Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive343

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 June 2020. 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>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

We're scared of Ken and Rob hangs us out to dry.[edit]

[1] Rob, you will be back here among the "fascists" once you are ousted again. Ken, how about 3 rounds, Queensbury rules, with proper officials and medics. This is not a threat, it's an offer. Oh wait, your cowardice is pronounced you turned down $20,000 for charity because you were too scared. A 100 year old man recently earned £26,000,000 (you read it right) and you could not debate for 20 grand. Pro sodomite sluts and whores.--Mercian (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ken, your account's talkpage is unblocked and I've already replied to your main points. Respond or face the fact that you are a coward. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised Rob has the time, what with being a top notch virologist, epidemiologist and molecular biologist as well as an investigative historian, political analyst and constitutional scholar. LondonGrump (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, all this BS interrupts my Sinology studies. nobsFree Roger Stone! 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Bloody hell! So GiucoPiano really was Ken. I thought it was somebody pretending to be Ken to take the piss out of him. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past Ken to claim responsibility when it wasn't really him. Spud (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken has three days from now to respond to my debate challenge, else he implicitly admits that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about on the subjects of Theology, Political theory, and Philosophy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I find it amusing that Ken mocks the idea of misgendering. When he remembers to, he objects to people using singular pronouns to refer to User: Conservative, which, when he remembers to, he insists is not one person but a group of people. He even objected to being called "you" once, presumably because he wanted to be called "ye". Spud (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken's been complaining about being censored here so I have up a page for him where he can debate freely and without censorship. Come on ken, do you have the machismo? AceModerator 03:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Brothers and sisters, brothers and sisters. Look at the way the Queen deals with people like Ken and the way Donald Trump with them. Don't be a Donald. LondonGrump (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

He comes very close to failing the Turing Test, he is like a robot designed to insult atheists. He's quite convincing at first but the longer it goes on the limited database becomes apparent. The same regurgitated rhetoric, the same few photos (Man with his head in in his hands, sinking ship, hand picking up an iced bun, house on fire with a cowardly fireman cowardly watching on, man playing a chess and an obscure British academic that no one in the UK has heard of). A superficially advanced robot that quickly becomes transparent. --Mercian (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The fail-safe has just kicked in. [2] after he spent night writing it as well. Very brave of you Metal Kenny--Mercian (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC).
If there are humans who can fail the Turing Test, then perhaps the Turing Test isn't all it's cracked up to be. Of course, they don't fail it upon closer examination, but that's if you're willing to brace all the tedium. Oxyaena Harass 11:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
tl:dr Ken. I love you dearly but maybe you want to get that Grammarly thing that craps all over my YouTube playlists. LondonGrump (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A Conservapedian calling someones else's blocking policy authoritarian has got to be the ultimate case of pots and kettles. On CP you can get blocked for even politely disagreeing with a member of the fascist junta, like saying you lean towards Clinton over Trump, pointing out to Ken that his "facts" are wrong and even looking in the direction of Karajou without showing respect and esteem towards him. If you check the CP block log it is full to the brim of people that the hard done by snowflake Ken has performed. Our house may have not been hoovered for a few days but theirs has been hit by a tornado. Put you own in order first you enormous hypocrite.--Mercian (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why the MSM isn't fully covering my being in a tizzy? I rang the Daily Mail but they weren't interested. LondonGrump (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercian, your side has lost. The erasure of my gloriously victorious posts in this section and the adoption of capricious and authoritarian rules which will dissuade thinking and freedom loving editors from significantly editing your wiki will doom your wiki to even lower quality edits and further traffic losses.
The mob struck me down, but I became more powerful than they possibly imagined!
Please God, I beg you, no more winning over atheists. I don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. I am sick and tired of winning. Please let me have at least one loss. It’s no longer exciting to win.GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@GiuocoPiano Ken, how can you win when you refuse to even debate? I came to you to exchange ideas, yet you've run away after some mild fact checking. Do you perchance want a fruit basket? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
☭Comrade GC, I am not a professional typist. In fact, I dislike typing. You wanted me to engage in a lot of typing when I gave you a sufficient reply to one of your posts to me. I thought you were being childish and difficult and I no longer wish to engage with you.
If you want someone who enjoys texting with you, get a girlfriend.
I am not going to do a lot of pointless typing, however.GiuocoPiano (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@GiuocoPiano Ken, Now you and I both know that you are mistaken there. We both know this because you spent to better part of a day typing over five thousand characters into Rob's talkpage on CP, and a total of over thirty thousand characters total in your discussion on your initial block for several days straight afterwards. You also posted over four thousand characters onto Ace's talkpage here on RW. But, I'm sure such a simple mistake will not interfere with our ability to converse. Further, I will continue seeking out a fruit basket for you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

GrammarCommie, I became interested in the atheism vs. atheism issue because I was a somewhat of a doubting Thomas for much of my life. I even struggled with doubt on the day of my baptism.

On the other hand, I knew God existed through what was made. And then I read Christian apologetics which made extremely compelling arguments as do creation scientists/intelligent design proponents. And then I experienced miracles which had no natural explanation.

Later, I had a professor who trotted out 300-400 "apparent Bible contradictions" and I was able to answer all but two. Due to being a bit myopic about those 2 remaining Bible difficulties, it caused a period of semi-doubt which leaned more and more on the faith side the more knowledgeable I became. But it always leaned on the faith side.

During this period of semi-doubt, I locked horns with a few prominent New Atheists and some online atheists plus produced a lot of well-researched and factual web content on atheism. Also, during this period of semi-doubt, I came to satisfactory answers to the 2 remaining Bible difficulties.

As I knew more and more about atheism, I respected it less and less and less until there was no respect for it at all. Peak non-respect for atheism was achieved when focusing on the atheism and morality issue. I stood on the summit of peak non-respect for atheism when I stood atop the summit of "Mount Atheism and Bestiality"!

I did offer a detente to RW a number of years back, but it was rejected. Looking back, if the detente was accepted, I would have created less online content on atheism. Nevertheless, I did establish a friendship with an influential atheist during the time I locked horns with New Atheists and online atheists. But her influence is outside of the faith vs. atheism realm.

Although I created a widely viewed article on homosexuality, I rarely think about homosexuality. The only reasons I created the homosexuality was the religious liberty aspect, but to also draw people into reading the content on atheism. The same is now beginning to happen with atheism. Even many atheists consider atheism to be boring. I am now at the point where I feel atheism is boring. The only reason I came to the website is due to Ace Wicked's invitation. Ace and I have had a friendly rivalry for a number of years.

I can now say I have 100% faith and no doubt.

In addition, although I joke about glorious victories and endless winning, I am less competitive than I used to be in terms of my mindset. Now I am much more likely to consider the cost/benefit in terms of effects on myself and others.

At this time, I see no benefit in discussing the definition of the word atheism, etc. etc. - especially with someone who is unreasonable. For example, the history of the word atheism in terms of various segments of society is mouse clicks away.

I also see no benefit in jousting with atheists - especially since the atheist movement is dead in the Western World. Why beat a dead horse?

I just made a friendly post on Ace McWicked's talk page. My future interaction with RW will likely just be with Ace. It will not be with bitter atheists who make capricious and tyrannical rules in a desperate attempt to stop material critical of atheism from appearing on their website. GiuocoPiano (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's all about You, Ken, just like this scene from The Prisoner. LondonGrump (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
LondonGump, I was merely explaining why my interest in atheism or discussing it has waned. And I only did that after successive attempts of Grammarcommie to want to talk to me about atheism.GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I, my, I, me LondonGrump (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, if you have the ability to respond here, you have the ability to respond on your talkpage. Unless you want to cede all of the raised points there? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
A warm welcome to the collective hive mind that is The Borg user Conservative. It's nice to see you here. Your views on military matters interest me, like how you think MacArthur was a superb general and not a glory hunting politician, how John Wayne was some kind of super solider because he walked like he pissed himself, talked tough, hit women and appeared in some war films or like how you think yourself and Sun Tzu are somehow kindred spirits. I would like to hear more.--Mercian (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I became interested in military tactics when I opposed the atheist movement. Now that that the atheist movement is dead, my interest in military tactics has waned. References to John Wayne were largely a method to further my contention that Richard Dawkins is a coward who lacks ma-cheese-mo. As was the fact that Alexa stats showed Asian ladies and Hispanic ladies were not interested in Richard Dawkins.:)GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I really do not care but am not suprised you did not understand sarcasm. As for the blocking policy, around Christmas time 2017 you invited me to open an account at CP only to block me after 2 posts for breaking some rule, telling me in order to be able to express my opinion I had to write a 10,000 word essay on some bollocks or another. You complaints about the policies here are therefore total hypocrisy.--Mercian (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
So who does and does not have ma-cheese-mo? I am a liberal who dislikes war, hates Trump and his lackeys with their redneck beards and long guns. Does that mean I lack ma-cheese-mo?--Mercian (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercian, I don't recall blocking you. And there is more than one editor that uses the User: Conservative account.

But if I were to take a wild guess, I am guessing you created some article like "Jesus Christ never existed" or some other wildly spurious article that was not encyclopedic (The only encyclopedia which flatly out and out claimed that Jesus never existed was the Soviet Encyclopedia if memory serves). Alternatively, the only editor I remember asking to create a 10,000 word article was the British atheist User: JohnZ who essentially did trifling edits in mainspace so he could troll Conservapedia's main page talk page. Given that you are a British agnostic with a Brit IP address, maybe I got you confused with him.

As far as Douglas MacArthur, there are various reasons I have mentioned him at CP that I would rather not get into.

As far as Donald Trump, it is sad that you hate him. What about the "special relationship"? If the UK ever needed an ally, it was the USA at this point due to Brexit and trade. I also think that USA could strengthen the relationship with the UK given its trade war with China. If you notice, post Boris Johnson and as of late, I have not been mentioning UK potholes, etc. at CP plus I made the UK article at CP more positive. As a Christian, I have decided to not hate anyone, but to take Jesus' advice to love one's enemies. I can say without reservation that I do not hate Barack Hussein Obama for example. :)

As far as politics, I am scaling down my following of politics. There are important things I want to get done so one has to limit one's focus sometimes. Regardless of who is elected, objectively speaking, I should be able to prosper no matter who sits in the White House. Lots of people financially prosper regardless of whether a Democrat or Republic is elected. So blaming one's financial/social plight on the political sphere is weak-minded in my estimation (not that I ever did that). And there is still much freedom in the USA no matter who sits in the White House. In addition, it is easy for Brits/Americans to live abroad.

And most of USA politics is juvenile now and it is unfortunately due to the immaturity/corruptness of Nancy Pelosi. Hopefully, given the deteriorating state of San Francisco, she will be voted out of office. Things were better back in the Clinton-Gingrich days when there was less feuding between America's branches of government. In addition, Trump will probably get elected and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will probably be replaced at the SCOTUS. So that will stifle secular leftists in the courts for decades perhaps. As a result of the above, I can't see myself following politics or wasting my mental energy hating various politicians.GiuocoPiano (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your writing is improving, Ken. You've remembered to make it less about you and more about the topic in hand. Keep practising.
While we're here, whatever happened to hydrochloroquine? LondonGrump (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The world is facing it's worst health and financial crisis in a century but 2020 will primary be remembered as the worst year in the history of atheism.[3] In 100 years time they will not be talking about the coronavirus pandemic but about how a website lost some web traffic that still far exceeds Conservapedia but still. When your football club has fallen to mid table you do not expect the club that has just been relegated to non league, as Conservapedia has, to mock it.--Mercian (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Giuoco has point; between Brexit and China decoupling, the UK can have a jobs boom in the very near future. The UK could become the Taiwan of the Atlantic, producing PPE and body bags for the planet. nobsFree Roger Stone! 16:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Good but largely irrelevant points, you are missing the big picture here, 2020 is the worst year in the history of atheism. A possible boom in the UK and the continued pandemic that has yet to savage the 3rd world like it may do, are all footnotes to the main story of the 21st century so far. It is only matter of time until an article (of the month, year, decade, century, modern period) is written to reflect this.--Mercian (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Rob, your irony is refreshing after Ken's blissful ignorance but you might still like to do a little research. We don't make things. The neo-liberal Conservative and New Labour governments stripped manufacturing away and the neo-liberals who brought us Brexit aren't planning on bringing it back. On the contrary, they're talking about stripping away even more, starting with agriculture. Brexit is one of those events that the Chicago Boys wet their pants about. Chances are we'll end up like Argentina eventually. LondonGrump (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Conservative's time here was short indeed, I think he had a machismo failure. When rationality raised it's rational head he bravely turned his heel and fled, brave brave Sir Kendol.--Mercian (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercian, a few points:

1. As far as the world supposedly facing its worst health and financial crisis in 100 years, I would point out that your contention is dubious. First, the Spanish flu infected about a third of the world's population. It is unknown if the COVID-19 crisis will reach that level of infection or be largely vanquished by a vaccine, etc. So per capita in the world, the Spanish flu could wind up being a worse pandemic. Second, it is unknown if the COVID-19 related financial crisis will cause as much lengthy suffering as the Great Depression per capita of the world's population.

2. Mercian, the world has about 1,500,000,000+ websites. Conservapedia is one of them. My username is GiuocoPiano. In chess, a players has multiple pieces at his disposal such as pawns, bishops, knights, rooks, a queen and king.

Mercian, where is your proof that Conservapedia is the only piece on the board that I have influence on or the User: Conservative collective has influence on? Conservapedia is a tool. It is like a hammer. But is it the only tool in the User: Conservative collective toolbox? According to the Systems Leadership Institute: "Systems thinking is a management discipline that concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the components that comprise the entirety of that defined system." According to the blog, Examining Atheism: "A fundamental principle of systems thinking is that if you have a key component of a system that will cause the system to shut down or degrade considerably then redundancy should be employed or the component should be able to be quickly replaced."[4] Now if my objective was to advance Christendom and if the atheist movement is essentially dead in the West (which it is, see: Decline of the atheist movement) and if I/collective have access to more than one website (or more than one medium - non-internet ways of getting out a message), then you are going to have a hard time showing that my "football league" is in a slump!

"...when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." "Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move." - Sun Tzu. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu. "Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances." - Sun Tzu. "In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle – you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?" - Sun Tzu.

By the way, have you shown that Operation Flying Fortresses is not racking up victory after victory? No!

Furthermore, evangelical Christianity is seeing rapid growth in the world.[5]

Mercian, you are being myopic. Just because your "football league" is in a slump, does not mean that mine/ours is!

3. Who primarily caused the COVID-19 crisis? In terms of governance, is China largely controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Does the Chinese Communist Party mandate that all its members be atheists? Was China irresponsible in terms of allowing the wild animals trade to once again continue after SARS? Was the CCP irresponsible during the early days of the COVID-19 which allowed it to become a worldwide pandemic?

Mercian, if you answers these questions honestly, you will admit that it was atheists who caused the COVID-19 pandemic!

4. I never said that in 100 years people will be talking about RationalWiki. That is merely the strawman that you set up and knocked down! Please read the articles listed on the User: GiuocoPiano user page. If you read the articles, you will quickly come to the conclusion that people will not be talking about RationalWiki 100 years from now!

I hope this clarifies matters for you.GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anyone here who has as big an ego as to boast their work will be known 100 years from now. Sounds more like something Conservative would say about himself.-- (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Another gold star, Ken, for keeping your writing on point. Next, I suggest you work on precision. A long screed like that tends to fold in on itself and lose the reader. Rather than work on structural signposts to guide the reader, try to hone your ideas first. With your clarity of thought will come clarity of expression.

You could be a good writer, Ken, so apply my feedback to your next contribution. LondonGrump (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will give you a true story. My best English teacher was an atheist. He was a martinet who refused to grade on a curve. He gave me a B++. The first day of class, he asked my English class: "How many people in the class go to church once a week? How many people go to church twice a week?". I raised my hand for going to church twice a week. Of course, I was robbed from getting an A due to religious persecution! LOL!
On a more serious note, in the next 1-3 years, I plan on reading the book "On writing well" by William Zinsser. I called the aforementioned professor many years after graduating and that is the book he recommended I read. I also plan on reading Strunk & White's The Elements of Style.
So my writing style is bound to change.GiuocoPiano (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
LondonGump, I have never been a fan of merely using hydrochloroquine. Hydrochloroquine works synergistically with zinc sulfate as far as increasing zinc uptake in cells (Zinc is an anti-viral).[6] Furthermore, Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment uses azithromycin as well (see: Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment).GiuocoPiano (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should find a teacher who isn't fifty years behind the times. You know, one that grades you on how good your writing is instead of how good everyone else is. Criterion referencing, they call it in the trade. That way you won't get a mickey mouse grade like a B++. If you meet all the requirements of a B, but none of an A, you get a B. Meet all the requirements of a B and some of an A, you get an A.
As for the books on writing, have you been clicking on those ads on Facebook? You know, "read what CEOs read", "free book on the secrets of powerful communication", that kind of thing? You can no more learn to write effectively from a book than you can learn to drive a car. It is possible but it's no substitute for conscious practice.
Given your recent reflection on my feedback, your slipping back into "I", "my", "me" again is a step in the wrong direction. Still, keep showing me your work because you have promise. LondonGrump (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the frequent criticisms of material written using the User: Conservative account by RationalWikians is the quality of the writing.
Gentlemen, if the writing at RationalWiki is so cogent and masterfully done, then why is your web traffic plummeting?
Leadership is by example, gentlemen.GiuocoPiano (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a new concept for you but that's the beauty of criterion referencing. You get the grade your writing deserves, regardless of how well the people around you write. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. LondonGrump (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ken debates me![edit]

Ken (or at least the person behind the account he claims is his) is actually going to debate me! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems Ken has decided to cease engaging with me! Perhaps I should offer him a fruit basket? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Cowards not not debate, they stand behind the bully and look hard. When they step from behind the bully they soon slink behind him again, as Ken just has.--Mercian (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
GrammarCommie, your first post to me was about debating me about the definition of the word atheism. A word with several definitions and a history behind it. And some definitions are used more frequently by various camps. For example, encyclopedias of philosophy use the more stringent definition of atheism. I briefly attempted to interact with you about this matter, but it was like pounding my head against a brick wall.
This was followed by you erasing my material.
If you were looking for a debate, you are going about it the wrong way.GiuocoPiano (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


I see CP is still as shit as ever... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Karajou, try telling someone what you want rather than expecting them to read your mind. Hint, it might help... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are you people still so obsessed with this internet backwater? Oxyaena Harass 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm not. But RW originated from debates and exclusions there some 13 years ago and Ken likes to try to get some traction to his silly misunderstandings of "atheism" which he posts over there, which tends to remind people. Also it used to be quite funny, but I don't know what it's like now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena It's like watching a drawn out train wreck, the morbid horror is so hard to ignore I actually went over there to correct Ken, who accused someone else of being me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It's all Greek to me. Oxyaena Harass 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's obsessed with CP. It's just fun to laugh at every now and then. (I also like to look at their versions of the pages I make/overhaul and smirk because mine are much better). Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It's just pure cringe. Oxyaena Harass 20:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
If anyone's obsessed with CP, it's CP. Such manly men strongly influencing the world! Definitely not a bunch of Internet nobodies like everyone else, no sir! Narcissus weeps, for he has been bested. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Gentlemen, Conservapedia does not have a page on it website entitled "What is happening at RationalWiki?" that it updates regularly. Once again, liberals/leftists engage in projection!
Gentlemen, the first step in conquering an obsession is admitting you have one! Seek God's help in conquering your Conservapedia obsession. Clearly, all the methods you have been employing that involve mere mortals to conquer your Conservapedia obsession have failed!GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You are them man who described children murdered in my country as "Pro sodomite sluts and whores". Deny this and you are a cunt. You also mock cancer victims (ie myself), deny this and you are a cunt. You also are for gay people being stoned to death and locking atheists up in concentration camps, deny these things and, bollocks to it, you are a cunt denial or not.--Mercian (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not appropriate word to use. There's nothing warm, welcoming or enjoyable about Conservapedians. LondonGrump (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercian, I have addressed your Ariana Grande contentions already. I see no point in endlessly chewing that cabbage.

I wrote the article "Atheism and cancer" without knowing you had cancer. I have covered many topics relating to the topic of atheism and health.

Lastly, it is atheists who are locking up theists in camps. Most atheists in the world are in East Asia and the Chinese are putting Muslims into "reeducation" camps. As far as homosexuality/homosexuals, I rarely think about those topics!GiuocoPiano (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Atheism isn't the reason for that, it's an excuse. It has a lot more to do with making Xinjiang/East Turkestan more enticing to investors, and plain old Han ethnocentrism ofc. Oxyaena Harass 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Secular leftism has a history that has contained mass murder and oppression.[7] It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.[8] The secular right does not have a history of mass murder. Most atheists lean to the left politically.
On the other hand, biblical Protestantism has a history of creating democracies that have prospered.[9]GiuocoPiano (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I have caught you lying red handed, consider these two posts [10][11] Unlike on Conservapedia you are unable to over-site your lies.--Mercian (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Mercian, when I created the atheism and cancer article, I had no idea you had cancer. Merican, stop thinking the universe revolves around you. GiuocoPiano (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I bet you cannot turn around in doorways Pinocchio--Mercian (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Reference your undone post, did you ever get to dance with the red headed lady? That was going to be the highlight of your year I believe. What is it like to be a middle aged virgin? Animals do not count.--Mercian (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mercian, I have never seen someone write an encyclopedia medical/health article and then be accused of writing it due a particular person.

This is nuts! I have never read an encyclopedia article and thought it was addressing me somehow.

There is a 2017 journal article entitled The perception of atheists as narcissistic (The perception of atheists as narcissistic, Dubendorff, S. J., & Luchner, A. F. (2017), Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(4), 368-376.).

You know agnostics are the kissing ideological cousins of atheists.GiuocoPiano (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends. There are self-identified agnostic atheists and self-identified agnostic theists.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Muslims and Jews are ideological cousins though they rarely kiss. It all comes down to which fictional son of the fictional Abraham was sacrificed to their fictional God. That is the basically the only difference.--Mercian (talk) 20:18, 21
Dante, like many mediaeval theologists, went easy on agnostics. They often explore the nature of God more deeply than the visibly faithful. LondonGrump (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


...are we even humouring someone whose history of wholesale hateful homophobia and continued sealioning is not worthy of any civil response and attempts to debate with such vermin demean us all? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to validate dogshit with the pretence of debate AMassiveGay (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm constantly asking this but this guy remains unblocked for whatever reason. I think we're wasting too much energy with this stupid feud with these assholes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason we haven’t blocked rob. AceModerator 01:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
that is not answering the question at all. it makes me genuinely uncomfortable posting here right now while we provide a platform for dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Now were are panty waists.[edit]

[14]It must take a special kind of machismo to actively support child murder and mock the victims. He cannot shake that, underneath all of his bravado he is nothing more than a pro child death armchair terrorist. I'll take being a panty waist any day of the year.--Mercian (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember the times when conservatives favored the strong, silent type. Those quiet people who served in combat and never spoke of it again, because to do so might be seen as a brag or pride. A person that observes, contemplates, and responds only as needed. A person that does not need to try to impress you, because they frankly do not care if you are impressed by them. A person that knows the ones who need to talk themselves up, who talk about how brave they are, about their amazing accomplishments, are empty shirts. Because the braggarts, the bullshitters, only see other people as a resource to reflect back on them their own glory, and are a waste of your time. Now we have a president who actively dodged the draft bragging about how he'd take down active shooters, who talks about nothing but how amazing he is, the kind of useless chattering boy-man that my grandfather's generation wouldn't give a wet shit for, yet is eaten up by people who don't have any fucking idea what being a man is beyond having the loudest mouth and the hardest cock. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right[edit]

Apparently in October 2019 Conservapedia predicted that ANTIFA would be designated a terrorist organisation. [19] I guess Andy hopes that nobody would notice that the prediction was added on the 31/05/2020. It's easy to be proven correct if you make the prediction after the fact.--Mercian (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It actually was added to the list of terrorist organizations on October 13, 2019. [20] 2601:644:301:DD70:E9CB:3FAE:DF85:81A8 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone could have predicted Trump hiding in a bunker from anti-fascist activists. LondonGrump (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I dunno; that video of him grabbing the podium trying not to shit himself when a guy hopped the security barrier during the campaign seemed to pretty clearly show his character. Only big strong brave boys grope the arms of Secret Service officers like that. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Lot of it about. LondonGrump (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Conservapedia will still support him after Tiananmen Square 2 happens on American soil.--Mercian (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean they support him despite his love of Tienamen Square 1, so it tracks. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Trump doesn't have the legal authority to designate antifa a terrorist org given it's a political movement rather than a single group comprised of many distinct, autonomous units with different methodologies that barely interact with each other. Oxyaena Harass 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pansies are pretty flowers, go plant them in your garden you dumbass[edit]