Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive335

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2016. 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>, <334>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

No Feren' Names Need Apply

The Portuguese form of "John"^img doesn't conform to CP's weird and inconsistent username policy. This guy is probably a parodist but, even so, "please come back when you have an American name" is a bit much. 03:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I see kens off his meds again

Ken, get some help bud. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Or some company, he seems like a very lonely man. He always takes negative aspects of himself and projects them onto atheism, no friends, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, perverse sexual practices(no proof but many indicators). Is it certain that he is not a parodist?--Mercian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear goat, kens latest^img magnum opus. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still awed by the observation that, based on filling out a form, the largest group of atheists are those with an IQ of "65-72." Dozens of articles have flowed from that analysis, never once pondering the accuracy of surveys on religion and philosophy administered to the retarded. Some things can't be parodied. Whoover (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the (latest) link to Ken's Magnum Opus^img, cited by the Old Git. (Ken keeps changing the name of the page, presumably to hide it from all those dumb, computer-illiterate atheists.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And another thing, does anyone know who Vox Day is, who Ken regards as the world-leading authority on atheist stupidity? Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He's a shouty apologist called Theodore Beale. He's really not worth paying much attention to, his much vaunted 'debates' generally consist of him shouting down anyone who disgarees with him or tries to actually, you know, debate and then if they continue to show him up as a moron he simply bans them from his chat rooms and blog. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He is also a racist twat, I am not going to bother dig it out but I recall one online discussion where he was criticising women having the vote which quickly devolved to that he does not think black people should be allowed to vote. If anyone were allowed to reply on CP this would be pointed out to Ken, which he fully knows anyway. So Ken, your hero is a misogynistic racist wanker, what do you have to say about that? He is fully accepted as a conservative hero at CP, Schlafly is after all an anti woman, pro BNP, pro apartheid excuse for a human.--Mercian (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just looked at the RW page on Vox Day then sullied my eyeballs by looking at his blog. Nice guy </sarcasm>. Among the totally predictable trash/ shit/ merde on his blog, there's a surprising link to a 28-minute interview of John Julius Norwich [*] about the history of East-West conflict. (1) How the hell did this little turd secure an interview with JJN? (What lies did he tell JJN to get it?) (2) Has anyone here listened to this interview and if so, does it rise above the level of a total waste of time? [*] Very eminent British historian and art historian specialising in Byzantium. Must be way past normal retirement age by now. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This article on his blog (re-direct from RW page)[2] is revolting, and If ken continues to use him as a source, that, in my mind, makes him just a revolting. Atheism and women,[3] Irreligion and_domestic violence[4], I wonder how he can compose these articles with any sense of morality at all. I have never heard of one atheist say that throwing acid in a girl's face is a good thing. There is no ambiguity here, Ken knows exactly the views of Mr Day and he and by extension Conservapedia agree with him.--Mercian (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercian, thank-you </sarcasm> for posting the link to that post by VD. It's possibly the most distasteful thing I've ever read. Good grief, it makes Schlafly look intelligent and Karajou look sensitive. And I see what the Old Git means by his idea of debating being to shout down people he doesn't agree with. Stay clear of him. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Beale (I'm sorry, I'm not going to call a guy 'Voice of God') is also the only person ever to get thrown out of the SFWA in, due to his behavior and letter-writing to one of their officers. Time abrades memory, but if I recall correctly his problem with her was entirely down to gender and his Issues with women. --Maxus (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercian, just think of him as V.D. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very little danger in Ken getting V.D as you generally need to have sexual intercourse to contract it. I am looking forward to "Atheism and Venereal Disease" though. I also see that to have a ban lifted you need to write a novella of at least 24,000 words on atheism[5]. Standards are getting higher for the privilege of posting on Conservapedia. I wonder if posting articles on how great Nick Griffin or Pik Botha are would count?--Mercian (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

To give Andy a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of credit, he claims not be racist and sometimes even behaves as such. It would be more convincing if he were tougher on the people who misuse his blog/encyclopedia. I'd like to think he'd revert an article which wrote favourably about Nick Griffin. </being nice to Andy>. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercian, he's way ahead of you!!!!! I couldn't be bothered to read it carefully enough to understand the connection between atheism, STDs, bestiality, Darwin and Sweden. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cardinal, Andy has before expressed admiration for the BNP, though I admit not Griffin specifically, his only real criticism of them was that they were pro NHS. His reaction when Mandela died was how South Africa had got worse since the fall of Apartheid and how much better it was under white rule. As for the Atheism and VD thing, OMFG, an attempt at being facetious by me, I would never have thought he would have actually written an article on it. What am I saying? It is typical ken modus operandi.--Mercian (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cardinal, look up "affirmative-action president" on CP and then come back and tell me Andy isn't racist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I do believe Lewis Hamilton was an "affirmative-action racing driver" at one point but to be fair this has been removed.--Mercian (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That was prolly parody. Af-Ac Pres went from god's lips to Andy's keyboard. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Supporters of affirmative action presidents hold them to different standards (also see double standard) compared to no affirmative action presidents. For example, Barack Obama has presided over a doubling of the gas price and is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have net lost jobs. Another hallmark of the Trusworthy Encyclopedia is the misleading freeze-frame. Another editor got reverted and banned a few days ago (for "vandalism") when he replaced a 2007 Gallup poll on public acceptance of homosexuality with the 2014 version showing a complete inversion. Everyone knows about this trend except the keepers of the faith at CP. They honestly think that currency is the enemy of fairness. Their treatment of facts pisses me off way more than their revolting opinions.Whoover (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, I take your point but I wonder how much of the utter crap about "affirmative action president" is sour grapes from the time they were both editors of some student law magazine at Harvard. I don't want to overstate it but Andy's claim that he isn't racist (even if it's sometimes, "I'm not racist but...") is one of his few creditable points, e.g. Judge Clarence Thomas is one of his heroes. There are plenty of white people below the Mason-Dixon line who are much more overtly hostile to black people. Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree to a degree with Cardinal. He is not so much a racist as an extremely petty man who idolises people who conform to any part of his agenda. He loves Putin because of his homophobic stance, ignoring the fact that he seems to want to plunge the world into Cold War II. He hated Mandela because of his links to communism and supported the BNP because they are the only UK political party who are anti gun control. His stance on Germany sums it up for me. During the 2010 World Cup he hated them, saying they needed players from conservative Poland(a country that fears Putin and Russia) and needed these conservative players to do as well as they did, but as Germany was liberal as a whole they ultimately failed. 4 years down the line, with Germany one of the few (western or old) EU countries not to legalise gay marriage, he loved them, even nominating Germany as "Conservative of the year 2014." Less of a racist and more of a narrow minded bigot.--Mercian (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. His support of Thomas strikes me as in the realm of "some of my best friends..." And I'm sure he would be totally comfortable going to dinner at the house of an African-American family from a class background similar to his. But: There are lots of ways to get back at Obama without dragging this "affirmative action" nonsense into it, but he chose to make it racial. And as I recall, he made comments post-Mandela's death that said way more than "dude used to be a commie." Also, the idea that one must be "overtly hostile" in order to be a racist overlooks the way racism actually works. Do I think he drops N-bombs and rides around setting crosses on fire? No. But I think that at best he is a walking example of the "color-blind racism" that is a key part of racial dynamics in America. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy's post-Mandela talk was less overt racism, and more his black and white (excuse the pun) view of the world being split between liberals and conservatives - SA is a mess, because liberals demanded an end to apartheid. Because Saint Ronnie would never do that. WIGO link. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, Psy, read that again. The end of apartheid was "demanded largely by outsiders"?!?!? !. I know you know that's bullshit, 'cuz you were fucking there, and 2. to me, that reads like the guy who says the salves were perfectly happy picking cotton on the plantation, and the world was happy and everyone knew their place. And if that ain't knocking on the door of justifying racism, I don't know what is.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Gay lobby & Mormons

That edit^img is such a wonderful example of how Andy - a supposed constitutional lawyer - can't rasp the concept of separation of church and state. The passing, or striking down of laws, has absolutely nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the Mormon Church - which I suspect is as wildly homophobic as and other fundamentalist sect. Andy is as dumb as the Alabama Chief Justice. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 10:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else finding

The new users^img fixation on child sexuality, child sexual development, puberty and paedophilia slightly disturbing? Creepy uncle Ed would have trouble with this one. And noone over at cp seems to have even noticed, or they simply do not care. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Old user, old obsession. Whoover (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't looked that far back. The user did seem to go quiet for almost 3 years but is now back and helping to improve the family friendly encyclopedia. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We've just had a NAMBLA-ist on here so might be the same person(?).

This berk(e) seems much more into little girls. Whoover (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

CNAV borked again?

Just me or everyone? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just you it seems. And the top article is a real homophobic doozy. Even by CNAV's standards. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Conservatism in a nutshell

I particularly enjoyed this edit by Andy. The sidebar is conservatism in a nutshell. Welcome to CP, would you like to learn about gays, abortion or atheism? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Classic Andy

I doubt he reads the articles he links. The headline is Liberal ideology continues to destroy colleges, and speculation grows that "closures are about to become the norm in higher education." "Half of small private colleges and regional public colleges have either missed their enrollment or revenue goals in recent years." The article links to a spreadsheet that lists colleges with suspicious financial scores. The top 20 imperiled institutions of liberal mind control:

• Alaska Bible College
• Alaska Career College
• Alaska Christian College
• Alaska Pacific University
• Charter College
• Alabama State College of Barber Styling
• Amridge University
• Birmingham-Southern College
• Blue Cliff Career College
• Cardiac and Vascular Institute of Ultrasound
• Columbia Southern University
• Concordia College Alabama
• Faulkner University
• Hair Academy (The)
• Heritage Christian University
• Huntingdon College
• Huntsville Bible College
• Institute of Ultrasound Diagnostics (The)

Whoover (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a well known fact that Andy only reads the headline, and if it fits his worldview, he'll publish it, regardless of content. Then again, most of his target market (if such a thing even exists anymore) also only read the headlines, and ignore actual content. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course they're all liberal. Look at all of those "Christian" and "Bible" colleges -- not a one of them have adopted the Conservative Bible Project! MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 11:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I must be slow but it has just clicked what the CBP is. It is Andy creating God and Jesus in his own image rather than the other way around.--Mercian (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First there was TAR...

...now we have this particular mono-maniac who is somehow slightly more disturbing. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this person may also be editing RW. Hans Eysenck survived a deletion discussion, and the person who created it is interested in the same topics - age of consent, etc. See Special:Contributions/PBustion87. A genuine monomaniac or one of those "let's see how those two sites react to the same stuff" trolls?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Glances up the page very slightly. And I do think he's slightly wierdly fixated on sex, especially with younger people. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And Banished by the probable parodist, VargasMilan. link^img

Bloody Hell

Terry creates^img an article. That's the first edit I can remember him doing at CP other than to MPR in 5 years. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck does white privilege have to do with abortion?--Tanis (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. You should know by now. Liberulzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

His water on Europa and Ganymede is proof of the great flood, WTF.[6] I have no expertise in physics but if such jets of water plasma were hurled 1/2 billion miles through space surely Jupiter's gravity would attract all that water. And would the amount of energy needed to hurl millions of tons of matter that distance push the earth out of orbit, according to Newton's laws?--Mercian (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

... it's just so dumb it hurts Ruddager (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Even better, Terry implies (in a comment) that all water in the universe came from the supply God created for us. Those Noah's Flood Comets could escape the solar system and account for any water found in other galaxies. But he admits he not as certain about that as he is that all water in our solar system was ejaculated on that fine spring day in 2348 BC. Whoover (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, does anybody know whether their thesis is that the water found on these other bodies (and presumably formerly on Mars) was aimed in their directions, or is just the water that happened upon them from a uniform spherical distribution? If it's the former, why couldn't God just make water where he wanted it? And if it's the latter, wouldn't that involve really a lot of water? Whoover (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to know and you have sufficient brain cells to accept the number that will inevitably die from reading this crap then this is a place to start. But I warn you, the stupid burns very hot on there. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's this strange mix of magic and science that you often see with Creationists. They'll try to explain these phenomena with science that fits with their historical narrative. But anything that's too improbable (i.e. all of it) can simply be magicked into reality. Millions of tones of water affecting earth's orbit? He's God, duh. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I challenged Terry once about why he needs to try and insert "naturalistic" explanations in between the supernatural stuff; why not just go for God did it all and be done with it. His answer: economy of miracles. Генгис^mutating 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There are about 150,000,000 square arcminutes in the sky. Let's say Jupiter commands about one. Ganymede has more water than the earth. It got its water from the great ejaculation via "splash" (Terry's term in a comment). Let's say 1% of the water that sprayed the Jupiter system splashed on Ganymede. That means the hydroplate event blew 15 billion times as much water into space as the earth now contains. The earth contains about 350 million cubic miles of water. Let's say roughly 5 quintillion cubic miles of water were ejected. That's greater than the volume of the sun. Works for me. Whoover (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Walt Brown and TH have an intuitive (i.e. totally wrong) idea of how objects behave in space. In Brown's cosmology, the Earth sprays all this stuff out in more-or-less a flat disk, like the sparks from a Catherine wheel. The flying debris clumps itself together under mutual gravity, with big swarms of rock, ice, and vapor forming discrete clouds many times the size of Earth, but diffuse. The huge surface area of these 'clouds', which are spinning and gravitationally bound, allows them to act like solar sails and get pushed outward. Also, the warm sunward side of the clouds lose more gas molecules to space than the cool outward sides, and the spinning of the clouds means that this loss is vectored somewhat so that the clouds get a net velocity boost as well, meaning that they can climb to higher orbits - even out to beyond Neptune. These giant clouds pulled themselves together right sharpish to form all the asteroids and comets, some of the moons of the gas giant planets, Pluto and the other transneptunian objects, and stuff to be named later. On the other hand, they dismiss the nebula hypothesis of planetary formation as nonsense. In other words, their spaceships bank into swooping turns as the rudders bite into the æther, and everything looks like it was rotoscoped from WWII gun camera footage. George Clooney lets go of his tether so his weight won't pull Sandra Bullock off her perch. Barbicane, Nicholl, and Ardan experience normal Earth gravity on their trip to the Moon until they reach the 'neutral point' where Moon gravity takes over. That sort of thing. Seriously, they argue that you don't feel gravity from a planet until the planet is closer to the Sun than you, and even then the only pull is in the direction of the barycenter of the solar system. They're people of the land; the common clay of the New West. You know... Morons.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wow! So God works through bad science fiction. Solar winds are the dilithium crystals. Once the ocean express reaches the right orbital distance, it just waits to be swept up by Jupiter and splash where needed. In a few thousand years. So no aim required. But an eyespot could never evolve. Whoover (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Beck quits the Republican Party.

Because of their inaction in standing against Obamacare and immigration. Because he is a RINO.[7]--Mercian (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Back again!

TAR has returned again! Let the chaos ensue! Ayzmo^Cheers 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Most Liberal American Cities is pretty good. It's (by TAR's admission) largely a list of blighted inner cities that are mainly black after white flight. There's no sense of how they're ranked. Detroit is America's most liberal city. Inglewood, CA (something like 50% black) is number 6. He added Hollywood at 28 and LA at 29 in a late edit, realizing that you've got to have Hollywood and LA. He seems to be pulling the cities and their ranks out of his ass. Page through the history to see what I mean. Whoover (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep doing you, TAR. Shakedangle (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I haven't been hear all that long, a couple months, so I haven't been following and documenting every last instance of stupidity there, but I simply cannot believe that someone who writes something like this "Vote with your feet (strategic relocation) from an Unfree state to a Free state to escape the leftist Welfare state - Nanny state - progressive Police state" isn't a parodist. Alsto003 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Alex

Anyone fancy trolling Andy

With this. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering a black man to play James Bond is racist.

[8]How the f**k does this man's mind work?--Mercian (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't work. It sees something and decides 'librulzzzzzzzzz' therefore tries to find an angle to attack it. And everybody knows that no blacks ever became members or employees of Her Majesties Security Services. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the old "any affirmative action in support of blacks = anti-white racism" shtick. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not even that. To Andy, racism is what people of other races and ideologies do. Because it's bad. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative action? Weren't they the shitheads, who claimed, that Obama was voted because of "affirmative action" or some such hokum?--Arisboch (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There should still be an article titled "Affirmative action president" on CP. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Third, James Bond is more historical than fictional." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

^ Okay, haven't read the books, but we're talking about the movies here. Maybe the character was inspired by real events, but clearly the films haven't been constrained by historical realism (or even believability, for that matter). If you're okay with Bond killing a black dude by turning him into a balloon that pops, but not with Bond himself being black, well, I think I see your real problem. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing Karajou whining that it's racist for Jesus to be portrayed with pale skin and blond hair - and he really was a historical person (probably). Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2015 UTC)

You can't just make him black! What about continuity? James Bond is an English Scottish Irish Australian famous secret agent who is currently younger than his own career. But he's definitely not black. I believe Felix or whatever he's called, the occasional CIA character, might have changed colour at some point, but that's completely different. Fonzie (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

M also changed genders in the Bond movies, but hey. PacWalker 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Struck per London Grump below. PacWalker 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time the casting of Idris Elba has caused an uproar (though the Bond thing seems speculative at this point). White supremacists boycotted Thor because Elba played the Norse god Heimdall. Just something to keep in mind. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

M is a title, not a person. Like C in the real MI6. London Grump (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For moar Lulz you can concede defeat to him and say that Jesus was indeed blonde— by linking to this Wikipedia article. Alsto003 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Alex

Or use a redirect service and slide him over to ours. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Idris Elba is no more James Bond than Michael Caine is. Bond went to Eton and Fettes. He is cut from the same cloth as Ian Fleming and Ewan Montagu's special ops section, the section that looked down on the sublimely well connected Dennis Wheatley as "trade". Then again, there's even more denial about class than there is about race. London Grump (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

in that case idris is no less James bond than Sean Connery. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally found it annoying that absolutely none of the actors who have played Felix Leiter even remotely resemble Fleming's description, although I give them a pass on the one-arm part. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't want to see a black James Bond out of racism, it's certainly a reasonable point of view that films should be as faithful to the character's description as possible; conflating the two isn't helpful, although I noticed that the link above doesn't provide any examples of that actually occurring. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

When I first read Dune, for no particular reason, I pictured Duncan Idaho as a Black guy, and that's stuck with me for more than 30 years. So both the 1980s movie and the 1990s mini-series let me down a bit because my favorite character didn't look right. That said, the movies are not the books, and I see zero reason why a film-maker has any obligation to faithfully reprroduce every, or any, aspect of a book that she is turning into a film. It's her project, her interpretation, her vision. If you want things to be "just like the book," there's a book for you to read. There are many, mny reasons I'd love to see Elba as Bond. Some of them have to do with the politics of race and representation. Some have to do with the fact he's a great actor. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a well-known belief amongst the fans that there's a dozen different people who get their names changed to "James Bond" when the previous 007 retires? The movies ignored that theory a lot, though, preferring a floating timeline where everyone but Bond can change sex whenever. You'd expect someone to consider "oh, they've confirmed my 30-year suspicions" long before declaring it racism.-- Forerunner (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to overstate my previous comment on Leiter, as long as the film is done well such things ultimately very minor and easily forgotten while actually watching it. Just in the Bond series I've seen it work both ways; From Russia With Love and Live and Let Die are two of my favorites, with the former being much closer to the book than the latter. As to the specific matter at hand, I think Craig is doing just fine and that it's not worth fixing that which isn't broken. I'll worry about the next Bond when he decides he's finished. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is almost a case of 'not even wrong' given how little the films relate to the books already. Like AgingHippie, I would welcome Elba as an interesting choice for Bond, he's a damn good actor and could well take the character in interesting directions. And id you want to complain about casting choices varying from the books, then you need look no further than Roger Fucking Moore. But let's not turn this into a 'favourite Bond' discussion. Overall, there's no reason why Bond can't be played by a black actor. It's fiction. Worm (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone actually care about the Bond films anymore? The Daniel Craig "gritty reboot" thing has been so tacky, I couldn't bring myself to be up in arms even if they decided that Bond was going to be a pacifist Scientologist. Seems like James Bond is now a freelance murderer for hire who wanders around the world battling America's bad guy du jour. How the hell do you do a gritty reboot and still don't mention the (cold) war? They should just make him a CIA operative and have done with it, then he could battle terrists and North Koreans to his heart's content and we wouldn't be having these silly controversies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a Bond fan, never read a Bond novel and have seen only a rare Bond movie, so consider me a total know-nothing. That said, what's so wrong about Roger Moore as Bond? Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@jeeves: bond has always been considered a murderer in some quarters, just a government one rather than freelance. @phiwum some found Moore was too tongue in cheek when compared to the totally realistic films before. He's certainly no worse than Dalton or brosnon whose films where absolute arse water. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No doubt he's a murderer. I can't remember now which film it is where someone taunts him about all the vodka martinis to dull the memories of all the men he's killed and all the women he couldn't protect. One of those moments where the Bond oeuvre becomes more intense than adventure punctuated by silly gadgets and bad puns. Also, the only thing wrong with Moore's tenure is it went on too long. He should have quit after Golden Gun, or perhaps The Spy Who Loved Me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone looking for character consistency within the Bond films should have stopped looking a long time ago. Idris Elba's Bond won't be "the same" as Daniel Craig's or Roger Moore's or Sean Connery's or any of the others but then they've never been the same as each other anyway. & The principle that James Bond is this one guy who's been doing the same job for the past sixty-odd years doesn't make any real sense. Suspend your disbelief & just go with it: that's what we do with fiction. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Atheist Mass Murderer

Andreas Lubitz was driven to murder 150 by his atheism. Of course we don't know that he's an atheist because the librul media is hiding it. Of course he might be a Muslim but the librul media is hiding that too. But atheist terrorists are worse because they kill to glorify their God -- wait, what? They're driven to kill by their no God? I love Andy's rabbit holes. Whoover (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He could turn out to be a Christian. There is no suggestion I can find of him being an atheist apart from when AugustO scorned any attempt to pin it on atheists and Ken posting that though he had to direct proof, the fact that he was suicidal, European etc strongly suggests he is. See Atheism and what ever shite he comes up with.--Mercian (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentalists are dependent on the No True Scotsman analogy. To become a Christian is to follow the laws (specifically the ones the arguer uses; if they happen to break laws, those laws don't matter). Thus, to murder is to reject the law and so a murderer can not be a Christian - just an atheist pretending to be one as part of a conspiracy. Shooting blacks and Muslims is apparently still fine, though.-- Forerunner (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We treat Ken as an outlier, but Andy's posts are just as loony. Water rationing is liberal. (I guess the conservative thing would be to water the lawn and trust that God will provide). Andy's no less extreme on atheism, just lazier. Whoover (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy seems to be extreme in all matters. Atheism, Islam, the environment, welfare, gun control, The Bible, women's rights, minority rights, children's rights, the economy, abortion, computer games, education, intellectualism, science. I could go on but I have never seen him express a view that is not ultra conservative.--Mercian (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The irony being that over at Flingbutt's hate blog, the pilot did it because he was totally a Muslim convert. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And a new user politely points out andy's bullshit^img. Wonder how long this user will last? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no indication that this was any sort of terrorism, let alone atheistic terrorism. There's no evidence this was done to instill fear. Investigators have found no political or religious motivations and the consensus seems to be the guy was suffering from mental health issues. As usual, Andy is just talking out of his ass. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ken and a parodist agree: God doesn't let Christians do bad things, so terrorists and murderers are atheists by definition. Some of them are even tricky regular church-going atheists. Whoover (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Message for Mr Conservative

Ken, I know you read this page so please don't pretend you don't. You wrote on Main Page Talk, "I will let GhazS and AugustO determine if the characteristics of ... depressed/suicidal best fit Bible believers or atheists/irreligious individuals." My uncle was a Bible-believing Christian - a pentecostal pastor, in fact - who suffered from severe depression. How dare you try to use people's religious beliefs or lack of them to make value-judgements about their mental health. I wish you Happy Easter and I hope you spend the day reflecting on what genuine Christians believe is the good news of Jesus's resurrection, instead of writing malicious comments about other people. You twerp. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

He answers.[9][10] Burned very quickly.--Mercian (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ken DeMyer and stupidity

His Lubitz-related comments are so full of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin. It goes like this: Lubitz was German and he was suicidal. Only 45% of Germans believe in God, and Christians apparently cannot be suicidal. Therefore he was merely pretending to be Lutheran and was secretly an atheist (who also killed all these people because he was an atheist, not because he was mentally ill). Sigh. --Da Observer (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And this surprises you for what reason exactly? 15:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

He spends one of the most holy days of the Christian calender praying, dedicating his life to god and enjoying the company of friends and family. Oh wait.[11]--Mercian (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no "one of the most", I don't think there are any denominations that celebrate holy days where Easter isn't, officially speaking, the biggest one. It's kinda hard to get past the day that's behind the core creed of the religion. Christmas is only on the table because consumerism is a bigger religion to us Americans than Christianity. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly and white pride

Andy Schlafly doesn't see race, until he does^img. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious what he'd say about the rioting that happened in Kentucky. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now he's saying that the NCAA made it a 'white vs. black' final? What should the lamestream media have said about Wisconsin beating Kentucky, anyway? Christ, Andy is incoherent.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the selection committee totally knows what'll happen in advance? Just kidding, NOBODY does. PacWalker 16:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you say 'just kidding', but I'd bet that Andy thinks that the NCAA picks the final four teams or controls who is on what team or something. Or maybe he thinks that the NCAA shouldn't let there be teams where the players are all of one race? Maybe he wants a Title IX for white student athletes?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That entire thread confuses me. Con jumped in and made a whole bunch of ridiculous statements that I'm not even sure how to interpret. Does he actually think people go through that twisted logic? I'm at a loss. Ayzmo^Cheers 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What's confusing? Pretty much everything that passes for argument there consists of making up things. A favored category is making up things that liberals "think." In this case it's that a team that has too many or too few blacks is evidence of discrimination. Once you make that up, everything else follows naturally. Whoover (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of like all the varieties of BS you can show once you "prove" that 1 = 2. PacWalker 00:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheism and Alzheimer's

I wonder why Ken thinks Atheism and Alzheimer's are not longer linked. He seems to have removed a section on Atheism and Alzheimer's from a large number of articles. a^img b^img c^img Ghost (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a recent diagnosis. Whoover (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, Will Alzheimer's become a sign that you're a True Christian (TM) ? Ghost (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Schlafly gets called out for not knowing "... pretty basic law-school type of stuff" ...

...in Time. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he necessarily doesn't know it, but he is obviously ignoring it to suit his religio-political agenda. I'm sure it won't be his first time denying established facts for that reason. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there videos floating around of him arguing in court and the judges basically laughing him out?--Miekal 17:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Senator Menendez recall attempt? Oh, we had a whale of a time with that. Ignore the constitution, cite a heartfelt letter written by George Washington. Bicycle^wheel 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Basic Engineer Stuff

I know it's old, but it's so good. Andy is convinced that scientists ("atheistic scientists" in his world) believe in perpetual motion^img. This bit of lunacy stems from his obsession with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which Andy believes would disprove evolution if we make the slight modification that inputting energy into a system could not reduce that system's entropy. (Actually, that would disprove "life," but for most creationists that's a small price.) Andy somehow equates the stubborn insistence on the Second Law's relevance only to closed systems with perpetual motion. (I haven't been able to follow that train, so if anyone can shed some light on it I'd be in your debt.) Thus we come full circle: belief in evolution is equivalent to insisting that perpetual motion machines are real.

For a guy with an engineering degree, this muddle is more amazing than his not understanding how the Constitution works. Whoover (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This guy is clearly employing doublethink.--Arisboch (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this how science works? Whoover (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pulling random figures out of our backsides is what we scientists do all day. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A Month Without TAR

It has been a full month since TAR's last edit (to the Lord's Prayer article). Many people thought that TAR was just using CP as a spam farm in the run-up to the launch of his mentor's new book. However, TAR managed to convince Ken that he was a sincere, long-term CP contributor. Well, TAR's track record shows who was correct: with TAR leaving behind banned editors, many red links, and a large number of stub articles that have been converted into spam droppings. Hclodge (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I thought about using my sock and reverting some of his insane gibberish but in the end I decided it's more fun to simply leave his droppings all over cp. Some of his additions are better than any satirist could have tried to include. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I admit to a long term goal of making CP the un"Trusworthy Encyclopedia", and if they can do it themselves then more's the better. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They are completely untrustworthy ALREADY and the stuff you edit will most likely enhance it.--Arisboch (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I started undermining editing CP in March 2007, you don't need to tell me how things are progressing. Генгис^pillaging 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is anger bear

"celebrating" the death of a feminist^img icon? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite the spelling in the URL he still manages to spell "riveter"incorrectly. No wonder the site is such a sorry mess when the adminithugs are only semi-literate. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that, despite her feminist connotations, Rosie the Riveter is also a part of American history. She's also a part of pro-USA WWII propaganda, which may endear her to him more. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That I get. What I really struggle with is the way that he, and other wingnutters, will happily ignore things like the feminist role model aspect in order to grab on to the SINGLE thing that justifies their viewpoint. I may be wrong but I really don't see people on the secular left, as I identify myself being, doing the same thing. I will happily accept that my role models have flaws and am willing to admit them. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I get ya. Reagan is a great example. They ignore that he signed a gun control law in California, supported amnesty, Contra, etc. to make him into a saint. Maybe a corollary of the No True Scotsman effect? Either that or they're just ignoring the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit into their narrative? I can't believe that many are as single-minded as Andy and can literally not see things they disagree with. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"ignoring the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit into their narrative" That's basically how most fundies deal with inconvenient passages in their Holy Scripture. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the claim that Anger Bear or conservatives have appropriated a feminist icon. Far as I understand it, Rosie the Riveter was not created as a feminist icon, but as a call to women to pitch in on the home front. That is, she was fundamentally pitched as a patriotic icon, albeit with a call to women to enter professions previously closed to them. She became a feminist icon later, when feminism became a real social concern.

From Wikipedia: It was only later, in the early 1980s, that the Miller poster was rediscovered and became famous, associated with feminism, and often mistakenly called "Rosie The Riveter."

So, seems to me that it's the feminists that appropriated Rosie for their own ends -- not that I see anything wrong with that. Phiwum (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Kenny the man child

Every time I think he may be growing up he pisses all over himself to disgrace^img himself with his spite. What's up kenny, Bruce's honesty cuts little too close to home or something? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Between the lot of them they don't seem to be able to string together a coherent thought. The heading simply doesn't describe what's in the article, and none of any of it is supported by video, then Ken just rocks up and his favourite bit of the whole thing is when Jenner sheds a tear because ... well I suppose it makes him feel like a man by comparison. Forgetting of course that Bruce fathered children to a woman he met at the Playboy mansion. Yup, say what you will Kenzo. Ruddager (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoever or whatever Jenner identifies as s/he will without a doubt be able to kick ken's backside with both arms tied behind his back.--Mercian (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if Ken gangs up on him? 94.1.153.60 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jpatt?

JPatt has a kid?^img I weep for our future. Not to mention that fact that it isn't difficult to explain transgender issues in a way that is easy for a kid to understand. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I see from that fount of all misinformation, Wikipedia, that Bruce Jenner describes himself as a conservative Christian. Interesting... I guess JPatt, Kenny Boy and their friends (if they have any) get round that one using the "No True Scotsman" rule, i.e. no true Conservative Christian would do that transgender stuff. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy really doesn't care anymore does he?

Not a single mention of how earthquakes are increasing in frequency nor a single crocodile tear accompanied by his 'praying for the victims' bullshit. Even he's given up on his blog now it seems, other than checking in occasionally to block people. He's basically surrendered it to anger bear and the man child. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Famous quote from that page: Researchers are left scratching their heads, trying to understand possible reasons for the uptick in seismic activity in Oklahoma. Now that that liberal bastion, the state of Oklahoma, admits that it's fracking do you think Andy might update the page? I love how editors get banned for replacing 2009 employment charts with current ones. Information getting updated is a form of liberal deceit. Whoover (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why update information when all you need is in the Bible? Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

But if you're re-writing the bible, then surely you can re-write statistics. Ghost (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberal deceipt will get you nowhere. they are not 'rewriting' the bible. They are removing "archaic language and liberal translation distortions" and your liberal lies don't change that fact. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jpatt explains how earthquake relief aid is suspect, because Democrats^img. Also, since nobody's raising money for Christian ISIS victims, why should we raise money for Muslim earthquake victims? Hindus are a kind of Muslim, right? Whoover (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember Andy refusing to link to a Red Cross appeal as it was not an exclusively Christian or Conservative organisation. Ken blames the lack of action on Conservapedia on athiests.[12] How much have you given Ken? Thousands of people die, a good opportunity to kick an atheist, nice point scoring--Mercian (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And Andy joins the party with another ridiculous dig at "atheist hospitals". Cantabrigian (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken Updates "Obama and Unemployment"

Ken and his parodist doppelganger, VargasMilan, have been defending Barack Obama and United States Unemployment^img from reality for some time now, and today Ken updated the article in response to some unease among the troops. First, there are a number of things he didn't update. Unemployment figures are still stuck in 2010. Guess Why. Under "Obama's Misleading Statistics" the article still bemoans the "real" unemployment rate, U6, "rose to 16.8% from 16.5%." Today it's 10.9%.

Under "Obama Jobs Deficit" we learn (indirectly) that non-farm payroll is about 129 million. Today it's 141 million.

Under "Return of Stagflation Concerns" we learn that, in 2010, the Washington Times fretted about high inflation and continued high unemployment. It's not worth an update that, as of 2015, neither happened.

He did shuffle some text around. We still learn that the continuing (in 2010) high unemployment is because of Obamacare. And that if we add national debt and unemployment numbers together into a "misery index," it's high (although we don't learn the unemployment component is much improved, even though this is the unemployment article, not the national debt article).

He also added a disclaimer, that if you really know that unemployment is the lowest it's been in over a decade, it's because Republicans slashed unemployment benefits^img.

I pity the poor student who uses the Trusworthy Encyclopedia as a source. Whoover (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That would only be a conservative Christian homeskolar. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are MelH

But well played^img. What an excellent straight bat to hit him for six. This is the picture that MelH posted Oldusgitus (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess since so many people use the User:Conservative account it's easier to move the goalposts.^img -Nets awesome (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He rebukes it nicely. He really is a shit, someone disagrees with him and gives him a bit of grief, ie StaceyT. He resorts to his "attack their nation, religion etc". With Stacy he came up short so had to resort to misogyny. Many of his latest edits have been attacking "weak women who lack machismo".--Mercian (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly they need to pass themselves off as long-haired Asian ladies, then Ken will be dribbling all over them. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy's Back

He's made a couple of nutso edits on his favorite topic, physics. One is that relativity is not universally accepted; only liberals, etc. The better one, in my opinion, is promoting Robert Dicke to greatest American physicist ever^img. I love the wording, which makes Andy sound like a tween-age girl talking about Justin Bieber. Shouldn't at least one other human consider Dicke the greatest American physicist before it's encyclopedic? Whoover (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have a love for Fred Hoyle also. Does he not realise that Hoyle rejected the Big Bang because it provided a moment of creation and he was a hardline atheist?--Mercian (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Details, details. As we all know the best of public can be correct even if the individual member of the public is wrong about other things. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Dicke article at CP says he "accepted relativity", so I guess that makes Americas Greatest Physicist a Liberal. ^{— Unsigned, by: 73 42 162 48 / talk / contribs}

Andy has a hard-on for Hoyle, cos Hoyle declared Archaeopteryx to be a fake, which meshes with Andy's beliefs, ergo Hoyle is teh awesome. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not worth a section, but Andy is going on again about Andreas Lubitz being an "atheistic terrorist^img. Let's say he was an atheist (or at least not a very good Lutheran) and even that his goal was to kill a bunch of people. Andy still loses me on the terrorism angle. We generally know the cause that a terrorist is trying to further. They may be wackadoodle, but sweeping the Jews out of the Holy Land and avenging Waco are causes. The acts of terrorism in support of these causes sort of have a sick logic in the minds of terrorists. But what are atheistic terrorists looking to accomplish? Killing random people in the name of not Jesus? Not Allah? Not David Koresh? Seriously, does anybody have a clue how Andy connects the concepts of atheist and terrorist? There's got to be an angle I'm missing. Whoover (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the man who insists Fred Phelps, Adolf Hitler and Anders Behring Breivik are/were liberals. There is no angle you are missing, this atheistic terrorism is bullshit. The IRA and other Irish Nationalist groups were catholic, the loyalist groups were protestant but their terrorism was due to nationalism not religion. I am sure Andy would be quick to point that out to you.--Mercian (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism committed by atheists exists resp. existed (such as the Red Army Faction in West Germany and similar groups such as the Japanese Red Army), but terrorism motivated by atheism? Does such stuff exist, cause nothing such comes to my mind?--Arisboch (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I could come up with a specific example, but I don't think it does us any good to deny that it is possible. Someone could certainly commit a terrorist act in the name of wiping out religion or something similar. I would consider that atheistic terrorism. Has it happened? I don't know. However, denying that it is even possible just makes us look ridiculous. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I take your point Ayzmo and it is true that atheists as a group and not inherently better than religious people but they are not worse either. I don't see any atheists accusing him of Christian terrorism despite him seemingly being one. The pilot was obviously sick but that does not excuse him. Killing 100s of people because he had problems is evil whatever his background. IMO he was a class a arsehole, atheist or not.--Mercian (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting reply. In saying that he was sick are you admitting that he was very likely mentally ill? Then we get into the discuission of whether someone who is mentally ill can be evil when acting under the influence of their illness. A friend of mine is severly bi-polar and during any one of his episodes he tends to severly self-harm but he is not acting rationally, he is acting under the unfluence of what 'the voices' - his phrase not mine - are telling him to do. And I don't think he can necessarily be called evil. And that's putting aside the entirely subjective nature of evil in itself. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it's possible. Anything is possible. I'm denying that there's any evidence that the point of this act was to further the cause of atheism. No tweet celebrating his incipient victory over mythology. No martyrdom video claiming he looks forward to no afterlife whatsoever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't know of any terrorist action taken to further the cause of atheism. Anarchy, yes. Communism, yes. Are many anarchists and communists atheists? Of course. But "atheistic terrorism" makes as much sense as "left-handed terrorism" or "red-headed terrorism." Whoover (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys guys guys, Andy's got your back with an elegant elegant solution to your dilemma: it's terrorism if an atheist does it because reasons. No doubt one of his god-inspired "insights." I have half a feeling this is why he keeps AugustO around, so he can be blessed with new mental gymnastic moves whenever he's debated into a corner. Shakedangle (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I laughed out loud at that edit. It's because Sartre. I never saw that coming. Whoover (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Next up, a huge Ken "Atheism and Terrorism" article, should be good.--Mercian (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Atheistic suicidal missions are consistent with existentialism.^img That's the insight that preceded his redefinition of "terrorism." Man, they don't teach you this stuff at liberal universities, do they? No wonder we're so screwed up. Whoover (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

what's with the obsession with Israel?

There has been several posts about Israel and how they should basically bomb Iran and those uppity Palestinians, and how they have no respect for Obama. They all, I think (without checking) have been posted by hurlbut. Is this purely his obsession? CP's? Or is an american right wing thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Unquestioning support for the Israeli state in one of the top three foreign policy touchstones for the American right (...and for the American political establishment more generally), and has been for decades. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

One? I think (for mainstream American right) it's the. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's because evangelicals believe that the End Times will begin with war in Israel. The loons believe that Revelation predicts Israel's bombing of Iran will bring about the Second Coming. Whoover (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet Operation Opera already... Okay. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also the neeed to rebuild the temple isn't there. And for jews to convert to xinaity. So the wingnuts support Israel no matter what because if those nastys muslims ever get control of Jerusalem the temple will never be rebuilt. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the holding in many circles, and I think those discussed here, but I will say I disagree with the Temple point personally. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That's mostly nutpicking--Arisboch (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Within Judaism, particularly mystical Judaism(Kabbalah), there is a belief that the Temple doesn't have to be rebuilt in a physical form. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate how few people see this the same way as with the English and Irish (I'm American and too young to have seen most of it, but I vividly remember Omagh), namely that it's going to take both sides realizing it's not accomplishing anything to keep blowing each other apart. As well-intentioned as Americans may be, just like with the English and Irish that's got to come from the people living there. Anyways, while I'm no huge fan of Obama myself I'm wondering why, if he had this passionate hatred for Israel so many wingnuts claim, he would have let Netanyahu address Congress. I somehow doubt he would ever, under any circumstances, extend such an invitation to Abbas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How, exactly, short of issuing an Executive Order banning Bibi from entering the US, could he have stopped him? POTUS has no say over what happens in the House. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In theory denial of visa might have been slightly less nuclear (hehheh whoops), I'd suppose. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What has andy done now?

It seems they've managed to lock^img cp down completely now without meaning to. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely just night mode? Unless one of the siteadmins locked the database? PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 10:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, kenny is posting on andy's talk page asking why it has happened. If it were night mode kanny can switch it off. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken slapped down

Nice slap-down from Rafael for Kenny-Boy^img (after Ken tries Rafael's patience with his usual verbosity, pompousness and mudslinging): "As a former researcher for a senior Conservative party figure, I can still get the insider view but it's always nice to temper that insight with some blogs." Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proof that 2015 is the WORST YEAR EVAR for Atheism

Oh wait. --Nets awesome (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken Saeed al-Sahhaf has read your comments[13]Less than 15% of the mentally vulnerable nones are atheists. So 2015 just like all the years before it is a terrible year for atheism.--Mercian (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the wingnuts

Are preparing to throw Jeb Bush under the bus^img before he even gets to the primary stages. This is the tea party wingnuttery article. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing Rand Paul with be the Greatest, Bestest Mostest Conservative Eva on CP, until he loses. I still remember the migration of McCain's article from RINO, to GBMCE, back to RINo after he lost. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 10:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Andy a huge fan of Jeb though because of mommy's connections? This could be fun. Vulpius (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

IsabellW

Tentatively begins the clean up^img? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticizing Ben Carson is racist, because Obama

No, no, no, Jpratt.^img Calling Ben Carson a fucking idiot is not racist. It's fact.

Calling Ben Carson a Kenyan, Muslim, based solely on his ancestry and skin colour and hanging him in effigy would be racist. Luckily liberals aren't as much into lynchings at Tea Baggers. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 11:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young had a similar comment upon observing people shrieking that it was off-limits to criticize Hillary Clinton because sexism, so I'm not sure it's quite as one-sided as you say. That said, a headshot of Ben Carson would be a worthy picture to put in a dictionary next to the term "lunatic"; no debate there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Who was the candidate who used the lyrics from a Pokémon song in a speech in 2012? London Grump (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Was it Herman Cain? Crispy (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm Thinking Atheistic Terrorism

Amtrak engineer is a facebook user.^img My spidey sense thinks "why does the lamestream media not cover his atheism?" cannot be far behind. Whoover (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Getting warmer.^imgWhoover (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hot now.^img Whoover (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hotter, but we're not quite they're yet, but I wouldn't put it past Andy.--Arisboch (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Best you're gonna get will be along the lines of "Why isn't the mainstream media asking if the engineer was an atheist? Are they afraid that atheistic terrorism will be revealed?" Which is what Andy would prefer, because the best part of JAQing off is that you don't need to defend or provide evidence for asking questions. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That kind of stuff would be "hot".--Arisboch (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We've now got "accident" in scare quotes^img, o ye of little faith. Whoover (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

But a concussion rarely causes amnesia, and afterwards he blackened his Facebook image. Why would he quickly blacken it if he were a victim??^img We're so close I can taste it. Whoover (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Andy, say it. What's the obvious? Is it gay atheistic terrorism?^img Whoover (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy's starting a revisionist history of the National Traffic Safety Board^img, probably setting the stage for the NTSB to be a terrorist-enabling wing of the Obama administration. The NTSB was formed in 1967, but he has it formed much earlier and stripped of its ability to investigate airplane accidents in 1940. That's pretty bizarre, even for Andy. The implication is that the NTSB is acting extra-legally. 1940 is when the Civil Aeronautics Board was formed and did the first airplane accident investigation undertaken by the federal government. Responsibility for such investigations passed to the newly formed NTSB in 1967. As a font of misinformation, CP is unimpeachable. Whoover (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen

Gentlemen! I will fumble your precious dollhouse, enabling me to destroy atheism on the internet. You should all be deconstructing over Operation Document, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.Ole Ole Ole Ghost (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A word of advice: don't treat gay bowel syndrome with hydrogen peroxide - it destroys tissue. Try rubbing alcohol instead. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brady

Andy doesn't know Tom Brady is a conservative Republican considering a career in Republican party politics, a possible rival for Elizabeth Warren's seat. Just what kinda advice is he getting from Karajou & Ken on those private discussion lists these days? nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 01:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Nobbykins, surely you of all people realise that liberal in the Conservapedia vocabulary is synonymous with "person I don't like" and has little or nothing to do with their politics. Of course, you prefer the term "commie", but the principle is the same. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Has CP un-died?

Awhile ago it seemed like it had very few edits, now it pulls maybe 75/day. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OMG, CP has risen from the grave! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No. You read into numbers to much.--Miekal 01:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So then what's up with the upped editcount? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait until you have more time to see a trend?--Miekal 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)--Miekal 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Data showing christianity is in a slump?

Attention Ken: Google trends indicates: Christianity is a slump! [14] Olé Olé Olé! --Da Observer (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More data showing that 2015 will be the WORST year ever for creationism: [15] --Da Observer (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken's (and Beck's) History 101 "test"

Hey, Ken - guess what - that history 101 test you were bleating about? (link to it on Beck's page) - ACED IT! And I'm not even American (although seriously, if that's the standard of your university history teaching then no wonder China's taken over as #1. Or maybe it's just hard for conservatives. Or for people who believe in magic trumpet sounds from the sky?). Oh yeah, and here's the proof:

Oh, and question 3 is wrong - the Puritans didn't come to the US to escape persecution. They came to persecute. Just ask all the Baptists they hanged. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I went to State School in the UK, have had no formal education covering US History, and I aced that. It's not exactly taxing, though I have no idea how much history is taught in US schools. Actually not a very high proportion of UK history is taught in our system either, but we have so much more history to cover. Worm (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I also "aced" it. I was very disappointed though. It promised to test my knowledge about the greatest nation on earth, but all the questions were about America for some reason... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I aced it too, and I'm both British and an imbecile. I guess if it wasn't so easy it would leave beck fans a little alienated if they couldn't do well. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I aced it as well. Now, I wonder if Kenny would do remotely as well on a test on British\English history. Anyone know if there is a link to such a test? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It said I aced it the first time through. Then I went back and answered every question incorrectly, this time it said I passed with flying colors. Talk about grade inflation. Marlow (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Aced it. The questions are grade school level. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Went back and answered about half the questions correctly, still said I aced it. Funny definition of aced I guess. Marlow (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I just intentionally answered all the questions wrong (to the best of my knowledge - some questions are a bit vague) and it said I passed with flying colors. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Aced it. But where's Ace? Would he ace it? DogP (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloody stupid. "Aced It" & I know next to nothing at all bout American History. I was convinced that I'd fail before I started. Then did it again - all different answers - "Passed with flying colours" Really STUPID! Scream!! (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the first few questions is was very easy. If your average American adult can't ace this then perhaps Ken, Andy and Co have a point about their state school system.--Mercian (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking such a "test," partly because I suspect it is a way of gathering data. In aid of what? Don't care. Has anybody deliberately given wrong answers, and been told that they screwed the pooch, or does it always dispense a feelgood at the end? Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there are three grades, "You aced it!", "You passed with flying colors' and "You're missing a few important facts but there's till room for improvement". I got that third mark the second time I took the test when I intentionally answered every question incorrectly. I aced it the first time. It's easy peasy pudding and pie primary school stuff. Ken, passing that test is nothing to crow about if any liberal limey nancy-loving atheist can do it. -Spud (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Aced it. Apparently I've been known to visit Civil War sites and collect World War 2 memorabilia. I must have done that in my sleep. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Rob Smith: All is forgiven.

Baby, won't you please come back to me^img? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is gold - Rob you have to go back. The return of the prodigal son, it's almost biblical, except this prodigal son will return triumphantly. Tielec01 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is he'll have to ask permission in the soopah-seekrit chat room... and as it's only Andy and Kara left in there, and both of them ignore all of Ken's posts, it's not going to happen. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 16:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd enjoy watching Nobbykins kiss Ken's demonic ring for the chance to get his powah back. If nothing else, it'd get him out from underfoot here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we like the girl friends who remind Rob he broke up with Ken in the first place? Well, here's Ken in Rob's own words:

“”CP does have another TK, and it's User:Conservative. TK actually did have some leadership skills, occassionally did listen to others, sometimes willing to negotiate, could persuade and was willing to be persuaded, at times. Ken combines the worst traits of Ken & TK, with zero leadership ability, and zero tolerance to even listen to others. It would be a mistake to say he's ideologically blinded, cause to have an ideology you would be able to discuss and defend it, and he can't do that. He's demonic. Even the demons believe in God, tremble, as the bible says.

Don't crawl back, Rob! You're better than that. Not much better, and you're still not all that great as a person, but at least you're kinda better than Ken and them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

But the Alexa ratings are in the dumpster. If I could generate some interest...it's tempting...nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 03:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"In the dumpster": discarded. "In the dumper": suggestive of crap. Whoover (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Rob is adorable. "Oh! A challenge! Shall I apply my wiles and turn this doomed train around? How intriguing..." What a white knight! What a ridiculously inflated view of his own relevance!

Go for it, Rob. Your public needs you. Phiwum (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken^img: Things are going be different now, baby. I'm new a man. I've mellowed. No more fights. I always did love the way you stoked irrational fear of communism. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Oh Nobby, he loves you^img and misses you. The question will you follow the all to common template of the abused and go back just so when kenny gets bored he can start kicking you all over again? Or you could always go back and go deep cover parodist :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Jokes aside it's impossible to make CP into anything not a joke now, just because it's CP. It could have a daily readership of millions but it'd still have all the baggage that comes with its history. It'd be possible to start a new website with CP's original goals and have that as a success, so long as no old CP users had a prominent position in it. X Stickman (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my place to say Robs but just remember how these people, Ken in particular, hung you out to dry. Ken is only making this offer because he is without a friend on Conservapedia.--Mercian (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of activity this Memorial Day. Not a hint of "Thanks to our men in uniform for keeping us free to post hate." The closest is "ISIS is Obama's fault because he won't send more Christians to die in the desert." This level of hypocrisy is what makes CP such a fine humor site. Whoover (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken^img: "By the way, did you ever notice that Andy never mentions the editors at "ritionalwaki"?" Yes, I've noticed his tendency to ignore his critics. "No doubt he considers them far too trivial and far too beneath him to trifle over." Yet you obsessively read us. More probable that he just doesn't want to leave his little bunny hole. "If only they graduated from 3 Ivy League universities" 3? I'm only aware of him graduating from Princeton and Harvard Law. Anyway, if it is three, he's done jack shit with those degrees. "had a notable mother" How is that an accomplishment? "argued before high courts" And lost while having a judge literally laugh at his arguments. "had students who have graduated from some of the finest universities" Says more about those unfortunate students, since Andy is such a horrible teacher.
If this is what you want to go back to, Rob, by all means go. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Aaand the edit has been deleted, and the capture failed. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always tried to strike a balance between the two - there's certain things you can do at CP that can't be done at RW and things that can be done at RW that can't be done at CP (I don't mean testing the limits at both, my goal has always been to combine mainspace contributions from both to make solid NPOV contribs that would stand up per WP standards). And to Ken, sorry I haven't responded sooner. No hard feelings. We have successfully collaborated in the past, and I see no reason we couldn't in the future. Currently I'm immersed in present day national security affairs (meaning Islamic and Chinese stuff rather than Cold War communism). As to editing, I'm already doing that, updating and preparing Obama's legacy on domestic affairs (hope you like it). To return as Rob Smith (my real ID) and be more active, I'd have to have access to the Main Page, with the election coming up and all, you know. And upload privileges, of course. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember this, Rob?

Ken^img: "Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy. I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. [...] I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call "a useful idiot" and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website." #stirthepot --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see kenny is busy editing 7 year old archives^img now. Replying to a user that anger bear blocked 7 years ago^img Oldusgitus (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That right there is my occasional reminder that User:Conservative might not have it all together, mental-health-wise and thus it is time to tell people, including myself, to think about completely ignoring him and stop pointing at him and laughing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Obama Riots! Adorable, Rob. Just keep saying that, and people will think that these are fundamentally riots about Obama, and not about local police forces and their use of violence. Not a pathetic strategy at all, no. Phiwum (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We're writing history here, and his legacy. The MSM surely has discredited itself in doing this. Everyone instinctively knows what the term means. Now, as they said of Lincoln, he belongs to the ages. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"We're writing history here"

Bullshit. You, Rob, are spinning a cluster of unfortunate social circumstances, and the suffering of real people, into an attempted smear of the commander in chief who has been twice elected (without the taint of hanging chads or SCOTUS intervention,) a president who has since been dealing with the steaming fetid leftovers of the Bush/Cheney clusterfuck, as well as trying to work around an obdurate intransigent feckless legislature. It's like you were a middle schooler trying to get his clever saying adopted and repeated by his peers. "Obama riots" my ass.

There was a time when I thought you were rehabilitating yourself into a reasonable interlocutor and middle-east historian, getting away from the specious irrelevant bullshit assertions that were your trademark for so long, but you've shown yourself to be still the same old totalbs, with scant regard for the price of fish. Joe Goebbels would be proud of you. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mazal tov, Godwin's Law, thread is now deader than dead.--Arisboch (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is why I shy away from domestics affairs and focus on national security. Remember, I cut my teeth in politics in Nixon era. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirty tricks only get you so far. Their short-term gain is too often offset by a failure to win hearts and minds. Then there is always a risk of getting caught, with the infamy that entails. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Waitaminute now, is Nobs confessing to being a member of a vandal site currently editing on Conservapedia using a sock account after being banned there, or is he being a typical deceitful RatWiki agitator trying to cast doubt on the legitimate contributions of OscarO? Either way, I thought that they frowned on that sort of stuff over there. Vast swathes of the Internet have been banned for less.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Who's or what's "OscarO"? --Arisboch (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And there's^img the threat. Welcome back Rob, just so long as you do whatever kenny wants of you and until he decides to get rid of you again. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The pagecap bot is broken. Again.--Arisboch (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you just have to let the poor little thing have enough time to do it's magic. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ack.--Arisboch (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of this but, Rob, you're still full of shit. RW is a broad community so stop trying to justify yourself. You are what you are and you're welcome. Save your pathetic mewling for CP London Grump (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy has an insight.

Come on August get in there and tear his latest one to pieces^img Oldusgitus (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Five years ago.^img Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy is the only "authority" on the planet who maintains that Jesus wrote "Hebrews." I really think the sole point is to troll AugustO. Whoover (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember that insight, I thought this was a new one. Has it really taken him 5 years to actually get around to updating the page on the epistle? Oldusgitus (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A New New Andy Insight!

Math and the Bible^img - because set theory, the word "infinite" is mentioned three times, and some mathematicians read the Bible.

Let's hope he runs with this, it could be hysterical. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Of course, he may want to be somewhat careful about who he picks as examples of religious mathematicians, I mean sure, Gödel read the bible, but I'm not sure Kurt "I like Islam" Gödel is Andy's idea of a good role model. Worm (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the connection between mathematical infinity and the use of the word infinite in the Bible? Category error, do not pass go. 31.51.113.23 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh my ****ing God. I was about to snark about muslims inventing algebra, but googling algebra invented gets a main entry for the Gates of Vienna blog. Google, you need help. Bicycle^wheel 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of the unusual use of the word "invented". At least it seems odd to me to speak of the "invention" of algebra. Phiwum (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends on your philosophy of mathematics whether it was "invented" or "discovered". Anyway, I chuckled at AugustO criticizing Andy for using a source who describes himself as a flunk out who worked as a janitor and currently works as a "second rate programmer"^img. What do you expect from that man that cited a dinner conversation and used a post on a forum to disprove relativity?^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Science

JoeyJ has been busy polishing a bunch of science "articles." This one survived as the better of a redundant pair: Radical, man^img. I can't figure out if the author was a parodist or just didn't "get" chemistry. Whoover (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The author's user page^img says he "doesn't have the expertise" to write lengthy articles about chemistry. This is true. Or he's just kidding. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

CP goes 503 all the time

Why in the devil does the CP go "HTTP 503" all the time? What the hell kind of shit server has Andy there? Or does he use the CP server to also download pr0n?!--Arisboch (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that despite the constant record high number of viewers(!!!!) Andy has never upgraded the servers. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine Schlafly running servers on his own -- cheap web hosting? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

He keeps the db server on a desktop in his house so Obama can't get his hands on it. Fonzie (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And running it off Terry's generator. Bicycle^wheel 17:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I bet Wikipedia isn't that prepared! Once ObamaHillarygeddon hits, CP will be the only source of information available. Vulpius (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TAR

It has been more than two months since TAR's last edits. You recall that he had a low level of editing for months and then bumped up the spam farm campaign toward the end of 2014 to help launch James Wesley Rawles' new book. He then dropped out for a few weeks without explanation prompting folks to start cleaning up the mess that he had left behind. Cons even edited the Manual of Style to accommodate his spaming. Then, on March 24, TAR disappeared again. All of TAR's promises to add quality content have been forgotten.

What happened? If TAR has left permanently, there has been little effort to clean up his James Wesley Rawles spam. Any insights? Similar Observation a Month Ago Hclodge (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I did think of starting to clean up some of his shite but then decided it was more fun to leave it there. I reckon he may possibly be a little manic, rather like ken can get at times, and I wonder if possibly he is currently in some form of treatment regime which is keeping him off cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had considered that as well, particularly with the two abrupt departures. I also found his actions struck at the core of the CP belief system: Andy's theory is "We conservatives (and home schooled high school students) can build an online encyclopedia just as good as what the liberals are building over at WP." The original group that Andy recruited, particularly Ed Poor, developed a manual of style and a set of articles that worked toward that goal. Some of it was then laced with Andy's unique insights into relativity, evolution, RINOs and the Bible, but the aspirational goal was very similar to that of WP.

When TAR came on the scene, he started mumbling into Cons' ear about SEO and the number of links, so TAR-as-SEO expert convinced Cons that turning CP into a spam farm to promote James Wesley Rawles would be beneficial to driving readers to CP. Yet, James Wesley Rawles has not reciprocated or promoted CP and CP's rankings continue to drop. In addition, TAR drove away the few editors that still had aspirations to communicate content on CP. Now hundreds of CP articles are complete incoherent spammy drivel. I used to find CP's coverage and criticism of WP to be interesting and someone current. TAR and Cons shut that down. Hclodge (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We are coming up on three months since TAR's last "contribution" to CP. Cons reports "I got in contact with TAR and he is going to start editing Conservapedia again probably sometime in September of 2015.Conservative 22:18, 1 June 2015 (EDT)". I find it amazing that a spammer can come in, produce minimal substantive content, trash a large number of articles with non-relevant See Also spam, leave 2,500 red links and then have his mess protected from correction with just the oral off-wiki promise of a possible return seven months into the future. Hclodge (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

More Quality Science

It's always hard deciding whether Terry's crap site, CNAV, is CP or clog. I usually put it here so I don't have to create a link there, with all the malware warnings that entails. But under the heading of "Refutation of three common icons of evolution"^img we have Senior Science Correspondent, Roseann Salanitri, debunking Tiktaalik, "the walking whale," with

The counterpoint to this is rather simple. Do they really expect us to believe that the giant creatures we know as whales were able to walk on land on nothing more than underdeveloped fingers, wrists, elbows and shoulders?

A primitive tetrapod relative can't be that because whales can't walk. These creationists are so cute when the try to get all sciency. Whoover (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

On the peppered moth example, Insanitary is out of date (& I don't just mean because she relies on a 2.6kYr-old poem for what passes as her biological education). Creationists have relentlessly attacked the idea that predation by birds drove selection of melanic morphs during the industrial revolution and counter-selection in the last 30-50 years, perhaps because it's such a clear example of natural selection in action. This even got to the point where proper biology textbooks said the hypothesis of selection by predation isn't proven. The late, great Mike Majerus gathered definitive evidence for the role of predation in selection, published posthumously by Cook et al. (2012) 'Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus', Biology Letters. The paper isn't difficult to follow so there's no excuse for someone who wants to comment seriously on natural selection in peppered moths not reading it. Answering Insanitary's specific objection, 35% of moths rest on tree-trunks. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but we've seen that before. I think conflating Tiktaalik and Ambulocetus is her own lovely contribution. Devonian, Eocene, what's the difference? They're all synonyms for antediluvian. Whoover (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget Roseann's belief that the Linnean classification system, which puts bears in the Animalia along with snakes and sea stars, is in fact a claim that snakes and sea stars evolved from bears. Carl Linnaeus, you so crazy! She is really just weapons-grade ignorant.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't underestimate Rosanne's wilful ignorance. When the Cook paper says that 35% of moths rest on tree-trunks, I expect she'll ignore it because it doesn't fit her preconception that all evolutionary biologists are liars and make up their evidence. If she's reading this, she's welcome to prove me wrong by retracting her claim that the peppered moth story was fabricated. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You missed Ken's response?^img Why doesn't he just post here?Whoover (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Roseann is one of terry's New Jersey tea party cabal. She is no doubt going to be the one providing the sandwiches for terry and his cohorts as terry cranks up THE GENERATOR as the US collapses into atheist marxism, all because poor people may be getting slightly better medical treatment. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Whooever, I guess he doesn't post here because we'd simply tell him to Read The F****** Paper. There's really no point selectively quoting older opinions that peppered moths don't nest on tree trunks when newer data shows they do. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he is coward, a big girly coward with no machismo. He cannot dictate the tone of the conversation here let alone ban and oversite anyone who disagrees with him.--Mercian (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is one of Hurlbut's actual explanations for Tiktaalik:

"It is actually an antediluvian laboratory chimera and hence an out-of-place artifact of a society already known to have been inordinately cruel."

I think even most creationist avoid argumentum ad ancient-cruel-scientists-made-it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm speechless. That's South Park meets Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess. I gotta go wash my brain. Whoover (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New one: menstruating wimmins exude toxin(s) in sweat, saliva, urine, milk, tears, and exhaled breath (!) that subtly poison other living things. No one has proven otherwise! Therefore the Bible was written by YHWH.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so you can all share the complete idiocy of an apparently medically qualified person, what Martin is referring to is chuckies comments on this pile of gibbering shite^img. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Best of all, he presented the menotoxin theory from the 1920's as "New discoveries in science."^img Terry must have found it in Phlogiston Today. Whoover (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The fuck is Menotoxin?--Arisboch (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god, and the CP does really take that shit for real?--Arisboch (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't necessarily conflate CP and terry. Andy lets terry link whore to his hate blog cnav because andy's not going to admit he made a mistake by making terry an admin. So unless ken decides to pick a fight with terry his shite stays there. terry thinks it is true, I suspect if you asked ken would SAY that he thinks it it true. Andy will do, say and believe whatever his mummy tells him he does. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget. Orthodox jews also believe this afaik. That is why an orthodox jews is forbidden from touching a menstruating woman. Their fairy tale books tells them so. So basically no red wings for any orthodox jew or xians of the kind of terry I guess. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Most Orthodox Jews don't believe, or care, that there's a scientific basis for menstruating women being impure. They believe they are because the Torah says so. End of discussion. Any observant Jew will tell you that they don't eat pork because the Torah says so, not because of trichinosis. Jews generally do a much better job of justifying rituals as acts of faith, and not requiring science to be warped to confirm them, at least compared to the current culture of Christian fundamentalism. Whoover (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Arguably the whole point of Orthodox Judaism is doing stuff that makes no sense at all because God said so. Doing things that make sense any fool can manage, but going out of your way, wasting time and effort to obey rules that make no sense, that is the sign of a true believer. In fact, Orthodox Judaism argues against rules lawyering of a type where you technically obey the rules but it doesn't cause any inconvenience. The idea is that being a Jew is special, and so blending in is a denial of who you are. Refusing to "Just get along" with how other people do things is about the closest Orthodox Jews get to proselytising. Chances are if you were to magically found a rational society with a bunch of slightly arbitrary but inoffensive seeming rules that didn't go out of their way to take specific religions into account, more or less the first religious people to say "Oh, sorry to trouble you, but I'm afraid we can't obey these rules, can you change them?" would be Orthodox Jews Tialaramex (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much off-topic, but thought I'd put in a link to 'The Year of Living Biblically', which is quite an interesting read about a guy who spent a year trying to follow the rules in the bible literally (apart from the ones involving death) Amazon link Worm (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Andy Ever Think?

His latest headline is Liberal claptrap fails to silence reporters outside of the Beltway: "A handful of the regional interviewers invited to the White House didn't make it easy on the president," left-leaning Politico.com admits.^img Reading the story we learn the press is giving Obama a hard time about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Not a surprising perspective from "left-leaning Politico" since it's liberals who dislike the deal and it's primarily Republicans who are trying to help Obama get it passed. Is Andy's position that the TPP is bad, aligning him with the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party? Or is it that it's good but Obama's for it so we have to root for it to fail? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when my enemy is my friend? Does Andy have a rational position on anything? Ever? Whoover (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy? Think? Are you mad? Ajkgordon (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy and thinking? What the hell are you smoking??--Arisboch (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A "left leaning" news outlet is criticising a "left leaning" president, which in Andy's mind must mean Obama fucked up massively because no one ever criticises someone on "their side", regardless of their actions. That's why Andy has to take extra pains to declare someone a RINO or Not A Real Christian before he lays into them, the idea of actually disagreeing with someone who is genuinely part of your group is absolutely alien to him. Which is really sad. Not sad in a "sad and pathetic" way (although it is), but sad as in :(. X Stickman (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The real story here is the multinational corporate conglomerates are using TPP to push their anthropomorphic climate change claptrap and the GOP establishment are stooges of the global warming agenda. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No nobs, the climate is changing. Something like 98% of climate scientists think it is down to human actions, I stand to be corrected on the actual percentage. Essentially the only people who oppose this view are either scientists in the pay of fossil fuel industries or raving - non scientific - idiots like Nigel (i made no mistakes) Lawson and the raving fucking moron Christopher Monckton. The reason that many multinationals are acknowledging the reality of climate change is bacause they pay lots and lots of highly educated scientists lots and lots of money to tell them the truth. TPP is shite for all sorts of reasons, largely because moronic libetarians have hijacked it to push their idiological bollocks. The shiteness of TPP has nothing to do with the reality of climate change and your, and the wingnut wing of American politics, denial of it. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob, if you want to understand the first thing about TPP etc, look at the basic dichotomy of the EU. On one hand, you want to remove the barriers to free trade between nations. On the other, you need to provide social and environmental protections to stop the market raping everything for a quick buck. The GOP, like the European right, likes the free trade part and is kicking against the checks and balances. Social and liberal democratic parties and governments, like the European liberal and left parties, are fighting to make the protection as robust as they can.

What makes me laugh is how you "conservatives" are jumping around in lockstep now about something that's been on the table for ages and ages. Shit, in a basic form, it's been around since the mid 90s, when only the rump of the left was fighting it.

It has fuck all to do with conspiracy theories and Agenda 21 and all that shit you and CokeEyes and the other useful idiots get a hard on about.

It has everything to do with money and politics. The man in the street is being shat on again. London Grump (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

LMAO! Yes, Rob, corporations care soooo much about climate change. That's why they want the TPP. It isn't because they stand to gain from the TPP intellectual property provisions, even if that means some people in Third World would have less access to affordable medicine because of patent laws. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We all have our ideological blinders - you go on thinking Nancy Pelosi cares about plain folk, and I'll go on thinking corporations really do care about the environment. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 23:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunno if Nancy Pelosi cares about plain folk. Maybe she does or maybe it's just political maneuvering. Probably a bit of both. I do know that the policies she supports are less damaging to plain folks than the ones Republicans advocate. Also, many green groups (e.g, WWF, Sierra Club) have come out against the TPP because it lacks many basic environmental provisions and many of the thing in there that are suppose to help the environment are unenforceable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why then is Obama cozying up to the greedy corporate conglomerates on this? It doesn't cost that much to build his Presidential Library. More importantly, where is the stinckin Clinton Floundation on this? Strangely silent. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 00:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering why the administration has been supporting this so enthusiastically. Haven't been able to find a convincing answer. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the conservative talk radio talking points are, Obama will use TPP Authority to enforce UN global warming goals. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 03:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The conservative talk radio talking points for the past 7 years have been about how Obama was coming for their guns, setting up FEMA extermination camps, creating 'Death panels' and other utter bollocks. the fact a bunch of rigbht wing liars say Obama is going to try to enforce a UN climate change agenda by using TPP just tells me that it will never happen because the plans don't exist outside of what passes for wingnut minds. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Since, as I mentioned, the TPP lacks both basic environmental provisions and enforcement mechanisms it's a stupid talking point. But I expect such a thing from right wing talk radio. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Several issues are at play (leaving aside this interesting Feb 2014 Atlantic article). Sovereignty being the over arching one. A regulatory bureaucracy would have to be created to enforce it ("we have to pass it to see what's in it"); independence of the Federal Reserve Board seems to be a legitimate concern (as Chinese currency manipulation seems to have provided the immediate impetus); and there are those who are concerned about Immigration issues (which Paul Ryan says is bogus), nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside imaginative nonsense like the threat to independence of the Fed, how is that substantively different from the globalisation initiatives you all cheered for together in the past? London Grump (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I believe the 'ol time free trade movement, as articulated by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, that free trade will lead to democracy, is full of assumptions that are in error. The origins of TPP follow this same mindset, that lifting trade barriers with China is a step in the direction of using outside influences to nudge them toward democracy . Evidence elsewhere, with Russia and Mexico, two prime examples, shows things haven't worked out as advertised.

Now, does this mean we abandon the idea of knocking down barriers, give in to protectionist sentiments, and forget democratic ideals? I hope not, but a dose of realism is necessary when looking at our trading partners, especially since deals the likes of Iran and Cuba are in the offing.

Currency manipulation and a Central Bank's role - be it the Fed, the Japanese or Chinese Central Banks - is indeed a key issue. U.S. Auto makers have complained for years the Japanese Central Bank has openly assisted Japanese auto exports, something they can't ask for or expect from the Federal Reserve. Free Trade agreements are intended to "level the playing field", make everyone play by the same rules. Theory and practice however can remain far apart. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

^ I may not agree 100% with all above, but it was surprisingly on topic and sensible. Keep it up, Rob. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is "Keyes" supposed to be "Keys" or "Keynes"? Whoover (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Keyes. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 05:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh no....

Looks like we're in for another bad couple of months here on the good ship atheism^img. Or perhaps, more likely, ken is pissing in the wind again and all references to this latest opus will be burnt in short order. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ken hasn't pulled a TK and had the decency to die or something yet? Christ. --Hoji^{ni hao} 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I find Ken as irritating as the next person, but that's really fucked up. Leave wishing death on your ideological opponents for the Conservatives, they do it enough for all of us. Ayzmo^Cheers 01:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Better to wish Ken a long life because it's the only one he'll have. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

God won't let him die until he's made all those leaflets and books. Which is probably why he's stalling. Fonzie (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Atheist = rapist it seems. At least in his Duck Dynasty style fantasy. Still I suppose the teenage target audience of CP need an alternative to abstinence only and factual based sex education and Ken provides it.--Mercian (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Conservative's latest binge.

Jesus, that's one problematic-looking editing pattern; not a lot of time for sleep or sociability. Dude -- take a break. Go for a walk or go catch a movie or something. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sociability? Whoover (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cue "The Twilight Zone" music.^img Whoover (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely there has to be some law or clause to prevent Conservapedia being used as a genuine educational resource. Even the most conservative education board would not sanction Ken DeMyer as lecturer in chief. Any parent who believes topics such as bestiality, rape, peodophilla and now cannibalism to be core subjects need to be investigated for child abuse IMO.--Mercian (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy Trolls AugustO Some More

Andy's latest treatise is Logical Flaws in E=mc²^img, which contains as much logic as a Sarah Palin essay. Predictably, AugustO comes unglued^img. Does anybody know how to say "don't feed the trolls" in German? Whoover (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I do believe you're giving him too much credit there. That sort of gibberish would earn a fifth grader a failing score, and this man is apparently supposed to be a lawyer. --Elvis is King loves Taylor Swift (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not exactly gibberish, it's basically just re-iterating Andy's standard position on relativity but now in the form of a bunch of bullet points. The choice of mass is important for E=mc² because particles have both a rest mass (their mass in a special frame centred on them) and a total mass in your reference frame due to their momentum. But if like Andy you refuse to believe in relativity then this looks like a cheesy get-out, just as a lot of mathematics in mechanics looks like a conjuring trick if you decide you don't believe in imaginary numbers or the infinitesimals. Andy also believes that fundamental constants (here light speed) change over time because it's convenient for his theology, and so that gets thrown in too. Tialaramex (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's still gibberish. Most raving lunatics make some sort of sense to themselves. Whoover (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy: DonnyC. What logical flaw? Cat got your tongue?^img. (DonnyC had been banned by nasty parodist VargasMilan 2 1/2 hours earlier.^img) Whoover (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Andy's 'pound of cake' misunderstanding yet again. He thinks the formula applies to digestion. He must've had some really awful teachers if he can't get past that bit of stupidity. Sphincter (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he understands well enough. I think he is patronizing his audience and believes they are gullible enough to accept it.--Mercian (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The 'pound of cake' - I remember getting banned (and having my edit reverted) when I suggested he try feeding cake to his car to see how well it ran Ruddager (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether Andy is patronizing, trolling or merely being a moron is a moderately interesting question. If I knew nothing about the man except that he was a lawyer with training as an engineer, and I read his "article" and his responses in its defense, I think trolling would be have to be the diagnosis. But who knows? What I can't fathom is why AugustO and SamHB continue to bang their heads against this wall and spend energy trying to convince Andy he's wrong. He either understands the science and is pretending to be an idiot, or he's an idiot. He's not going to suddenly come out with, "Oh! I see it now." He will continue to respond with nonsense to any and all reasonable points put to him. I want to grab both of these guys by the collar and shake some sense into them. Andy is Andy, but what is their problem? Whoover (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy reminds me of John Campbell, the SF editor, who used to publish some extremely provocative editorials. He was very reactionary but claimed his editorials were meant to make people think outside their comfort zones. It takes a great teacher to pull that off successfully and constructively...and Andy is no great teacher. London Grump (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy knows damn well he is talking shite. Thing is once he has an insight he will never EVER back down and admit fault. Witness his son of man drivel in the arguments with August. As for why August and Sam continue. My own guess is that they started out trying improve the crap over at cp but after witnessing andy's idiocy, ken's gibbering inanity and anger bears knee-jerk hatred of anything and everything they gave up on that and now I suspect they are both really just having some fun seeing how far they can push the loonies over there before they are finally banned. And the reason they are not banned is so the loonies over there can pretend to be open-minded by letting them post. I reckon it will be vargasmilan who finally pulls the triger by the way. Which of us is running him this month? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think both August and Sam have said they do it because someone has to think of the children. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If parents decide that the Christian Madrassah of Conservapedia homeschooling is the best education for their child, relativity is the least of their problems. Whoover (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy linked to the Nobel ceremony speech honoring Cockcroft and Walton back in 1951, saying "One experiment would not prove a formula like E=mc2, and the Cockroft and Watson experiment was not even recognized for being consistent with the formula." Reading the speech at that link leads us to the following paragraph:

"The analysis made by Cockcroft and Walton of the energy relations in a transmutation is of particular interest, because a verification was provided by this analysis for Einstein's law concerning the equivalence of mass and energy. Energy is liberated in the transmutation of lithium, because the total kinetic energy of the helium nuclei produced is greater than that of the original nuclei. According to Einstein's law, this gain in energy must be paid for by a corresponding loss in the mass of the atomic nuclei. This assertion was satisfactorily confirmed by Cockcroft and Walton, experimental errors being taken into consideration. Somewhat later, more exact investigations based on the same principles gave a complete verification of Einstein's law."

I don't know whether he's trolling, straight up a liar, or just dumb as fuck. Or some combo thereof. It's gone beyond flagrant into simply baffling. Do judges feel the same thing I do now? Is that why they laugh at him?.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As for a practical application of E=Mc2, an example that Andy would understand as he loves his weaponry, is the USS Enterprise. It was in commission for nearly 50 years, sailed millions of miles and had to refuel ONCE. Impossible with conventional fuel.--Mercian (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to put Andy's maunderings into the form of a coherent argument, perhaps one could say that it is just a coincidence that the mass difference is equal to the energy difference over c^2. Like it's a coincidence that the Moon is just big enough to produce total solar eclipses from time to time, without that implying any underlying relationship between the two. Or that Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater and Kennedy was shot in a Ford Lincoln. No doubt I give Andru too much credit for having a coherent worldview on the matter.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of CP's utterly deranged Moon article. The talk page is a hoot too. Cantabrigian (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

VargasMilan is trolling SamHB^img in perfect Markman style (parrot insane Andy position as if it makes sense, in order to get innoculated). I'm sure the aim is to get SamHB to lose his cool so VargasMilan can ban him. My bet is on SamHB. He's hasn't survived over there this long feeding trolls. Whoover (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling him Ken

So, this is a topic brought up at the coop about doxxing, and should probably be atleast mentioned on the page most of the CP community actually watches and could likely end up effecting how we handle CP space So, how did we acquire the real name of Conservative (amongst others) and his hometown? how much was he doxxed and should we really be perpetrating said dox if there's no explicit connection between Demyer and Conservative, even if it is the truth?--Miekal 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As an old timer I know that no-one at CP was doxxed and everyone there either explicitly stated there names publicly or implicitly left an internet trail easy enough to follow without ever needing to dox anyone. Ken for example used a variation of his real name and location on Wikipedia before Conservapedia as well as on other sites. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an unbroken trail on the internet from Ken Demyer through KdBuffalo to User:Conservative, which was public knowledge before the founding of this site. (A bit redundant with the previous, but a bit more evidentiary.) Whoover (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is stalking someone on their internet trail and releasing its contents not doxxing? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuck sake, he was known as Ken DeMyer before Rationalwiki as he used his own name in a number of places. No doxxing needed. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Doxing has to involve more than a google search or two. If the doxee posts some distinctive, signature opinions under his own name and then a screen name, and third parties are likely to see both, he's doxed himself. If those third parties then share this information, I don't see how it can be considered unethical. It's a far cry from hacking databases for confidential information. Whoover (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the opinion I hold these days. So why is there such a flap about the Gamergate stuff, when a google search or two brings up all the information anyone has ever posted? rpeh •T•C•E• 08:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Cause RW is pro-anti-GG and anti-CP?--Arisboch (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Methinks partly cause GG has used doxxing to harass while RW hasn't, but also partly because RW hates/hated CP sooo bad that we think that naming people & criticizing them as a person is fine. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not having obsessively followed GG but knowing some of the background I suspect that for some, myself included, the issue with GG is the not very disguised 'undercurrent' of mysogny. As for Ken, for those with longer memories I'm sure they will recall him doxing someone from here and then setting out to try to destroy that persons business. At that stage I had no idea who ken was, he was just user:conservative to me, and it wasn't until he tried to ruin someone professionally that I heard who he was and his background. He has brought all this on himself imo and fuck him with regard to doxing quite frankly. I feel sorry for him, he needs someone to help him and he needs friends and it is patently obvious he has doesn't really have any of either. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Those who have been involved or have followed the creationist presence on the internet for the last decade and more know the many characters involved. Ken has been one of the weirder ones with a particular style that is easy to spot from a considerable distance. It has never been a secret who his various pseudonyms are, including Conservative. He uses his identities interchangeably - sometimes through ineptitude, sometimes because he doesn't seem to care. He even responds to "Ken" while logged in as somebody else. While his style is invariably the same (by that I mean his writing and arguing style), his behaviour can swing quite wildly. This has lead to some extremes including his (incompetent) attack on the professional life of an early user on RW. Although a wiki or forum is never a place to diagnose the conditions he has had attributed to him, it seems his stale thought processes and arguing style are so firmly entrenched that he cannot change tack or use new ideas. He recycles old and discredited techniques and creationist positions, even those that fellow creationists have firmly disavowed. Year after year he claims the exact same things are going to happen to evolutionism or atheism. Because of all this, opponents simply treat his collective identities as one (which they are) and point out where he failed in his same arguments the last time. It's economical and effective rather than vindictive. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While he is well-known as Ken any details about his personal residence have been removed toot sweet. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

SC Murderer

While I'm pleased to see that CP is recognizing the racial aspect of the crime, I am somewhat amused/dismayed to see Andy characterize him as a "bigtime Facebook user". This coming after numerous sites have noticed how inactive his Facebook has been and how it looks quite sparse. Not to mention he's been named a video game player. No mention yet of his political affiliation or religious views. Ayzmo^Cheers 00:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy's gonna claim him to be one of the political affiliations he has on his shit list, but why is he mentioning Facebook? Adny doesn't like FB?--Arisboch (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy's offspring are facebook users and I'm sure CollegeRepublican plays the occasional video game. Does that make them potential mass murderers ? Ghost (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy hates Facebook. It's liberal for some reason. But the "bigtime" is a flat-out lie. I looked at the profile before they took it down. There was practically no activity. I've go 85-year old relatives who are way bigger users. And Andy never addresses the fact that 99% of young men play video games. You might as well argue that Coca-Cola drives young men to murder. How the hell does a lawyer keep repeating a "fact" so easily debunked, as by "99% of young men play video games"? How does a judge resist the temptation to choke him during his arguments? Whoover (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some obscure war against modern culture as opposed to the good old days? Religious fundamentalists love to do that kind of shit.--Arisboch (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to choke someone while you're laughing out loud at them, in court, in your robes. London Grump (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy Has Another Insight

I swear that Andy lives just to troll AugustO. His latest insight is that "logos" doesn't mean "word," it means "perfection." You might recall that the liberal Bill Gates is to blame for the situation.^img You know, "perfection" like in science^img. "Perfection" as a scientific concept is not even wrong. AugustO loses^img, of course. Whoover (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, does CP exist anymore to do much but troll a few diehards and be a canvas for a few weird obsessives? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

AugustO is not taking the "Perfection is the scientific term for Word and thus belongs in the Conservative Bible" insight at all well^img. "Mumbo-jumbo" is another term for "not even wrong," I'll agree. AugustO! Step away for your own good. Whoover (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eager to show AugustO the power of his new insight on the application of scientific senses when translating the Greek Bible, Andy uses a citation from 1 Kings about the remnant of male prostitutes^img and asks "What is the cardinality of the remnant?^img To tie it all together, he pees on Set Theory^img. No Greek, except that kind of Greek. Whoover (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy: Racist atheism

Looks like Andy was inspired to create a new article: Racist atheism^img. The article is so out there that Conservative has to correct it: "Andy, I don't think the historical evidence supports that Hitler was an atheist."^img. Yes, in a discussion about Hitler and atheism Conservative is the voice of reason. That's how far Andy has gone. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect statements from Roof's pastor about how he's being ministered to in jail won't make it into this article. Whoover (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, cause Roof ain't an atheist, duh. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 02:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Conservative view of Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court has now handed down its decision in King v. Burwell, which decided that taxpayers can get tax credits in states that have health care exchanges operated by the Federal Government. Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. The real question here was whether the-true-conservative-approach to health care reform is to take Congress seriously and wait for a majority of Congress and a President to change (or improve) the law or to find nitpicky hypertechnical arguments to use to challenge the law in Court. A majority of the Supreme Court and many people take the first view, Andy has spent most of his legal activity in the past six years taking the second approach. Although Andy's personal efforts could not get within the courthouse doors in a meaningful way, the King v. Burwell decision sends a clear blow to his entire approach. In plain English, the Supreme Court is saying to Andy and his friends, "You got to be kidding. Grow up." I eagerly await Andy's coverage of this case on CP. Hclodge (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Terry calls it extortion^img. The theory is that Obama is personally blackmailing Roberts -- threatening to take away his adopted children because he knows they were illegally adopted in Ireland. Really. The main evidence is that the kids don't look Hispanic enough to be from Latin America, as Roberts says. It's all over the internets so it must be true. Whoover (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually read John Roberts' opinion. The guy deserves a medal for the clarity of his writing about a very complex topic. I didn't get very far with Scalia's dissent, which is a rant about the precise wording of one phrase in the Affordable Care Act. The opinions are the other way round from what Terry Butthurt says they are. Roberts may not like the Act but he sees his job as making sure that the intentions of the law passed by Congress are compatible with the Constitution. Scalia is the person who's trying to rewrite legislation, by nit-picking about whether the word 'State' does or doesn't include functions which the Federal govt assumes when State govts refuse to enact federal legislation. I would try explaining this to Andy but I'd get further with explaining integral calculus to my dog. Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court & gay marriage

I'm waiting to see what Schlafly having a total meltdown looks like... As Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, Andy can't claim that the liberal atheist communist element of the SC is imposing its views on an unwilling country. (Or can he...???) Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course he will, you so misunderestimating (LOLz) Andy's insanity.--Arisboch (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's decision is posted. I suspect that Andy will leave it to others (Cons and Karajou) to play it out on the Main Page with an appropriate talk page debate. I bet that CP will never have an article entitled "Obergefell v. Hodges". Hclodge (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Obergefell v. Hodges. "The decision is the boldest move yet against the Bible by the Court yet, in implicitly declaring as false the numerous teachings and warnings in the Bible against homosexual conduct." --104.156.228.136 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bible also demands slavery for the children of Ham ("black"): "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Genesis 9:25) That's why emancipation was declared anti-Christian. The trial judge who sentenced the Lovings to a year in prison for racial defilement in 1959 declared, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." When the Supreme Court overruled him (in Loving v. Virginia, which was cited in today's ruling), it was decried as the most anti-Christian ruling since emancipation. Andy isn't much of a history buff, is he? Whoover (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The courts also allowed barbers to be open (Leviticus 19:27), fried chicken to be sold (Leviticus 3:17), and cheeseburgers to be sold (Exodus 23:19). Sounds like the lawmakers have a lot to do in order to make America more compliant with biblical morality. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Only 5 votes [16]. Of course if it had been 5 votes against it would have been a landslide. As for liberal atheists imposing gay marriage, they did so in Ireland[17] despite a large majority voting for it in a free and democratic referendum.--Mercian (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Everybody knows there's no such thing as free and democratic referendum in socialist Europe. Vulpius (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure if their side had won 5-4 Andy would be humble in victory. He would not exaggerate the significance of the win and declare "GIVE IT UP, LIBERALS!!!!". Nope, that would not be like him at all. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is a major breakthrough for Andy, who recently had confined his labors to blocking users, the Main Page, the Talk:Main Page and select content pages dealing with evolution and relativity. It is nice that someone is adding substance to this fine conservative educational tool. Perhaps we should consider the impact of CP on American society:

Pre-Conservapedia

• Women like Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly were respected thought leaders
• Republicans like Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush were elected President.
• Health care reform bill successfully defeated in Congress for 30 years
• America was proud, and Conservatives called for national unity
• Family values were well-accepted in America

Post-Conservapedia

• Sarah Palin dropped by Fox News
• Barack Obama elected and re-elected President
• Health care reform under the Affordable Care Act gains widespread acceptance
• In many, many articles, CP actively promotes migration to the "American Redoubt" and surrender of civic engagement by Conservatives in 90% of the nation.
• People blindly believe what they read on the internet, and many more people turn to Wikipedia rather than Conservapedia for their information. Andy lost the search engine wars.
• Stephen Colbert's reach and influence grows dramatically following his mocking of CP.
• Same sex marriage is recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right
• CP has become widely accepted as the exemplar for Conservative thought in many online liberal discussions.

So, is America a better place with CP than without CP? Would the time that Conservatives volunteer to CP under Andy's leadership be better spent working on a 2016 Presidential campaign? Think about it. Hclodge (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If significant numbers of influential conservatives were wasting their time editing CP instead of running deceitful think-tanks and lobbying congressmen in Washington then yes, CP would be making America a better place. Sadly, that's not the case. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Football World cup

So andy has just added a section to the FIFA World Cup article about the womens world cup having started in 1991. and I was wondering why he'd suddenly woken up to this. Then I realised that tomorrow USA play Germany in the semi's. I'm not sure which will be better, Germany winning sending Ken mad with hatred for athestic Germany and AugustO or the US winning and Andy trying to pretend he understand and likes football. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bet he's only in it for the eyecandy.--Arisboch (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it -- CP is cheering for Germany. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course this shithead would cheer for the CDU's blocking of gay marriage, but if he would look closely at their positions, they'd be pinko commies to him.--Arisboch (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If the godless, gay-luvvin' USA meets godless, gay-luvvin' England in the final, which side will Andy want his god to support? My guess is England, just because Cameron isn't Obama (even though the UK Tory party is slightly to the left of the US Democrats). Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If the US beats Germany, what will Andy say? His world was predicated on the gay-marriage drained US losing to the God-fearing frauleins. He's going to have to go with something like lesbians aren't as icky as gay men, so God was merciful this time. Whoover (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What's amazing to me is that Andy believes in a god that fixes soccer games to show His infinite displeasure. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

He's doubling down on the paranoid fantasy that the liberal establishment will insist Germany be excluded from future games^img because Christians are persecuted. Wouldn't one other person have to utter a sentiment before Andy can claim all liberals are saying something? Whoover (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If he really needed a reason to want someone besides the US to win, he could cite a distaste for anything that could be construed as supportive of Hope Solo. Somehow, though, I don't think he's smart enough to find that escape valve. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And the USA beat Germany 2-0. This is proof that God disapproves of Conservapedia in general, and Andypants specifically. And that God approves of recent Supreme Court rulings. One of them, at least. --Maxus (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Knowing Andy, he'll declare the match to be a fluke; the USA team to be "overrated" and the single news site that covers it will be declared as proof of a Liberal agenda to inflate how important this is. Ken, meanwhile, will say football (the real one) lacks machismo so it just 'proves' that girly American teams are more girly than girly German teams, so therefore Germany was the real winner.-- Forerunner (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Inquisitor: God finds it much easier to fix football matches than multi-sided civil wars, homicidal religious maniacs, drought, famine, degradation of the climate and mass extinction of animals. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How pissed at same-sex marriage must God be, to inflict a humiliating own goal on the UK? Japan has no same-sex marriage, thus proving that God prefers pagans who hate teh gays to Christians who don't. Andy should be all over this, like white on rice. Whoover (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

An own goal is bad. Very bad. There's no way of knowing why God was ruthlessly punishing the UK. Marriage equality? Serving beans with breakfast? Who knows? This is a serious portent indeed. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There could be quite a lot of things which have got God wound up about the UK. Eating black pudding (Leviticus 3:17), using real wine for Holy Communion (Lev 10:9) and not leaving wide enough field margins (Lev 19:9) are all possibilities. Maybe he got peeved about prawn cocktail being a popular snack (Lev 11:10). My top candidate is that he's really cross about able-bodied young people not standing up for oldies on the Tube (Lev 19:32) - I'm with him on that one. And how entirely appropriate that he decided to punish the England Ladies football team for the inconsiderate behaviour of London commuters. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And a further congratulations to the US Women's football team in their curbstomping of Japan. Also noted that at least one player ran to her wife to celebrate the W. --Maxus (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange CNAV "Editorial," Even for CNAV

Terry's latest guest article^img makes even less sense than his typical offering. Article here. Darwin apparently plagiarized a Peruvian Jew, but I can't tell if that makes evolution better or worse. There are a bunch of other Jews mentioned but they might not be Jewish enough for the author. Apparently Netanyahu is now a squish, which makes Trump more important. Finally there's a crack about the "Amazon-like" Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all five feet and 100 pounds of her. Can anyone translate this nonsense into English? Whoover (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I was intrigued enough by this to read the article that Terry's partner-in-crime cites for the 'Peruvian Jew' story. It's on creation.com, surprise surprise. I searched within the article for <peru> and <jew> and found nothing. The whole thing is an interesting example of how lying, cheating creationists (and homoeopaths and climate-change deniers) grasp at a shred of truth but twist and distort it beyond all recognition. E.g. the idea that Darwin's uncle Erasmus Darwin was the real discoverer of evolution by natural selection is well-known to be untrue (see WP's page on E.D.) Patrick Matthew is acknowledged to have had the basic idea of the origin of species by natural selection but, as Darwin wrote, it was a "complete but not developed anticipation" - like Wallace's. Matthew's contribution was even more obscure than Wallace's, as it was in a short appendix to a textbook on naval architecture! Which Darwin admitted he had never read. The creation.com article doesn't mention James Hutton, the other person who could justifiably be said to have thought of evolution by natural selection, so I doubt the author actually put much effort into writing it. Perhaps the most bizarre thing is that whoever wrote the article seems to think that if the basic idea of evolution by natural selection was thought up 3 or 4 times independently - not unlike special relativity - that invalidates Darwin's work. Surely the exact opposite!! Well, I've summarised all you need to know about this article so you don't need to waste your time reading it yourself. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Terry's pal, Paul Eidelberg, writes about "research in South America" showing that Darwin nicked his ideas from a Jewish person in Peru. In fact, he's written essentially the same wacky article for several ultra-conservative on-line magazines/blogs. But I can't find anything else on the net about this "Jew from Peru" story. Does anyone here know what on earth Eidelberg is on about? I'm interested in the history of genetics and evolution and another forerunner of Darwin in addition to Hutton, Matthew and Wallace is of genuine interest. If he actually existed... Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jpatt

If most republicans are really dems^img then surely it is time to face facts and admit that you are outnumbered by the liberulzzzz and that your politics and hatred are outdated and you have lost? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Setback for Liberals!

Andy is celebrating the Greek vote for No^img as a setback for liberals. I guess Tsipras is a True Conservative because Europe. Or something. I love watching Andy's one-bit mind determine whether this is a zero or a one. Whoover (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Shit man, this is weird even for Andy. Doesn't he know, that Tsipras is left-wing??--Arisboch (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But it's sticking it to those dirty commy-athiests so it must be good. just like Putin is a good guy leading a morally ok russia.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The current Greek government is possibly the most socialist in the history of the EU/EEC where Germany has been praised by Andy recently. As this seems to be a (mostly) Germany vs Greece argument this at a glance seems confusing. I can't help feel this is an issue of Andy hating anything and everything about Obama. Obama is a firm supporter of the EU so it must be bad. If Obama turned the USA into a theocracy, installed capital punishment for abortion, apostasy and blasphemy and completely abolished taxation and welfare he would still hate him. It's personal.--Mercian (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

They were on the Harvard Law Review together, if I recall rightly. I wonder if Andy feels he's been tainted by his association. --Maxus (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Some first-class trolling by Andy Schlafly.

The mind boggles.^img Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen better trolling than this.--Arisboch (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not trolling. A guy who has a visceral hatred of women's sports actually sees the World Cup win as a failure of diversity. Andy is way too transparent to be a decent troll. Whoover (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CP Userbox of the Year

I am willing to consider alternative nominations, but to me, the clear winner is the box:

This user is happy to be part of the Conservapedia community

that appears on TAR's userpage. It is dripping with irony because, TAR is not an active contributing member of the CP "community". When he was active, he was constantly getting into disputes with long-time community members. He never tried to fit into the "community" and ignored their social patterns and even CP's Manual of Style. He did not collaborate or take suggestions well. On the whole, TAR was one very unhappy guy. Hclodge (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"This user is a sock of user conservative"^{— Unsigned, by: 73.42.162.48 / talk / contribs}

Troll of the Year?

This guy JohnLambert has been turning the "Liberal" article into a satirical piece^img, making changes to "clarify" that all, not just some^img, liberals support treason, child abuse, communism, facism, etc., etc. He has raised his creation to art by inserting, among all the hate, that liberals are rude to Republicans.^img Whoover (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"JohnLambert" is making endless trivial edits, spouting dogmatic hate-filled opinions, editing at all hours of the day and night... Does he remind you of anyone.........? Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess if my efforts to build an online editor community had managed to drive absolutely everyone away, I would possibly resort to editing under multiple sign-ons to create the appearance of a collaborative environment. Of course, I would not draw attention to this tactic by professing the opposite: that my established sign-on was operated by multiple people. Hclodge (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Statistics of the Year

There are 148,739,000 employed Americans, as of June 2015. The population is about 319,000,000. Therefore, the worst you can possibly make the unemployment rate is 53.5%. That counts every newborn, toddler, student, retiree, Alzheimer's patient and prisoner as unemployed.

That's not quite good enough for Terry's pal Dwight Kehoe. He's gotten it up to 57.97%. Did he have to use dead people to prove that Obama is the liar-in-chief? Not at all. He merely divided the unemployed, including young'uns and retirees, into the labor market, excluding those groups. Okay, it's a statistic. Totally meaningless, but it's a statistic. Whoover (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dwight Kehoe is just out-and-out a perfect exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Ignorant as shit, but thinks his analysis is brilliant and cuts through all the deceptive fog thrown up by liberals. Dwight also thinks that: water expands 20% when it freezes, melting of floating ice makes water levels fall, and that CO2 is 'almost 4 times' heavier than 02 and is not toxic or poisonous. He also doesn't know how to calculate percentages. Anytime he uses a number, just assume that he's using it wrong.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I kmust say hvaing trawled through most of his 'articles' previously I would suggest that any time he uses words it's pretty safe to assume he's wrong. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In the perfect conservative society, all levels and all people would be working for the glory of jesus. Toddlers can be models for toddler products. Alzheimer sufferers can... Idk, something. So clearly half the society is just not being utilized because of those whiny liberals and their "some people deserve to not be working" attitude. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That goes without saying. I can understand them claiming the real unemployment figure is 53.5%. Obama cooks the books by giving the comatose a pass to get to his fake 5.8%. I get that. Perfectly reasonable. But why cook the numbers to get to 58%? Counting the comatose as unemployed and removing them from the population (a kind of double-counting the comatose) makes a pretty easy case for some Liberal Denial. Maybe that's the point. Notice they're standing by the article. Whoover (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

JPatt comes out for Trump

....because immigration. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Obama and Liberal Media...

force Boy Scouts to cave to the homosexual agenda!" - Not on CP yet, but they're slack in actually doing things, check back later. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

God Hates the Poor

For most bible commentators, Proverbs 14:20 is a warning about an unattractive human trait: The poor is disliked even by his neighbor; But the rich has many friends. But in Andy's Conservative Bible, it's a rule to live by^img. Yay, God. Whoover (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Andrew does any labour? I thought all he did was waffle, and waffle ineffectively at that. How's that proverb about taking the plank out of your own eye go? Sphincter (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was generally accepted that he was on retainers for one or two wingnut welfare agencies. The ones that he presented his laughable court case against various things for recently. He also seems to apparently still home school. How it works as 'home schooling' when what parents actually do is send their children to an unqualified 'teacher' like andy is something I've always wondered about. And I suspect, but do not know for sure, that he is on a retainer from the eagle forum as legal council. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In which I read an article as Andy Schlafly would...

Give it up, evolutionists: Pluto has "a very young surface". Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Where you been?^img Whoover (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncanny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As always, you have to admire the cognitive dissonance required to write this article (by Terry H) which states "creation scientists consider Pluto and Charon only seven thousand years old [...] These new photographs should vindicate his Hydroplate Theory further." and then also go on to say "The science team guesses these mountains must have formed 100 million years ago.". So now a surface age of 100 million is somehow evidence in support of a Pluto only 7000 years old. Uh...yeah. Worm (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no cognitive disonance imo. Chuckie is an out and out liar and will distort and invent anything to try to make his idiotic points. Read the comments on this one and watch how he simply invents statements supposedly made by the person he is arguing with and when challenged to show where the comments had been made simply invents more bullshit. The guy is a dickhead of the highest order, one who thinks he posseses great rhetorical and intellectual skills but who in reality couldn't debate a dead pussy cat. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger_effect personified. Ruddager (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

CNAV: Taking Down the Confederate Flag is Racist!

To deny the Confederate Battle Flag is to deny the blacks of this county their rightful place in the history of this country.^img Say, what? He also claims that taking down the Confederate flag is the moral equivalent of razing the pyramids. You know, because the Egyptians had slaves. Whoover (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, the pyramids weren't built by slaves, and the Confederate flag is not a symbol of the centuries of labor performed by slaves in the Americas. Is it just me, or do the wingnuts keep getting dumber? I mean, it used to be fun to argue with them. Now it's just predictable.--Umichcynic (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In which Terry once again

Displays his stunning grasp of science. According to terry the only way carbon monoxide forms is partial burning of wood or coal. Seriously, how on earth did this fool ever manage to get a medical qualification? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Come on, NASA. You make all the scientific observations, and we'll make up explanations for the ones we can wedge into our narrative from armchairs in our dens. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Silly Terry. Coal is a by-product of the Flood. There was no coal to burn out in space...--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

God struck Pluto with a thunderbolt, which aggregated molecular carbon from the entire Kuiper belt into lumps of coal, split cometary water into hydrogen and oxygen, and thus provided the materials to make carbon monoxide. Bish bosh, job done. Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hydroplate theory ... seems like a bit of a Rube Goldberg approach from a god who can (presumably) conjure up rain just as easily. Ruddager (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's creation science in a nutshell. How did God do it? It doesn't take a miracle. It takes the release of a "subcrustal ocean" with enough force to blast enough of the planet out to trans-Neptunian orbit (as far as the Oort Cloud) to form all the minor planets, their moons, the comets and a bunch of asteroids. And splash a bunch of water on our moon and other planets, too. That's science. Whoover (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's always interesting the contortions people will do in order to fit evidence to a conclusion they already accepted as true. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am always surprised that these people insist on trying to use science to explain their beliefs instead of just saying its all miracles. I am sure its some kind of blasphemy to reduce god to the mundane AMassiveGay (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - why bother? Goddidit explains it sufficiently, but they're insistently disappearing up their own arses based on the term "fountains of the deep". Of course their explanation results in an event so violent it would sink the ark, so then they fall back on Goddidit to explain how that was protected, right? Sheesh. Ruddager (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and of course Goddidit when it came to rupturing the hydroplates anyway, but the rest is science bro ... erm ... bretheren! Ruddager (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I recall an old RE teacher of mine in Stockport who once tried to explain how a virgin birth could be a reality in humans. It basically consisted of him infering that joseph gave mary a damn good fingering after having met mr onan. The fact that this also breached his deities prohibitions against pre-marital fingering and onanism seemed to slip his notice. I was about 11 and it was at this time that I really began to fully understand that I was an atheist. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think they are doing it for other people as his fans seem to believe that anyways. Since saying that god used magical powers makes them sound like superstitious uneducated weirdo's that didn't realize the age of enlightment has been over for a few centuries. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A new Andy insight!!

The article formerly known as "Longest liberal hoaxes." Which is a handy collection of Andy's crazy toes. Piltdown Man (because that was totally a scheme dreamed up by the Global Evolutionist Army), global cooling (but strangely not global warming), population explosion (yeah, because adding 4 billion people in 30-odd years totally isn't an explosion.)

I look forward to more nuttiness being added to this list. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "global cooling" conservative correctness for Global Warming?--Arisboch (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, but it depends on the context. If you're trying to claim that global warming is a liberal hoax, you refer to the fringe scientific data from the '70s and '80s which suggested cooling (strangely you don't hear about all that data from the same period which said the opposite), and you use that as evidence of data tampering. However, when applied to the present day it's just as easy to claim cooling is a liberal hoax. The Daily Mail did a move when they reinterpreted some interesting scientific data on average global snow loss in mountain ranges to mean "the Himalayas didn't lose much snow, thus global warming isn't happening", using it later to back up claims that the world really must be getting colder and colder. Once left-leaning newspapers like The Guardian fell for it, the mail declared global cooling to be a hoax perpetuated by lefties; since Mail readers quickly forget articles that aren't intended to piss them off, they avoided flak.- Forerunner (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Fail trolled The Guardian. Oh my, my Schadenfreude ist gerade über 9000 gestiegen und mein Scouter ist explodiert.--Arisboch (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... According to the table the so-called Hugo Chavez hoax has so far lasted 84 days. I can’t see any scripts running on the page so does Andy plan on manually updating it every day? Of course, he could have just put “since <date>”, but thinking ahead is for progressives. On the other hand, I don’t know why I even thought of this when the rest of the article is just another display of Andy brain dribble. JumboWhales (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It lasted 84 days from when Chavez went into the hospital until his death. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Still, I wonder if Andy's planning on popping into the page from time to time to update the other durations, such as for evolution. I’m not wondering too much and may just have my suspicions, if I’m honest. JumboWhales (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out why Andy didn't add "Castro has been dead since 2006," one of his favorites. Another, ahem, editor couldn't take it either and added it for him. But its omission in the original list was as perplexing as global warming's. Whoover (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

CP-related cover articles could do with a polish-up

per RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Coverstory_cull - I think both should stay gold brained, but to be fair there's a lot of ancient feature articles that are looking not so good by our heightened standards of the modern day. If the deeply-familiar could look over the CP ones, that'd be an excellent thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it even worth keeping CP as a cover story? The site really has zero reference outside RW any more, it's not even being quoted as a "look at what batshit conservatives are doing now!" example. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 10:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Even on RW it makes up a very small percentage of recent content. I have not done the maths but saying that 1 in 100 posts relates to CP is being very generous. It is so predictable, if a mass shooting happens we all know what their response will be before it is posted, same for gay marriage etc. Ken's new articles are simply a cut/paste of his older content, and even he is less rabid than in the past. Andy pops up with the occasional insight we have all heard before and Karajou does nothing except ban people with snarky comments. Today it is little (nothing?) more than and extension of CNAV and Tea Party Crusaders. It's irrelevant and boring.--Mercian (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

CNaV? You mean those jokers?--Arisboch (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

On What Planet?

Andy's "liberals hate Christians" leitmotif has a new expression in Underrated Sport Stars^img. One of the first three is baseball Hall-of-Famer Stan Musial. Andy's own justification for calling him underrated is "Seven batting titles, three championships, and overall statistics better than nearly everyone; ESPN called him one of the five best players of all-time, and Bill James ranked him as #7 all-time." How the hell is Stan Musial underrated? And Serena Williams? His paranoid delusions seem to be getting stronger. Whoover (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He answers this in his own dribbling. Where he says "(notice how none are on the list of Greatest Conservative Sports Stars):" So because he and the other loons at cp haven't included them on their arbitrary list of the greatest conservative sports stars they are underrated. QED. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I will give him Stan Musial, though he is consistently ranked as one of the best players ever by baseball historians, the casual fan does not appreciate how good he is, mostly because he played in St. Louis rather than New York or Boston. Tim Duncan and Serena Williams is pure lunacy though. Tim Duncan is almost universally ranked as the greatest power forward of all time, and Serena Williams is ranked in the top two or three female tennis players of all time. I wonder sometimes if this guy even follows sports or if his sports knowledge is derived from simply Googling "Christian sports stars". Snrub (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that the casual fan knows anything about a player who retired over 50 years ago, he knows Stan the Man. ESPN's Hall of 100 has him just ahead of Mickey Mantle. Calling Musial "underrated," and pinning it on anti-Christian bigotry, is evidence of a disconnect from reality. Whoover (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you thought the CBP was bad...

It turns out that Andy isn't so sure^img about God being omniscient or omnibenevolent. No word on omnipotent at this point. To his credit, he does seem to recognize that an eternal Hell means that JHWH doesn't seem to have everyone's best interests at heart. That does rather simplify the Problem of Evil.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad? The Conservative Bible Project is the greatest Not the Onion on the entire internet. And I have given you dental hygiene in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places: but you didn't return to me, said the LORD.^img ("The Bible forewarns that "free" healthcare will come with famines.") It just can't get any better. Whoover (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy: "Several accounts in the Old Testament suggests that God did an investigation in order to learn the facts. All-knowing would be uninteresting, and my guess is that God has chosen not to be all-knowing. But he has the power to find out when He wants to." LMAO! First, I like the image of God doing an investigation. A tired God with a five o'clock shadow staring at papers scattered across his desk. Second, I heard something on NPR the other day about a new Broadway comedy, An Act of God. This comedy has God (played by Jim Parsons) saying pretty much what Andy said. Has he officially become indistinguishable from parody?--Night Jaguar (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Andy's God isn't all powerful, isn't everywhere at once, doesn't know everything and doesn't love everybody. At least it's compatible with the God he's described all these years, who usually only interferes in human affairs to fix the outcome of sporting events and who freezes old people in Britain to death just for a laugh. Spud (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the God of Andy's theology does have all those attributes. He just "chooses" not to use them, even if it would benefit the world. Coincidentally, this is similar to Andy's definition of a liberal (one who can do great things, but always chooses to do the opposite).-- Forerunner (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the previous problems with the healthcare.gov website were not a divine intervention after all. Hclodge (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Omniscience has its drawbacks. (It's Oglaf, and more NSFW than most.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy and misogyny, part 2.55 e23

So StacyT pops by, and being her feminist self adds some actually informative content on underrated female sports stars.^img Personally, I had only heard about Clara Hughes. Andy, sensing a crisis of...??... removes athletes promoted by the media,^img while wisely retaining Serena Fucking Williams, the scrappy unknown tennis player dominating her sport for the last 10 years in obscurity. StacyT's error, of course, was adding material relevant to Underrated Sports Stars, and not having a psychic link to Andy's unwritten and arbitrary rules on content. Shakedangle (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And no newspaper ever had a good thing to say about Stan Musial either. Whoover (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I love how when a page starts creeping into respectability Andy heroically flies in to remind us that it's all partisanship, all the time. Almost as much as I love how StacyT, through her interaction with Conservapedia, has turned into an independent thinking woman challenging authority, if not an outright feminist. Shakedangle (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy proves what a truly nasty little man he is there after StacyT puts them back with a reasonable explanation and he simply reverts without explanation. She should obviously not be expressing opinions, the cheeky minx! Sphincter (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

God, he's such a prick. I hear stories of how he's super personable or that he inspires loyalty, but that just makes it worse for me. Shakedangle (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy's killed the site again

It seem's he's done some update, the conservapedia logo is no longer there, and some pages simply won't work. Nice one Andy.

Some quality upgrading^img work there by andy Oldusgitus (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, at this point, Andy has to know that CP only exists for our amusement. What's his incentive to keep going?--Umichcynic (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fixed now. And andy keeps cp going because he has nothing else and to stop now would be to admit defeat and he will never do that imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope he never gives up. For me it's like the ant farm I had as a kid. It's fascinating watching them scurry around moving the little hate-filled eggs from one tunnel to another. Even though the behaviors are 100% predictable, it's very comforting to watch because you know they can't get out. Whoover (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The up-date was overdue: the last one happened in 2010! This one went quite smoothly, remember that previous up-dates had side-effects:

• guard-dog was killed, as it was not able to parse a new version of Special:RecentChanges
• Ed Poor wasn't able to cope with a new level of security for automated editing, so EdBot died.
• And then there are their problems with encoding (think of Joaquín Martínez and his pesky accents)

Though, the main reason that nothing broke this time is that there is nothing breakable left - EdBot was the most sophisticated toy at CP (*shudder*) --larron (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't take the opportunity to install Ken's long-requested embed video extension. Snork. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

They 'still' haven't fixed the problem with special characters in page titles and image names. So if something has an "&" in it, you just can't get it to load. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Shurely you're not suggesting a campaign to fill the site with articles containing special characters? That would be a dreadful thing to do. Sphincter (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

More Relativity from Andy

Andy is attacking E=mc² with renewed vigor. Maybe Trump is inspiring him.

First he yanked some wikiversity lecture links that interfered with his narrative as "Wikipedia logic"^img and yanked Einstein's name because "people don't own formulas."^img

Then, we have a new article, "Attempts to prove E=mc²" with arguments of such strength as "A common defect to these "proofs" is an unjustified assumption that the energy and momentum of a physical system have a dependence on velocity akin to a moving participle."^img Goodluck with your asparagus. Whoover (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

He's added "Nuclear-fission reactions, such as the transformation of hydrogen to helium, do not demonstrate any connection between the rest energy of a mass and the speed of light, as E=mc² asserts."^img Start the countdown to AugustO sputtering the math of H2 atomic weight minus He atomic weight equaling released energy over c², followed by Andy going "la la la." Whoover (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say, what do you expect from someone who doesn't understand the difference between fusion and fission, but it's dumb on a much more deeper level than that. Asparagus, indeed. Shakedangle (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this "asparagus"-thing here. Could you fill me in on that (English is my 3rd language, after all), please?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Most recently, it refers to a US Attorney General (Eric Holder) mocking what he may have thought was a verbal mis-step by Louie Gohmert on the floor of some legislative chamber or other. Turns out Mr. Gohmert may have been referring to earlier plays on the word "aspersions" by some comedian or other. SmartFeller (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The dumbest man in Congress says nonsense and later gets trolled for it. It was a brain fart, not an attempt at comedy. Kind of like "moving participle." Whoover (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see August has just arrived and is slapping andy all over his idiotic 'article' about 'Einstein's formula'. Now to wqait for andy to wake up and start his reverting. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy and Free Speech

Andy rips Megyn Kelly on^img free^img speech^img grounds^img for pointing out that Trump calls women names. I wonder how Trump became the Next Great True Conservative. But more interesting is Andy's notion that free speech is not about one having the right to say whatever crap one wants to (I don't recall any media outlet being bashful about quoting him) but apparently is about the right to have everyone agree with what you said. Kelly just asked if asking a game show contestant for a blowjob might strike some female voters as unpresidential. Does Andy really see that question as being a violation of Trumps constitutional rights? I guess he does. Whoover (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Political extremists seem to think that free speech = freedom from criticism and/or freedom to a platform. Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

More to do with Andrew's attitude to wimmin than a free speech issue. There must have been some odd things going on in his childhood. Sphincter (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know his mother is The Wicked Witch of the Midwest. Damn right there were some odd things going on during his childhood. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This Sunday's sermon from Andy: Democracy is Anti-Christian. We hear that democracy is inherently anti-Islam from extremists all the time, but I think this is new. Whoover (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Declaring themselves the guardians of democracy while at the same time damning it. Absolutely Orwellian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, they do love to bang on the "America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy" pan a lot.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, how I love^{Ah, vraiment?!?} this manufactroversy!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is surprising here? Andy holds misogynist views as indicated in his article. He defends the free speech rights of a fellow misogynist and venomously criticises a woman in the process. Nothing that odd here. Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said this is surprising, but there isn't much "original" comedy at CP these days. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, PRETTY PLEASE, let them do this.

Andy now wants CP to host a GOP debate^img. That would be so much fun. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, he's too crazy even for the present clown car (and, what's more important, not important enough).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's nice that Andy and the CP crowd still have big dreams. The fact that there's no way those dreams will ever come true just makes it all sweeter. Spud (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The best part of that is Jpratt totally not understanding how a debate works: "Yeah, we'll give the people we like 6 minutes, and those we don't like, only 3." Jpratt - making Faux News look fair and balanced since 2007. But yeah, even in CP's heyday of 2007/08, not even the craziest of these candidates would go near them, and now... well, keep dreaming, boys. -PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Complete fantasy. Hey, Andy, how does it feel to be too extreme and ridiculous for a party whose current leader in the polls is Donald Trump? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Teapartycrusaders? Anyone? ...Anyone?

So since CP has gone into the next phase of the long slow slide into oblivion by way of getting really boring, I've found myself some entertainment by going to the right-page links and measuring the degree to which the facts disagree with the headline. This sometimes points me to CNAV - which I actively avoid, due to me not wanting to provide ad-cash to the likes of Conservative - but lately something like half of the links are to tea party crusaders. Unlike CP, comments can actually be posted in their drivel 'articles'! Also unlike CP, they usually respond to actual thoughts and valid criticism with just killing the entire comment thread rather than selective deletion. Which is how I know I've won, I guess? Anyway, I found that there is no actual way to contact TPC or the myriad shadow entities who run the site. No e-mail, no names listed, no organizations other than TPC are mentioned. There is a link to their Facebook group, sucking hole of bile that it is, which has no more leads. Since I have the old, I'm no good at digging things up on the Interconnected Network, and maybe some of you just have keener eyes than me. So what is TPC? A clickbait front for one of CP's minions? A total stranger that they just glommed onto for right-page filler? A Koch-fueled cog in the vast Right Wing Machine? Or is it just Chinatown? --Semipenultimate (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party Crusaders makes me think Loyal White Knights of the Tea Party makes me think... well, you know. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone feels the need to visit the site make sure you have anti virus turned on as it does/did contained malware.--Mercian (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You sure, your firewall/antivirus/both ain't too paranoid (e.g. some weird-ass antivirus on a computer of a friend of mine wouldn't allow me to install µtorrent)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I did not get affected just by visiting the site but I clicked on a link that installed a variety of adware that would highlight certain words on sites that would lead to advertisements. I thought little of it until I visited the BBC site and saw it. The BBC does not use ad links, in fact it is not allowed to do so. Agreed this was 2 years ago when TPC was in it's infancy and they may well have cleaned up their act now.--Mercian (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

TPC is run by https://www.linkedin.com/pub/santo-lippo/3b/232/208^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.192.216 / talk / contribs}

Funny, on his Facebook https://www.facebook.com/LIPPO.SANTO he lists nearly 500 websites in interests- guess which isn't one of them.198.134.93.32 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he runs the site except via the LinkedIn information. And I haven't found any ties between CP and TPC. Unless of course Santo Lippo doesn't even exist and is a legal fiction that allows one of CP's crew to rack up ad bucks from the click-happy... but there's already CNAV for that. Who at CP is capable of not just making a click-farm but also of not boasting about how awesome it is that they made it? A combination of greed and small ego? At Conservapedia?! Even as the evidence trickled in, we were no closer to cracking the case. And then I realized: I was voice-overing in my head as I typed. Was I cracking up - or getting too close? --Semipenultimate (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

See, I am now so used to reading reddit that when I read a comment like that I immediately feel the need to upvote it and then feel disappointed that I can't. --Horace (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're seeing mystery that doesn't exist here. TPE is linked from the Facebook page (RH side); the site that isn't there is conservapedia. There is an interview with the man on YouTube which confirms he is a real person86.168.119.18 (talk)

Does TPC geolocate to Idaho or any of the "American Redoubt" locales? Hclodge (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Those Wacky Liberal Scientists Again

I'm always struck by how much misinformation Andy can cram in a couple of sentences. Today's article is Napa Valley^img where he conflates "Napa Valley" (an informal designation of a viticultural region draining the Napa River), Napa County (whose population he ascribes to "Napa Valley") and the city of Napa (the county seat of Napa County and epicenter of a 2014 earthquake).

The point of the article is really, "It was struck in 2014 by a massive earthquake unexpected by liberal experts, who pretend that earthquakes are most likely to occur around major fault lines instead." This is vintage Andy. He dismisses the liberal theory that earthquakes have to do with faults, but doesn't offer his alternate theory. I assume it's "God is pissed off, probably because of gays." But he's too chicken to come out and assert it, so he snipes at stupid scientists and their earthquake faults instead. Compared to Andy, Conservative is valiant. We don't call out Andy's passive-aggressive bullshit often enough. Whoover (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hope he doesn't go for Nappa next.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Earthquakes are caused by Jesus hugging the Earth. When they kill people it's because Jesus wanted them to hang out with him in heaven. Unless they were atheist liberal sodomites, in which case Jesus was sending them to their just punishment in the lake of eternal fire. --Ymir (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ken

It seems that the user:conservative collective has been quite, quite recently (pretty much since the update). Has Andy found a way to make Ken's edits invisible or is he know afraid of all his hiding of oversighting is now seen in the public logs so he can't really edit like he normally does. Ghost (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Andy and other editors seem to have been getting a lot of fucking shit written in kens abscence. Maybe Andy should make it permanent. Ghost (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame, really. Ken makes the place entertaining.--Umichcynic (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

TAR

It has been about five months since TAR has last graced the pages of Conservapedia. All of his spam farm remains in place to promote James Wesley Rawles and his wonderful books. Meanwhile, Messrs. Rawles and TAR have failed to make good on their promise of reciprocal promotion of CP. TAR had left the CP category structure in chaos, and nobody has step up to fix it. TAR has left numerous red links for articles that had promised to write. Finally TAR left a lot of material promoting the notion that true Conservatives should disengage from political life in the United States and immigrate to Idaho in order to focus upon the imminent collapse of the US. Implicit in the agreement to block all of TAR's critics was the promise that TAR would deliver the goods for CP; instead TAR has left CP a mess and has frozen out a number of productive editors in TAR's wake. Hclodge (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC kenny posted something about tar coming out of care and starting to post again sometime in September. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not make an account and clean up? Though polishing a turd can't hide the fact it is still a turd. You will not get any thanks for it though and Ken will still ban you on a whim.--Mercian (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

How utterly unsurprising

So someone went on to cp call them out on their rank hypocrisy over Duggar and his (repeated) hypocrisy. After much back and forth^img he was of course banned by andy. ^{— Unsigned, by: Oldusgitus / talk / contribs}

Best picture of Conservapedia ever! :D 142.124.55.236 (talk) 09:23, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why would CP not ban someone who came only to "call them out"? Sorry, but I don't see any problem at all with simply banning someone who came to a Wiki for no other reason than to start an argument. There's plenty to mock CP for, but banning trolls isn't really mockable. Phiwum (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really the point as I suspect you know. The point is that whoever it was, it wasn't me, asked them about their blatant hypocrisy and they essentially refused to address the point and then blocked the poster to prevent him further showing them up. If someone comes here to 'call out' they tend to be addressed, their points rebutted and only if they continue they are blocked. Wikipedia doesn't block people straight off, they tend to be warned and advised. CP simply wil not confront their own lies and hypocrisy, prefering instead to silence any 'opposition' before shouting about liberal censorship. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Eh, if you say so. I thought it was an obvious troll who generated some discussion and received the block he deserved. Yes, CP is hypocritical when it comes to the sins of conservatives vs. liberals. Not a brilliant insight there, just trying to throw a little tiff on a talk page.

Sorry, I was unimpressed with the troll or the noteworthiness of his eventual ban. Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at our own block log - whatever right we had to be outraged about ideological blocks evaporated a long time ago. I guess it's true that it's inevitable - RW has become what it hated. Tielec01 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Did CP just lose a week again?

They were down earlier today, and now the most recent edit appears to be from the 19th. Without any supporting evidence whatsoever, I blame Cons.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

YUP. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And... More downtime, as of 07:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC). WalkerWalkerWalker

To those at CP who read this page, I have a copy of the database from the 24th, which you could restore too. All you need to do is unban DVergne, Markman and Brendan. Ghost (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Too? WalkerWalkerWalker 12:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Andy wikilinking to "God." Ya know, in case anyone was confused about who he was talking about. Ayzmo^Cheers 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User: "Man, that's the second time in a few years where you've lost an entire week's worth of contributions. I can't recall such a thing ever happening at Wikipedia -- to what do you ascribe the difference?"
Andy: "More of a spiritual focus here than at Wikipedia."^img
Huh? Is he suggesting the devil is hacking them? Then he makes this bizarre edit.^img Andy, are you feeling okay? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Does The Week That Never Was II: Long Run Boogaloo mean that something actually happened in August that can go on the actual WIGO page? Spud (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was a warmonger.

According to Andy at least.[18]--Mercian (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34. Christians differ as to the meaning of Jesus's words here. However, with this passage, the one Andy provides and various others, the interpretation that Jesus was not preaching world peace seems somewhat reasonable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was a revolutionary but not a warmonger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

As if one can't be both. Damn, in most cases, they're both (although in case of Jesus, it's not really visible from the text, what he "really" was besides one of the many, many Jewish preachers roaming the Judean landscape (there's some, who said,there was no Jesus... Or that there was no Paulus, either, but let's not digress any more than we should, right?)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly puzzled by your reference to "false dichotomy". The IP address didn't say anything to suggest that revolutionary and warmonger are mutually exclusive. If he had thought that one could not be both, then his post would be pointless. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Come the apocalypse, Jesus is going to make war while riding a white horse, wearing a robe dipped in blood and using a sharp sword he pulled out of his mouth Revelation 19:11-16. That's actually one of the least fucked-up images in Revelation. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC) --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther (not MLK) wanted to chuck the Revelation into the Elbe river.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson described it as "merely the ravings of a maniac". I guess that would make it proto-Conservapedia.--Night Jaguar (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How is "Jesus was a _____ but not a _____" both categories? They are presented as mutually exclusive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect; that would require the absence of the "but". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Emerald, they aren't presented as mutually exclusive. Here are two categories that are mutually exclusive: cheese and garden tools. Now, if I say, "This is a cheese, but not a garden tool," then the "but not" clause is utterly redundant -- because it is a cheese, it cannot be something that is mutually exclusive with being a cheese. I've added no information.

Here are too categories that are not mutually exclusive: cheese and orange things. If I say, "This is a cheese, but it is not orange," then I've said something meaningful. Only when two categories are not mutually exclusive does the "but not" clause add any information. If X is mutually exclusive with Y, then "This is X but not Y" is redundant.

A bit wordier than necessary, but pedantry is an occupational hazard. Phiwum (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What if it was a trowel made of hard cheese?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Does Apache Choke?

Your browser is too slow.^img Of course. Whoover (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded Comodo Icedragon. It's good, I may use it as my default browser. Thanks Ken.--Mercian (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As a Conservative commentator, I must consider conspiracies as a possible explanation for the 500 errors being thrown off by the CP server. For example, did Andy install an extension to MediaWiki to bounce anyone off the site if they are not one of the people operating the User:Conservative account? Of course, if Andy were operating in a transparent manner when discussing this issue, I am sure that the conspiracy theory would be rejected out of hand. [1]^img Img We can be confident that User:Conservative is not lying about the 500 errors because, any logic deductions regarding his claims will be deleted from Andy's talk page without comment, thereby validating the conspiracy. Hclodge (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Debate challenge to atheist Kyle Kulinkski

[19] Ken, why don't you offer Kulinkski a large sum of money to go to charity to debate you? He would have to be a totally self absorbed coward if he refuses.--Mercian (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually more interesting on that is what was taken out of the Secular Talk article on CP^img in response to this video from Kyle. If you look at the page history ken has removed every entry that Kyle mocks as outright lies and modified the entries on Kyle's stance on abortion and gun control to actually be accurate. I wonder which members of the socialist co-operative known as User:Conservative made the changes? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed... Ken took a screenshot of his own blog rather than just download the image and reupload it to Conservapedia. He's a genius. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Vs. The NFL

Labour Day weekend must be hell in the company of the Schlafly clan, Andy has decided to start a campaign against the NFL in order to escape.

Even Rog has made his sixth contribution this year to avoid hearing the same old anecdotes.

Wonder if it's to avoid a bollocking over the trademark case... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny how similar treatment of Michael Sam "by the NFL" doesn't prove they are a homophobic, Christian organization. Whoover (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the NFL ain't homophobic enough for Andy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see there's still some high-grade crazy left in Andy. If Ken starts posting animated gifs again and Uncle Ed makes an appearance it will be just like in the old days. Vulpius (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say, it's been a while since Andy positioned "Conservapedia" as some sort of actual collective voice doing something outside of itself. I am so looking forward to him either braying while taking credit for any dip in NFL ratings or moving the goalposts and memory-holing shit when the ratings stay the same or increase. It's a win-win. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Every organization needs an identity and needs leadership. Previously, CP was identified in terms of not being Wikipedia: seeing WP's bias and avoiding it. Leadership was involved in building a team and working toward a common goal: an encyclopedia without liberal bias. But leaders also try to lead by example. So, Andy jumped in and gave his personal spin on topics such as the number of conservative words growing exponentially; evolution and relativity. Now, most people are not experts on those topics, so with a little faith, unless the reader was diligent, one could accept the final work product. If there was any doubt, one could find at least other Christian conservatives who share Andy's views on Obamacare, birth certificates, evolution and relativity. At least Andy's cp:Essay:Best New Conservative Words is an essay and not an encyclopedia article.

The big problem with the unplug the NFL article is that it is 100% Andy's views and it is focused upon a major centerpiece of American life. Every homeschooled male student is already more of an expert on the NFL than Andy. There is a billion dollar per year propaganda machine already in place filling the public discourse with the exact opposite of Andy's new preaching. So, while John Oliver can take on the NFL on the narrow issue of public funding of stadiums,[20] nobody (not even Andy or Barack H. Obama combined) has the power to create daylight between the NFL and the American public. So, how many people did Andy consult before "Conservapedia" launched this campaign? How can we measure whether the CP community is behind it?

By the way, I should mention (although the Unplug the NFL article failed to do so) that there are no NFL teams playing in the cp:American Redoubt. Hclodge (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done some traveling in those parts and can attest to the many rabid Seattle Seahawks fans in the area. Fine group of young Christian men. Whoover (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually have some sympathy with Tebow. Despite his wingnuttery he is obviously a talented player, but American Football being insular means you could be one of the top 30 quarterbacks in the world and never get a game. Andy is talking bullshit though. If Tebow were a top 10 quarterback he would play no matter what his views or background. The main goal of a professional sports team is to win and they will overlook almost anything if it helps them achieve this. Luis Suarez is a good example of this. He is a troubled individual but he in the top 5 strikers in the world and despite his record Barcelona payed £70 million for him. If Tebow was as good as Andy makes out he would be playing for a top NFL side week in week out. I am guessing that his wage demands for a back up player were too high for the Eagles so they went for the cheaper option. He was not rejected by the NFL but by the Eagles and if they were as Andy describes them they would not have given him a trial in the first place. --Mercian (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What I find hilarious is that Andrew doesn't seem to understand that these teams are run for profit which in his philosophy is an excellent thing, but he also wants the owners of the teams to select players simply because he likes the player's religious beliefs. Someone could produce some sort of spreadsheet thing that shows all the contradictions in the poor chap's statements over the years. Although if he read it he'd possibly not understand it. And it would be huge. Sphincter (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A fine piece of lulz. E.g. "actual attendance by fans at football stadiums has generally not grown" - because the stadiums are pretty much completely full already...? Duh. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"There many alternatives for sports fans, including college football, professional baseball and cricket." Yeah cricket, as played by godless Englishmen, Kiwis, a bunch of Hindus and Muslims. I can just see how watching a 5-day Test would be the perfect alternative for somebody used to watching American "football." PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I would LOVE to see andy's reaction to the dismissal of Strokes the other day by the unsporting aussie gits. Can you imagine him trying to understand 'obstructed field'. Or even better timed out. As for the nuances of LBW (like a left handed bowler coming round the wicket to a left handed batsman etc.), well that still sometimes confuses me and I've followed cricket for the best part of 43 years. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You realize cricket was not Andy's, don't you? It was added by sincere-feminist-editor-or-possibly-parodist StacyT. Whoover (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I'd given up rading that particualr piece of inspiration from mr S some time ago. I didn't even realise others were joining in the parody on it. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

More interestingly, the page now reads, "There many alternatives for sports fans, including college football, professional baseball, rugby league, NASCAR and cricket." - What has Conservapedia got against Rugby Union? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Rugby League is played by conservative (former) coal miners and steel workers and supported by Arthur Scargill, a fine conservative figure.--Mercian (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In Tory strongholds like Wakefield and Hull. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If CP advocates capitalism, it should realize that the NFL represents a marketplace which hires and pays players based on their value. If the Eagles release Tim, it frees up salary dollars that can be spent on hiring players in all positions. Although the next backup quarterback may not be as pious as Tim, God may be directing the salary dollars to some fine Christian lineman without Andy fully appreciating God's plan. Perhaps a full NFL boycott is not a part of God's plan. Hclodge (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You forget that Andy always knows God's plan. Ayzmo^Cheers 14:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

God Hates Tennis

Best of the Public^img prevails over Underrated Sports Star^img. I'm not really seeing it. Maybe truly underrated sports star prevails over not underrated sports star? I realize that doesn't exercise Andy's persecution complex, but a normal person would be saying, "Oh, that's what underrated means!" Whoover (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

CP stupidity knows no bounds -- Antipodean version.

Reality: In the Westminster system, parties may change leadership during their mandate, thereby changing who is the PM. CP: There has been a coup d'etat^img in Australia. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it does seem that a lot of media views it that way. The BBC pretty much called it a coup in the article I read. I know the definition is technically that of a violent takeover, but in common usage a vote of no confidence, as it seems this was, and subsequent change of leadership could be seen as a coup. That being said, CP didn't actually call it a coup. They're seemingly angry that it was an entirely government/party affair. What's more interesting is that he has so little understanding of what the Liberal Party in Oz actually stands for and clearly thinks it is similar to in the US. Ayzmo^Cheers 21:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"The people who vote had no say in the matter" is where Jpatt went off the rails. He doesn't understand that the people who vote voted for a party and not a person. If they don't do it like we do it, there's no reason to understand it. Whoover (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

JPratt's a big fan of not giving voters the result they wanted, remember he openly advocated for a coup d'etat in the US. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If people want to call it a coup, I'm fine with that. I like the idea of Abbott being led out of parliament after a last meal of onion soup ready for an appointment with Madame Guillotine... and all around the hysterical, baying crowd shrugs indifferently and quietly mutters "Probably had it coming..." TheEgyptian^¿Dígame? 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

VargasMilan

Who is he and does anyone think he is genuine? From a brief look at his edits, it looks like a classic case of conservapedius parodicis Ghost (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a chance is he genuine. He parrots all the right phrases, tickles all the right ticklish buit and presses all the right buttons. Grade a parodist imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you liberals, I don't wreck wiki's, cause trouble or insert false information. If you're looking for a vandal, focus your attention on the troll SamHB. VargasMilan (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The real Vargas is an arselicker and a troll. He agrees with Ken, Andy and Karajou to obtain to obtain brownie points and he systematically bullied and belittled a 16 year old girl who dared to join and contribute to CP. A proud moment for him. SamHB has done none of those things. Look up the defintion of troll--Mercian (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The mere fact you have posted here confirms that you are quite frankly. In 5 years or so I've been a member here (and over at cp as it happens) I've not known a single good faith editor with your kind of edit record at cp come here to defend themselves. The saddest fact is that I'd worked you out within your first 20 days at cp but andy still seems to think you are good faith. It's sad how stupid and repeatedly gullible he and his cohorts are. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Given Andy's track record, being held in good faith by him is virtually proof positive that you're a parodist. The best example is how he let master troll TK undermine long-standing CP admins Tim & PJR within days of being reappointed admin. And then there's Bugler of course. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pope and the Zombie

How's Andy going to play the latest photo-op with the Pope and Fidel, who's been dead since 2006? Will he continue with the body double? Or does tricking two Popes begin to cast too much doubt on the whole infallibility thing for Catholic Andy? Or is tricking this commie papal pretender evidence that Conservapedia is Proven Right yet again? Or does he just ignore it? Whoover (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Francis is too liberal for conservative American catholics like Andy; to him it wouldn't matter what Francis does. Hell, Catholicism accepted evolution and some form of the big bang theory but that doesn't change him.-- Forerunner (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. I don't think that includes saying hi to Castro, alive or dead. Ayzmo^Cheers 05:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy's inability to admit that he's ever made a mistake extends to all areas of his life. I can imagine him in court saying, "On the evening of May 24th, my client was in Chicago." His client saying that it was actually March 24th. Andy then insisting until he's blue in the face that, no, it was May 24th. He should know because he's always right and his client is a godless liberal for disagreeing with him. Spud (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we're doubling down on the body double theory. They're using a guy the same age Fidel would have been had he not died a decade ago, who looks a lot like him. You can't have everything, though, so he's like a foot shorter. Nobody but Andy noticed that. It's most certainly NOT because Castro is in a chair while the Pope is standing. That's just what they want you to think. Whoover (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know he's seriously crazy, Andy also updated Fidel's time-of-death. Whoover (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

TAR

It has been six months since TAR has last graced the pages of Conservapedia. The time announced by User Conservative for his expected return has now passed. All of his spam farm remains in place to promote James Wesley Rawles and his wonderful books. Meanwhile, Messrs. Rawles and TAR have failed to make good on their promise of reciprocal promotion of CP. TAR had left the CP category structure in chaos, and nobody has step up to fix it. TAR has left numerous red links for articles that he had promised to write. Finally TAR left a lot of material promoting the notion that true conservatives should disengage from political life in the United States and immigrate to Idaho in order to focus upon the imminent collapse of the US. Implicit in the agreement to block all of TAR's critics was the promise that TAR would deliver the goods for CP; instead TAR has left CP a mess and has frozen out a number of productive editors in TAR's wake. A clean-up of the TAR residue is over due. Hclodge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not make an account and clean up? Though polishing a turd can't hide the fact it is still a turd. You will not get any thanks for it though and Ken will still ban you on a whim.--Mercian (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Downtime?

For the last month or so I get a 403 error accessing any page on CP ("You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server."). But judging from this talk page, the site is working fine for other people...? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your IP is banned. It could be part of a block ban or they could have banned you explicitly. If you have another IP, like a cell phone, you can use, see if you can access the site with it. Whoover (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quantifying perfection

We haven't gotten a good quantifying essay in a while and Andy now delivers with the ambitious Quantifying Perfection^img.However, he notes the difficulty and then settles with discussing something far more specific: Quantifying Perfection in Golf. Seems to me like he finds the idea of a high score being bad confusing and wants to change it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic Andy. Start out grandiose, with a universal insight of undeniable truth and power, then peter out to the mundane with a completely inappropriate example. Does Andy wish to treat the philosophical concept of perfection, comparing perfections like Cantor comparing infinities? Maybe that's what he means by quantifying perfection like height; some perfections are more perfect than others. Or maybe something can have a certain amount of perfection, like one can have a certain amount of height. Imagine that! A finite amount of perfection! "How infinite is that set, Georg?" "Oh, I'd say about an 8, maybe 8.5." Probably he wants to be able to say that Mrs. Schlafly's pancakes are perfect, and Mama Schlafly's pancakes are perfect too, but Mama Schlafly's pancakes are just a tiny bit perfecter.

Groping for a metaphor that might be understood by lesser men, and not knowing nothin' bout no math, Andy stretches for a sports metaphor. How about... golf? Golf has perfect games, right? They keep score in golf, don't they? Let's call a perfect golf game "100". Units are for menials, by the way. What is a perfect golf game, you ask? Uhh...you know, the best possible game. Where everything is perfect.

"So, is that like 18 holes-in-one? Or something better than that, like killing a terrorist with your follow-through each time?"

"Uh, the holes in one one, I guess."

"So each hole-in-one contributes 5.5555555.... to the total perfection score of 100?"

(fears a trap)"Maybe?"

"I guess I'm asking whether a hole-in-one on the rare par 6 contributes more than a hole-in-one on a par 3. How does the contribution scale?"

"All hole in ones are equal in the eyes of God"

"So a game with 17 holes-in-one and one double eagle on a par 5 gets a score of...what? Over 100? Less than 100?"

"Look, it's clear you lack openmindedness and deny that the best of the public are usually teenagers. Talk, talk, talk is not valued here."

Anyway, it reminds me of the damp squib of George Washington's letter to his nephew.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on Andy! Aren't you going to quantify the perfection of the English language? The US of States? The man from Bethlehem that my Dad used to call "Jerenus"? Get your finger out and improve on perfection by further editing your essay. Spud (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mapping an 18 to 100 is the easy part. The problem is that I'm sure he wants the perfection scale to run from 0 to 100. So an infinitely bad game must be zero and an 18 must be 100. Since the Bible invented infinity the math is best revealed by Jesus. I suspect a 72 is so far from perfection that He will score it a zero, or maybe a one. Whoover (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's really trivial to come up with some re-jiggering in golf scores. Here's a simple list of desiderata, followed by a sample solution.

(1) A score of 18 is mapped to 100.

(2) A score of par is mapped to 50.

(3) The function is decreasing on [18, infinity)

(4) The limit of the function as x goes to infinity is 0.

Truth be told, took me a bit longer than it should have to come up with the following solution.

f(x) = 100(p-18)/(p + 36 + x)

where p is par. Phiwum (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ignoring anything about holes having different par, and thus weighting strokes differently depending on which hole they aim at, but using similar desiderata (on a scale of 0 to 1 instead of 0~100) I get something like

$f(x)=\mathrm {e} ^{-n(x-18)}$

where

$n={\frac {ln(0.5)}{18-p}}$

which probably suffers from some degree of wrongness. Feel free to throw darts at it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks nice. Has the advantage that it spreads the values out around par better than mine, which has already started to flatten. (The graphs to the right use p = 72.) Phiwum (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Simple-looking graphs, though, are a distraction from any sincere attempt to define the central term here; a monotonic decreasing scalar function is a deeply flawed proxy for what we call "perfection." Speaking of spherical frictionless golfers in a vacuum, there is a neat thing, often presented in freshman aerodynamics classes when introducing the Reynolds number, about how scarification of a golf ball, or imperfections in its surface, made for longer drives. Ball manufacturers soon introduced controllable imperfections in the form of dimples, so new balls would no longer have the disadvantage of being "too perfect." Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Was also thinking of an exponentially decreasing function of total score too. Looking at how a perfect round is defined as an average of one under par, this would be closer to the how a perfect round is conventionally defined in golf:

$f(x)=100e^{(-18+(p-x))ln(2)/18}$

Of course, you can theoretically get over 100 under this definition, but as the Wikipedia article notes: "While the lowest possible score is 18, the term 'perfect round' is used for a 54 as the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers on a par 72 course". Perhaps this is a more practical definition.

Taking different par for each hole into account and dropping the condition that a 50 be on par, you can try something like:

$f(x)={\frac {100}{18e}}\sum _{i=1}^{18}e^{p_{i}-x_{i}}$

where $x_{i}$ and $p_{i}$ are the score and par for the i^th hole, respectively. With a 18 hole-in-one's being defined as perfect it would be

$f(x)=100{\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{18}e^{p_{i}-x_{i}}}{\sum _{i=1}^{18}e^{p_{i}-1}}}$.

Note that under this system scoring 1 under par on one hole and 1 over par on the next would NOT be equivalent to scoring on par for both ($e^{1}+e^{-1}>2$, so it would be better). Whether this is justifiable or not, I'll let the reader decide. The base cannot be changed so they are equal since the only solution to $a+1/a=2$ is a = 1, which would make the score trivial. Maybe ou can try to change the base so they are equal to a certain tolerance, but we've already put way more thought into this than Andy has. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, aren't you both just so superior, with your ever-so-sophisticated exponential functions? Just go ahead and say it: only children reach for rational functions when they need a decreasing function with horizontal asymptote.

Snotty pigs. Rationals were good enough for my pappy, and they're good enough for me. Phiwum (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oinkity as charged, m'lord. The sound you didn't hear was a loogie the size of a quahog, being snurfled back towards my bronchial passage. We could just as easily go with a linear function, if you were willing to accept negative values for perfection. Duffers gotta duff, you know. Speaking of asymptotes, I always look askance at a graph which crops out the part near the horizontal axis. Maybe RW needs an article on deception by graphic presentation, with references to my guru, Edward Tufte, out the wazoo. Have a nice view this evening... Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a regular gnuplot user. I haven't needed to graph functions in decades. Not my kind of mathematics, you Oinky McOinker, you! (And negative values for perfection? Even I am not that lazy.) Phiwum (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, Pantsy Bunchington, whatever you say. I don't expect you to splain why a perfection score can't take negative values. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it can't. It just can't. Duh. (To be honest, I'm a little shocked that Andy hasn't ranted about the unreality of negative numbers. Maybe it's because he's already claimed Biblical foreknowledge involving negative numbers, but he's happy to claim that fishes and loaves is foreknowledge of Banach-Tarski after claiming that Banach-Tarski is absurd.) Phiwum (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Erm, what? Seems to me like perfection is a pretty binary quality. Something is perfect or it isn't. Seems like attaching a quantity to perfection is a contradiction in terms. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How, then, would you account for an idiom such as "almost perfect"? My favorite definition of "perfect" is still the one used by obstetricians attending a birth. "This is a perfect baby" means "it has the right number of fingers and toes (and a few other things.)" Andy's definition, which I have no intention of researching, probably has more to do with being in accord with God's wishes, e.g. a perfect football game being one where God helps Andy's favored team win. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

After this tangent, I promise to go quiet for a while: Another sporting event of Scottish origin is caber-tossing. Competitors are not judged by God, but by the appointed human referees; not on distance, but rather on how well the caber turns after hitting the ground, and whether it lands pointing away from the tosser. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Phrases like "almost perfect" would be in the same category as mathematical phrases like "almost always" which have unintuitive but completely rational explanations corresponding to infinities. For example, almost all integers are composite. The primes are infinite, but in proportion to the similarly infinite set of all integers they're dwarfed into insignificance by the composites. So it would be "almost perfect" if something was clearly not perfect in principle, and yet the measured difference from perfection was zero. Suppose you're cleaning the hypothetical infinite hotel, you mistakenly don't do rooms on prime numbered floors, but all the others are spotless. This makes your cleaning "almost perfect" even though infinite hotel guests are left with yesterday's towels and an unmade bed and will call the front desk to complain. Tialaramex (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm truly impressed by the mathematical work that's gone into these last couple of posts, but it seems that there are a couple of things that should be addressed before a function is defined for perfection in golf games. IMHO we should take Andy's historical statements into consideration, like Supreme Court justices parsing the meaning of ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Clearly Andy himself favors this approach. So, please consider the following: what is the lowest score that Andy has ever assigned to a homework set from one of his online/inperson classes? Probably something in the 80s or 90s, right? I see no reason that Andy would ever score something lower than, say, 80 out of 100 if one of his students was doing it. So rather than 0 representing an infinitely bad golf round, it should be something like 80 or 85. Second, the scoring function clearly must be geometric rather than linear, because all good conservative functions (but I repeat myself) are geometric. I would expect that the resulting scoring would give just about everyone a score between 97 and 100, with it taking colossal clusterfuckery to approach that infinitely bad game of score 80. Just like Andy's usual grading, a really flat scoring curve near 100 over all likely real-world golf scores should be seen as a feature, not as a bug.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Golf perfection is not subject to grade inflation. Only Jesus could achieve that 18, but Kim Jong-Il had 11 holes-in-one in his first game. The Golf Perfection Algorithm has to insure a significant spread between these two cases. Very, very good (home-schooled students and Kim) is not Perfect (Jesus). I would suspect ln(2) should be ln(2.0000001) though. Whoover (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Only Jesus gets the 100, as He should. Grade inflation is only practiced by liberals, unlike at Conservapedia where zero editors have that mental illness. Good call on the 2.0000001, but remember that natural logs rely on the assumption that there is a unique limit to (1+1/n)^n as n goes to infinity that will yield consistent results.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, Andy doesn't like defining 18 hole-in-one's as perfect because it's impossible, so then he asks what would be a perfect game of football? For him, I guess it would be 11 Tim Tebow's vs. a team of evil libruls (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hitler, etc.). The liberals lose 200-0, see the errors of their ways and repent. The Tebow's then invite Andy to the lockeroom for the after-party... for everyone's sake, I'll stop there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A perfect game of football would surely be where the perfect team scores a touchdown (or two point conversion) on every play. Something like: receive kickoff, run back for touchdown. Go for two-point conversion, turnover ball, recover ball and run in for touchdown (not 100% positive about that; maybe just counts as two points). Kickoff to defense; force turnover and run in for touchdown. Rinse, repeat. The actual score doesn't matter, just that every play is a scoring play for the 'perfect' team. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone should add "something unattainable would be a poor definition of perfection" to Liberal Denial. It's actually so mind-numbingly stupid it deserves an article. Whoover (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I kinda wonder what definition of "impossible" he has in mind. What makes 18 holes in one not merely extraordinarily unlikely but literally impossible? Phiwum (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think that it is "almost surely" impossible. Technically possible but the chances of it happening are zero.--Mercian (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck it, let's call it 42. London Grump (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy apologies to AugustO

WTF did I just read? Have I woken up in some bizarro-world alternate universe of Andy actually apologizing to someone, or is it just a lame attempt at sarcasm? Then Ken, ready as always to stab anyone in the back who might actually try and make the site half-way usable, which makes me suspect Andys "humility" is all the more likely to be anything but. TheEgyptian^¿Dígame? 22:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reads like sarcasm to me. Bit over the top, no? Phiwum (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Over the top and over sited[21]--Mercian (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What did he say? Paraphrase if you can't remember it exactly. Spud (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy's comment is clearly sarcasm^img and is still there. Ken burned some followup comments of his. I don't know what they said.Whoover (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ken had burned his replies by the time I woke up at 5.30 this morning UK time. And I saw andy's comment and immediately thought he was (badly) trolling augusto. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've read Andy's comments now and I could hear the sarcastic tone in his voice as I did so. Spud (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Soros Check

Anyone else get a nice little surprise in the check from Soros this month ? Ghost (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah. I'm way behind on my liberal shill duties. TheEgyptian^¿Dígame? 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm too busy wallowing in all my shill dollars from Big Pharma, I don't even bother to cash my Soros cheques anymore. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is Karajou?

His last post, including blocks, was on the 17th September, two weeks ago [22]. DO you think he has jumped ship?--Mercian (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful, he'll return when he gets bored and wants a power trip. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking in tongues

Bit confused here, is it good or bad no one translated ? link^img. Also Ken what is the point at over sighting all your tiny edits, we can all see what you've done. Be a man, with Machismo (Ole Ole Ole) and don't oversight them. Ghost (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy and Ken are confusing the Jews for Jesus guy's Hebrew for speaking in tongues. There is no reference to speaking in tongues in the article. The fake Jewish prayers are probably what tripped up our religion mavens. Ken is burning revisions so he may be figuring out the blunder. But that video of Trump resisting the urge to get the bunch of loonies tossed is priceless. This primary season is the best ever. Whoover (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also when did conservapedia start have scheduled maintenance ^img ? Ghost (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cover for major history deletions, perhaps?-- Forerunner (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy's stellar display of logical proof

1. Logic is unique, such that contrary systems of logic are impossible.
2. The existence of God is logical.
3. Therefore God exists.

I have nothing to add. From Logic-based proof of God.Phiwum (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Belief has nothing to do with [the existence of God]." I grew up in the Assemblies of God, and even in that blinkered bunch of almost-snake-handlers, it was believed that true faith required doubt, insight, and some internal struggle. Exhibit number - what, 25, 40? - of how Andrew Schlafly is utterly without both faith, and the ability to recognize how empty his personal philosophy is. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't proposition (1) incorrect because it implies that a system of logic is internally consistent, contrary to Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem? Andy, please think about this then re-read (or read, in your case) Hebrews 11 (about faith). Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Nope. Fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, Intuitionistic logic, etc.

2. What does this mean? That the existence of God is self-consistent? Under certain definitions of "God" this is not the case.

3. Conclusion does not follow from premises. Funny enough, your argument isn't logical.

As mentioned below, Andy also created the the article Logic anarchy^img, which sounds like a bad name for encyclopedia entry, but a half decent one for a band. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Even better: Andy's new insight that because mathematical proof by contradiction is "logic anarchy," atheism demands censorship. On cue, AugustO and SamHB sputter and VargasMilan shouts, "right on!" Whoover (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cardinal Fang, I don't think Goedel has anything to do with it. As written, premise (1) is just nonsense. As Jaguar says, there are many examples of logics that are different from classical logic. (Andy also doesn't have a clue how the phrase "such that" works, grammatically speaking.) Phiwum (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The significant point is that Andy pulls Christian exegesis out of his backside just as he does pretty much everything else. Such an arrogant little sod. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ughhh....^img

"Objective truth proof

1. Objective truth exists.
2. The existence of objective truth depends on the existence of an objective observer.
3. In the absence of an objective observer, the concept of objective truth would fail for lack of falsifiability.
4. The only possible objective observer for all of objective truth is God.
5. Therefore God exists."

Shooting this down isn't hard so it's left as an exercise for the reader, but I will say that 3 is completely superfluous to his argument (as well being nonsense).

His "proofs" kinda remind me of Cargo cult. During World War II some indigenous peoples in the Pacific saw American planes land on their islands with cargo. After the Americans left, they wanted the planes with cargo to return, so they would make "antennas" out of bamboo, "headphones" out of coconuts, "runways", etc. and mimic what they had seen the Americans doing. Superficially it looks the same, but they lacked a fundamental understanding of what they were trying to do. The same thing can be said about Andy and logic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To give more credit to Andy than he's due, premise (3) would make sense if it came before premise (2) and was intended to entail premise (2). (Of course, premise (3) would still be nonsense, but at least it would be clear why it's there.) Phiwum (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mind you, if (3) came before (2), that would be logic anarchy! Phiwum (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

These "proofs" are becoming more incoherent^img:

Probability-based proof

1. The positive implies the negative, as in the existence of "+1" implying the existence of "-1".
2. The existence of probability therefore implies the existence of the negative of probability, or certitude.
3. Certitude can exist only if God exists."

--Night Jaguar (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)