Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive332

This is an archive page, last updated 11 October 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>, <331>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

And another one bites the dust

So the conservative vehicle editor CraigF2 has finally been exterminated by the luxury atheist killing automotive mark that is Ken. Creator of such articles such as Rolling Coal^img and Ford Explorer^img and enemy of one of my many, many socks (you'll never guess who karajou). As is SMortlach, for this seemingly (when compared to some from CraigF2) edit^img. Ghost (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

its come to something when spouting bullshit that you know they will agree with instantly marks you as parodist. If any of the established editors over there were just starting out now, they wouildn't last a day. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Pining for the fnords

Adding an inoffensive and totally appropriate image is a sly mark of liberal deceit, didn't ya know? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

you bastard. You could have marked that as nsfw. I'm going to need therapy now. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, his crime was adding valuable info to a stub created by Karajerk. Because having useless templates, is far better than actual articles. PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. It seems this picture was uploaded by K himself. Maybe he objected to having his own bird characterized as "loud." (AMG should not click on that link unless he wants his foolish heart to go pitter-pat.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ordinary editors haven't been able to upload their own photos for what, 7 years now? So any new pic would have to be uploaded by a sysop. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, I hadn't known that. Is using an image from the Wikimedia Commons something only an evil liberal socialist would do, then? (Forgive my ignorance of CP ways, but the more I look, the less I want to know.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This bodes

Just did a search on CP for the picture in the difflink and CP threw up the following:

Looks like Andy's lack of database management is catching up with him. PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that error occurs everytime you do a search (eg, ken is a homosexual) in the search box. Ghost (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Ken

Conservapedia's article on bestiality in sweden is the main reason it has been banned,^img Nice work, Ken, awesome job, now you've saved all those reindeer getting a little surprise from Santa, will you now have time to finish your booklet ? Ghost (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sums CP up really

Nothing, absolutely nothing I can find, about the murder of 298 people above Ukraine. Andy and his cohorts really are scum. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't fit their storyline about how great the god-fearing, gay-hating Russians are. Of course they won't mention it. Unless Terry evolves a conspiracy theory about how it was Obama testing out his evil Muslim plan to use jets as missiles. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:10, 18 July 2014

(UTC)

Not even terry. Even on his hate blog he can't drag himself away from Gaza and Obama to comment on the mass murder. They really are a sick bunch of shits aren't they. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What do we have besides a link or two to news stories on a WIGO page? Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That is still more than the 'trustworthy' encyclopedia has. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

CP's main page right^img edits since the news broke. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually dreading that when it's acknowledged it will be something like, "Putin strikes blow to gay agenda and doesn't allow travel to AIDS conference through Russian airspace." If not Andy, there are several scumbags who'd do that for him. Whoover (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[1]^img--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Demoted by Andy.[2]^img--Mercian (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Now the sack of shit has entirely removed^img the entry. Feel that xian compassion oozing from his every pore as he prays for the dead. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

All signs are pointing to Russian-backed militias being responsible for the accidental attack. Since Andy thinks Russia is good, nothing that makes Russia look bad will get any play from Andy. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember Andy's been spending a lot of electrons touting Putin as the best leader America never had, not to mention he's so much more manly than Obama, and suddenly his latest mancrush might be indirectly involved in the murder of innocents. Given Andy's history, he'll either ignore it all together, or latch on to any conspiracy theory that says otherwise. So far, it seems as if the former is more likely. PsyGremlin^Praat! 06:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Of course Psy, still it reveals quite how thin the veneer of his faith really is. From what I can see it is entirely political and has very little spiritual content at all. At least ken mentioned the murders, andy ignores them completely. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy really is a complete shithead. He's really so in love with Russia that he'll censor anything that paints them in a bad light, even when it involves mass murder. How the hell did he get to be like that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is during these big stories that Conservapedia, Andy in particular show their true colours. What is the death of 100s including 80 children if it does not further his political agenda? If one embryo is aborted it is evil, against god's laws etc, If 80 are killed it can safely be ignored. If the Ukrainian military had shot that plane down it would be a huge crime against humanity. Is anyone in any doubt that Andy is Bryan Fischer without the charisma?--Mercian (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The attitude of Andy - and many other conservatives - is best summed up by a lovely quote I saw online recently: If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, and refugee children aren't, you need to stop pretending your beliefs are based on religion. PsyGremlin^Praat! 07:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• [16]...--84.168.244.46 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fuck you Paul, don't you have more pork riders to staple to bills that have no chance of not passing? --Revolverman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken the liar puts his foot in it

Last night Ken tried to deny making FYI's. Lots of denying, accusing, deceit and burning went on, fortunately I captured it all. [17][18][19]Mercian (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be repeatedly protecting and deleting it, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3AConservative%2FFYI, that (but IANAL) seems to be enough prima facia evidence to get full logs from Conservapædia. BTW, what did you mean by file:proof.png, it seems to be a screenshoot of you about to ssh into rationalwiki. CS Miller (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Already being discussed above.

Ken, when are you going to stop lying?

I mean, really^img. When you stopped bragging about Project 200+ I think it had something like 6 members, and lets face it those were all figments of your imagination. Since then, you've deleted every reference to Project 200+ from Conservapedia and from your blog, which you haven't updated in over a month. You've also deleted every reference to your 50/75/100 page booklet which you said would be published for sure almost two years ago, and you posted daily updates about how awesome each imaginary chapter was. Then you fantasised about a textbook you were going to publish, and how readers thought it was just peachy. Now we're six months past the absolute latest date you said that was going to be published, and every mention of it has been nuked.

Ken, you're not just a liar, you're an obvious liar. When are you going to stop embarrassing yourself? I'm sure we'll get an FYI about how you're being mysterious, and how we're all going to be eating humble pie when your awesome group of phantom friends publishes their great new material that will just crush evolution and atheism on the internet, but that'll just be another lie, won't it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: never. I'm sure by this point, the moist and cramped space Ken refers to his mind, has turned this whole thing around into some sort of game. Every time he gets called out on his lies, he flips it into "Ha Ha! Look how atheists get so worked up by mere mention of my plans!" For me, the only curiosity left is how much of CP can Ken burn down before Andy just walks away and quits paying the bill. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Immediately burnt by ken and the GregG immediately restores it and replies^img. GregG will be unpersoned very soon I reckon. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And ken then burnt GregG's restoration of his comment. But ken, just to let you know that if you crawl out of your intellectual bunny hole and check AGAIN on Greg's page you may find something more of interest. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese text is (quelle suprise), from the Art of War, it's translation is "Subtle! Subtle! To the point of formlessness. Spirit-like! Spirit-like! To the point of soundlessness. Thus one can be the enemy's fate star." CS Miller (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think that HE thinks the level of annoyance he creates for atheists (or whatever) is him "fighting the fight" so he doesn't give a damn about actually doing stuff. He sees threads like this, and behaviour like GregG's, and assumes that he's winning because "the atheists are all in a flap" or whatever. Basically, he acts like an annoying coward because he thinks us being annoyed is a victory for him. X Stickman (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Annoyed? Seriously, does ken annoy anyone? He was annoying during that time he was trying to ruin someones business (I can't recall who sorry) but other than that he certainly doesn't annoy me. I point and laugh. I generally don't point and laugh at the less able but for ken I make an exception as he is such an arsehole it's too hard not to. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been of the opinion for a long time now that he sees our commentary on him as some kind of... damage control. He thinks he's doing something awesome and we're scrambling to discredit him with insults/mockery, which means whatever he's doing MUST be damaging the atheist cause. He doesn't see us laughing at him, he sees us as scared (in an intellectual sense) of him and we can't come up with arguments against him, so we just laugh at him to try and calm ourselves down. I can't make sense of his actions otherwise, although I am willing to admit he's nonsensical. X Stickman (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken is an irrelevant but amusing sideshow. He's the dog in this. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the FYI.[3]^img--Mercian (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, interest in Christianity takes a nosedive in July. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

yeesh, he's been fiddling with that FYI for something like 7 hours now and he still hasn't addressed the point at all that he's a total liar who talks big and achieves nothing. I wonder what possible relevance he thinks google search volume has to religiosity? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So far only 39 edits.--Mercian (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And burnt. I think he spent 9 hours in total on the thing. A day well spent, eh Kendoll? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken gets ever weirder

He spend about 9 hours yesterday fiddling with his silly FYI shoutout, now he's spent almost as many hours^img trying to deny he ever said any of that. He really seems to think as soon as he burns the evidence that no one remembers it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even by Ken's usual standards this is bizarre behavior. "You can only prove that the myriad entity known as user:Conservative deleted the article user:Conservative/FYI, not that he created it." Serious headdesking metial there. Not to mention, this is Conservapedia - Do you really think a mere editor would have been allowed to live having created a dummy user:Conservative post?

Still, given that Ken is clearly not the author of the FYI's (PS that's sarcasm, Ken), I'm sure we're all relieved to see that no further FYIs will be forthcoming, because apparently Ken doesn't write FYIs. Until the next one he spends 9 hours tweaking, then deleting. PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, Ken, if you had nothing to do with the FYI, and it wasn't written by you why are your fingerprints all over the Patrol log?^img Why patrol edits, by somebody posing as you for 9 hours, before deleting it. PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that the article is create-protected to sysop-only, therefore only one of these people could have created it http://www.conservapedia.com/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop . Entity that calls himself/herself/itself/themselves "User:Conservative", which one of those 29 was it? I dare you to undelete the article so that we can all see. CS Miller (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Er...

Why do we give a shit? Just askin'. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talking about Ken is the equivalent of a slow news day, that's why.--Miekal 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True dat. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Padmelon

The cute little kangaroo, the padmelon, has been featured on MPL for a while now. Could someone who, unlike me, is not blocked at the IP level ask about why all those marsupials chose to work their way to Australia from Noah's ark? It's not just the kangaroos, wallabies and padmelons. The potoroos, wombats, bettongs, possums (many, many kinds of possums), cuscuses, marsupial moles, Tasmanian tigers, bilbies, numbats, Tasmanian devils, bandicoots, dunnarts, planigales, antechinuses, dibblers, phascogales, quolls, ningauis and more all decided to hop and raft from Ararat to Australia.

The only out is that, as members of the kangaroo baramin, they all evolved from one ancestor post-flood. That's either an awful lot of microevolution or an admission that postdiluvian macroevolution is a thing, which would seem to be game over. If not, it's God directing traffic with a sense of humor. In any case, they don't seem to understand the difficulty their little padmelon causes them. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, any fule kno they floated there on mats of vegetation. Cloud Yeller (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought they were blasted there by volcanoes. Casionaut (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No no no, there was a proper article there once explaining how lovely Kangaroos carried all the little ones in their pouches, do keep up Sphincter (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Typewriter. DogP (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And worth a promotion. Whoover (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

One of Ed's finest. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up an article that was last edited on February 18, 2012? Is this your idea of being mysterious? Spud (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same and then I checked Best New Conservative Words^img and worked it out. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Carriage return. Discuss. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Andy^img, please associate conservatism with an out-of-date item that's been nearly completely phased out in the industrialized world. And do it while you're using a computer. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere that German security are going back to the typewriter 'cause of the US spying thing? Scream!! (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Germany AND Russia. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The beat part is typewriter was almost undoubtedly added by a parodist and Andy ran with it in because it fit his "perfect doubling" Snrub (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

To me the best part is that a conservative thing like a typewriter was replaced by something that owed its existence to another conservative thing, the transistor. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Doubling. PERFECT. What an awesome scientific discovery Andy has made. I am not disappoint. DogP (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You'd think Andy would realize his "hypothesis" is ridiculous when even Ken criticizes it. Even a rudimentary understanding of basic statistics would be sufficient to understand the multiple flaws in what he's doing. Snrub (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone came in and messed up his "perfect doubling". I wonder how long until Andy reverts the changes? Snrub (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That was RoryF^img. Andy took it pretty well.^img Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 16:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out here before, if someone really wants to have fun they should add many 16th century terms. That's when Andy's "geometric growth" bites him in the ass and he has to add many more terms to complete his "layers". My guess, however, is that Andy will take the lazy way out and declare by fiat that the words added weren't conservative enough. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case he's just gone "nuh-uh" and reverted RoryF's changes. Typical, and boring. Ruddager (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Any even believes his "conservative word hypothesis" or if he just keeps up his idiocy because he is completely incapable of ever admitting he was wrong. Snrub (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You gotta admit, those are pretty indistinguishable within his demonstrated behaviour. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though, the year is wrong. Back in 1829 it isn't call a "Typewriter", but "Typographer" instead. "Type-Writer" isn't used until 1874, and the hyphen isn't removed until 1880. But then again, who trus Wikipedia for facts? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Who cares, so long as it's in the 1800s that's all that matters for Andy. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ken's won't be too happy with this^img. Can the vandal please stop. Ghost (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? A closet case like Ken will be thrilled. He'll be reminded of Chuck Norris' "svelte" physique.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's actually some pretty good artwork. I'm impressed. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oversighted, and the first line is off :/ [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass murder is fine, as long as you have machismo.

[4]^img--Mercian (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Troll harder, Kendoll. You're getting boring.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I always kinda hoped that no one was REALLY dumb enough to fall for all of Putin's "I'm a MAN!" PR. X Stickman (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how you distinguish between liberal Blame America Firstism and conservative Blame Obama Firstism. I suspect for Ron Paul it's a matter of black and white. I don't know about Andy and Ken. Whoover (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Barking Up the Wrong Tree Department

Our German Don Quixote, AugustO, is back and appeals to Andy^img to consult with Roger and Phyllis on the subject of Einstein. I wonder how that would go? Whoover (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that website even from this century? London Grump (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying it again: AugustO is trying to perform suicide by sysop. Along with challenging Schlafly on physics he's also trying to challenge him^img on Bible translation^img while fighting in a second front against Ken^img. It's not going to end well for him. - Bill Rawls (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

we have been saying this forever and he is still there. Just what does he have to do to get booted? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New theory: AugustO is Andy's id, brought to life by ancient alien technology, and like in the movie Forbidden Planet, it/he cannot be destroyed.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right!

An excess of something is bad for you.^img Bravo, Ken, for correctly demonstrating the definition of "excess."--"Shut up, Brx." 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, spending 10 hours a day in online game is bad for you. But 10 hours a day editing a crackpot wiki, followed by 10 hours the next day trying to deny you ever made those edits. That's perfectly healthy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Brx, the definition of "excess" does not require bad effects. Phiwum (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

An odd bed couple Andy and Ken, they clearly do not give a shit about each other. Ken does the almost impossible by making CP even more of a croc of hate and deceit filled shit than it already is thus crapping over what is left of Andy's reputation and he in return allows it to go on as it generates page views. If either were to die today the thought of the other would be Conservapedia, Ken knowing that nobody anywhere would give him the limitless freedom to spurt his bullshit and Andy would be lamenting the fall in the ratings, neither would even shed a sad thought for the other.--Mercian (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Too much" is too much, for one reason or another--"Shut up, Brx." 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Excess" can mean more than is normal. It doesn't require negative effects. You don't have to torture common definitions in order to point out that Ken is stoopid, you know. Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not worth a section: Heartless Obama administration tells dying vet to get a job.^img Well, it's truthier than Communication by large bureaucracy correcting error and awarding retroactive benefits is somehow lost in mail! Funny how a professional news organization like CP still goes with the BS story 24 hours after the original source updated theirs. Whoover (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Question Evolution Blog

Is it me, or is Ken's side project as dead as Dickens's doornail? London Grump (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't you understand? It's not dead, he's just being cunning. At the strategically appropriate moment evolution will be questioned and that'll be the end of atheism and evolutionism on the internets. Insert Sun Tzu copypasta here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

He's probably too busy working on his middle school booklet or communicating with the other 199 members of Project 200+ to work on his blog. But then, he still finds time to exit Conservapedia for 12 hours a day. Snrub (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What was that "Flying Fortress" project of his that I've heard mentioned a few times all about? I missed that one somehow Ruddager (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Flying Fortress aka "castles in the air". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Some evolutionists mistakenly think all the people in our Question Evolution! Campaign fan team are inactive in terms of the biblical creationist cause. Nothing could be further from the truth. They remind me of the German evolutionists in the 1940s who thought the Allies were going to be inactive on the beaches of Normandy" Dance for us, Ken, dance! London Grump (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's back, right on cue.[5]^img Advice to you Ken, if you don't lie in the first place you will not have to spend days deleting it all when you are found out. We should thank him for running this campaign as if it was being headed by someone who is not a moron it might make some progress--Mercian (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lerner, She-Wolf of the IRS.

Chucky, lacking anything substantial to keep the IRS scandal going is very upset that Lois Lerner said people who call in to right-wing talk radio are off their heads. Doesn't everyone think that, even the GOP? I mean, CP has been running tea party news stories about how the chamber of commerce is trying desperately to keep those nutters out of the running. I don't think it's a terribly controversial opinion unless you're also that nuts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of chucky I wonder how long it will take Rosseane, the ever graceful 'pastor' bickle and chucky himself to report on this considering quite how often they quoted Stevie Fielder when the 'story' first broke. I won't be holding my breath waiting for chuck's correction to be published. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Andy's once again making up translations as he goes along.^img Luckily August is there to keep him honest.^img Any bets on how this will play out? PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The same way it always does. Andy will have no defense for his crap, but it'll stay in there anyway because he has the power perfection. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"Andy, please stop making things up!" Hee! note the bold & exclamation mark (bang). Scream!! (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey ken

Hey Ken, seems operation Backfire Denial has failed to delete all talk about your pitiful booklet. It has taken a parodist to finish it off on no less than Conservapedia proven wrong. ^img Lift you game Ken you're really letting your self go mate. Ghost (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's another month now

It's now August. However, July's article of the month, Alger Hiss, is still there on the main page. Now that I've pointed that out, will anything happen? Spud (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Countdown to one of Ken's turdblossoms being article of the month (not to mention year, decade and century) in 3... 2... PsyGremlin^Praat! 11:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Right on cue[6]^img A question Ken. If atheism is a religion and religious people lead healthier lifestyles, does that not make "Atheism and obesity" bullshit?--Mercian (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you all really do make Ken dance to whatever tune you wish to play.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh Kenny, if you are going to oversight something you need to oversight the other revisions as well. Otherwise your lies and hypocrisy^img are left open for all to see. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As an astute reader of this page, Ken was able to correct his mistake:

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "User talk:Aschlafly" (Diff: 1097382, 1097399).
This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.
If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

--larron (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No matter - as Ken should well know - "God sees all". Just who do you think you're fooling Ken? Генгис^evolving 21:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 at Conservapedia

1.		The number of views raised about 2 million, for the first time in 2014.
2.		The number of editors is the highest for 2014, too.
3.		Joaquín Martínez doesn't dominate the edits any longer...

--larron (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Pic (3) seems to link to the wrong image. (Yes I cleared my cache) Scream!! (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Still very much Kenservapedia then. I wonder if Andy lays awake at night, in a cold sweat, wondering what would happen if Ken ever stops editing? Also, wither Ed Poor? PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

His editing has, indeed, withered. Or did you mean whither? Генгис^mutating 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

He's obviously off being a successful engineer. "I of course went into engineering, where fudging gets people killed. So I'm always interested in accurate information." Or at least lying about it. 50.148.56.52 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ed almost has as many careers as the Kendoll Kollective. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Linkedin now has him as a Maths teacher at a private school in NY, 'helping' pupils who are behind in their grades to catch up apparently. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Private school" = "Moonie indoctrination center" PsyGremlin^Praat! 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait... Terry has no oversight abilities? That makes him the only big Sysop without them. I'm surprised he hasn't demanded them by now. Ayzmo^Cheers 21:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been a number of years since Terry edited CP for any reason other than to promote his own blog. I think he's past caring whether he's a big wheel, as long as he still has the power of spamming. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Terry doesn't give a fuck. He doesn't even care enough to revert vandalism. It's odd that he doesn't see any value in actually improving the one traffic source he has. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder

Anyone care to guess whether cp will commemorate the centenary of the bloodiest conflict that Europe and the world has ever known? Anything? Just a word about the lights going out perhaps? Something in memory of the 17 million who died. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But the war didnt start until 1917~--Miekal 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly the CP article only mentions once the date on which war was actually declared against Germany and their allies. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Life is too short to catalogue the errors in CP's article on WW1. The ridiculous quote from Jacques Barzun about 'Darwinism' (sic) is merely the start of it. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Joaquin quite "gets" CP...

I mean, JPratt has already slapped him down once for his uppity behaviour, and he's still persisting^img. It is oddly pleasing to see blatant heresy splashed over the front page by one of their own sysops, but you'd think they'd sit him down and explain the "conservative" orthodoxy at some point. At which point, hopefully he'd have the common sense to leave. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Joaquin's never been a part of the inner circle, in terms of the backroom chats. Presumably 'cos he's from the wrong side of the border. I'm not even sure why he was sysopped, apart from his obsessive art stuff. I guess, seeing as he's still active, there's no way Andy can demote him, for fear of showing he made another mistake. PsyGremlin^Praat! 06:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A mistake?? It's about the only good decision Andy has ever made over there imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Promoting the art thief who loves Middle Eastern dictators. a good decision? As I said before, Joaquin is just as cuckoo as the rest of the CP crew, even though his politics are completely different from the rest of them. And I wouldn't want to have a beer with him anymore than I'd like to have one with Andy. Spud (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that you probably could have a beer with Joaquin, I believe Andy is virtually teetotal. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall if they ever met & talked. Scream!! (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. A small part of me would love to sit down and have a beer with Karajou one day. But it would probably end with him shooting me in the face, so best not to act out that fantasy. PsyGremlin^Praat! 15:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be fun to not follow Karajou's orders in person. I'd like to relive some of the more bizarre arguments (Obama is a Muslim, Jesus invented comedy, Castro's ghost) with Andy, because seeing is believing. I'm sure you could work Terry up into a conspiracy frenzy in no time and it would be fun to get drunk while probing his fantasy of a Randian utopia. I'd probably take Ken to a Broadway musical, for some reason. I think JPatt would be most likely to actually try and fight you. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon? Генгис^mutating 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take Ken to The Den when Millwall play West Ham and see if he is macho enough to enjoy the shenanigans. I think Karajou would shoot you in the face for taking a drunken piss on his lawn if the law allowed it. I imagine Andy would be friendly with a likeable demeanor--Mercian (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC).

My Marine friend would like to inform you that as a life long naval failure, Karajou would miss. --Revolverman (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

AndrewLe

Now that he has been banhammered by that sexy wiki beast's known as Conservative (Hi Ken) and Lardass, will all his edits be examined? Even though some are quite questionable I'm sure they will remain (I'll let you find them Ken and Brian). You really need to give up, no one will finish those bird articles or read your evolution articles, you'd be better off back at wikipedia. Ghost (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Also why haven't the mentions of the FBI incident and John Schlafly been permanently erased yet ? Poor form conservapedia. Ghost (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa

Joaquin makes an MPR (I pronounce it "em pee arr") entry sympathetic to Gaza^img, with a link to an Al Jazeera article, no less. In and of itself that's not too surprising, as he's shown to be at least neutral on the Israel - Palestinian conflict before. Along comes Conservative to bury it with his drivel, so business as usual so far. Andy stops by and seemingly endorses Joaquin's entry by moving it to the top!^img

What is going on here? Has the conflict in Gaza become so lopsided Israel has lost even Andy's support? Is Andy just being passive aggressive with Ken? Terry displaces the top entry with his usual link whoring a few minutes afterward, and it's still there as I type this. Andy made a small edit to Joaquin's entry after it was first published, so I doubt that Andy doesn't know the content of the article. The little nuggets of mystery like this are why Andy is more interesting than Ken. Shakedangle (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and terry comes along 6 minutes later^img to shit all over andy and post a link to his hate blog above it. Great leadership andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy and Terry are still personally close, correct? Or is Andy really so chickenshit (haha nevermind answered my own question thnx)? Terry comes by almost daily to crap on MPR, yet the last time CNV mentioned Conservapedia was in spring 2013.Shakedangle (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really no surprise, coming from the man who listed Putin as 'Conservative of the year.' I'm frankly terrified by Israel's actions here, too, but this is likely just related to Andy's apparent endorsement of the Russian bloc 209.179.69.249 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Putin really that openly pro Palestinian? This article suggests otherwise, and it jives with my impression that he is trying to stay friendly with Israel and Russia's own Jews to counter the Russian antisemitic stereotype. He's hedging, just as is almost every other head of state of a major power, by saying Israel has the right to defend itself AND the violence needs to stop in Gaza. Shakedangle (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Karajou it is Hamas bombing it's own hospitals[7]^img--Mercian (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably both. Some cases of Hamas rockets misfiring, and some of IDF bombing. Shakedangle (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: First ken brags to Karajou about how he was right to demote JM's headline,[8]^img followed by Andy disputing and deleting Karajou's post[9]^img--Mercian (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. EDIT: haha, nice job capturing Ken's premature.... dammit. Why did I type those two words consecutively!? Shakedangle (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And Jpatt comes in to save the day^img! Israel can go back to being right 100% of the time forever. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jpratt doesn't support terrorists or the UN, but evidently has no problem with the deaths of innocent women and children. oh wait, they're brown-skinned and not Christian - of course it's ok for them to die. PsyGremlin^Praat! 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is so weird for me to type: Andy's going to come back and restore that entry sympathetic to Gaza, contradicting the views of at least 3 sysops. Shakedangle (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt Andy will even notice. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aww. :( Shakedangle (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Karajerk!!

As you once said to a poor editor: "Do you have a degree in encyclopedia science? Well, do you?? Oh, you don't? So who are you to decide what is and isn't encyclopedic?"

Besides you sucking up to Andy, of course.

I look forward to you deleting "Conservapedia Proven Right" on the same criteria. PsyGremlin^Praat! 09:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Karajou had to delete this page, as Ken made a greater-than-usual fool out of himself. A user named Historybuff came out of the blue and wrote at cp:Talk:Conservapedia proven wrong:

October 26, 2012
The October 26, 2014 event was described as a clandestine event by a creationist blog and subsequently reported by Conservapedia as a news event.[20] Why would we expect the mainstream news media and other media outlets to report on a clandestine event? Historians don't use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence in terms of events occurring or not occurring in history and AugustO is practicing bad historiography. Most of the population growth in the world today is happening in the developed world and a large percentage of these people are from creationist families and grow up to be creationists. October 26, 2012 was a terrible day for Darwinism as is today. Darwinists can hide from this trend, but they cannot hide! Historybuff
re: book
When asking a historical question to frame a historical investigation, a historian must be both explicit and precise. The word "soon" is not explicit and precise. The meaning of "soon" varies depending on a person's culture and personal disposition. Therefore, as far as this 2013 announcement made on another website which Conservapedia reported on, AugustO's accusation cannot be sustained. Historybuff 17:04, 2 August 2014 (EDT) That's bogus. This is not an "historical investigation" or a court of law. An announcement at the main page should be written in a way that the reader is able to get the meaning of the news item. When the release of a book is announced to be soon, any impartial reader expects this to happen during the next weeks - or months. That's what we are used to, and that's our "culture and personal disposition": Coming soon in your local cinema.. doesn't mean that you have to wait for three years for the movie, as soon at your book-shop doesn't imply millenia of waiting... If the writer of the news item claims that he actually meant millenia, he was misleading his public - and there is no place for that in a trustworthy encyclopedia. The fact that the "Question evolution! campaign booklet" was wiped from Conservapedia's memory by the same person who had plastered the main page with it over and over again implies that the whole booklet-project has died... "Historybuff" can't answer to my statements above, as I have blocked him for being a parodist and/or a sock. --AugustO 09:50, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Not only did AugustO call out Ken's sock (AugustO (Talk | contribs) blocked Historybuff (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Either a parodist or a sock of User:Conservative)), Ken all but confirmed this by his block of AugustO (15:12, 3 August 2014 Conservative (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for AugustO (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2014-09-03T19:11:25Z (account creation disabled) ‎ (does not want his historical claims subject to historical methodology. proud, unreasonable and stubborn))

For me, the whole episode (even called Orwellian changes of Conservapedia's history^img) was the most amusing one in July 2014...

--larron (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, even when Ken socks up, he can't help but write like Ken. That takes sad to a whole new level. PsyGremlin^Praat! 10:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Damn, CP:Proven Wrong finally goes down. That was some of my best work too... --DonnyC (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some fun CNAV action about the length of a month

There has been some fun back and forth going on at Hurlbut's blog over the last month or so about the effect that the flood had on the Moon's orbit. Terry keeps parroting Wally Brown's demented ramblings and getting shot down over and over. What impressed me is that Brown burned the evidence of his own ignorance over on his website as a result. Laffs ensue.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Excluding the possibility that Terry is knowingly dishonest about hydroplate theory, I think he realizes he's not smart enough to prove (or even attempt) the calculations, but he thinks he can recognize Brown's genius and has the same great amount of faith that he puts behind Andy. I've been wondering about intelligence and mathematics/logic, lately. If I have all the time in the world, could I teach a dunce how to properly wield calculus? Is it possible (or feasible) to teach Terry about orbital mechanics? Would that solve the problem or is his belief so rooted in faith as to be insusceptible? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ken's new tactic.

Love this one. if someone points out one of his articles has very few page views, wait 2 years, 10 months and 11 days for the views to grow before refuting it.[10]^img--Mercian (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does Ken never acknowledge me? Clickbot (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope Kenpai will notice me Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, oh... Angrydome time!

Wow... what's this? Discussion of the war in Israel? Holy shit is this going to be about something other than drive by vandals at CP...? oh. Nope. Jesus, Karajou. Get a fucking hobby. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A quote Andy and Co will hate: "He is too fixated on harming a small website" Are you admitting Conservapedia is a failure Karajou? --Mercian (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

His entire argument is more or less: "Markman criticizes Conservapedia, therefor he has no time to spend on anything else, and the same logic does not hold true about User: Conservative because MAGIC," which is about par for the course for Karajou...but I'm more concerned about his amazing lack of cognitive dissonance here. Israel was not the only nation that mourned the loss of its children before the conflict started, nor was Palestine the only country firing near-indiscriminately its adversary. By varying definitions, Israel's military's actions could be viewed as acts of terrorism and Hamas could be viewed as Palestine's standing army. Not that I support Hamas or radical Islam or anything of the sort, but the entire state of affairs there is a tragedy that should never be sold short. 24.96.91.26 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, anger bear is just the empitome of spluttering impotent rage. He's the person we all know who is just so damn ANGRY about everything, every perceived slight, every imagined insult, every person who does better than he does in anything. And he knows, KNOWS I tell you, that he is as good as all those who do better. But they are all plotting to keep him down and promote all those liberals above him even though he knows he is so much better. He will never do anything, he can't. Because deep down he's too scared. Keep spluttering anger bear. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The legacy of 20 years in the navy and only climbing a few small rungs of the promotion ladder. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not every German IP is/was Sid and Markman is definitely NOT MexMax. Karajou's sleuthing skills always were abysmal. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

When Ken found out that I was PetyrB I said "Fuck it, I'm going MexMax". Karajou is probably not familiar with the phrase "going MexMax" so he think that this was an admission that I'm him. - 109.64.151.44 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside from a horror movie fan, does he think he'll sound like a nerd if he refers to the Friday the 13th series by name rather than the cumbersome description he opts for? For the record, the soundtrack to those films wasn't as strictly ballroom as he seems to remember. The creepy whisper he's referring to went "ki-ki-ki ma-ma-ma" not "cha-cha-cha-cha". Grumblejaws (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a fellow Horror Movie fan, I think it may just be that he honestly doesn't know what the series is called and used said description as it is basically how the series is depicted in wider pop culture. Frankly Mr Angrypants doesn't seem the type to go watch horror movies with friends.....or go watch any movies with friends....or to have friends in general. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid is from The Fly, but it is not stuttered. CS Miller (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A nice, soon to be burnt FYI.[11]^img.

I will now answer:

1. No.

2. Once yes, but this was swiftly dismissed.

3. No.

4. No.

5. Yes.

6. Some are, but none on the scale of you Ken.

7. Irrelevant question, everybody in the world, including Karajou know you are one person.

8. No.

--Mercian (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

PS, this post is about Karajou and Markman, your response to it is all about you. Me me me me me, that is all you ever consider, signs of a selfish person/people at least and possibly even sociopathic signs. Do not pretend you care about Karajou, Andy or others because you do not, if you did you would not vomit over Conservapedia the way you do, you make Andy look bad and you know it. Your history on CP, a supposed trustworhy, family friendly resource primary for school children shows you care not a jot for America's youth as well. The crap on bestiality, homosexuality, liberalism, non fundamentalist christian etc proves this, it is all about you.--Mercian (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I am actually supported Karajou on something but I feel it is wrong to criticise his service record. He may not have been a huge success as a serviceman but his years of service are nothing to be ashamed of. I myself served 12 years in the services and made the dizzy rank of corporal when many of my peers were sergeants, staff sergeants or even in one case, a warrant officer(sergeant major) after the same period and I am no way ashamed of my service.--Mercian (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really going to knock Brian for his service record. I'm not a huge fan of the military personally, largely as I think they are often used as the boot boys of the military/industrial complex (haliburton anyone?) but I appreciate those who do serve, especially the 'foot soldiers', were the back bone on which my freedom to mock karajou is built. And I FULLY appreciate the good things that the military do and have done in places like Bosnia, Sierra Leone, hell I'll even say Northern Ireland in some cases. I knock Brian for his impotent, misdirected, rage at things he doesn't understand. Like liberalism. And marxism. And captalism. And freedom. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ken, given that even when you sock up as Historybuff, you are unable to alter your writing style, but still write in Ken-speak, it's pretty self-evident that only one actual human being edits that account, no matter how many personalities they might have. Somebody who is so paranoid that they lock every article they touch, including the talk pages, is hardly likely for you to share a password with another human. Even if they are chained to the wall in your mum's cellar. And if you're really so worried about what Karajou thinks of you, let me point you in the direction of this in the Special Discussion Group:

“”Did Conservative ever at any time tell us where he's from? Did he ever make postings of any kind outside of Conservapedia or CreationWiki? Does anyone here know his real name? I'm saying this becaause I'm still not convinced as to his honesty with regards to CP. Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well. First is the accusations that he is user:Newton at RW. As proof of that, I have submitted his postings of what he intended to do regarding the Atheist article and a picture of a prominent ex-atheist, both of which are born out by the times they were happening in both sites. Second is the RW accusation that he is Ken DeMyer: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligCreationismBiologyMess108.htm Typing his name on a search engine and looking at what he wrote will pull up pages like the above, which are similar to the edits Conservative supplied to articles such as evolution and Hitler. Ken DeMyer is 45 and from Buffalo, New York. Remember troll and user KDBuffalo? Was KDBuffalo trolling against us before or after the Ratwikians claimed he was Ken DeMyer? If the above is true, then we got someone with a clear Jekyll/Hyde personality. If it's not true, then we've got one hell of an elaborate ruse going on. Either way, I am of the opinion that Conservapedia should not have to suffer this. Any thoughts on this?

See, even Kara thinks you're a nutter. PsyGremlin^Praat! 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Aaaannnddd burnt. That sound you hear is Ken scurrying back into his bunnyhole. PsyGremlin^Praat! 16:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

[21]--Mercian (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What was Kendall Mint Cake's missive on Entity:Conservative/FYI ---- CS Miller (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)?

That discussion was hilarious. Karajou's acting like he's in a spy movie. Remind me so much of Dwight from The Office. I loved this quote: "Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well." --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A Milestone

I see this page nears a momentous occasion, the 333rd archive of the Conservapedia fan page's minutes. Go conservatism! :) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Or at least I presume this is a devoted fan page for Conservapedia, although it seems to have a somewhat critical tone. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If by "fan" you mean "people who slow down at car wrecks in the hope of seeing bodies" then yes. PsyGremlin^Praat! 10:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Kenny and WW1.

So, ken with his usual intelligence and humanity, uses the anniversary of the outbreak of WW1 to write an article on WW1 and Darwinsim and then link to it from main page left^img. He is then excoriated by user AlanE^img and kenny argues back before deleting^img the article but leaving it linked at the top of main page left. You really are a cowardly stupid little bunny aren't you ken. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The article (and I use the term loosely) still exists but i's been moved without a redirect from "WWI and Darwinism" to World War I and Darwinism^img. You know, I can't help feeling that AlanE got what he asked for He really shouldn't have expected any better from that site. Ken, Andy and Karajou would not be benrath using the deaths of their own families to try to prove a point about their own particular hobby-horse. Of course Ken's going to use the death of millions to try to prove that Charles Darwin is responsible for every bad thing that happened from the mid 19th century onwards. Spud (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanE calls Ken a miserable bastard and gets away with it. Ken responds by calling Alan a swine, all very funny.--Mercian (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the spineless little twerp has protected his World War I and Darwinism article so others can't edit correct it. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, when was the last time he didn't protect an article he'd created? Have you left any of them unprotected, Ken? You'd better check! Spud (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Joaquín Martínez and Kenny go at it now as well.

Interesting little exchange^img on talk main page between the man child and Joaquín. I get the feeling Jpatt is going to have apoplexy when he reads that. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that he's dome this^img, I can only conclude that JM is trying to get an infinite block. Doesn't he know that "Our Images; What's New!" is meant for Old Masters and cute pictures of marsupials? Spud (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, he's implying Muslim, brown-skinned people aren't terrorists. yeah, that'll end well. PsyGremlin^Praat! 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Joaquín posted something about Ann Coulter wanting Netanyahu as president. It included a criticism of Netanyahu's policy, saying it "has so far killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, mostly civilians"^img. Jpatt removes the phrase with the summary: "remove unconfirmed terrorist numbers"^img. Yes, that's a quote. Andy removes the rest with the bizarre summary: "remove neocon rant, which was originally posted apparently to criticize it, but was then edited to remove the criticism"^img. Joaquín, wtf are you still doing on CP? --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The really weird thing is that the Gaza picture with JM's 99% caption is still on the main page. But now its buried near the bottom of the page and Ken's written that 99% is bollocks underneath. Could it be that Andy and JPatt didn't scroll far enough down the page to see it? Spud (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My last irony-meter has just disintegrated into quantum unconsciousness. "Why is Barack Hussein Obama so secretive and such a control freak? Lots of shameful things to hide?" - Ken, are you really so self-unaware? Генгис^{Gum disease} 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember, Ken fancies himself as a student of Sun Tzu. The ends justify the means. Hypocrisy is irrelevant to him. While it's humorous that he adopts Alinsky's playbook, it's also expected. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal

Given the meltdown Andypants was having 4 years ago, when the last announcement was made (gosh, time's fun when you're having flies) at the thought that they might HORRORS!! award it to a woman, who should be home baking muffins, because maths will make her little brain overheat, I'm quite surprised at the silence over there. Clearly it slipped through Andy's ADD attention span. And after all that effort he went to to create the cp:ConservaMath Medal and cp:Liberal claptrap based on Fields Medal.

Just wait until he finds out she's Iranian... PsyGremlin^Praat! 09:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Andy even pay that much attention to CP anymore? MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 10:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What else does he have to pay attention to?--"Shut up, Brx." 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't care as much as he used to. If I have time later, I'd like to do a graph of Andy's edit counts and byte contributions to the mainspace over time. Might break out essays and the faux conservapedia namespace too. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You might want to exclude mere reverts, too. Those are generally marked as minor edits. --larron (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that too. Please remind me, what's a decent throttle for API requests? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A female Iranian won the Fields Medal and he still hasn't said anything? Yeah, he really doesn't give a shit about CP anymore. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see Ken is dancing to our tune again^img. Remember when Conservapedia was something more than the squat of a lunatic who has nothing better to do than caper for our amusement? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it says "See also Christianity and science" at the end of a post about a Fields Medal winner from a Muslim country. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dance for me, little man! DANCE FOR ME! PsyGremlin^Praat! 07:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

So, in Ken's world, the scientific achievements of a brown-skinned woman are something to be celebrated, provided that she's a Christian. If she isn't, just pretend they never happened. Spud (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It did not last long but sloppy Ken neglected to burn the evidence[12]^img--Mercian (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy's last 10,000 edits by week

Occasionaluse (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Terry's graph is pretty funny. Since starting his blogs and abandoning contributing in late 2012, 88% of all his edits are to MPR. He's made around 65 non-CBP mainspace edits in almost 2 years, I'm assuming mostly to link to his blog. His last talkspace edit was in 2009. Hasn't been in the usertalkspace in over a year. Truly a drive by spammer. I thought he had more respect for Andy and CP, but damn. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose someone will block Andy for a blatent violation of the 90/10 rule? --65.101.119.25 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say something I never thought I'd say.

Robin Williams sadly died. I felt morose over someone I have never met but he made me smile and laugh and cry all at the same time with some of his work. So Terry decides to post something about Robin. So, with sinking heart, I start to read it. But Terry actually was nice, he complimented Robin Williams and even praised his work. Ok, Terry saw a message that were somewhat different to the message I took from the same scenes. But after years saying Terry is an arsehole I have to hold my hands up and say that in this he wasn't. So credit to Terry for not trying to score a cheap point and 'hollywood values'. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing myself. You're not 100% asshole, Terry. DogP (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sad I had to hear about Lauren Bacall from Terry's blog, I think that only leaves Kirk Douglas from that era of actors.--Mercian (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

According to something I heard on the radio yesterday, the passing of Lauren Bacall marks the end of an era because she was the last surviving person mentioned in Madonna's song "Vogue". Spud (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now taking bets

On what Andy will do with this.--Umichcynic (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

nothing, Same as me because that article is way to THE WORLD IS FOREVER BETTERED for my trust.--Miekal 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, knowing Andy, if he did happen to stumble across that web page, he would only read the headline and might say something like, "Professor values: Liberal college professor says illegal drugs are better than batteries". Of course, what's really being talked about there is hemp, the stuff they've made rope from for centuries. It's a typical newspaper story really. They grab your attention with a sensationalist opening paragraph, which turns out to be completely irrelevant. Then the genuine boring details emerge and the average reader never gets to the end of it. Spud (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally linked to the wrong article, lol. I meant to link to the story about the homeschool student who killed his parents.--Umichcynic (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, could you give us that link now/ Scream!! (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could have accidentally linked to worse articles. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the first time I've read somebody else's "lol" and laughed out loud myself! Well, home-schooled boy kills his parents? I think Andy might ignore that and complain instead about liberal professors who want you to put weed in your remote control. Spud (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This Dallas News story appears to be about that. 68.187.216.117 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Was wondering why the hell someone would post that link and mention Andy. Yeah, it could have been worse. Rob one time accidentally named a file picture of an atrocity "Kara 08 yellow dress cover X", which was discovered to be the file name of some pornography. He unconvincingly and pathetically tried to claim he was playing a joke on us. Another time someone posted a screencap here but didn't realize it contained two open browser tabs dealing with bondage slaves. Nothing wrong with that, but a little embarrassing.

Anyway, my guess is Andy will just ignore it. Otherwise, find a way to blame it on liberals. Not exactly a bold prediction. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Karajou being Karajou

That is to say, an old white male railing against change.^img Change such as daring to question if a white cop killing a black unarmed teenage robber while he had his arms over his head, surrendering, should face some kind of scrutiny. This was all he needed, wasn't it, to confirm what he already knew - Micheal Brown was a "thug," an unperson not deserving of the due process afforded good, regular Americans. Goddammit Karajou, and every other right wing nut cackling in glee over this new detail, this is why you will never, ever, escape the racist label. Because you are racist. Shakedangle (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing while I still have my rage-on; Karajou, you're not bringing "balance," as I suspect you feel like you're doing, to a lopsided conversation on what is going on in Ferguson, MO. You are lashing out in impotent rage at the breakdown of your white privilege, privilege what allowed incidents like these to be swept under the rug by police forces concerned primarily with self preservation. In other words, breakdown of your good old fashioned American Values. Shakedangle (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And now anger bear outright denies^img those inconvenient things called facts. Why actually do any checking^img for yourself brian when you can just act like the dick you are and throw your hefty weight around? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, even by the Swabbie's usual low standards, that's a dick move. If Conservapedia says no (Muslim) woman has won the Fields Medal, then none have. Ah, after Jerkwad asked for references, JoeyJ put it back. I do like Very Petty Officer Kajagoogoo's incredulous questioning of Sofia: Is she Iranian? Is she Muslim?" Yes and Yes, Jerk-off. Now let's sit back and wait for your frothing at the mouth, MD 20/20-fueled impotent rage. PsyGremlin^Praat! 19:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He has conceded she is Iranian, still denying she is a muslim.[22]. However I can't find a source that confirms her as a muslim.--Mercian (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Has he conceded that she is a woman? --65.101.119.25 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sinking yet lower: Kendoll literally praising bullies

Homophobic bullying a great thing^img apparently. Well done, Kendoll. You've managed to lower my already rock-bottom opinion of you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh, burnt in record time. Don't worry, Ken. I have a screenshot of you being your usual contemptible self. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, what a total twat. I bet he would support a gay youth being driven to suicide. Obviously the other wankers agree as it was not reversed until he burnt it. Karajou supports gunning down non resisting black youth and Ken supports bullying, nice place Conservapedia. It is not surprising though, he is after all a fucking cowardly bully. Nice work Jeeves.--Mercian (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ken, if you read above you will see that Andy is rapidly losing interest in Conservapedia, it is only a matter of time before it is no more. With the likes of Jeeves, myself and others collecting a nice resume of your "work" and your oh so obvious style you will never be given a position of authority again, even on the most despicable of websites. Atheism will thrive, liberalism will thrive, unfortunately bestiality will continue but your days as an internet troll are numbered. Good fucking riddance, you will not be missed.--Mercian (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to interfere with his activities at other sites isn't exactly cool, especially when you do it on behalf of other people, and doesn't seem at all necessary. If some other idiot sees fit to give Ken authority at some other shitty site, who cares? Why should you & Jeeves & whoever else your deigning to speak on behalf of need to flaunt your Kendoll "resume" to bring about his ruin? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Because he has insulted, belittled and taken shots at me from behind his invincible barrier far too many times and he does it because he thinks he is untouchable. I knew a "Poor disturbed, miss-understood Ken" apologist would pull me on this, defending his islamophobic, homophobic and hatred of anything that does not meet his ideals as a result of a disturbed mind. To make it clear I do not wish any harm on him, I will not stoop to publishing his address or the like but he took the first shots and has not stopped shooting since.--Mercian (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He's a literally deranged, addled person. Pretending that you are locked in intellectual combat with him, vowing to protect others from his evil, is a damn shame. Yes, he's despicable, hateful, disgusting, but he's also a nobody. Phiwum (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

How am I defending homophobia, islamophobia or anything Ken has said or done? What I'm saying is that I find it pathetic that you (Mercian) should sink to his level or lower, and especially so when you claim to speak on behalf of other editors who may not necessarily share your zeal for wikistalking & harassment. There is nothing subtle or covert about Ken's behaviour & no reason why you would need to "warn" any web admins about him. If some site gives him authority, it's likely to be because that's just the sort of idiot they welcome. Trying to interfere with this is just going to make you look like a dick and - as long as you claim to be outraged by Ken's defence of bullying - rather a hypocrite. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A point conceded Weasloid, you did not defend homophobia, islamophobia or anything Ken has said or done, an angry reply by me, I appologise. However how am I a hypocrite? standing up to a bully is not bullying, that is what I am doing, I have no record of bullying be it online or in the real world.--Mercian (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Because I read you comment about "compiling a resume" and "you will never be given a position of authority again" as intent to follow Ken to other sites and interfere with his activities there, something that's a lot closer to bullying than standing up to a bully. If that's not what you intended, then what did you mean? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant and I still do not see it as bullying, by that logic any protest is bullying, such as Unite Against Fascism demonstrating and hindering the efforts of the EDL or BNP. It seems we have differing views of what bullying is.--Mercian (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

there are better targets to expend time and energy on than some nutjob no mark who no one takes seriously AMassiveGay (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

and letting him get under your skin like this probably gives him a warm glow in side. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Or outside. ;) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh Ken, you make it sooo easy

Five race riots under Obama, and you ask^img how many there were under Reagan. let's see:

• 1980 - Chattanooga Riot of 1980, Chattanooga, Tennessee
• 1980 - Miami Riot 1980, May 17–19, Miami, Florida
• 1982 - Anti-Klan protest 1982, November 27, Washington, D.C.
• 1982 - Miami Riot 1982, Overtown Riot, December 1982, Miami, Florida
• 1984 - East Los Angeles Disturbances involved street gangs, repeatedly from April to August 1984, Los Angeles, California
• 1984 - Lawrence, Massachusetts Race Riot:
• 1987 - Tampa Riot 1987, February 1987, Tampa, Florida
• 1988 - Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, August 1988 (East Village, Manhattan, New York City)

So that's at least 8, before we add in those under the Presidency of Bush Snr. So now that your question has been answered, I'm guessing you'll magically vanish your post now. PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add a slightly better link^img that includes kens question about reagan. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You, Sir, may be my guest. PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, Reagan wasn't president until 1981, so nix the first 2. Still at least 6, though. DickTurpis (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reversed, all mention of Reagan burnt.[13]^img--Mercian (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dance for me, little man. DANCE FOR ME! PsyGremlin^Praat! 06:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Again Kenneth?^img Do you even read your own website? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No not Reagan, Coolidge.[23]--Mercian (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What's hilarious is that the article he cites calls Coolidge the laziest president ever, and that Herbert Hoover was doing all the work at the time. So in Ken's mind, being lazy and having other people do the actual work for you makes you a great president. No surprises there. -Nets awesome (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Schlafly had an opinion on Ferguson.

The sane Schlafly, that is. The one who makes beer: He seems to be seeing things differently than he used to. Too bad "the ability to change your mind when presented with new evidence" isn't a genetic trait. 176.10.100.226 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it may well be a genetic trait trait, but on the distaff side. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I hear about Schlafly the brewer, the more I pray for him to take over conservapedia in some epic manner and convert it to a beer and progressive politics focussed blog. Or at least for him and Andy to get into a public slapfight. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hilarity will occur

Andy's teaching a new course on the Constitution! MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember when I suggested that Andy start a "Conservative Constitution Project", but he said the constitution was too perfect and easy to understand. I wonder how he can editorialize a whole course about it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's All About the Trend

Oh dear, Ken and Andy aren't going to like this: Google Trends If you look at the entire range, you can see just how far the mighty have fallen. Meanwhile, slow and steady wins the race...Tacitus (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

... Canada has more search volume for RW than the U.S. does? Interesting. - Grant (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Canadians pondering the wisdom of those living south of the border? Or, to paraphrase my favorite blogger (BikeSnobNYC), it's Canada checking its (geographic) underpants, looking for stains. MarmotHead (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Well said. The relative appearance of insanity in the States (especially in the Bible Belt) is certainly a topic a conversation among many people I know. - Grant (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping there will be at least one more spike. Andy has plenty of crazy left, something has to go viral again. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So what happened at the end? Did I miss the apocalypse? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

About the Canadian thing, it's probably because of our Stephen Harper page. We document his stupidity in an easier format than wikipedia. ClothCoat (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ken uses "beta males"

lolololol^img I guess he fancies himself a pickup artist, now?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't Ken have a hard-on for PUA and lover of young girls, Vox Day? PsyGremlin^Praat! 11:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the poor whacko is having an episode. He's been polishing his obesity turds for about eight hours straight. Whoover (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

He's not a whacko he is a nasty cowardly bully. I don't think he posted "An overweight Chinese student weeps after a light exercise during training at a camp held for overweight children at a local university on July 16, 2014 in Beijing, China." by coincidence, he posted it just as Andy posts a homework lecture for his students.--Mercian (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course he's a nasty cowardly bully. But is it a choice or was he born that way? I think he has a genetic predisposition to his offensive lifestyle. Whoover (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Hell? Doesn't that literally argue that people are apes? Is this seriously a "I reject evolution, but I accept this overly simplistic application of it" thing? Oh, Ken, if only you followed more modern, advanced studies of eusocial mammals. Ikanreed (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You can tell Ken's never left the US. He's writing about how big chain hotels in China have... gasp... buffets. Newsflash, Ken. Big hotels everywhere in Asia have buffets. It isn't the locals that frequent them for the most part, they're too expensive. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have to challenge you on that. Living in Buffalo, I'm sure he has visited Canada. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not wading through the obesity cesspool, but has anyone done so sufficiently to understand Ken's explanation for the world-class levels of obesity in the US? I notice that article is missing. It would also presumably address the states with the top 15 obesity rank: Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Michigan, Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Alaska and Texas versus their low-rank counterparts: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Montana, Utah, DC, New Jersey, California, Arizona, Florida, New Mexico and New York. It must be because American Exceptionalism. Whoover (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but Chuck Norris. Ruddager (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I love how Ken's source for the Chinese buffets is Yahoo! Answers. He did try to rewrite the information without just plagiarizing it, bless him. However, it still reads much more like the travel advice it was meant to be (There's a Brazilian place in Guangzhou where they cut the meat in front of you) rather than criticism of the fast fattening society. I also love the heading "China and Western style food restaurants and China has rapidly become the biggest beer market". It's nearly as long as the section underneath it. In fact, it's virtually identical to the section underneath it. Spud (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is China more atheistic now or something? What is explaining this astonishing rise in obesity? (Yes, yes, I know: a nation of growing wealth eating more red meat and delicacies.)

Also, am I misremembering, or didn't Conservative previously claim that Christianity is growing fast in China today? Phiwum (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For that matter, I wonder why Conservative has an article about the second most obese nation rather than one about the first. Phiwum (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And what happened then? Andy's perspective grew three sizes that day.

Well well well.^img Some context: Joaquin makes a tone-deaf (for conservapedia) addition on MPR.^img Predictably some of the other editors get up in arms over it, but everyone is too chickenshit to do anything since Andy semi-tacitly endorses the entry by making a few minor edits.^img

Jpatt is especially pissed.^img But good ol' Andy is here to give some perspective, all oh no wait it's not just dirty Muslims getting screwed over by Isreal it's also Catholics, my people. People I care aboot. Oh noes who could have known. Conservatives' lack of imagination continues to astound me. Shakedangle (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is quite funny to watch the other sysops screw with JPratt's black and white belief system. Maybe he'll stop leeching of cp's dwindling reputation on twitter out of protest. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just checked out JPratt's twitter. Pretty typical stuff I guess for a Tea Partier. I really do hope he takes his ball and leaves the mostly empty playground. Shakedangle (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And now some trimming^img of teapartycrusaders links. Apparently they're monotonous. I had a really hard time spelling monotonous, possibly due to my inebriated state. If only I came in 3rd in a spelling bee, at some point in my past, possibly. Shakedangle (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ken, you daft wazzock!

No, Ken. British kids saying "awesome' has got bugger all to do with Conservapedia's manual of style^img. If you read the sodding Daily Fail article, you'll see it says nothing about Britons no longer writing "colour" and "centre", writing "August 29, 2014" instead of "29th August 1973" or saying "have gotten" instead of "have got". What it is about is language evolving, with some words coming into British English from American popular culture, as they have done since at least the days of the first "talkies". It's nothing new and definitely not a victory for anything connected to Conservapedia. You great berk! Spud (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That is lame by even Ken's low standards. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It amuses me when I'm in the USA and hear Americans say things like "bollocks", so the traffic would appear to be two-way.--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} 19:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been happening since WW2 and especially since the late 50's. Interesting how Darwinism is responsible for food shortages though[14]^img. Nothing to do with climate change, wet summers and warm winters. I never saw snow once last winter and I live in Derbyshire.--Mercian (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

New Article Has Promise

It's nice to see Andy's interest in CP has returned, and Atheistic Science^img is his latest project. He's been going on about how the Bible would have told Napa residents to buy earthquake insurance^img. As usual, the linked article says nothing about people being misled as to the risk by atheists but is about how the premiums are too expensive. The Atheistic Science article looks to collect all his crackpot science in one place. Quantum mechanics is about chaos aka Satan. Atheist scientists insist that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to systems subject to the external application of energy, so their pseudo-science evolution will work. Can relativity be far behind?Whoover (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, we've had Jewish science and Deutsche Physik , so why not Atheistic Science? Then again, how many diseases have the "scientists" at CMI cured? Come on, Ken, I'm sure you'll have the answer. PsyGremlin^Praat! 08:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

if he really works at it then it could be comedy gold; it may even revive some interest in the site. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy truly is a fucking idiot. How did this man get a master's degree from a real university? Snrub (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Engineering is a common degree for young-earth creationists. They seem to think it gives them just as much authority on teaching evolution as a Doctor of Sociology. Either that or it's just a traditional, conservative, Christian career option.-- Forerunner (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that they can get an engineering degree while still somehow convincing themselves not to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's like somehow trapping a smart person inside you and only letting them out at work. The rest of the time that person can still see, hear and feel everything you do and say but is powerless to stop the bullshit. They try to scream, "I'm not retarded really!" but no-one can hear them. It is no use trying to escape, you think, I am doing God's work. Fonzie (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to squeak through an electrical engineering degree without significant exposure to thermodynamics. That's more of a mechanical engineering thing, or perhaps chemical. Complex numbers are pretty essential to things like Fourier transforms, though. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy has created an encyclopedia that hates facts. It's more than an odd view of science. The view extends to evidence. The Napa thing is a typical example. Faced with a headline to the effect that few in Napa have earthquake insurance, Andy feels free to write the story -- evidently without reading the actual article. He might have decided, "little-known part of Obamacare hijacks insurance premiums to fund death panels" or "Californians spend so much on wine and weed that they neglect insurance." He decided on "residents misled about seismic risk by bad science." Of course the article says none of those things, rather, it says, "California earthquake premiums are so expensive that earthquake insurance is beyond all but the richest Californians." Specifically, the article makes it clear that residents know they live in an earthquake-prone area. Maybe it's all the earthquakes. My only question is whether Andy read the article and ignored it before penning his fantasy or decided he didn't need to. In any case, this is absolutely another facet of the "what do atheist scientists know?" view of the universe. Whoover (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh this has the potential^img to go full scale andy style nutter. Genesis predicted quantum physics. Any parodist care to go over there and encourage him along this path? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thought he didn't like/believe/understand/approve "Quantum". Scream!! (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought he liked quantum stuff because, in his mind, quantum theory replaces relativity, which is bad. Phiwum (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy's doing a pretty job of self-parody without our help...! Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Another difference between Biblical and Atheistic Science: atheistic scientists think they have all the answers already. Wait. What? Whoover (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously, that's why we stopped doing science decades ago. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy sure has a way with words

This totally irrelevant anecdote from Andy's American Government lecture one^img made me laugh: "On the personal side, Gouverneur Morris lost one of his legs as a young man, due to a freak carriage accident (there were no cars then)." That's unintentionally funny on just about every level.

Also, what an incredible load of jingoistic bollocks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

At least his three roommates weren't killed in a freak water sports gasoline fight accident, the hosers. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

All those compromises make the Founding Fathers sound like a bunch of RINOs. Whoover (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What does "The United States Constitution has been successful longer than any other written legal document in the history of the world - nearly 230 years." mean? How can a document of any kind be "successful"? (Magna Carta, anyone?) Scream!! (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

He's forgetting Leviticus. Whoover (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hancock rules! (When Simpson & Galton wrote, anyhow) Scream!! (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I can still recite the entire Blood Donor episode... Sophie^Wilder 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And Bill Kerr just died. Much underrated. Scream!! (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Sad. Sophie^Wilder 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This radio internet lark's a wonderful hobby, y'know. I've got friends all over the world, all over the world... none in this country, but friends all over the world. Генгис^evolving 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Genghis, as our foreign correspondent, could you tell us if bread pudding is now available in Kuala Lumpur? Sophie^Wilder 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It was on the menu last time I was there in June. Генгис^{Gum disease} 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It are not raining here also. Spud (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"He's forgetting Leviticus" He doesn't care for the dietary restrictions of course, GAY BAD, PORK GOOD Sphincter (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not even the oldest "successful" national constitution in the world. San Marino has America beaten by 188 years. Tacitus (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Launch booty's blogs

Not content with using Andy's blog to linkwhore to his own CNAV, I see Terry is now providing links to the same story on three different^img pages he runs. Because that's all CP is good for these days. PsyGremlin^Praat! 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Has it ever been good for anything else?--Mercian (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea how much Terry could be making off linkspamming CP? Also, does Terry linkspam anywhere else? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt he makes much in the way of a profit off his various sites. If he's lucky he makes enough to pay for the webhosting. CPMs are pretty much rock bottom right now, even with the exceptionally dodgy ad networks he uses, and it's not like he has huge traffic. I guess it's just an ego thing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe.

They have shown favour towards Apartheid, The BNP and Putin, now they add Bob to the list.[15]^img.I think this confirms my suspicion that teapartycrusaders.com is a parody site. --Mercian (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Stupid twat shares same views I do" isn't a ringing endorsement for your side of the debate, Conservative. X Stickman (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How much do you reckon their side of the issue has to boil down to just them and a bunch of the world's most despicable people before they realise they're wrong? When they're in such sterling company as Putin and Mugabe you'd think they'd start noticing a certain trend... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy's done some trimming but leaves the Mugabe reference.[24] beside a new Putin loving post[25] I guess it does not matter how much of a tyrant they are, If they hate gays it's fine by them.--Mercian (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia grade conservatives love tyrants. Oh they hate the term. They know it means evil, and will be quick to apply it to those they dislike, but they love tyrants who punish social deviation. Andy and Conservative both act as exactly those archetypal tyrants on conservapedia, and their userbase sucks up to them instantly and naturally. They just liberally apply the "enemy of my enemy" and "friend of my enemy" mantras to create webs of friends and foes. And then it's self reinforcing, their friend (who is only their friend because of enemy of my enemy) is under attack by their enemy, so they act in the kind of solidarity only authoritarians can manage.

The moments I love, and it can only really be watched live on free-republic and the like, is when there's a glaring contradiction. And they just snap, instantly from friend to enemy. Like within a day, Romney went from evil moderate who must be destroyed, to last hope for the world, because he won the primary and no longer was the enemy of their friends(and instead the enemy of their enemy). Ikanreed (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesus, Ken

I know "pantywaists"^img is one of your favourite words (did you learn it from ShockOfGoat or VoxDay?) but that law is over 80 years old. It's a left-over from Prohibition. You remember, that time when your favourite Nanny State, pantywaist liberal Calvin Coolidge was running things and nobody could legally buy a drink, cold or otherwise? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than someone in the hosiery industry, "pantywaist" is one of those words that only a pantywaist would find a need for. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I like how his link is to one of those "X CRAZY THINGS YOU WON'T BELIEVE Y IS DOING" lists rather than to anything remotely official or in-context. X Stickman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The pantywaist seems to have deleted the item. Maybe because he realized that the liberal pantywaists who control legislation in Indiana comprise a legislature with a three-to-one Republican supermajority and an evangelical Republican governor. Whoover (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Even Jesus Nods

God was asleep at the switch, apparently, when Greatest Conservative Sports Star Novak Djokovic was eliminated by Buddhist Kei Nishikori, who advances to the U.S. Open final. How will this be spun? Ignored? I predict Andy will keep quiet until after the final, hoping for a Nishikori loss, which will then make him Overrated. That should relieve the pressure. Whoover (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF Andy??

Did somebody spike Andy's drink?? Mr Small Government thinks that totalitarianism is the only to keep unity in a country.^img Can somebody fluent in Schlaflyese parse that for me please? PsyGremlin^Praat! 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Charitably, you could say he was saying "without totalitarianism keeping the atheists in check, anarchy is the only thing happening". If that is what he meant, he probably thinks the Christians are keeping American atheists in check.--Miekal 13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I think the reading that's most charitable to Andy is that he's saying atheistic governments and societies can't function in an orderly manner unless they're also totalitarian. He's probably throwing back to Stalin and Mao in a fairly obscure way. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

He is saying "I hate Britain/UK/England" so any news that damages it is good by him. The opposite of "I love Russia" so any news that damages it is liberal propaganda.--Mercian (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin are two of his prime examples: liberal totalitarian leaders of atheist societies. When Russia turned from communism to Christianity, it no longer needed to be totalitarian, so now that it's conservative under Putin's strong but democratic republican leadership it proves the point. Scotland, being to the left of atheist England, is turning to communism so they really should find a dictator. It's all completely consistent. Whoover (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the more strongly religious states of the US the ones who push for secession more than any of the others? X Stickman (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to keep repeating it. Andy is strictly authoritarian. This can't really surprise you. He makes perfect marks on that every element of the RWA scale. Ikanreed (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ikanreed, I found a test for the scale[26]. I scored 47 out of 200, pretty damn liberal but a few here would get a lower score. Andy is certainly 150 plus on this scale, probably higher.--Mercian (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the a low score on RWA can and often does happen on politically conservative people. A low RWA score doesn't mean liberal. It means "not authoritarian". It's a personality meta-metric, not a political position. Ikanreed (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If Andy were really for small government he would have condemned police with military-grade gear in Ferguson and their treatment of protesters. The few things he did post were in favor of the police. Like most Republicans, he's only for small government when it gets in the way of their ability to be bigots or limits the greedy goals of corporations. He's all for authoritarianism if it's of the social conservatism kind or keeps the lower classes in check. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheezburger/Know Your Meme

Have picked up on andy's blog now. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see we get a nice mention too. And also that we're ranked nearly 14,000 places higher than CP. According to Ken logic, that means 2014 is going to be a terrible year for Conservapedia. PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

They called us an encyclopedia! *looks all cross* Sophie^Wilder 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And apparently RationalWiki was founded on the 22nd 2007. I must remember to celebrate our anniversary on the 22nd 2015. Spud (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jpatt

Is going to be angry^img again as Joaquin tries again to insert some balance into mpr. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Does jpatt even edit anymore?--Miekal 13:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Very rarely and then it is usually minor edits or defending Israel^img. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Love how he says that Islam is "anti-semetec"^[sic]. (Definiton of Semitic for the less informed: 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.) Scream!! (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but at this point, anti-Semitic basically just means Jews. It's funny if you think about the meaning of the word, but I don't hold the modern usage against him.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Something Old

No, I don't know why I do it, but in perusing the discussion of dinosaur references in the bible^img, I stumbled across a wonderful argument for Creationism:

Furthermore, even if the terms did refer to other animals, this does not necessarily invalidate the existence of dinosaurs. The Creation account was not intended as a comprehensive list of all animals God created - it does not for instance state explicitly that He created the ferret.

There's no arguing with logic. Whoover (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I love that article, every possible failure of logic demonstrated in one place together with many contradictions of the same fallacies. It's been heavily rewritten (and Kara is threatening to rewrite the whole thing) but my favourite bit was the recent discovery of the coelocanth is absolute proof that dinos are still running around The Congo. Sphincter (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another great line, this from Causes of Homosexuality:^img
In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end).
No, it can't be parsed, but it's unintentionally hysterical just the same. Whoover (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The destruction of Sodom (if it were true) was a crime against humanity. My home city has a red light district with perhaps a few hundred people involved in the illegal sex trade so it deserves to be destroyed according to biblical logic and the bible is of course the most logical book ever written. And even if, by the same perverted logic, the sex traders deserve death, what of the remaining 1/4 of a million? It is in my mind one of the most vile books ever written.--Mercian (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sodom wasn't just a few gay people or a few hookers or sexually liberal people, it was a town where literally every person ("But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter") will come and blockade someone's house and demand that the visitors be thrown out to be raped. The story has always had more nuance than "gays deserve to have salt related meteor deaths" but for SOME BIZARRE REASON all the crazies focus solely on the gay part. X Stickman (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember an argument about the story being up for interpretation, and that since the Bible frequently uses "know" as a euphemism for sex, it could instead be describing a xenophobic police state that interrogates foreigners for the sake of being foreign.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that Genesis 19 is presented as a story from which anyone could learn anything morally laudable. You've got a town filled with homosexuals and Lot hanging out at the city gate like the midnight cowboy. It's not so clear from Lot's calm response that he even knew the two strangers entering town were angels. In some descriptions, angels are 18 foot talk winged beings. In others, they are radiant beings with eyes like lightning. The angel described in Matthew "was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." Lot just bows deeply. So the angels, who certainly knew the townspeople would try raping them (or you can't rape the willing — who knows), insisted on spending the night in the town square. That sounds an awful lot like either drawing fouls or "when in Rome". Lot insists they spend the night in his house, with food and foot washing and whatever other nonsense — but they also certainly knew that the townspeople would surround the house and then try raping them, and that Lot would offer up his virgin daughters to be gang raped. Rape everywhere. Ehrenstein would go nuts reading that story. And then the angels tell Lot to get out of Dodge and not to look back, knowing of course that his wife would, and would be turned into a pillar of salt. Why didn't they say "but no seriously, Lot. Your wife is going to look back — don't let her or she'll die. We're not kidding." So we've got this "moral" tale about god sanctioning gang rape and putting strangers over family, destroying a whole city he set up to fail from the start, showing just how slick he was to word his covenant with Noah the way he did, and god generally treating women breathtakingly shabbily. And after losing his poor wife, Lot becomes such a hopeless alcoholic that he can't put up a fight when his depraved daughters get him so drunk they have sex with him so they can continue the family. Perhaps god gave the old guy some viagra so he could manage some sloppy drunk sex. But contrary to these weirdos' claim that they needed to have sex with dad because there weren't any other men around, there were cities full of them. They just didn't live in caves way up in the mountains having sex with their children. And to top it all off, one of the daughters has a son who becomes the patriarch of the Ammonites, who god then sets up to be major antagonists to the other Israelites and ultimately viciously genocides. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy in court again

This has shown up on Crooks & Liars. Andy went up against Posner and Easterbrook. I'd love to see this. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/best-obamacare-court-argument-ever ^{— Unsigned, by: Lardashe / talk / contribs} 13:31, 17 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Listen to him get savaged by Posner and Easterbrook. He can't answer direct questions. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Andy really is a shitty lawyer. Has he ever won a case of any significance? We've seen him get hammered in those recall cases, now this. Wonder how long he'll keep his post as AAPS's legal representative? PsyGremlin^Praat! 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt he'll loose it soon. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible their intention isn't necessarily to win, but to develop issues. There's great value in certainty. That's one of the benefits of stare decisis. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy certainly has developed issues, on that I totally agree. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Very fun listening. I like the way that Posner talks. He's so soft-spoken. Andy's argument is weird, and it requires some considerable gymnastics to figure out what their point of view is. I know it's intimidating to talk to these judges, but Andy comes across like he didn't put much time into researching this case. Part of how you prepare for a case is to find your arguments, but also to find the weaknesses in your arguments, and shore those defenses up. It doesn't come across like he considered that his case might be questioned. - Lardashe

Posner and Easterbrook are well known for making the best lawyers look like chuckleheads. I lost sleep worrying that they'd be on my panel when I did a 7th Circuit appeal 10 years ago. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So definitive proof, if needed, that Andy makes an even more shite lawyer than engineer. I'd act surprised, but let's face it, Andy's inability to accept that his arguments are anything less than brilliant, insightful, and bulletproof are glaringly obvious. A question for our American experts: Can, and would, the NJ Bar take any action to disbar Andy (or any other equally shite lawyer) based on his performance in court and service he offers his clients in said venue (assuming that his performance as a lawyer was considered substandard by the bar), or are they relatively powerless to act?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not joking, are you? No. The NJ bar would not take any action because you say so. He hasn't done anything wrong. Ehrenstein talked about trying to get my law license revoked because he doesn't like me anymore, so I understand a little better the significance of people casually talking this kind of nonsense out of their asses. How in the world does a bar knows if a lawyer's performance is "substandard"? Is it because he loses? Or because you think his arguments are crummy? To suggest that he should lose his professional license because you dislike him and have an ideological bone to pick is low. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It takes a lot to get an attorney disbarred. And even if Andy were disbarred, it hardly would accomplish anything. He's not doing anything corrupt, he's not hurting anyone. However, I wonder if he could be goaded into complaining about Posner and Easterbrook on CP. That might be worth some laughs. Lardashe

I suspect any mention of it will be burnt and the offender banned. Previously andy has done his 'a conservapedian will be speaking before the court' bullshit whenever he wanted people to know he was spreading his crap around in front of judges. I don't think he really had any intention of trying to win this pleading, he was there because wignut welfare hass to be paid for somehow and those who pay the piper call the tune. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my post was misunderstood. I was asking if the Bar itself has the ability to disbar somebody based on their view of the individual's competence or inability to meet a certain level of professionalism. I wasn't saying anything about making a complaint. The reason I ask is that in the UK the Bar can strike somebody off for a wide variety of reasons, and not all of them require a complaint being made about the individual, the individual just has to make enough problems to bring disgrace to the reputation of their profession. The point is, if the various State Bars don't have that power, I wonder what the point of their existence is, beyond a sort of glorified old boys club.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The State Bar can do that... but it still tends to take a lot. This is the only one I know of offhand, since it's a little more prominent. But the state does disbar lawyers for poor professional conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28activist%29 - Lardashe

Wow, I think the UK (well, England & Wales) has very different ideas about poor professional conduct. Publicly insulting opposing counsel or even insulting them out of chambers is enough to see your career end with remarkable haste over here.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia highlighted in a new book

I'm reading this book at the moment and Conservapedia is highlighted - in particular the Counterexamples to Relativity. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia in the Precambrian

They've finally gone doolally over at CP. Apparently the existence of a blastula-like fossil in the Precambrian disproves evolution. But I thought they didn't believe the cosmos, let alone animals, existed 600 million years ago....? And why do they think this disproves evolution anyway??? Does the existence of minds like Terry Hurlbut's disprove the existence of an intelligent creator? Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, for most of the Precambrian era, there's not supposed to have been multicellular lifeforms. Towards the end there were, though, and there's some contested examples of earlier Precambrian complex life as well.

As for how it would disprove evolution, a more complex lifeform existing "out order," that would suggest that the idea of common descent is false. It's similar to the common example explaining how evolution is falsifiable: the Precambrian rabbit. According to current scientific knowledge, life was not as complex as a rabbit in that era. Or something like that. I am not even close to an expert on the evolution of species throughout Earth's geological eras.

I haven't looked at Terry's claims or evidence, but my guess is that if it popped up on a site like CNAV, it's either complete bullshit or a more minor discovery taken out of context and blown out of proportion by people who don't know what they're doing and have an agenda--"Shut up, Brx." 19:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The multi-cellular life of the Precambrian is called the Ediacaran now and possible metazoan embryos have been an interpretation of fossils from early in the period for quite a while now. I don't know what he's going on about. Whoover (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lying SOB even includes a 2007 photo he stole from Wikipedia, captioned to say it's from the new Nature article. These from the guys who claim deceit is only done by liberals. Whoover (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's talking about this. Hell if I can tell you what it really means, but it's on Nature's website, so I'm sure it counts for something--"Shut up, Brx." 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It "means" that multicellular life didn't appear suddenly in the Cambrian. But we've known that for years. (We also have fossil evidence of multi-cellular red algae from over a billion years ago, but we get more excited by things that could be "animal" life). The Ediacaran biota is fascinating because we're not sure what it really was, but there's a lot of it and it was clearly multi-cellular and probably "animal." And some of the earliest Ediacaran fossils seem to be embryos, but since we're not sure how to classify the many Ediacaran life forms we're obviously not too sure about the nature of these embryos. The new paper merely presents some new ones. Nothing earth-shaking, but of course interesting. Creationists like to make up shit (like "multi-cellular life appeared suddenly in the Cambrian") as problems for evolution. Then they forget that they made it up as a problem and declare that evidence of pre-Cambrian multi-cellular life is now the problem for evolution. It's par for the course. The bit that's so slimy is his obviously knowing that this is old news, as evidenced by using a 2007 photo, and then claiming it's a new bombshell. I don't know why they bother. They know that there's no such thing as life because the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits it. Whoover (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be old news, but the article he cites was published four days ago. I'm sure as hell not defending him, mind you.--"Shut upBrx." 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a new paper. Paper on details of the Doushantuo Formation are published all the time. This one provides some new details on the presumed embryos, but the embryos are not new news. Terry knows this but pretends otherwise. Whoover (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like him--"Shut up, Brx." 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Terry should stay well away from geology and paleontology because he always makes a fool of himself when he comments on these topics. Once again it is creationists basing all their arguments on the state of knowledge from 50 years ago. Technology has uncovered a lot of stuff which wasn't available to those with just a rock hammer and hand lens. The Cambrian explosion is basically the first evidence of life for macro-creatures with skeletons, and it was a puzzle for geologists why animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Now that we know about Ediacarans and have fossil evidence for them it actually strengthens the case for evolution as we can see the evolutionary tree stretching farther back in time. Chuckarse thinks that finding "embryos of animals" in the Precambrian is somehow equivalent to finding a rabbit but he's missing Haldane's point which is that to prove creationism a modern animal which has gone through many stages of evolution would have to be found in the Precambrian and a "missing link" between unicellular and multicellular life is not even close to that. Генгис^mutating 11:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Slight rewrite of your first sentence, Genghis: "Terry should stay well away from geology and paleontology the computer because he always makes a fool of himself when he comments on these topics." Scream!! (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but I only read Chucky's stuff about creationism when it is highlighted here. I refrain from reading his other stuff as it leaves me feeling nauseous and soiled. Генгис^evolving 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god, Terry linked to himself three different times. All three links, from The Examiner, CNAV, and the Creation Science Hall of Fame, all saying the same thing, all written by him. This guy. Seriously, this fucking guy.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)