Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive334

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 March 2015. 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>, <332>, <333>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

I Have Sent You A Very Important Email[edit]

I miss Very Important Emails. Please bring them back. DogP (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a 95% certainty that you do not support classroom prayer. BicyclewheelModerator 19:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And he 'retires'[edit]

After several weeks of smearing even more shit all over the midden pile that cp is TheAmericanRedoubt retiresimg. Now whoever it is can take their mask off and come clean, leaving the admins at cp months of work trying to tidy up your 'contributions'. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. I think he's fishing for a "Who are the mean old liberals that are harassing you?" from Andy. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
He's got a biteimg from anger bear. Hi Brian, having fun with your new friend? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Just in caseimg TAR does turn out to be a parodist... altho for my money, TAR doesn't seem to be a sincere one (just an unintentional parodist, as are all "conservative" CP editors). If he is, he's pretty dedicated and/or has a shite ton of time on his hands. Shakedangle (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He's backimg already. Ghost (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the possibility that TAR may be Ken? I've noticed since TAR showed up Ken hasn't been editing much, and they both have the same compulsive edit patterns. Snrub (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Their editing patterns are very different. TAR is substantially more active while he's on and his interests are radically different. Ken is a single purpose editor essentially blogging his cult's narrow and hateful perspective. TAR has a lot of (insane) interests. They're not the same person. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR's User Page says he is a Wikipedian. Does anyone have a clue as to his Wikipedia sign on name? His editing style is so distinctive and wacky, it should be easy to spot. By the way, if you look at his User Page, there are troubling signs that he duplicates things without realizing it. (For example, two "Essay:The Survivalist Mindset - A Biblical Case for Preparedness and Self-Defense" links and two "This user knows George Washington was never a deist. And it's documented!" user boxes.) Is there a short term memory deficiency here? [2] Hclodge (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a very interesting time sequence of events:img

  1. 06:42 TAR writes on Wschact's talk pages that he will confine his work to eastern religion
  2. 08:25 Ken and TAR exchange emails.
  3. 09:21 Wschact writes on TAR's talk page saying that he does not care about topics - just write whole articles.
  4. 09:27 TAR blocks Wschact indefinately for socking
  5. 09:36 Ken writes on Wschact's talk page asking him to stop hounding TAR. [since been rev/del]
  6. 10:03 Ken then deletes a bunch of talk pages where TAR complained about Wschact hounding him.
  7. 10:54 Ken readds a revised warning on Wschact's talk page
I am surprised at Ken's stance. TAR has stolen his limelight to the extent that his hateful idiocy is going almost unnoticed. When was the last time any saw an "Atheism and" article? There have been there but buried under TAR's relentless crap.--Mercian (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
TAR is tickling all the right places at cp. He's playing right into their most paranoid daydreams with his fixation on gun rights to please anger bear. For Ken anything relating to far eastern woo will get him going, after all it's all worked so well for his own mental health hasn't it? And as for ken telling TAR to appeal to Jpatt if anything happens has johnny sedition even bothered editing recently? Andy doesn't seem to care any more. I get the impression even he realises now quite far over the shark cp has jumped and he is only keeping it going because the alternative - admitting he is an idiot and cp is a cess pit of morons - will make him look too stupid. So he keeps paying the bills from his wingnut welfare income and cp drifts further and further into insane irrelvance. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the more interesting of the edit wars with TAR has been over whether he could appropriate "Free State" to designate the American Redoubt/survivalist meaning of that term, after libertarians had already adopted that term to describe the target states of the "Free State Project" which was eventually centered on New Hampshire. Wschact had added material that included a link to the Free State Project and presented that alternative meaning, but now Ken is rev/deleting that to replace with his own article. Obviously Ken is hoping to recast the conflict as being about ayurvedic medicine rather than about TAR's incompetence as a wiki editor and writer. Until Ken completes his history scrub, Wschact will remained blocked. Hclodge (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It amused me that one of Con's complaints against Wschact was this: "It is also suspected that you may have others using your account to help you hound TAR. If true, this is unacceptable."img. Stay classy, shadowy group of you'll-never-guess-how-many-but-totally-for-real-you-guys-more-than-one-persons-in-the-User:Conservative-collective!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I loved that their tech, Karajou, declared Wschact an abuser because he used a VPN and a cell phone at the same time. If Karajou ever had a real job, he'd know about how connectivity on the road works. 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not see this much action at cp for quite some time. Wschact was unblocked and has filed a court brief on Andy's talk page.[1]img So, both TAR and Wschact have put their cards on the table, what will Andy do? Hclodge (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As the wikilawyers run to the "Andy Talk Page Courthouse" fighting to see who can Block first and fastest and who can RevDel away all of the evidence where is Chief Justice Andy? Monitoring the protests in Paris? Monitoring ISIS? No, he's watching the NFL playoffs and denouncing Peyton Manning as "overrated."img Hclodge (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's prettyimg obviousimg what he'll do. Shakedangle (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Conservapedia support attacks on Muslims?[edit]

They have not come right out and said so but there have been a couple of news stories posted on the subject, these for example.[3][4] I have never known Conservapedia to post a news story they do not agree with.--Mercian (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please tell all of your radical Muslim friends, "Conservapedia is the new Charlie Hebdo". Hclodge (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tucked At The End[edit]

Reading a link from CP regarding SCOTUS and same-sex marriage, and tucked all the way at the bottom was a little note about our favorite lawyer:

A new attempt to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that nearly all Americans must obtain health insurance, on the theory that this involved an unconstitutional seizure of property from those who do not want insurance, was denied without comment. The case of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Burwell had a number of procedural problems, and there appeared to be little chance that the Court would grant review.

Jared (talk)

As happy as I am to see the AAPS get a smack in the chops over this, I can't find Andy's name attached to this lawsuit anywhere. Not even an amicus brief that I can find. For this turd, the AAPS apparently went with outside counsel in the person of Lawrence J. Joseph of Washington D.C. Of course, that's interesting in itself; I would have thought that Andy would want to be the one to drive this shitwagon to the Supreme Court. Maybe the co-plaintiffs (Alliance for Natural Health-USA) didn't think he was up to the challenge after his recent series of highish-profile losses.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ken's arse[edit]

handed to him once again on a plateimg. I especially like Stacey's comment about the Quran. Count down to burning all evidence in 3, 2, 1...... Oldusgitus (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Methinks Ken doth protest too much.img Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Classic Ken constipated English. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 09:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Surprisingly the page hasn't been burnt, yet. Unsurprisingly, Ken's still getting his ass handed to himimg.--Inquisitor (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Conservapedia Commandment #5 is: "... Advertisements are prohibited." CP finally managed to attract a new user (or perhaps one of Conservative's sub-persons): User:FFAF with a straight forward, disclosed agenda.img Is this payback for all of those "thumbs up?" The Freedom From Atheism Foundation has the motto "Out and Proud!" I think I heard that one before somewhere else. Will User:Conservative set up a blind date between User:FFAF and User:HistoryBuff because they must have a lot in common? Hclodge (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
FFAF was blocked by AugustO, unblocked by VargasMilan with thisimg wonderful comment and finally blocked by anger bear for being a sock account. No mention of it ebing a ken sock account though, still protecting the idiot brian? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
At which point kenny comes straight back and unblocks FFAF. Come on Brian, you're not going to stand for that are you? Kenny implying you have no idea how to use checkuser. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's Going On at Survivalblog?[edit]

Maybe we need a new page or a broadening of this page due to the obvious merger/"sell out" of Conservapedia. If you look at there was a dramatic drop in readership at the start of October 2014. Does anyone know the cause?

There are other interesting parallels. Conservapedia was started by Andy who grew tried of it and appears to be turning it over to Karajou, Ken and Terry. Similarly, Survivalblog was started by James Wesley Rawles but he has turned day-to-day control to Hugh J. Latimer. Neither site values clear and concise writing.

At one time, Conservapedia was a collaborative project, but Karajou today announced a policy of article ownership (since the img robot is broken, I will paste here):

"So, what will happen is this: persons who originate/create pages will be allowed to finish them, unmolested. Anyone else who wishes to contribute to the page concerned will ask the creator of the page first; or leave pertinent, additional information on the talk page; or do nothing more than simple grammar/spell check. Karajou 08:44, 13 January 2015 (EST)"

This will create a Oklahoma land rush - editors will create as many one sentence articles as possible, claim ownership and then control all future content. If I do not like your James Wesley Rawles article, I will create "James W Rawles" and own my own POV folk. Watch the chaos ensue! Hclodge (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Up until now Conservapedia has not been a useful source of links into Survival Blog:

"What sites link to Total Sites Linking In 1,846

Site 	Page

Mr. Rawles, at any price, you clearly overpaid when you bought Conservapedia. Hclodge (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The gold rush will not happen because as with all CP's rules and commandments they will only apply to the plebeians. I would love to test it though and monopolize any "Atheism and" articles that have not yet been written leaving Ken to delve into high fantasy for new ideas.--Mercian (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Eh, he's been scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel for years. I'm particularly enchanted with the success of Homosexuality and Parasites and Homosexuality and Anal Cancer. Classy. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
First, I think the gold rush has already happened, today we have a new one-sentence article on the cp:USMLE‎ exam for doctors. We have TAR copy and pasting one sentence articles on every gun term that he can find from The Survival Blog. (It is odd that CP editors may not copy and paste from Wikipedia because they have a different copyright policy, but TAR can copy and paste from The Survival Blog, because it has an even more restrictive copyright policy.)
Second, I know that Andy, Cons and crew have been a bit over-the-top on relativity, homosexuality, atheist sports figures and New Conservative word lists. However, I cannot see Andy becoming comfortable with the open advocacy and endorsement of armed revolt against law enforcement officials. Today, TAR added this gem to the Waco Texasimg article. The more that TAR gets into second person advice in his writings, "you should do X", the more he opens up Andy to liability for inciting to riot, inciting to violate gun laws, etc. Just watch and wait. Hclodge (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Damn, thanks to thisimg anger bear is 'rethinking' his knee jerk, toys out of pram throwing reactionimg. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow my logic here. TAR and Ken say we should add all kinds of random links to the online writings of James Wesley Rawles because that will attract a different kind of reader to CP from Rationalwiki has a much better Alexa ranking than (6,671st vs. 22,014th). Therefore, CP would get much more traffic if we could add links to rationalwiki on CP instead of QED. Hclodge (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that serves as a gathering place for manipulating Wikipedia and recruiting people to weigh in when their pet articles are proposed at "Articles for Deletion." "Jeff Tarsel" is the name of a fictional character in one of James Wesley Rawles' dystopia novels. Rawles says he was based on a real person who now posts on survivalblog under "Jeff Tarsel". That is the same person who brings a bunch of socks to !vote in Wikipedia AFD, and the pack of them were banned. One Wikipedia account that also voted to keep their articles was Wikipedia user "Jeffersonfranklin" who created his account on October 15, 2012 and immediately jumped into an AFD as a Wikipedia policy expert. The permission email from Rawles that TAR posted on Conservapedia was addressed to Jeffersonfranklin. TAR has 17 years experience in computer networking and has lived overseas. The real life "Jeff Tarsel" according to Rawles "is a former USMC (Force Recon) NCO that went on to work in high tech industry and more recently has lived abroad and pursued a Master’s degree and later a Doctorate degree." Tarsel drove a VW that was painted with camouflage colors, decorated with USMC stickers and had a crash-bar added. Hclodge (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Bible study time[edit]

A lot of wikis have come and gone since the "wiki craze" swept the online community 10 years ago. Some are still going for fans of specialized topics such as Star Wars or even this wiki. Many more have gone into hybernation or were shut down. A successful wiki requires two things: a good set of definiting principles and a vibrant online community. Conservapedia is still going because the Conservapedia Commandments were well thought out. Conservapedia has also managed to attract some very bright, prolific and (to use TAR's word) "persistent" editors. (Ed Poor comes to mind as an example.) If the current Conservapedia sysops took time to study and then apply the Conservapedia Commandments, the site might have half a chance of surviving through 2015.

Commandment 1 requires original work, but TAR is openly cutting and pasting one or two sentence articles from Survival Blog. It requires "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" but TAR even lies about the Alexa ranking of that blog. TAR keeps editing "MSSA v. Holder" and linking to it extensively without disclosing that the case was lost and all avenues for appeal are over.

Commandment 2 requires citing sources, both TAR and Ken come up short on that front.

Commandment 3 requires family friendly content but the amount of Ken's homosexuality content (although lacking in photos) has passed beyond the threshold of family friendly.

Commandment 4 is the BC/AD rule - something everyone at Conservapedia manages to follow unless they are copying and pasting from elsewhere.

Commandment 5 is the gem of "No advertising." Ken has been promoting his website on MPR for some time. Yesterday, the User:FFAF sock created a vanity article about the FFAF, which remains in tact even though User:FFAF has been blocked a number of times. TAR's "The Survival Blog" article is also an ad. TAR's sole is function is to link spam Conservapedia.

Commandment 6 is no bots. That is easy because the current crew does not know how to write one.

Commandment 7 is no unproductive activity, but just watch Ken's distribution of edits on any given day. TAR's sheer volume of ownership-asserting talk page activity also broke this one.

Of course, an online community can be a Facebook group, a blog or a simple email list rather than a wiki. Ken notes that the FFAF is much better at driving Facebook traffic than is Conservapedia. The Survival Blog has a better US Alexa ranking (22,014th) than CP (25,629th) but a lower World Alexa ranking (91,923rd) than CP (85,948th). Perhaps TAR is right: with this low level of readership and editing, CP may be more valuable as a search engine honeypot than as an online community resource. It is hard to see a way forward. Hclodge (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"the Conservapedia Commandments were well thought out." ... "bright, prolific... editors ... Ed Poor comes to mind as an example." ... What? Don't do drugs kids, stay in school. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Say what you like about TK, the man knew how wreck an online community. Of course, the fact that none of the other sysops have a backbone helped immeasurably. PsyGremlinPraat! 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that creepy ed can be described in that way says an awful lot about the editors left there tbh. When uncle eds articles about pubescent and pre-pubscent girls are classed as 'bright' wtf dioes that say about ken ad the others efforts. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And now we get willy wavingimg of a seriously silly standard. Woop, woop TAR. You spoke to the man child and agreed to bully genuine editors, you must be so proud of yourself. Keep going, cp's traffic will be down to almost nill in 12 months if you manage to complete 95% of your red links. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rationwiki probably accounts for a quarter of CP's traffic.--Mercian (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) True, hence Alexa identifies Rationalwiki as one of the most "related" websites to CP. But TAR has convinced Ken that by adding a recommended reading list that consist of two books by his favorite author (one a "dystopian novel") to many, many CP articles, "a different kind of conservative" (who would never be caught at rationalwiki HQ without a semi-automatic machine gun) will be drawn to CP. TAR has a tough sell: any other editor who tries to do what he is doing: 1) username that is not based on a real name, 2) repeated violations of the Style Manual, and 3) spam linking the heck out of every corner of the place, would have been blocked on day one. He has promised three times to reform, and promised twice to leave, and promised once to avoid editing on guns and medicine -- yet he will keep moving forward fast and furious. Hclodge (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering how tar got kennys phone number, or kenny got tar's. I've not seen anything on wiki where they exchanged email addresses nor phone numbers. tar doesn't advertise his real identity that I can see and we all know how ken and anger bear don't allow anyone to emai lthem so unles there is a method they can communicate I an unaware of I wonder quite how this conference call was arranged. And congratulations done to EJamesW for this oneimg as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
They exchanged emails and apparently TAR is going to phone Andy as well. Hclodge (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are left wondering what TAR is trying to achieve with his incoherent walls of links, just read item #3 of cp:Essay:Uses of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is useful for watching how a website attempts to boost traffic based on the search algorithms employed by Google. Overuse of linking, which is distracting to readers, helps boost placement in its search engines. As only a small percentage of Wikipedia users go there first to look for information, Wikipedia (unlike Conservapedia) is overwhelmingly dependent on search engine referrals.

Hclodge (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexa ranking[edit]

I know we've supposedly moved beyond Conservapedia-watching and all that. However, this chart is pretty nice not only for comparing Conservapedia and RationalWiki but just looking at the pageviews that RationalWiki gets. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am bored so looked at What sites link to, 5th on the list is this Wow, just wow. Also, there are almost twice as many visiting from India than Canada, I wonder who's paying for them. Sphincter (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Judging by its format, the page was designed about a decade before Convservapedia was founded. However, higher on the list was: "If someone believed EVERYTHING they read on the Internet, which websites, subreddits or threads would be the worst possible places for them to go?"img The best answer with 232 votes was The Onion. Way down the list with 2 votes was Conservapedia, which despite Ken's postings, fell behind "porn ads." I am sure that people checked out the link before they down voted it. However, you raise a valid point: how can Conservapedia find its audience? Certainly appearing on the Colbert Report was a big boost. Turning it into a link spam farm is not such a good move. Hclodge (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I am proud to be a Conservapedia watcher. I sense a new Golden Age is imminent, too. While the crazy end-of-civilization prepper guy has our attention, blocking AugustO with Ken rooting him on, crazy geocentric-universe guy is quietly beginning to polute things. Conservapedia's only audience is slow-motion train-wreck gawkers, and this is looking to be a fine season. Whoover (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I like this[5][6]. The big giveaway is the opening. Conservative nearly always starts his sentences with the name of the person his is talking to. Sock.--Mercian (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And another advertiser/linkspammer, this time about robert richardsonimg, with the article being entirely written by OGSMEDIA , aka Robert Richardson. Ghost (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR's main selling point to Ken and Karajou has been that has been talking up Conservapedia, so there should be reciprocity. Googling "Conservapedia" produces 73 hits. Googling "survivalblog" produces 64 hits. Most of survivalblog's references to Conservapedia are to the article "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" without mentioning that it was written by Fongman/Tarsel. Hclodge (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite sweet that in the deluded world of the US extreme right they actually think that link-whoring to conservapedia will increase the traffic to their own hate blogs. They really can't be so stupid as to not realise that almost all of cp's traffic is people coming to point and stare can they? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Manipulating search engine rankings is very complicated because Google has changed its ranking algorithm, and DuckDuckGo and Bing are now on the scene. According to TAR, DuckDuckGo has a list of websites that curate against spam and Conservapedia is on the list of such sites. So, TAR argues that by link spamming CP, he can boost the rankings of This is similar to Rawles' tactics to become a "best selling" author. He takes a book that had been sold as a paperback for a decade and orders a hard cover edition. He then puts in an order for, say, 10,000 hardback copies that he can resell on his blog or give away to his donors. That single big "sale" puts him on the NY Times hardback fiction best seller list for one week only. But that is enough for TAR to repeatedly use the phrase "best-selling author James Wesley Rawles..."

AugustO seems to now be basically commiting seppuku[edit]

With thisimg series of edits. And thisimg one. He's also started revereting TAR gibberish categories again on authors. He'll be toast in very short order. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

About fucking time. AugustO is of course free to do whatever they like with their time, but spending it in a sisyphean effort to keep Andy and co. honest seems to me one of the least productive pursuits you could ever consider.
AugustO, if you're reading this, why would you willingly subject yourself to such heinous insultsimg by a man-child explicitly condoned by the site's owner, regardless of your relationship with him? Shakedangle (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Dance ken, dance. Dance and prance for your masters man-child. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This all comes down to personal honesty and integrity. There is a lot of sneaky stuff that can be done with a wiki. "Labeling" with a perjorative category can be one. For example, TAR is now labeling everyone with a "Pro Second Amendment" or 342 people in "Anti Second Amendment". That division has no meaning for people outside the United States. If TAR were to add a sentence in a biography stating that someone was "Anti Second Amendment", he would have to give a basis and citation for that conclusion. But anyone can add a category without any justification, time frame, or source. TAR has been adding very narrow new categories like ".22 LR Rifles". How many people would search on that? Conversely TAR has been adding incredibly broad meaningless categories like "Systems of Support" (rather than "Support Systems"). He has placed that tag on 94 articles and many subcategories so that it includes anything useful in day-to-day life. Perhaps this category should be renamed "Useful stuff". TAR is an idiot who cannot write, cannot think clearly, and has only one mission - to link spam for his survivalist heros/employers. I wonder how his call with Andy went? Hclodge (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
CP is actually getting interesting again. Just when you think they couldn't go in a worse direction, they manage. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Like a crappy soap opera, when you've had just enough and can see the plot points coming from a mile away, they take a mono-dimensional side character and give him some depthimg to reel you back in. Curse you, conserva-drama. Shakedangle (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Fuck me. No REALLY fuck me. When the voice of reason is one of the most angry unreasonable people I have ever had the misfortune to interact with in the form of anger bear then you know something is VERY wrong in the state of denmark. Karajou, talking sense. I have now seen everything. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that really caught me off guard. Then again, there have been 2 or 3 times when Kenny's been the voice of reason, so maybe it can happen to anyone. Maybe Karajou's discovered the marijuana and is in the process of mellowing out.
I'm not going to fuck you, though. DickTurpis (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the classic wiki pattern: at each step AlanE, SamHB, Phil, Wschact, Ken, AugustO and now Karajou talked with TAR, explained what was wrong and TAR promised to change and to go back and fix it. He kept going without change. TAR's response is "He is a liberal/RINO and he is micromanaging me." He is like the bully in kindergarden who runs to the teacher saying "Joey started it." TAR has been messing up Conservapedia under the radar for months before kicking into high gear in mid-December. If TAR blew past Ken, odds are that he will somehow blow past Karajou as well with a well-worn, "I did not hear that." Hclodge (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Dick, TAR has been sprinkling CP with socially liberal pro-marijuana legalisation stuff. It's possible. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Earlier today I was looking back over his early edits, which I admit I missed, and he has been quietly changing every article about the UK to us spelling from the correct English spelling, defense instead of defence and the like. He's labelled his 'corrections' as removing spelling 'mistakes'. It's fairly evident now he has spent months gradually testing his hand and building his idiot base before launching this, what can only be called a, takeover on cp. Enjoy it kenny, he's turning andy's project into his own little fiefdom and you have let him do it. And one day he will go for you and you will find yourself in the wilderness. Bizzarely anger bear is the only one who seems concerned. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It's also fun to watch the parodist VargasMilan overplay his hand in the insanity feeding frenzy. He's never been subtle, but he will burn himself badly if he's not careful. Whoover (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This all comes down to who has been "aggressive" in categories. TAR has been doing it wrong since the start of his CP editing. Adding categories was amoung his earliest edits.img Fongman had been adding categories in a normal way. But TAR could not resist polluting Fongman's "Mayors" article on December 1 with implausible "See alsos" and categories.img <capture>People tried to talk gently TAR down.img Instead of making good on <capture>TAR's promisesimg to stop and to repair his category mistakes,img TAR has taken an "aggressive" posture arguing that the "harassment" of a new and productive user over-rides any criticism of his incompetence. You could not write a movie plot better than this. Hclodge (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AugustO has upped the ante by using the Wayback Machine to resurrect the history of Ken's bookletimg that Ken so diligently burned. This is response to a rather rash dareimg. The exchange started with Ken taunting AugustO in his Colonel Klink Nazi voice again. Next move? Whoover (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. I'm still surprised with quite how much AugustO gets away with. And in other events Douglas Adams DouglasAimg seems to have reappeared, although he's not doing much right now. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see kenny is now going back and trying to burn the evidence - again. Bad luck that capture bot got it all kenny. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Don't Liberals Argue Like This?[edit]

"Obama's Tax on Stay-at-Home Moms"img is, of course, the proposed tax break for child care. Just as the mortgage deduction is an attack on renters or the increased deduction for dependents is Obamas cruel war on sterile women. I suspect there's a "stupidly paranoid" gene that explains the right wing. Whoover (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

They do--Miekal 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Everything will be spun for the demographic. If you can't see the spin, it's working on you. When I don't agree with the editorial direction of a popular news story I often go check the facts. Sometimes I catch myself agreeing with a story and passing over without checking. Bzzzt! That story is nearly certain to be at least as wrong as the last one where I did check. We fool ourselves so easily, and there are plenty of people who're happy for it to stay that way. Tialaramex (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As a former conservative and Republican, there are two unacknowledged beliefs at the heart of the movement. 1, nobody is capable of change (single exception for David Horowitz). This is why anyone who ever heard Saul Alinsky say boo is now and forever a dyed-in-the-wool commie, why criminals of any degree must be locked up forever if not summarily shot in the head, why we must kill every enemy we see, because it shall always be so. 2, everyone is trying to fuck you over and take what is rightfully yours. Illegal immigrants are here to steal from us, the government is here to steal from us, everybody on welfare and disability is a drugged-up fraud, unions are cheating you with their higher wages, all anybody ever wants to do is line their pockets at your expense. I think this is tied in with the natural reaction against the fact that we age, and we die, and our faculties leave us slowly but surely, and someone must be doing it... Semipenultimate (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That article is slightly disturbing. You would have to have a real bunker mentality to write something like that about a plan to help out some of the most vulnerable in society. No doubt the author is absolutely opposed to abortion as well, so it is a bit galling that he would want to make it even harder for people to raise kids. DamoHi 00:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
What really pisses me off about people like Schlafly is they are so pro life, every sperm is sacred. He will spend thousands of his own money arranging trips to March For Life because that makes him appear to be a good upstanding conservative but will begrudge every single penny he is taxed for the welfare of these unwanted kids and campaigns vigourously against any provision to provide them and their often very poor mothers with free healthcare.--Mercian (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Terry H.[edit]

Did this person REALLY get a medical qualification of some kind? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR would argue that sometime after the flood, God gave man the "inalienable right to bear" firearms. So, life spans started to shorten after God intervened in gun control, rather than Noah's flood. Hclodge (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Since the weapon of gun is largely defensive, gun rights increase average life span. It's definitely the isotopes. Whoover (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Jeezus Haploid Christ that paper tho - the one by Tennessen. That's some hard fucking going right there. Here's a taste:
"When the more liberal definition of functional SNVs was used, [EA, European-American] individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with [AA, African-American] individuals... P < 10^−15 ... However, when the more conservative definition was used, this pattern was reversed, and AA individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with EA individuals... P < 10^−15. These results highlight how the definition of functional variants can influence inferences and underscore the importance of continued methodological development to robustly identify functionally important variation."
Yeah, fellas, maybe you want to settle on a definition beforehand, hm? I don't recall seeing a p-value less than ten to the minus fifteenth power before, either; that's pretty boss. It's sort of wasted on a statement that boils down to 'depending on how brown a freckle is, it is proven with mathematical certainty that Tom has either more or fewer freckles than Bob'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Particle physics only requires p < 3 x 10^-7 (i.e, five sigma) for a "discovery". --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, TAR would argue that after the end of civilization, academic papers would cease to be of any influence or interest. TAR would advise us to "be prepared" to live in a world without the scientific method as well as without any social fabric. Hence, TAR feels free to add dystopic fictional novels to the recommended reading list that he adds to non-fiction article topics. Hclodge (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unadjusted p-values in genetics typically get very, very small indeed, 10^-15 is not unusual. Multiple testing corrections generally scrape off around 6 orders of magnitude. In my experience, though, most things in the order of 10^-15 have generally turned out to be experimental error (failed assays, faulty algorithms etc.). This is why we don't bother much with p-values, other than in drawing up a shortlist of candidate variants to examine in more detail. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How fast can you get banned from Conservapedia?[edit]

I got banned within 20 minutes by Andrew himself. It was quite fun.{{User:|RationalMan|16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}

There was a time when it was instantaneous if you were from Europe. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page of WIGO:CP.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy watches Recent Changes like a hawk, which I find hilarious considering how long he's been at this and how little progress the site has made in the last 8 (!) years. For all his faults, he's at least persistent. Cow...Hammertime! 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence is Andy's defining trait, though. Like that's what happened with every major Andy incident. Ikanreed (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no trick to getting banned from CP. Not getting blocked, without playing the role of the parodist, is the real challenge. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of years now although I have had a few short term blocks from one of the more vigorous parodists before he removed his mask. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Karajerk's sole function these days seems to be blocking people, based on spam / checkuser history. Come on Kara, those millions of empty bird articles aren't going to flll themselves! PsyGremlinPraat! 10:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Karajou's sole function could be served by a spammer IP blacklist and the Edit Filter extension. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Extensions are liberal attempts to subvert the Christian foundation of mediawiki. Ikanreed (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I always get blocked pretty quickly whenever I get the itch to sign up and do something dumb or funny. The other day I lasted about five minutes when I altered the baldness article to be along the lines of "baldness is the hairstyle of people who don't believe in hair", or something. Might be easier to sneak in things when TAR is on a binge actually ... Ruddager (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the ones who last for years actually trying to improve the wiki who really impress and confuse me. How do they get away with that? I sometimes sign up and make stupid edits with no problem, but then I start being more sensible and bam! Banned. Talk page edits oversighted, sensible contributions reverted, stupid edits left intact. It can be fun though, taunting Conservative. I once got him trying to convince me that he didn't have meals prepared for him in a blender at a care home. He was presenting the grilled chicken sandwich he had for lunch as evidence. Fonzie (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Moral advice.[edit]

To be fair that article was added by TK and we all know what he ended up being shown to have been. The fact it has stayed there all this time is more telling than the fact that tk wrote it in the first place. It's not as if it is a new article. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Oldusgitus is correct. However, since Cosby's morality has been called into question, most media have reviewed how they have invoked his moral authority. CP has not. Hence, the humor. Hclodge (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it's completely reasonable to expect that a website with a half-dozen regular editors would remember a single reference on a page that hasn't been edited in six years. Fail. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
But think about all the homeschooled children who are told, in 2015, to emulate Bill Cosby, regardless of whether those children are on the political left or the political right. Hclodge (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I gotta go with Hippie on this, a page that hasnt been touched in any real way since 2008 isn't really something to be pointed out. --Miekal 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The CP page in question was a speech by Newt Gingrich. Because I cannot find the original speech, I can not determine whether the headline in question was in the original text or was added by TK. Newt did give favorable mention of Bill Cosby in a number of speeches as well as in Newt's books. Hclodge (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Newt is an even worse fount of moral advice. Divorcing your cancer-ridden wife on her death bed isn't actually smiled upon from on high. AyzmoCheers 18:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is not the quality and sources of moral advice; the question is whether anyone ever tends the garden to pull out weeds. I was of the view that the answer was that gardening at CP has stopped and link spaming was unbounded, and then Andy stepped in to trim back some of the Ken-spamimg. Hclodge (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy will occasionally remove some posts, but it's about the same thing as pushing water out of the boat without fixing the leak. --Miekal 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The clean up begins.[edit]

I see kenny has started removing all the shite added by TAR over the months. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought TAR was the Next Big Thing, or at least an offshoot of the amorphous editing entity known as user:Conservative? When did his star start to wane? PsyGremlinPraat! 11:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
TAR's last edit was on 21st January. Either he's got bored, decided that he has spread enough shite over andy's domain or has been arrested by the feds. Or he was a paradoist all along and kenny will now claim to have identified him before anyone else and taken action. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I predict that any serious TAR clean up effort will await word from Andy regarding whether new age beliefs such as survivalism or herbal medicine are an acceptable part of conservative beliefs. Hclodge (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Holy basil, Batman. Getting rid of the ayurvedic stuff is a no-brainer; it's Hindu which is pagan. The elephant in the library of Ken's Atheism articles is his frequent assumption that Christianity is the opposite of atheism. He's always asking, "can you prove that atheism is correct as opposed to the many proofs of Christianity?" In his world Muslims, Jews, Hindus and the rest are really atheists, although he avoids stating it because it would screw up his "shrinking atheism" meme. But Ayurveda has no place in the world of the right-thinking man. Whoover (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
AugustO has joined in on the fun and started reverting TAR's edits by removing all the categories. Completely unrelated, but looking at recent changes, there seems to be an actual user who got caught up in Karajou's block of spam accounts. A series of names like "TepPolitteeEucK" go blocked and then someone named "SHarvey" got blocked right after making an account. Non contribs. Way to go and fight the good fight against everyone and everything! AyzmoCheers 20:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it has now been a full year since Uncle Ed's last contribution to CP...[edit]

Guess even the mighty User #188 doesn't give a crap about Andy's wiki anymore. Vulpius (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How poetic that his last edit was to cp:Mental illness. Seven years of his hard work speaks for itself. Hclodge (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems he's still pottering around on liberal WP tho, and something called "Stack Overflow," so he's obviously ok, just finally tired of Andy's hate blog. PsyGremlinPraat! 11:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
On actual Stack Overflow? Or one of the sibling sites? Because actual Stack Overflow is the sort of no-bullshit place where you can tell whether someone actually knows anything. Technical questions turn out to work like a trapdoor function. Checking whether an answer you've seen is correct is relatively easy, whereas coming up with that answer is hard. So this means it's significantly harder to meaningfully troll a site like Stack Overflow than either RationalWiki or Conservapedia. I could train a 12 year-old kid to post troll bait to either of these places (albeit they'd get banned sooner or later on Conservapedia as much by luck as judgement) but on Stack Overflow either the kid has to learn to be a halfway competent coder or everything they write disappears into the bottom half of the Internet where no-one will read it. Tialaramex (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
He wouldn't be trolling it. Ed has a misplaced confidence in his ability to code. He would look like he was trolling it, but he would be sincere. - π 08:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad code on stack overflow isn't hard at all. The magic phrase there is "I've had a similar issue". Then you post some code that solves a completely unrelated problem. Very common. Ikanreed (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I tend not to use Stack Overflow, I tend to go towards SQLServer Central for my needs, which happen to be SS, SSAS, SSRS and SSIS in case you were wondering. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"Three dozen years experience programming in BASIC, Java, PHP, and JavaScript. Putting databases on websites is my main thing these days." PsyGremlinPraat! 09:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Only one of those is more than 2 dozen years old. - π 10:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Even a year ago Ed's outings on CP were usually in response to a smack-down on WP. So I'm guessing he's had it quiet there for a while. Wouldn't be surprised if he's been more active with his Moonie sites. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 11:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not working[edit]

CP is not working for me. Contractor (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine for me. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Figured, they have completely banned private proxies as well now. Contractor (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is TAR a native speaker?[edit]

Based on a careful reading of TAR's speech patterns, do you think that TAR is an American or an immigrant? For example, the word "liberal" can be an adjective meaning "permissive" as opposed to "strict". TAR created the insightful essay entitled, "Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists" and User:EJamesW corrected him by deleting the word "liberal" because TAR really meant "Strict Gun Control Laws". This resulted in a rantimg and a block. Perhaps TAR thinks of "liberal" as one of his many pejorative terms. TAR's sentence patterns are [pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][subject][verb][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][pejorative][predicate nominative]. At first, I thought that TAR could not write, then that TAR could not think clearly. Now, I am questioning whether English is TAR's second language. Hclodge (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

it mostly looks like james forgot the party line of liberal = whatever bad word needed in a sentence. Are the liberals trying to give freedom to things they don't like? Permissive America destroying liberals. Trying to restrict things they like? strict America hating liberals. His use of liberal is entirely in line with the use of it in cp and conservative anerica in General --Miekal 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This reads a bit like a conspiracy theory. It's a stupid person. Ikanreed (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it had more or less been ascertained who TAR is. And he is an American. He just sadly illustrates quite what it is that the rest of the world finds so mystifying about the USA. How can a country that can produce people of such intelligence as it does also produce such complete fucking morons as it does. And especially how does it do it in such large numbers. In almost any other developed nation 'politicians' of the stature of palin and bachman, mendacious fucktards like the drug using blowhard limbaugh and closeted queens like ted haggard would have long ago been laughed out of all public life. In the US they are still positively feted, largely by the likes of TAR who is too stupid to realise his own stupidity. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Our politicians stem from our election structure. Every other nation that has political districting conjoined with FPTP voting gets the same level of stupid elevation. The way that creates "safe" districts where one party's primary decides the electoral results naturally breeds crazy. Throw in a bit of racial history and you get a machine practically designed to give you Bachmans. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of TAR, he's been AWOL for a few days now. I hope he's okay. Things are so dull with Ken the sole hyperactive loony. Whoover (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed: Over this side of the pond in Englandland, we have political districting (wards or constituencies) combined with first-past-the-post. What we don't have are primaries. OUr system pushes political candidates into gaining the support of the majority in the middle. Your primary system pushes them into first winning over the lunatic fringe, who vote in primaries disproportionately, then winning over as much of the middle ground as isn't completely repelled by the outlandish promises they've made to the lunatic fringe. But I don't understand why Appeasement of the Lunatic Fringe has happened more strongly in the Republican Party than the Democrats. Cardinal Fang (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Nutters do get elected in the UK but they tend to be on the left. Dianne Abbot and George Galloway spring to mind.--Mercian (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You can not even begin to blame this on the electoral system in the USA. This is a moron talking and the fact the US elected her to anything other than cloakroom monitor should be source of eternal shame to you. The fact that people in the comments defend this idiot and try to claim she is some way not a fucking moron is even more damning to be frank. And Abbott and Galloway have been proven right as many times as they were proven wrong. They spoke out against bliar as he and shrub lied to take the world to war, they sort of got that one right didn't they? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Cardinal Fang: oh that's not hard. Democrats, are very much a coalition government forming approximately half the government. There's a much stronger inclination to mix views and appeal to the center of the party, since the left fringe represents many distinct groups like environmentalists, socialists, civic libertarians, minority identity politics, and even groups like atheists(yeah, in the US, we're fringe). Unlike the republican fringe, which is defined by "the party's position, but absolutely no negotiating on (GOD/GUNS/GAYS/TAXES pick one)". As to the why they're like that, I think Altemyer's The Authoritarians does a good job isolating how xenophobia and obedience unites those. Ikanreed (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
My hearing is horrible, so all speeches sound like gibberish to me. Going by a partial transcript in the comments, though, what she's saying isn't particularly nonsensical. Supposedly, the government is too big to work efficiently and the current status quo is screwing over average Americans. You can disagree with those opinions, but I wouldn't say they're inherently "stupid". She does speak and act kinda erraticly throughout the speech, but honestly, wouldn't most people act like that when you put them in front of an audience and they have to give a speech? Aside of this video, I'm well aware that some of her ideas are pretty nutty, though I kinda wonder why most Republicans get called crazy or bigotted, while Sarah Palin is pretty consistently labeled "stupid". (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
My hearing is pretty good and she rambles, speaking meaningless bullshit and trying to shoehorn in idiotic soundbites. And this woman was an elected politician, albeit one who cut a ran half-way through her term. And this persons isn't 'most people' imo, she is one who was at one stage running for vice president and is now contemplating a run for president. And she can't put a coherent sentence together after her teleprompter breaks, which is the entire point of the video. She doesn't have 'opinions' that she can coherently express, and that is the problem. If she had opinions which she could manage to make clear in meaningful English then I could agree or disagree with them, as it is I just look from a distance and shake my head in wonder. And try reading the full transcript in the description instead of a partial one. Then claim what she says amkes sense. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, a full transcript. Okay, you're right, she rambles like there's no tomorrow. Still though, I'm horrible at expressing myself through speech too, but I'm not an unintelligible rambler when I type out my statements, am I? In my opinion, judging someone's intelligence by how well they are at expressing themselves in social situations is intellectually dishonest. If you want to call Sarah Palin stupid, be my guest, but do it because of her nutty views or for not preparing her speeches properly. Not because she doesn't happen to be a natural public speaker or be good at winging it when her teleprompter breaks. (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I get your point but this is someone who aspires to be POTUS. I wiould hope she would be slightly better than that at expressing herself. And yes, I know Bush was also appaling at times. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, though I wouldn't rank fluency in speech that high in the list of properties that are important for the leader of a nation and head of government to have. I'd say she already so severely fails the top entries in that list to the point that criticizing her for being bad at speaking in public seems like a non-sequitur. (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't "being bad at public speaking", though. This is "apparently incapable of forming an English sentence." If this was an elderly grandparent, it'd be "needing to have an uncomfortable discussion about coping with dementia" territory. Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not quite my thoughts but very close. If fluency in speech doesn't come close to the top of the attributes that the leader of a country needs I struggle to think what does. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the Old Git. Arguably, Winston's oratory was his main leadership quality. "We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be..." It sends shivers down my spine every time I hear it. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and Churchill was a really exemplary leader, wasn't he? To be fair, when a nation is at war, oratory skills to rally the troops and keep morale among the population high are certainly desirable. They're a lot less relevant in times of peace, though. (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
^^^I've only just seen this. (I've had better things to do than read RW...) Churchill was a brilliant leader in WW2 but he made some pretty dire mistakes earlier in his career and certainly wasn't an exemplary person. Being a great leader isn't at all the same as being morally perfect. You seem to be pointing to another failing of the USA's primary system, which favours politicians who have never made a mistake in their careers. This really means they've done nothing in their careers. We tried that with Tony Blair, so that didn't work too well, did it. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: That's being exaggerative for the sake of taking cheap shots. And while you're free to take cheap shots, it doesn't earn you any extra points in the intellectual honesty game. (Also, you're being seriously offensive towards demented people. Even they don't spout as much nonsense as Palin.) (Yes, I'm a dirty hypocrite.)
@Oldusgitus: How about responsibility, knowing how to run a government and not gaining gratification from people's deaths to name a few? If a national leader happens to suck at public speaking, there's always spokespeople, diplomats, ambassadors and ministers of foreign affairs that can replace them for many such occasions that require public speaking. It's important, of course, that they can communicate their views and decisions to their administration, but there are other options besides speech to achieve this. There's no real reason a mute person couldn't run a government. (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so remove the word speech and replace it with communication instead. You're nit picking over the meaning of a word I used knowing very well what I I was intending. And yes, a mute 'could' run a government. But do you know anyone at all who would vote for one? Palin can't communnicate her views. When she tries she bumbles, waffles and uses meaningless soundbites. The fact that anyone could consider voting for her says a lot about the state of US politics at the moment. Remember, this is the woman who got drunk at a party recently and became involved in a full scale brawl. I wouldn't let her run a bath unattended let alone a country. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
All this time we were talking about how Palin clearly sucked at public speaking and I gave the example of how I sucked at that too, but I'm not bad at communicating if I can type out my statements. Now speaking would suddenly refer to all types of communication? Indeed, mute people, stuttering people, mumbling people etc. likely wouldn't get elected because the latter tends to require using persuasive rhetorics and oral communication is the norm for this. Also, many people judge candidates based on superficial traits, not on if they're actually qualified for the job. That someone wouldn't get elected in representative democracies doesn't mean they'd be bad at actually running a country, though. (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@BoN who refuses to sign up, if you had an elderly grandparent talking like that, and you didn't at least speak to a doctor about it, I'd consider it strange. Zero hyperbole intended. Ikanreed (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
For rambling/fumbling their lines when talking to a crowd? If that's enough to designate someone as demented then you'd be putting a huge portion of the human population in nursing homes/psych wards. You know that young people can get dementia too, right? (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That poor poor palin lady, struggling to speak in front of a crowd just like any ordinary joe who has never presented a tv show or taking a communications degree. I can fully understand her problems. Except of course she was once a presenter on fox wasn't she? She got a degree in COMMUNICATIONS ffs didn't she. She ran for vp of the US and received intensive media training during that time from the GOP. she is a trained communicator who is unable to articulate the simplest thoughts. And she then goes on faux news to ATTACK faux news as not being right wing enough. And with that I will no longer reply to bon, get an account if you want to keep this going. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of TAR[edit]

Since the beginning of December, the average time for him to make 500 edits is ~3.3 days. He's been gone for the last six days. Wonder what's up. My guess is that Andy finally talked to him. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect he's back on his meds. TBH he can't have a job going by his edit record. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy talk to him? Not a chance in hell. He was generating page views which Andy loves. I see no sign of him talking to Ken about his huge obsession with child pornography. Fuck that man's A pervert mind is dominated by perverted practices.--Mercian (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course the "point" of his obsessions -- that it's the fault of the atheists -- is a crock and he knows it. The United States remains the largest producer and consumer of child porn in the world. Try writing "God-Fearing America and Child Pornography" and see how long you're around. Whoover (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it is his way of trolling and bullying. His latest target is EWJAMES, a self confessed British atheist. His article Godless Britain and child pornography[7] is an attempt to get James to bite so he can be blocked then Ken can claim another moral victory. The fact is Ken, Britain loves child pornography so much that anyone caught is likely to be lynched on the street if the police don't get to him first--Mercian (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the shout outimg kenny. But really, just come and tell us instead of disembling. Remember, your deity doesn't like mendacity. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on CP is what it seems. Twice in January, TAR retired in a big huff and came back within 24 hours at Ken's coaking. Now, it appears that TAR has retired without any announcement. Perhaps his link spamming goal was achieved. Hclodge (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we set up a gambling pool to take wagers on the date of TAR's return? Someone could post a calendar grid and we could all fill the squares in with our bets. I am willing to give Ken the Feb 7 to Feb 10 squares gratis. Sincere members of an online community post some "wikibreak" message or a "semi-retirement" message. I find it very odd that the only indication of TAR's intent to return has been relayed through Ken. SamHB has asked TAR to email him, without a response. All of this leads one to suspect that TAR was a parodist or a uberspammer who wanted to go out in a blase of glory. Hclodge (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was unsure if tar was a parodist or not but eventually I decided he wasn't. I'm more inclined to think he's a little like the collective known as user:conservative. I wonder if he doesn't suffer from some illness and is either currently in some kind of care regime and unable to post or someone has put him back on his meds and his manic episode has passed. I don't think he can be employed, look at this edit timings and numbers and noone with a full time job could possiblt post the way he did. The only person who comeclose to the sheer number and inanity of his posts is kenny and he doesn't have a job and instead sucks of the teat of the US government welfare cheque. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. He offered to convert survivalblog material to CP, but never mastered the CP Manual of Style. If his objective was to do some SEO link spaming for survivalblog, then his mission was accomplished, and he has moved on to his next target. (If TAR was not emotionally committed to CP, he would not want to learn the Manual of Style beyond just enough to pass under the radar. Unlike Ken who really loves to think for himself and to write stuff (about alcoholism and beastiality), TAR wrote very little and merely copy and pasted from survivalblog. One possibility was that TAR was not a survivalist, but rather a freelance writer who was hired to generate X links back to survivalblog. (Hence, the urge to cut and paste the same "See also" into hundreds of articles in rapid succession.) It is too early to tell, but maybe he had other clients for herbal medicine etc. Alternatively, maybe alternative medicine, guns and gardening were a deliberate distractions because most of his work was on survivalblog and then he abruptly stopped. This is all so weird, but then again he had to sell Ken on his sincere bona fides. Hclodge (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Obama endorses vaccines, and Terry Hurlbut becomes an anti-vaxxer[edit]

Check out his latest drivel on MPR. I'm honestly surprised, but I guess I shouldn't be. Ego (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

One side of this "debate" has Alex Jones, Mike Adams, Mercola, the Food Babe, a bunch of hipsters from California, and now the Republican party and their most nutty followers. The other side has every legitimate medical professional. This debate may be more one sided than the debate over climate change. Snrub (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
...and yet we are losing that debate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's terrifying that chuckie got a medical degree, something he boasts about in the article, and still doesn't understand influenza and flu vaccines. Your correspondent took that vaccine, traveled to Orlando, Fla., came back, and came down with the ‘flu anyway. Is he genuinely ignorant of the fact there are many flu strains and the vaccines only ever target sepcific ones that the medical chaps think are likely to be the mnost prevalent? Here in the UK this year there are 4 or 5 strains going around currently, only one of which is targeted by this years vaccine apparently. A heart attack patient I work with had the jab and got flu and her edical professional, on the NHS so she got this for free of course unlike the US, explained that she got one of the strains the vacine didn't target. The guy is either a serial liar or a moron who shouldn't be allowed to practice. And of course he refers to Andrew Wakefield, without mentioning he has been struck off for lying. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This should not surprise anyone. The AAPS, aka Andy's day job, has been anti-vaccine for decades. CP consistently supports their positions, like AIDS being the result of nutritional deficienciesimg. (This edit has survived many attempted reversions and is part of the current article.) Whoover (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And now terry in the comments explicitly accuses the GMC of being corrupt. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

He openly admits it's about ideology[edit]

Terry's latest:

Mathematically sound it might be. But consistent with individual liberty and human dignity it most certainly is not. Mathematical soundness must fall before the concept of individual liberty and self-fortification, whether in the context of infectious diseases or in self-defense against crime. The concepts “herd immunity” and “gun control” proceed from the same wussified ideological source.

I swear, if I was in the same room as him now, I'd be struggling to restrain myself from slugging him. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Matthew, if you are reading. Ask Terry if, on his altar of randian libertarianism, he really wants to return to a world where up to one third of children die each year of diseases like smallpox and measles because libertarians don't want vacinations because it is some part of the global conspiracy? When he refuses to answer, as he will and we all know it, ask him how that sits with his view that the life in the womb is precious and must be protected at all costs and whether it is only once the child has been bor that he regards their health and welfare of no importance? And ask him how he will talk to a child affected in the womb by rubella, assuming said child is not born deaf that is? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect that he would say that it is the responsibility of the mother to either 1) get immunized herself if she thinks it's so damn great, or 2) seal herself in a bunker until she delivers if she's so damn scared. If she gets immunized and then gets sick, she can sue the vaccine manufacturer, because vaccines must be 100% effective or the company has done something criminal. RealTrueAmericans® decide to immunize or not based solely on risk to themselves. Considerations of collective risk are for godless pinko commiefags. If a bunch of libertarians refuse polio vaccines and keep polio endemic in the US by passing it amongst themselves, that's of no concern to the nanny state pussies - bitches should keep their kids away from the pool if they're so askairt. A little polio would probably toughen those little shits up, anyway.
But yeah, Hurlbut's a real piece of work.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
"Mathematical soundness must fall before the concept of individual liberty..." Like science must fall before God. Whoover (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Epidemiology is a socialist/atheist/muslim theory. It denies the primacy of God in determining who gets sick or not. We need to establish a capitalist/christian/American paradigm. I'm still trying to pick out a name. Maybe some kind of takeoff on physician? 'American physic', perhaps?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see the outrage. There are many things that persons are willing to hang on ideology. Some bike riders think helmet laws are bad, even though they decrease injuries, because wearing helmets ought to be up to the rider. Pretty much all of us agree that the government would be going too far if they mandated a particular diet, no longer how many lives were saved. Everyone believes, I think, that some choices should be up to the individual, even though prudence or utility suggest otherwise.

In this respect, Terry's position is better than many alternatives. He's not pretending that vaccines are ineffective or, worse, dangerous. He's saying that even though they are good for society as a whole, we shouldn't require them by law.

Of course, reasonable people will think Terry's position is nuts. Vaccines are precisely the sort of public health interest that requires legal intervention. But I don't see that hanging his hat on "ideological" grounds is an obviously cynical ploy. I mean, for God's sake, it's Terry Hurlbut. He says 17 nuttier things before breakfast, fer cryin' out loud. This isn't even a top 100. Phiwum (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine anything nuttier than "Mathematical soundness must fall before the concept of individual liberty." That's why this is outrageous. Whoover (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. I guess I overlooked the absurdity of that phrase. My mistake. Phiwum (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He's also supporting wakefield. The now totally discredited snake oil salesman. Basically he's going vaccer, and he's trying to justify it by attacking big pharma, you know the kind of companies he thinks should be treated as people when it comes to donating to gop. And once again in the comments terry gets his ass handed to him on a plate by people who know more than he evidently does about these things. It does take a special kind of stupid to be so reglularly shown up in the comments of your own blog page but keep on going back for even more. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due tho - no matter how batshit insane he is, at least he's a conservative commentator who leaves his comments open and does respond without blocking people too often. PsyGremlinPraat! 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Accepted. That is true. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
And JT asks terry about polio and smallpox. Terry's 'answer' is a ramling screed not addressing the question before signing off with the game winning So, you just shut up about that. I'm not a huge fan of conservatives in general but the terry kind of selfish, self-centred tosser type that then tries to disguise the bigotry as some kind of freedom loving patriot are the kind I truely despise. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
CNV is boring. I want to see more Republican Comment, the foaming at the mouth always makes me laugh. I also wonder if Ken knows that his Union Jack is upside down.--Mercian (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"Mathematical soundness must fall before the concept of individual liberty and self-fortification, whether in the context of infectious diseases or in self-defense against crime." Wow, nutty even for Hurlbut. How about people who cannot get vaccinated because of a medical condition? Getting sick and dying because of somebody's ignorance would be really bad for their individual liberty. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised to hear him admit that 'Caveat Emptor shall be the whole of the Law'. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Who needs the article? (Terry forgot to renew his domain.) The MPR item is the best part of Terry's latest: comparing vaccinations with "genetic screening for criminality"img. Don't bother trying. There's no connecting those dots. It's a shame there's no genetic screening for whatever he has. Whoover (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken on another bender.[edit]

He has been working on his alcoholism articles for 36 hours almost continuous without any of his fellow sysops doing a thing. Serious advice here to you Ken, about a month back you posted a link to a man who died after a 48 hr gaming session, a man you condemned of course. This was a fit young lad in his early 20s and you (no bullshit about a collective please) are a middle aged man with out the vigour and energy of someone 30 years younger. You need to calm down for the sake of your own health because what you are doing is not so different to the for-mentioned.--Mercian (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

People deal with emotional loss/sense of disappointment in a number of ways. Ken was very emotionally invested in TAR as the up and coming CP content creator. Ken may be burying himself in his CP editing to compensate for his sense of loss. It is not easy to admit that you have been played. Hclodge (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder what his next topic will be when he runs out of countries to write alcoholism articles about. Snrub (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
He hasn't even touched "Atheism and Auto-erotic Asphyxiation" yet. Whoover (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Something very meta about working on articles about addiction for 36 hours straight. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR finally whacks Wshact[edit]

And img tellsimg everyoneimg. And clogs everyone's talkpagesimg. But doesn't bother Ken. I wonder if AugustO or AlanE will unblock him. On an unrelated note, I hope DouglasA or Ed Poor come back and decides to start deleting the articles created by TAR due to their shortness. Ghost (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't just delete things because they're short. They also have to not be awful. PubliusTalk 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, it seems that capturebot causes 503 errors whenever it's running. 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am actually quite enjoying this. TAR is slowly turning cp even more insane than it was before, something I thought difficult to do, and turning it into an even more 'niche' blog the likes of which not even the coultergeist or wnd will EVER let themselves be associated with. Perhaps it's time to updated the CP article to relect the new fixation on prepper politics, wingnut woo medicinal theories and gun nut rights so that any moderately interested parent may take a look and pull their children even firther away from allowing the owner of cp to destroy their childrens education. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And now they are getting ready to throw AugustOimg under the bus. Way to go ken, one of the few, the VERY FEW, truely well-intentioned editors left in your cesspit of idiocy and you want to loose him. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The important point is that it was TAR that did this based on coaching and phone calls with Karajou and Ken. "07:26, 13 January 2015 TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) blocked Wschact (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Removing content from pages: Ignoring repeated advice from Admins re behavior towards: User:TheAmericanRedoubt)" This is a "ban" not a "block" so Karajou and Ken taught TAR how to do it in a way that none of the other people with the Block bit can reverse. There are ways in MediaWiki software to do this, but it is best not to share that here. The irony is that TAR complains that this has wasted one hour of his time, but if you look at Ken's activity last night -- placing a notice on Wschact's talk page commanding his presence at Conservapedia:Community Portal, and then berating him for three hours after he withdrew the "arrogant" statement: "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world."
It is clear that Wikipedia user Trasel came to Conservapedia as Fongman but disclosed the connection in some Conservapedia templates. Trasel was then banned from Wikipedia for having a number of Sockpuppets. Trasel probably had to establish a new Conservapedia account to avoid the Trasel - Fongman connection. TAR is probably Trasel/Fongman, or could be someone else working for Survivalistblog to create massive amounts of inbound links. TAR wrote that Survivalistblog is the most popular one on the internet and is taking great pains to remove Wschact additions that Alexa and "The Survivor Top 50" site rank it only in 4th place. It is very clear that TAR/Trasel/Fongman is here to promote the Survivalistblog. Hclodge (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
He's doing an amazing job of playing Karajou and Ken. He knows exactly which strings to pull. While it's completely obvious to us, they're unable to see what's going on. Ken, I can understand, but I'm always amazed by how stupid Karajou is. It's also interesting how he's resigned CP to not be a collaborative effort (anyone who creates an article gets to "finish" it "unmolested"). As always, Andy's silence is beautiful. While I appreciate what the "liberal" editors are doing, I'd love to see what TAR can do without any checks. Sam, August, Joey, etc, please pack it up. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ditto OU. I'm delighted that he's not so subtly pressing for rollback. He obliquely referred to it something like 4 or 5 times in a post. Andy might ignore conflict, but he sure knows how to promote in his meritocracy. If TAR is Trasel, and it looks like he is, I'm really disappointed that he's not a parodist, he's just crazy. I guess he'll fit right in, but it would have been more fun to watch those knuckleheads watch TAS ruin their site, and let I'm do it because they treat "conservatism" like a talisman. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) A blind peanut could play anger bear if it wanted to. TBH I think ken is actually the harder to play, all you need to do with AB is quote a few silly buzz-words, attack certain editors over there (AugustO, SamHB etc) and anger bear will be already veering to be on your side. He's had it in for August for a long time but August has been tacitly accepted by Andy too often for ab to simply ban him. This is his chance. I do like TAR's latest bollocks about the UK by the way? Another subtle tickle under the chin for ken and anger bear there. And who is Trasel, I can't find him over at wp? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Trasel. Eh, Ken is extraordinarily easy to play because he's an insecure and paranoid bigot who's not very smart — he jumps jumps jumps to respond in his typical fashion to anyone who disagrees with him. Seriously. It takes practically nothing to launch him into hours long editing sprees tweaking his essays and penning those long screeds that get farther and farther from the tenuous, hateful, point he was trying to make. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, does seem like him doesn't it? And as for Ken, he's easy to wind up and set of on a binge like you say but I think he's actually harder to tickle under the chin like TAR is doing with them right now. Ken is ill and sad and lonely but does occasionally show some awareness. Anger bear is a paranoid fool with massive delusions of adequacy, delusions that are way aove his actual level of adequacy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If TAR is really Trasel, then should not a checkuser discover that he has Fongman as an undisclosed Conservapedia account? Hclodge (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Brooking no dissent[edit]

Tar is a delight. I am enchanted by how immediately he gets personal when people offer well-considered criticisms and attempt to act in good faith in the interest of the site (no, I don't really think there are any good faith editors among the rabble there, but they do pretend to act in good faith as they perform). TAR's new target is "British Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW. Bravo! The guy is indistinguishable from a parodist, but he's also indistinguishable from the any of the other tendentious weirdos who use CP as a way to forget that they're nobodies. And so he fits right in, particularly with Ken, who isn't just enabling him, but goading him on. Finally something interesting happening at CP.. What took TAR so long to start flexing his muscles? Is he a parodist? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite two more pleas from AugustO, it appears that Andy is going to ignore the request to unban Wschact. (Implicitly Andy is also ignoring the request to remove TAR's block rights.) Hclodge (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And EJamesW is now banned, on a probably trumped-up charge. Whoover (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ken unblocked EJamesW without addressing TAR's blocking rights. Hclodge (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's actually quite lovely watching the way that Wsacht is playing kenny and tar. They genuinely seem to have no idea just how well Wshact is playing them. By being reasonably intelligent in trying to enforce cp's rules about spamming and the like Wsacht is driving kenny and trassel to ever more stupid utterances. Can you imagine a good faith editor, if there are any left, coming in and reading recent changes and seeing tar's lunacy and childish insults and kenny's supine support of him and thinking "Oh this is a great place, I think I'll join and edit in good faith because I'm sure I'll be welcome'. I'm not sure if that is Wsacht's intention but it is playing out quite well in it's own way. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Conservative blocked Wschat for two weeks for marking a spam article about a survivalist website with the spam template. Hclodge (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR has dialed back his participation. Did he find a new job? Hclodge (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy seems to have a double standard. In May 2011, an CP editor from Australia asked for overnight editing rights. Andy turned him down for lacking a sufficient track record, noting "It's [not] just a matter of how many edits, but the quality of the edits are important too.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 6 May 2011 (EDT)" Five years later, TAR shows up and fails to make quality edits that comply with the CP Manual of Style, but Andy must promote him to additional rights (including blocking) at the speed of light. Hclodge (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It is too early to tell, but User:ConsMovies is probably either a sock of TAR or of Ken. Does anyone have an insight into what is really going on? Either way, he/they are playing up to Karajou. His edits interweave with Ken's so that they could be the same personimg Thanks, Hclodge (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

AugustO thinks it's Ken.img Whoover (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ken misses TAR's participation in CP and has contacted him about returning. Ken reports, "TAR is attending to some personal matters and intends to return." Hclodge (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What do people think about TAR's absence? Previously, TAR reported taking a sabbatical from work and pledged to devote full time to CP. He has now been AWOL since he could not make his ban-hammer stick. Ken has given two different updates saying that he has been in touch with TAR, and seems to be negotiating the terms of TAR's return. Hclodge (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Other than Ken, everyone seems to be in a "wait and see" mode on Conservapedia. Hclodge (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR returns[edit]

He arranges a conference call with Andy and for Andy to leave a message clearing his return with Wschact.img TAR returns and immediately sets out to revert all edits made on the articles that he "owns" (even if originally written by others). He then finds a link that he considers "pornographic" and bans Wschact permanently for having added the link. Hclodge (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy blocks TAR for two hours for posted a diatribe on talk pages of all of the admins which includes the report on the Andy-TAR phone call and the link to the allegedly "pornographic" website. He then "trims" all of the talk pages. Hclodge (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And kenny dances on Wschact's grave by deleting his user pageimg and talk pageimg. Come on Brian, are you going to let kenny bully you like that? you've been talking reasonably to Wschact recently and kennny simply waits until his new bff reappears and then spits in your face. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

CNAV domain expired?[edit]

Does this happen often? Try it. I suppose Terry will dig deep and scrape enough together to keep it going though Ruddager (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it wrong to find it highly amusing that the man to whom his local communnity will turn because he will have THE GENERATOR is not organised enough to pay his domain renewal? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not available to register and whois gives this. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see it (12.40 GMT on Mon 9th Feb). The quality hasn't improved... Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You sure Cardinal? I'm checking from work and in both IE and Chrome I'm seeing the same page I saw from home earlier this morningimg. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just loaded the site ok. PsyGremlinPraat! 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting it (more's the pity) [UK] Scream!! (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How intruiging. I can not conect from work but I can using my iphone on the companies guest wireless network. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And now it's back. I suspect I was having a caching issue for a while there. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Redbloodrightwing block WIGO[edit]

That really looks like outing someone based on the contents reverted (this guy was plagiarising us)... Didn't we have a rule against outing someone? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that Karajou knew the material came from here (although he does now). It just contradicts their narrative that Republicans have been fighting racism since Lincoln and Democrats are racists. Nothing changed in the '60s or '70s. Whoover (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't realize it came from here at all. As far as I know, the Southern Strategy and all that was common knowledge and not up for debate (except on CP). Also, I don't think reporting someone getting banned for posting that is "outing" them given that they were already banned. AyzmoCheers 01:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
From an adversarial point of view I am against people outing even blocked users, because outing them give them hints on implementing a script for them to do so automatically. I think if they got enough competence (not that they are at the moment) they can make a script to autoblock anyone (without blocking rights, so we can't troll them by pre-adding stuff over here) who post copies of content (or similar enough to be caught by plagiarism checkers) scanned from here. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If they were ever silly enough to implement such a bot a naughty person might be tempted to c&p vast swathes of their sysops' screeds over here so blocking them, could be fun. Sphincter (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the outing parodists (or more accurately, trolls). Poking idiots with a stick until they do or say something stupid isnt especially difficult nor especially funny. It is and always has been funnier to watch them generate their stupidity unprompted, and then enjoy show as they contort themselves trying to justify their bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A few genuinely funny edits have flown in recently under cover of the TAR and Conservative crapstorms. They add a lot of comedic value to CP, which is really its only value. It's a shame that celebrating these moments is inherently dangerous. Whoover (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right?[edit]

Until this entry posted today[8] img there was no mention at all about gravity waves on the page, a blatant case of retcon.--Mercian (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He's referring to the Counterexamples to Relativity "article." It's just normal Andy not understanding what science is. Whoover (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I feel stupid for asking this, but how exactly is that Counterexample to Relativity?--Mercian (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It's more a counterexample than most of them. At least you can use "gravitational wave" and "Einstein" in a sentence. Try that with "solenoid." Whoover (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of the better ones, which should tell you just how awful all the other ones are. At best, it's evidence against cosmic inflation. Not finding evidence of gravitational waves due to inflation in the B-modes of cosmic background radiation ≠ proving gravitational waves don't exist. Of course, Andy is not going to let inconvenient facts get in the way of proclaiming "Conservapedia proven right!".
"Gravity waves have been found! - liberals repeatedly asserted since then." LMAO. After all the years I still find it hilarious how anyone who disagrees with him is labelled a liberal, no matter what the context. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Or an atheist. From Counterexamples to an Old Earth: "The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought -- and such heat would have dissipated and the radioactivity decayed if the earth were old." Of course the Bible gets the temperature of the earth's interior precisely right. Whoover (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. My point is that not finding something does not mean it's not there. If a 10 year expedition to find The Ark in the Middle East and Western Asia found no evidence Andy would not consider that a counter-example to the Bible. In fact did he not once suggest that a user scour the entire region before he would even consider the idea?--Mercian (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
That was anger bear who ordered someone to do that. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"...not finding something does not mean it's not there" = "Andy not understanding what science is." Whoover (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be you are just not being open minded enough. Have you considered that you might not find it because you're looking too hard? Ikanreed (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What? Someone found the Russell's Teapot? How? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I would say absence of evidence is evidence of absence if theory predicts that you'll find it at a specific spot and only at that spot. If theory is a little hazy about where to find it and/or allows multiple instances, that complicates things. Since gravitational waves can exist in ways other than the result of cosmic inflation, not finding their effects in the B-modes of cosmic background radiation isn't evidence of their absence.
While gravitational waves haven't been seen directly, they're predicted by Einstein's general relativity, which has a ton of empirical support despite what Andy would have you believe. If that alone weren't enough, then observation of orbital decay of a binary pulsar closely match what the decay look like if energy were being transmitted away by gravitational waves. So yeah, Andy doesn't understand science. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the addition of the word science in any of the above slightly superfluous when it comes to andy? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Blast from the past[edit]

Found this, while looking at Great Achievements by Teenagers:

16 - the average age of 58 homeschooled teenagers who founded Conservapedia, so that the light of truth would continue to shine and darkness would not overcome it.

I'm still laughing. PsyGremlinPraat! 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Those were the days. I wonder if it would be possible to track down some of them and ask them what they think of CP now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they will be found. Their existence was erased from CP already and they probably wont remember that experience from it unless they now operate it or they are a parodist. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone with a CP account like to add the discovery of the first pre-Cambrian fossil by Roger Mason, aged 17, to the list of Great Achievements by Teenagers? Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy's way ahead of you. Cantabrigian (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Pre-Cambrian, the discovery was liberal deceit.--Mercian (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
While having an authoritative encyclopedia written by homeschooled teenagers sounds like a bad idea, and Conservapedia did turn out to be a disaster, the fault lies completely with the middle-aged men who actually ran it. Not so much a great achievement by teenagers, but an embarrassment created by ideologues. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Cantabrigian: That's amazing stuff. I wonder if any teenager has made a more significant scientific discovery than Roger Mason? (CP's definition of teenager seems a bit lax. If St Mark really was "the boy in the garden" when Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane, e.g. aged 15, he would have been about 55 when he wrote his Gospel in c.70 AD. But I don't suppose Schlafly's worried about that sort of detail.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have gone AWOL again[edit]

So JoeyJ talkes the chance to removeimg one of the more idiotic 'contributions'. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But he's also spreading category and template cheer. Apparently there's an eleventh commandment: Thou shalt not bone goatsimg. Whoover (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I see the Ten Commandments template has red links for sodomy and necrophilia. I wonder if anyone will make those links turn blue. Spud (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


So what does he mean with thisimg edit? His new user page says thisimg. Has johnny finally had enough with what is happening? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's from a throwaway thing Obama said over 6 years ago. Conservatives never let go of anything ever. Cow...Hammertime! 06:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

*Grab Popcorn*[edit]

"PS, how about you ask Andy about the pornographic video COnservative once mistakenly posted on the atheism article. I have the evidence, maybe it's time to publish it."img

Ooh, this could be even better than Rob copy/pasting the name of the pic he was fapping to into a CP article. Publish and be damned I say! PsyGremlinPraat! 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I get following the train wreck of conservapedia as it spirals ever faster down the drain, but... uh... I think you should maybe leave out people's porn preferences. That's creepy. Ikanreed (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, we can't help it if Rob decided to upload a pic titled "Kara Duhe in yellow dress" to CP, for all to see. PsyGremlinPraat! 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Who was it that posted a screen cap of a cp page here a while ago, and forgot to crop the tabs of their browser so everyone knew they were into bdsm? Shakedangle (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was me. If it was it was a misatke, I'm not really that much into bdsm. Several of my munchie friends are but it's not really my bag :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant no judgement, I like bdsm and other weirder stuff myself. I guess my point is that here we can talk and laugh about it, but on cp they will wave it around like a ban-able offense (RIP Wschact). Shakedangle (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard, it still wasn't possible to embed videos on Conservapedia. I suppose Ken could have accidentally added an external link to some wank fodder. Spud (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Latest Hurled-Butt[edit]

Terry has a new Evil Liberalimg pulling the strings of the Lamestream Media. It's Henry Luce, who ran Time for much of the time that this article is "exposing." Yes, it's that Henry Luce. The one that FDR loved so much. I guess that staunch Republican façade was more liberal deceit. Actually, Terry is just the moron-by-association here. It's first-class reporting by Bradlee Dean. The notion that "Man of the Year" can be awarded to illuminate evil is a bit subtle for this crowd, it would seem. Whoover (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about Dean but he seems to be a real nasty piece of work. Some of his articles are downright seditious.--Mercian (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
dean comes over as a thug and a bully. There's a youtube out there somewhere where he's spouting his anti-gay bullshit and some young lad quite respectfully disagrees with him and dean shouts and intimidates the young lad, about 16 or so, quiet viciously. Usual tactic of that lot, scream about oppression and the moment someone diagrees scream even louder to try to intimidate them into silence. He really does come over as the kind of smug bigoted arsehole of the very worst kind imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't all his church staff walk out on him? Or was that somebody else? --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that was him. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He's back![edit]

TAR has returned! He's now going on a spree of technology related categories. He added a ton to Apple, Inc. AyzmoCheers 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He's removing Wschact's liberal stuff, like that Apple make the iPhone. Whoover (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And he's now banned Wschact for inserting gay porn into pages? I can't really check that where I am at the moment. Anyone for the update? AyzmoCheers 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
In fairness to TAR, Wschact outed Tim Cook as gay on Conservapedia a year after Tim Cook outed himself to the rest of the world. Hclodge (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In brief, there are a number of websites that allow users to post feedback about the Nutnfancy YouTube channel, including YouTube itself. Some comments are favorable, and others are critical. Two links were added to cp:Nutnfancy -- one that discussed the identity and background of the person who appears in front of the camera in the YouTube videos based on the corporate records of Utah. The second has a lot of user contributed content, including two crude cartoons that suggest that Mr. Nutnfancy could accidentally shoot own head while demonstrating a gun and the second suggesting that he is so dumb that he could shoot his own ass. The basic message is that some gun owners find the Nutnfancy videos to be long-winded and uninformed. Mr. TAR is expressing moral outrage at satiric cartoons of Saint Nutnfancy to the same extent that Islamic extremists expressed moral outrage at satiric cartoons of Mohammad. So, this is not exactly a "gay porn" website. As we speak, TAR is beefing up his defense of Nutnfancyimg by adding a reference to a video where Nutnfancy endorses political action. But the quote is not strong enough endorsement for TAR, so he slips in some pipes to trick the reader into thinking that Nutnfancy is talking about Oath Keepers and the Conservative movement. Hclodge (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohhh daaaaaaamnimg TAR got ball smacked. Oh and Ken is trying to un-person Wschact but I have a feeling it won't stick. Shakedangle (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We've managed to get 2 sections discussing this. One is this one and the other one is up here. The block to tar was only for 2 hours and he has edited since it happened but has dissappeared again. JoeyJ is now going against tar by removing the bullshitimg he reinserted into the Russia Today article. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, didn't catch that discussion above. TAR goes back and undoes JoeyJ's undoimg. img That was probably a bad move on his part, categorizing beloved Putin's mouthpiece with "Liberal News Organizations" and "Liberal Media." I wonder if Andy recognizes how much TAR is like himself, politicizing every minute thing and brooking no dissent whatsoever. Hahaha nah. Shakedangle (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Putin "supported" Occupy Wall Street since it made the US look bad. That's why RT is liberal. I'm not sure about the anti-Second Amendment bit. RT must have done a piece about Aurora or Sandy Hook. Whoover (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is quite fun. I'm fairly sure tar knows about Rational Wiki and is, to a certain extent, playing to the audience. I suspect he thought Wschact is from here and has decided that anyone who disagrees with him is also from here. This could play out quite well in the end. Driving cp even further to the fringes of stupidty, andy must be looking on and wondering what happened to his great dream. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree about TAR reading this site. Some CP editors do, and they are among those who downvote the WIGO:CP items. When TAR first accused Wschact of "gay porn", SamHB jumped in with the comment that CP's main page links to sites with porn from time-to-time. In response, Karajou accused SamHB of "admitting" that he visits RW. (To my knowledge SamHB admitted to AW, not RW, and does not come here. Nor have I seen Wschact here.) Of course all of this has been deleted by Ken. Meanwhile, TAR's efforts to purify CP by removing any reference to Tim Cook orientation still stands. img Hclodge (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Another nail in a by-now-mostly-nails-by-weight coffin. TAR is the best thing to happen to CP in a while, I agree. Just look at this garbage article! There must be more red and blue than black text. I really hope he's aware of RW, but I think he's getting enough of his jollies from antagonizing the editors at cp to not be bothered.
BTW, I missed TAR's report on his conference call with Andy, and capbot didn't catch it. What was the gist? Shakedangle (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
To quote Brad Pitt, "The first rule about Fight Club is that you don't talk about Fight Club." So, TAR wanted Wschact and the other admins to know that he had talked to Andy on the phone earlier in the day, and that his blocking Wschact came after that call. Details were not disclosed, but Andy then revdel'ed each talk page instance (of TAR's combined "I've talked to Andy" and look at this "gay porn" link). Andy's block message says that he would explain in a separate email to TAR. So we will never know if Andy blocked TAR for violating the Brad Pitt rule, for discussing "gay porn" explicitly, or both. The bottom line is: if you don't want to be an "enemy of the state" do not link to websites with extensive user-generated content (particularly content generated by gun enthusiasts). Hclodge (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Much thanks - so Wschact's permaban is kinda maybe sorta sanctioned by Andy? That doesn't sound like him, actually... here's to hoping Wschact can come back, and leave on his own terms if/when he gets tired of the abuse there.Shakedangle (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
SamHB has made no attempt to hide his registration here, although he hasn't posted in a while. It's part of his maddening reasonableness Whoover (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
TAR's talk page was archived and then the archive and the talk page were deleted by Conservative. AyzmoCheers 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR's new user page replete with user boxes reconfirms that he is Wikipedia editor Jeffersonfranklin. As reported earlier, CP user Fongman is Wikipedia editor Trasel. It is now clear that the two sets of editors are separate people who follow James Wesley Rawles. Hclodge (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR is going full steam, and I predict that he will keep it up for about two more weeks and then quit. First of all, Andy has not been reading his stuff, and the rest of the crew has been avoiding reading/editing his stuff. TAR is going so fast, that he will complete his promised coverage of guns and survivorism within that time leaving CP the vast link farm that he intended. But what is TAR actually doing? When TAR edits lightly, he does his best to take an article out of compliance with CP's Manual of Style and add at least one link back to his set of essays or articles. img On his more extensive edits, he spam links the "See also" section and pastes in some boilerplate that has little to do with the article subject, going out of his way to confuse the reader, break the category system, and shaft the CP Manual of Style. img When he writes a new article, he avoids composing his own paragraphs and either lifts it from another source or resorts to bullet lists, because he lacks confidence in his own writing skills. imgimgimg His essays are complete nonsense and incoherent. img If I had a nickle for every time he squeezed in a reference to "American Redoubt" or "James Wesley Rawles" into CP, I would be a rich man. (Then again, he probably is being paid on a per link basis himself.) Sometimes his rush to add content links causes him to back-track because he accidentally argues against his patrons. (img of removing an anti-democracy quote) TAR even promises on his talk page to add "photos to enhance the SEO visibility of numerous new articles I will be creating in these categories." img One day the indexing bots will realize that this number of links can't be legitimate and CP will disappear from the search engines. But until that happens, TAR will be an SEO cowboy in the wikirodeo. Hclodge (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at TAR's "American Sniper" artcle img, it is clear that TAR cannot write, perhaps because he rarely reads. Instead, he spends his time watching YouTube. As a result, TAR's idea of an online encyclopedia is a spam link farm read by search engine spiders instead of humans. Hclodge (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is just TAR's way of saying I love you.Jesus, seriously. img Shakedangle (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Researcher or Brain dead?[edit]

Conservapedia Commandments says, "Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]" The guidelines limit copying. Please compare with Alan Keyes img in Conservapedia. While TAR did not write it, one would hope that he would spot a copy-paste problem while he was revising the article.

The next example comes from comparing Cumberland Gap on Wikipedia with Conservapedia img This is the gap in the mountains that Daniel Boone made famous with his Wilderness Road connecting Virginia to Kentucky. cp:Battle of Cumberland Gap in the Civil War also is named for it, and there is a National Park with that name in the area. But all TAR knows is the equation, Cumberland Gap = Kentucky + Tennessee. TAR has been earlier called out for wikilinking to cp:Cumberland, when that article correctly described just a place in Great Britain. So, he has now defaced that article as well. img TAR does not tell us how many survivalists have relocated to the "Cumberland Redoubt", but one would expect that number to be much lower than the number of people who for hundreds of years have associated "Cumberland" with that place in Great Britain.

As a part of TAR's Black History Month observation, TAR has updated Black Republican img. While there have been a number of prominent Black Republicans who could have been added to the list, TAR chose to focus on just those who are important to his American Redoubt movement. (Why skip cp:Mia Love other than because Utah is outside the American Redoubt?) Of those that TAR decided to add to the list (which is sorted by birth year), why was he too lazy to find their birth years?

Please add other examples to this section. Thanks, Hclodge (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh brilliant TAR[edit]

I'm still not sure he is not a supreme parodist. I don't think he is but anyone who can create template Ammunition topicsimg which links to this page on Slugsimg is either a parodist or a fucking moron. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Update, he's fucked up his own template now by using nowrapimg so often that now half his shit isn't showing on his own template. Moron, not parodist. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Most parodists try to fit in by reading the cp:Manual of Style and trying to avoid edit wars. TAR is so self-absorbed and so confident of his views that he edit wars with everyone. Just yesterday, he set a new standard for lame edit war: img. Although Conservapedia does "not encourage the insertion of distracting "stub templates" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting templates on entries." TAR has created a red-link defending gem: img which is being posted now in article space while it will not be ready until April 15, 2015. TAR has a lot of control issues indicating fundamental insecurity with his wikiskills. He has no wikiskills because he hates to read and learns via YouTube. Hence: img. Hclodge (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Common Core[edit]

Conservatives disagree on Common Core: Jeb Bush is in favor of it and Bobby Jindal is opposed. The actual core standards were developed by professional educators working with the National Governor's Association. The advantage of Common Core educational standards developed jointly by the states is that text books written to the Common Core curriculum could be sold nation-wide, and the cost of developing standardized tests could be spread over a nation-wide set of students rather than being funded by each state. However, TAR has a different understanding. img I am not clear where Andy stands on common core, because common core makes it possible for Andy (and others) to develop and market nationwide materials for homeschooled students. Both Republican and Democratic governors and state education secretaries supported Common Core.

Contrary to TAR's claims, nothing in Common Core requires math problems to be solved in "in multiple, confusing steps, rather than doing the problem simplistically." I would rather have a student understand each step of a math problem than in "simplistically" brushing aside such understanding by relying upon memorization of the answer. If TAR's math skills match his reading skills, CP is in deep trouble and should relocate to Idaho before the math police come knocking at the door carrying their .500 caliber guns. (See TAR's category "Anti Second Amendment" and "Police State".) Hclodge (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "simply" vs. "simplistically" is beyond him anyway. I can see Andy being for simplistic math too. Keeps those liberal imaginary numbers out. What I don't understand is these guys moving to their Redoubt to live among like thinkers and THEN arming themselves to the teeth. When the world ends, do they start shooting each other? Whoover (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Only if you neighbor drops by to borrow a cup of sugar. The problem is that TAR is making recommendations on Conservapedia for purchase and use today. So, by all means go ahead and purchase an M-12 machine gun for "home security." It is great to sleep with one under your pillow. If you are provoked into using the machine gun, don't worry about ricochet or bullets penetrating the walls to the neighboring apartments. And the M-12 is great when your son borrows it to settle his dispute with the kids at school. Most mall ninjas will tell you that a machine gun is better than a pistol for "home security." Hclodge (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever his other shortcomings, I would not be so hasty to condemn TAR's math skills based only on that stupid caliber category. .500 S&W MagnumWikipedia is perfectly orthodox nomenclature. The numbers used in caliber designations are just labels, not necessarily measurements. For example, .38 Special bullets have the same nominal diameter as .357 Magnum. The case dimensions are compatible enough that .38 ammunition is commonly fired from .357 chambers. (The simple precautions against hard extraction of subsequent .357 rounds are more detail than this RW context needs, and no big deal.)
The category is stupid for reasons other than the equivalence of some differently written decimal fractions. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but he goofed up the categories. Hclodge (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Book Promotion[edit]

In case you missed it during TAR's year-end editing frenzy, "James Wesley, Rawles" released a new book on December 30, 2014, entitled Tools for Survival: What You Need to Survive When You're on Your Own. This book has received exactly one glowing review, which was posted on December 30, 2014. img The book was reviewed by user "Vipashina" who is a "Permaculture Gardener in Kalispell, MT, US" img Like TAR, Vipashina does not like to read, so he reviewed the audio book version. To help you find this influential review, a link to it has been added to cp:Template:James Wesley Rawles glossary paraphrase img That template has been added to just cp:Prepping, but more are sure to follow. Although the new Rawles book has been out for just six weeks, there are 64 Conservapedia articles that link to cp:Tools for Survival. img That CP article, in turn, seems to have been copied from Amazon.img And the CP copy does link back to both Amazon and to Vipashina's review.

I remembered TAR's promise that Mr. Rawles would promote Conservapedia, but when I checked the subject index of the book on Amazon, I found listings for but not Conservapedia. I am sure it was just a momentary oversight. Hclodge (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia User:Jeffersonfranklin is not troubled by underhanded tactics being used to call attention to a new book. In a Wikipedia deletion debate about another Rawles book, he said:

JC7717, what exactly does "respectable" mean when one Wikipedia editor above, considers John Birch Society New American magazine to be "not reliable"? "Book bombs" are done by the major book publishers but they call it advertising and "marketing bomb" or "book launch" PR. When done by an lesser know author, you call it a "book bomb". Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He was responding to a comment by User:JC7717 that Rawles "has been known to stage 'book bombs' in which he encourages all his supporters to buy on launch, thus artificially placing himself on the bestseller lists." Hclodge (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken calls TAR out on Manual of Style[edit]

Finally, after many polite request on TAR's talk page, on article talk pages, and even on WIGO:CP, Ken woke up to the fact that TAR has never read the CP Manual of Style. So, two and a half months into TAR's editing flurry, Ken politely asks TAR to read it. User:DanielJackson even chimed in with a specific request for TAR to place his article sections in the correct sequence. Defensively, TAR responded, "There are reasons for putting the "References" or "Notes" section last. If you do not, then sometimes, when you need to put a footnote on a "See Also" or on an "External Links" (as I sometime do), you will get an error message." (Of course, if TAR followed the Manual of Style, there is no reason to have a "See also" section because the idea would be in the text of the article with a footnote instead. But if one was needed, one could use a "group" to collect the second set of footnotes without the error message.) In fact, 99.9% of TAR's articles do not have footnotes in their "See also" or "External links" sections. Yet, Ken felt the need to suddenly add an exception to the rule that the section must be consistently in the sequence specified by the Manual of Style. TAR can do no wrong.

Next, Ken suggested that TAR's writing could use some work, so TAR asked Ken to recommend some books on writing well. Ken recommended Strunk and White and another text. TAR responded by ordering the audio book versions (a) because TAR hates to read, and (b) TAR does not need to go back to use these books as a quick reference, and (c) TAR will have no problems when the audio book explains the difference between "its" and "it's" and "their" and "there." Hclodge (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For those of you who worry about why survivalist/preparer advocates invest in tangible audio books and ereaders when they believe that the end is near, I read on that the survivalblog recommends the purchase of a solar panel to power your ereader device. ( Feb 16, 2015) also Another survivalblog entry not a new idea. Of course, given this technical advance, the best way to prepare for the imminent end of Western civilization is to link-spam Conservapedia and try to boost sales of your new book on Hclodge (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I realize that TAR's basic SEO strategy is to duplicate content in multiple places on Conservapedia, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of over-reach to create both cp:Essay:The Politically Corrected Firearms and Second Amendment Glossary and cp:Essay:Gun Enthusiast's Glossary of Firearms Terms and then cp:Essay:Gun Enthusiast's Glossary of Firearms and Second Amendment Terms. Either he is too shy to ask Ken to move his page, or he wants the page history to be obscured.
How does one write a "Glossary of Second Amendment Terms" when the Second Amendment is so concise: "well regulated" "Militia" "necessary to the security of a free state" "right" "bear arms" and "infringed"? Hclodge (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
TAR's style is to add a few words to a "Well" article (which is mostly about oil drilling) and a few more to a "Bear" article about ursines. And then swamp those articles with See Alsos about ammunition. Whoover (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Any bear in Idaho is not a ursine but rather an opportunity for machine gun target practice. Hclodge (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to TAR's duplicative Gun Glossary Essays noted above, Ken has moved one to article space without removing the personal opinions that are permitted only in essays. img Hclodge (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken recommended Strunk and White - I've seen a lot of stupid stuff from Ken over the years, but this is truly awful. Please Ken, regardless of your bizarre ideas on physics, politics or religion, stop recommending this garbage to people. Most people would be better served taking advice from The Oatmeal. If you are that rare confident user who can skip White's erroneous claims about grammar and mostly pay attention to the stuff about clarity then you'd still be better off reading a style guide that sticks to that topic and doesn't wander off to make bogus claims about how English works or pretend that long clumsy sentences that obey a zombie rule are somehow actually "shorter" or "easier to understand" than ones that don't. (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Today's bit of wisdom from TAR is the article cp:Self-defense which should be compared with Wikipedia's article. TAR's contributions img have been limited to the "See also" section, a firearms template and many new categories. The Ed Poor article on Conservapedia focused upon self-defense as a legal concept, while the Wikipedia article took more of a martial arts focus. That article has sections on "Avoidance", "De-escalation" and "Personal alarms". TAR has shifted the emphasis of the article without contributing a single word of prose. Without a single new source, TAR proclaims that the idea of "self-defense" is "Pro Second Amendment". Perhaps TAR's next edit will be that the Atlantic Ocean is pro Second Amendment. When you are a hammer, everything you see is a nail. When you are TAR, everything in day-to-day life is pro Second Amendment. Thanks to TAR, Conservapedia is becoming incomprehensible. Hclodge (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Economics and Agflation[edit]

TAR is now taking his hand at expanding Conservapedia's economic coverage. Because conservatives have a range of views on current economic conditions, CP's articles in this area have been group efforts. Time will tell as to whether TAR will allow other people to edit his new economic fiefdom. TAR's new effort grew out of a protracted edit war with AugustO over TAR's inserting red links into cp:Weimar Republic. Today, TAR struggled to create Printing money img which is little more than a #REDIRECT to cp:Quantitative easing. TAR also blessed us with the new cp:Template:Economic preparedness topics spam farm.

By way of example, the article cp:Agflation was a better-than-average Conservapedia stub written by User:Economist with a bit of wikifying by User:AddisonDM. It had been accessed 1,200 times. Today, TAR worked his magic. img producing a longer, more POV pushing ramble than the corresponding Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article has been viewed 1,312 times in the last 90 days. Now assuming that TAR's stream of consciousness word association game would be interesting to CP's readers the first time, one must still question why he is allowed to insert cp:Template:Economic preparedness topics into so many articles. The answer is that he believes it is a productive SEO tactic. Time will tell. Hclodge (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Reciprocal links from Survivalblog[edit]

Now that TAR is on wikibreak and CP has lost cp:User:Dataclarifier one of its last non-parodist editors, it is time to examine the "deal with the devil" made between Ken (on behalf of CP) and TAR (purportedly on behalf of the Survivalblog). These two experts on seach engine optimization decided to turn CP into a spam link farm for cp:James Wesley Rawles, his books and his blog in exchange for some links back:

Ralwes [sic] is a staunch advocate of Conservapedia and links to it where possible using his The Survival Blog, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "LiberalPropagandaPedia."

The problem is that if one searches The Survival Blog, one still finds links to Wikipedia, and just one link to CP. But Ken is not calling in his chits with TAR. Among TAR's last edits to CP was adding links to TAR's own user-contributed reviews of Rawles' book on img I am certain that Andy would want reviews posted on amazon by the best of the public to be read and valued, but here we are linking to reviews by TAR to the exclusion of the rest of the public. TAR probably has more control over what is posted on and on Conservapedia than over what is posted on The Survival Blog. Ken has the short end of the deal. Hclodge (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wonders if Ghost has just got in after a night on the piss.--Mercian (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)