting at each other when they conceded.--Mercian (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You have to wonder why, since Andy knows all the secrets of who will win every sporting event, he hasn't made a fortune at the bookies. It's almost like he waits to see who the winner is then determines why they are the most godly team/player/country. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Gambling isn't very conservative.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
But... But... the Native-operated casinos... K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And Muslims. On more than one occasion, Obama verbally attacks the economic livelihood of Las Vegas for unknown reasons. The reason may be his contempt of gambling which is forbidden in the Koran.img Whoover (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he's been critical of gambling before. Not that we can expect consistency from Andy--"Shut up, Brx." 22:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If Germany does introduce gay marriage shortly, it too will play right into Andy's hands. Should they win the World Cup this year, they'll have nowhere to go but down, so when they don't win in four years, it will be because they passed gay marriage legislation. Whoever wins, he'll spin it so he was right all along. Unless it's Netherlands. That'll be tough. DickTurpis (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

But what if the Netherrealmlands and Germany end up at the finals? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 14:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If Germany wins, then Andy gets to gloat about how all the other teams lost due to gay marriage (never mind that 3 countries, out of only a handful in the world which have legalized the practice, beat out roughly 180 other teams to make it to the semi-finals). In Andy's world, coming in second place means you did terribly. If the Netherlands means, well, I guess they're magically a Christian country all of a sudden. DickTurpis (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it means the Netherlands cheated. That's how Mr. Schlafly explains all of his failures -the other guy (the opposing counsel; the team he didn't back; Barack Obama...)must have cheated. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I go for: Two gay loving nations put on a dour goalless display that was only decided by liberal penalties.--Mercian (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you some sort of wizard?img Cow...Hammertime! 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I could be Andy's RW Sock-puppet. Or it could be that he is so utterly predictable.--Mercian (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
We have demonstrated the latter a long time ago. Your turn to show us why the former is plausible, ThiehAsk me for relationship advice 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And now, whatever happens, Andy will have an answer: EIther anti-gay Germany will win, or Pope-creating Argentina.Donalbain (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And predictably, he can't even report correctly. Argentina and Netherlands couldn't score for 120 minutes, not just 90. Another 33% of liberal failure. Worm (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
how will he react when the final doesn't turn out to be a goal a minute spectacular or shock horror, end with penalties? I just hope Argentina doesn't slaughter the germans. I'm not sure Andy could handle the dissonance AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy is developing a real hard on for Germany[10]img. The same Germany he was vilifying only a few months back for leading the atheistic gay loving EU against christian conservative Russia for liberating The Ukraine from European tyrany.--Mercian (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
At least when he is bitching about Obama, he is consistently against Obama and every little thing Obama says and does. When comes to everything else, his lack of knowledge of the world outside of Obama hate has him flailing, spinning, tying his self up knots that it is embarrassing to watch. His world is tiny and when he looks outside of it, he gets dizzy AMassiveGay (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are Argentina and Netherlands so terrible at football? I mean, they're only placing in the top 4 (one could even still win, and will at worst be #2) out of some 190 or so FIFA nations. Andy's contempt for anyone who isn't #1 is weird. I bet if little Phyllis were to be runner up in the National Spelling Bee or something, Andy would berate her with taunts so "LO-SER! LO-SER! LO-SER!" repeatedly. DickTurpis (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

i’m surprised Andy isn't rooting for Argentina. In his mind they are the underdog, and conservatives love an underdog AMassiveGay (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
He'll claim victory either way. DickTurpis (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If Argentina win, it'll be proof that God has a sense of humour. PsyGremlinSprich! 12:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't Li'l Phyl accept evolution and so is already a loser? Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy is supposedly a Catholic and we have two popes in the Vatican, one a German and the other an Argentine. Does God have a favourite Pope? No matter; Andy will always spin it to his own advantage. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget one of them is an ex-pope. K61824Ask me for relationship advice 17:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy really knows how to fuck with us.img I'm starting to wonder if his account's been hacked or something.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hm... He isn't update it right at the end of the game. I wonder whether he watches the game at all. K61824Ed Poor types in Chinese? 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Let it be known the Dutch got 3rd place, so... earlier gay marriage adoption leads to victory by the same logic? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 04:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

How did the Argentine-German Pope's match go? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)