Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive54

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <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>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

Dinosaur sysop revert[edit]

Maybe not really quite WIGO Prime Time ready, but I'll leave that to others to decide (potentially as updates roll in):

Nice to see that not every sysop is mindlessly bowing to Ken's will yet. --Sid 21:01, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

That's cos they hate him! :D <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 21:05, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
That's okay, he doesn't think much of them, either. --Kels 21:13, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If Karajou blocked him, and he unblocked himself, it'd be an eerie repeat of the conflict between Conservative and TK. NorsemanWassail! 00:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
So has Ken become the new TK? Or is it Ed? I keep forgetting SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 04:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

The Sixties[edit]

There were many great musicians in the 1960's but dont mention the beatles or the stones!......13 June 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked "AdenJ (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 hours (Lauding apologists of illegal drugs) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

Don't knock it. cp:The Sixties is a classic in the making. It isn't hard to imagine Bugler foaming at the mouth as he writes about a wave of promiscuity and the promotion and practice of all forms of perversity. Ya just got to love it to bits Silver Sloth 08:39, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm confused ... maybe because its early or because it was written on CP, but how can the "left" be doing all the drugs and protesting a war (vietnam) be a result of their "left-inspired" violence. Jrssr5 08:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
His sixties were very different from mine. He talks about and the loosely-rolled 'joint' or 'reefer' became the trademark of the 1960s student leftist plotting world revolution in his bedsit. My reefers were always very tightly rolled, you get a far better smoke that way. Silver Sloth 09:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Looks like someone is still bitter about Dylan going electric.

Their bit about Tune in, turn on, drop out is a bit misleading. (Not that it's a surprise...) Check the wiki link - The phrase is actually much more a spiritual one rather than a drug one. It has been since co-opted as a drug endorsement. - Lardashe

Doesn't Timothy Leary consider spirituality and drug use more-or-less the same thing? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 10:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing in conjuction with this Andy and all hate the Summer of Love ... so does that mean that they enjoy the Summer of Hate when Punk rose? Does that make Punk music conservative? Jrssr5 10:44, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Great music of the sixties includes Sergeant Barry Sadler - Whilst these things are subjective I'm not sure just how big a consensus that choice will get. Silver Sloth 10:53, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Addressing two things - first, I had to check wiki's page for Barry Sadler. While I know the song, I never really remembered who performed it. A one hit wonder is clearly worth listing on the same list as the Stones and Beatles. Second thing - Punk is oddly popular with conservatives. Not all of it, but I do know that Johnny Ramone was conservative. The ethic of the music could be interpreted as a focus on self-reliance, and a lack of consideration for the welfare of others. While this is not always true, it's one way to look at it. While they don't care for the safety-pin culture of it, the popularity of anti-government rhetoric appeals to conservatives - at least while liberals are in power. - Lardashe
Just to clarify for others, Barry Sadler wrote The Ballad of the Green Berets (of which I have at least one sarcastic punk cover). He also appears to have led a rather interesting life. And.. where are the Kinks? CSN & Y? Bobby Zimmerman? Jefferson Airplane & Grateful Dead? Simon & Garfunkel? They definitely need more American musicians! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I do hope that you're not suggesting that the Kinks were American. As long as I gaze on Waterloo sunset I am in the Village Green Preservation Society. Silver Sloth 08:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's Letter[edit]

Should someone drop a line to "Professor" (assuming he's ACTUALLY a Professor - one can never be sure) Lenski and explain to him what a "Conservapedia" is? PFoster 13:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

It might indeed be useful to give him a heads-up, as you can bet he's never heard of Conservapedia. DogP 13:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
That's typical liberal ignorance. In Andy's world *everybody* knows what Conservapuddle is. After all, there been 60 squillion page views. Of course, if Lenski goes "huh?" then Andy will no doubt leap up and down yelling "You're clueless." PsygremlinWhut? 13:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I would love to see Assfly get the data, all 20 years of it (I bet there are gigs worth of data tables). Who the hell does he think he is? Here let me send you my research so that I may have your biased approvial (not to mention that you have no idea what you are looking at)... yea, right. I wonder if the Assfly has even considered the fact that it takes a bit more than Bio 101 to understand Linski's work.--TimS 14:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
While that's true, Andy can easily misinterpet data intended for a Bio 101 student. Jrssr5 14:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
The data is a red herring. Andy doesn't actually care about the data. He'll get it and claim that they're making up their interpretation of it. In fact, the data will support that God's hand is clearly manipulating their experiment to try to persuade them that he exists. - Lardashe

If I was in Lenski's position, I would be sorely tempted to simply send it all to him without further ado. --λινυσ() 14:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's the response. Barikada 15:18, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lol, Lenski more or less tells Andy to read before asking stupid questions!--TimS 15:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

This is shaping up to eb quite a funny one. Can't wait to see Andy's reply... RedDog 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
And he replies in such a nice way, I can't imagine how Andy will twist this into not sharing information. Jrssr5 15:52, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I note that Andy signed his letter with his irrelevant "credentials" (B.S.E., J.D.). Real credentialled people rarely, if ever, wave their post-nom alphabet soup around. Anyway, it's awesome that "Professor" Lenski replied so quickly, clearly, and concisely. I bet his grad students will be hoisting a glass in honor of the Schlafloid this very evening. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:52, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Five internet pounds says deceit gets worked into it somehow. Off the top of me head, via the hollow sham that is peer review of evolutionist propaganda by fellow evolutionists. They're just not open-minded enough to accept the truth of teh Bibble and hence not motivated to hunt down the obvious contradictions in Lenski's assumptions/methodology/conclusions. In other news, Lenski: what a fucking hero! :) --Robledo 17:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Now, now...I notice the above link shows that Aschlafly hisself entered the Prof's reply. Let us not rely too much on mockery. He could have burnt the email when it came but he did the honorable thing and posted it forthwith, (knowing he'd be forced to endure the cross of humility...which is probably why he wears them hunking sweaters, A) to hide them there cross marks and B) to cushion said cross agin his bony frame.) CЯacke® 18:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I'm quite sure that he will, somehow, twist this into deceit of some kind. He might, for example, find some irrelevant part of the data that seems fake, and then claim the entire experiment is a "liberal claptrap" or something. Etc 19:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, he can easily accuse Lenski of "dodging the question". Or perhaps of not being a real professor... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Lenski should have researched him & then not bothered to reply. giving him any attention is fucking dangerous - he'll make capital out of it somehow in his own sick little mind. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Bah. Didn't Assfly make it clear in his letter? He wants data so he can reproduce this grand, sweeping two decade long experiment in his New York apartment with the help of successive classes of Homskollars. 200 brainwashed creationists, 20 years and 2 jars of peanut butter later and they'll have evilution disproved once and for all.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
They had to abandon the banana portion, due to legal issues. --Kels 19:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Someone should tell Andy that it's obvious he doesn't have the facts on his side, as he's grasping at straws to come up with a way to bring down Lenski. Sterilesnore! 13:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Not so sure about that. I imagine Andy will look even more stupid and suffer much public humiliation if he really gets into a campaign to give him vast tomes of numbers that are clearly gibberish to him. Heck, the guy can't even understand legal issues, and he's supposed to be a lawyer (cf. Steve Carson). DogP 13:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Controversy, Andy Style[edit]

This is lulzy - Andy defends the censorship reversion of an edit to the Classroom Prayer article because it "also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial". There's a whole thread that follows where folks bang their heads on keyboards trying to get Andy to justify the following gem: "Saying something is "controversial" is a liberal way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth."

Makes me think about coining a new phrase - "Andy-Matter". This is the substance that Andy's world must be composed of, including the dictionary he uses. If any matter from reality were to come into direct contact with Andy-Matter, you tend to get explosive results. --SpinyNorman 14:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Can we call this the "Controversy Controversy"? Barikada 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
You got my vote! --SpinyNorman 16:13, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
It has been added to "Liberal Bias". --Sid 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I just went searching to see if I could find quotes in which Andy had previously used the word "controversy" on Talk pages. And the astonishing thing is- there appears to be none. The man is at least consistent, and it seems (on more than a cursory glance) to have never, ever used the word. Which is quite remarkable really. DogP 16:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I say, Teach the Controversy Controversy!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:53, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
@ DP, that's because, even though the ID motto is "teach the controversy", in Andyland there is no controversy, only deluded evolutionists and liberals, etc. and his truth. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
"Teach the Controversy Controversy!" items are now available at the Clueless Values store.

Article of the year[edit]

Hey, I've just noticed that Atheism is no longer being advertised as 'article of the year' on the frontpage any more. When did that happen? (And did anyone ask Ken)? Charles SubLunar (mr) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

It got promoted to "Special Feature". --CЯacke®
Promoted in the Peter Principle sense? Charles SubLunar (mr) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, Conservative, you unpredictable scamp! What hijinks will you get up to next? --Kels 19:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm surprised that he didn't restore the headline or move the section up again, actually. However, the redundancy in that sentence is epic fail. Oh, and kudos to PJR for restoring the actual Featured Article section to its old glory. Seeing Ken's front page masturbation entry there the entire time got old quite fast. --Sid 19:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Give him time. He's only made two edits of his customary fourteen so far. --Kels 19:44, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
It's the AotY again... [1] ħumanUser talk:Human 17:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim Russert "was unexpectedly called from this world"[edit]

Can't think of proper WIGO snark, but here is Andy's odd phrasing (for a supposed encyclopedia) of Russert's death. --Sid 18:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure it's wigo worthy, in terms of Andyland that's a fairly respectful way to note someone's passing, isn't it? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it is (hence my inability to find proper snark), but it's also so oddly unencyclopedic, especially since his edit undoes the more uncyclopedic wording. --Sid 07:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair Use[edit]

Tom Moore appears to have re-ignited his death wish. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Shorter Bodhan HenryS: "Here's a rug and broom. Use them." --Kels 19:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


It's a bit off-topic but someone needs to correct the "break up" timeline. Briefly, Let it Be was made before Abbey Road, and of course documents the tremendous tensions in the band. Abbey Road was the last album they recorded (although released before LiB), a virtual reunion album, and certainly a great gift from the fracturing band to their fans. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


There's a bit of news out about AP going after bloggers (the druge report being the the biggest of the ones the AP is going after).[2][3] Might explain why Andy took down the AP images from CP. They are trying to make a point and they will sue if pushed... and Andy knows deep down that much of the images on CP are not fair use and would get sued into oblivion. --Shagie 15:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Last word[edit]

Ok, this set my irony meter off the end of its scale. [4]

... Often, and probably most of the time, conservatives (such as myself) do not insist on having the last word. ... --Aschlafly 22:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

--Shagie 00:15, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Except on your own webshite, where you can delete comments and block editors on a whim... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
(Honestly, I thought this section was about me, given my paranoia due to RA's last header thing on my talk page, or at least, that song, "You're So Vain"!) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Human, that is covered in the next sentence...
More generally, one can usually tell the political views of someone based purely on observing his style of arguing.

--Shagie 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, so it was about me! Sheeit and dip me in it... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Az v. Moron[edit]

Kenny-boy's reply to Az's debate challenge is priceless "I won't waste my time debating you; I will only deign to debate the 'greatest atheist debaters in the world', and even that would be too easy". Who's going to want to debate a semi-retarded man-child with zero credentials? Az is being exceedingly generous by even pretending Ken might actually be able to put together a single meaningful statement. Sorry, Ken. You lose by default. Retard. DickTurpis 10:36, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

What does "bottle it" mean? I'm so unhip... :p Az 11:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It means "to chicken out", ya gooseberry. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 11:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Looks like Aziraphale's finally given up, and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Pity Conservative's much too much of an intellectual coward to ever get into an ever remotely 'fair' debate, and will probably just ban Az for 90/10. --Gulik 12:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
DickTurpis, How do you know his credentials? SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 13:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
How can I know something that does not exist? I know he has no credentials the same way I know you are not Governor General of Canada. DickTurpis 13:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
That is a great, great post. He has really called Ken out. I'm sure "block and delete" will be the repsonse but even with both hands over his ears shouting "La, la, la I can't hear you" it will hard to drown out the chorus of "coward". RedDog 13:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
In regards to Conservative's cowardice at Conservapedia, it appears the fallacy of moron is still in effect at Conservapedia. Conservapedia certainly isn't a contributing factor towards Sweden, as atheism. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Ken's total lack of credentials is well known all over the Internet. The closest thing he has to credentials is he hangs out at a major universities library. tmtoulouse heckle 13:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

A great many things are "well known all over the Internet". You really have no idea what his credentials are. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 13:35, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, well they have to be ultra super secret credentials since his name/location and intellectual capabilities are well known. The evidence for his credentials must be in one of Hubbard's vaults. tmtoulouse heckle 13:45, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) Come off it, Dohban. If Conservative had any credentials that would boost his esteem in the field of Atheism-Related Debates he would never stop talking about them. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 13:47, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe he really is well known all over the 'net. Maybe he's a cat with a piece of bacon taped to it. Barikada 15:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't bother, Jelly. Bodhan [claims to] firmly believe that there's no evidence that Ken DeMyer, well-known internet crank with no apparent credentials is identical to Conservative, the well-known internet crank with no apparent credentials who uses an identical, highly distinctive style and hangs out in all the same places and talks about the same topics using the same arguments, and according to some information received, uses the same IP's quite frequently. You know, because there's no reason to believe they're the same person or anything. --Kels 16:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh man..... Anyone who hasn't seen this page needs to read it in full. It'll provide some cheap lulz for the weekend SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Read this one too SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:15, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
A good chunk of years ago when I was first getting my feet wet with the whole creation evolution debate I was primarily a lurker at several major debate forums online. Ken was a regular and was one of the first people I engaged on the forums. His abject stupidity and limited grasp on what constitutes evidence and debate were frustrating but good training in tolerance for later less obtuse and more well meaning creationist I would argue with. After Ken's "rabbits chewing cud" thread I swore I would never engage with that idiot again. Cosmic irony is a bitch. tmtoulouse heckle 16:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

TerryH & Guantanamo[edit]

Where does he get his information:

It says that somebody blundered. Because, to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans.--TerryHTalk 17:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I thought that he was one of the more level headed cpers with his solar system guide, but this is just ridiculous. (You beat me on an ec to that last one sid!!) SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

You thought Terry was level-headed? Are you kidding? He's the worst one! Well, second at least. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 18:52, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
(I like the Sir to Aggrieved. Shouldn't he have slapped him across the face with his glove and demanded satisfaction at dawn?) SusanG  ContribsTalk
That's not very chivalrous. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 18:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Keep in mind that TerryH is the one who made blamed multiculturalism for that dead Harry Potter actor (if I remember correctly). And sorry for any edit conflicts I caused, Susan! --Sid 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

"When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative." Um, say Terry, if you feel your life is at stake, then why aren't you combative? I don't think you're one of the homskollarz, so why aren't you at your local recruiting office? Or are you one of those people who think that war is something other people do? --Kels 19:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I love TerryH's improper use of SAT words ("repose... that") and his assertion that the habeas clause shouldn't cover people we don't like. Doesn't THAT seem like the core of judicial activism?-caius (spy) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It gets better by the minute! SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:34, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
God, this is hilarious. My favorite quote (the "When my life is at stake" one is a close second place) so far:
TerryH: "I don't know who David Hicks is, so that name is irrelevant."
Wow, this can only end in tears. A pity that it's late. I hope this trainwreck stays around for me to read tomorrow. (If not, I'll demand screenshots :P) --Sid 19:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Not only is he blind to simple facts, he's a power-tripping prick, as well: "And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not."[5] ħumanUser talk:Human 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm absolutely loving this. Doo de doo. Do we suspect the long silence from Terry is because he's reading about David Hicks and knows that he has major egg on his face? Watch the goalposts start shifting all over the field now as he tries to block me. DogP 20:05, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
ShaBby DoG's gonna hear about his polite little offer to block everyone who is taking Aggrieved's side against the insane, drooling admin.[6] Why does TerryH (or anyone) think being an admin makes them "righter"? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Because he's an Authoritarian, and authoritarians KNOW that the Biggest Person Is Always Right. Facts are irrelevant distractions--only POWER matters. --Gulik 10:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Aggrieved's talk page[edit]

This is moderatly related to the above dicussion. The conversation has continued on Aggrieved's tak page, which according to CP rules is his castle. HenryS rocks up here and offers to start blocking people who have continued the argument there to TerryH. Shouldn't this conversation between TerryH and HenryS take place on one of their talkpages? 3.14159 20:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Do you seriously not know what trolling, wikistalking, and disruptive editing is? SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan, Terry said something incorrect, Aggrieved and others have disabused him of his lie. You should stay out of it, and no, it's not wikistalking - the man is wrong, plain wrong, and not only that, arrogant, stupid and obviously the anti-newspaper-reading and MSM policy over there is having an effect: it makes you dumber. DogP 20:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I know what trolling, wikistalking and disruptive editing are. They're excuses by a dishonest sysop to cut off honest debate. --Kels 20:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

No, incorrect. Go look them up on wikipedia. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
But I just saw you use them that way. Perhaps you're using the wrong terms. --Kels 20:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No, that is not what you saw. And I am not "dishonest". I am tired of you people treating cp like a forum. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan - back in your box. If it was called a Forum instead of a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia", no-one would have any problem, and we would leave you to your own devices. TerryH is an idiot who is so arrogant he thinks he can make claims about a topic about which he clearly know absolutely nothing. A Forum can have that kind of banter, an "encyclopedia" can't. DogP 20:34, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
How mature. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:36, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Shabby: Yes, how dare they treat CP like a place where people can debate openly. Honestly! Don't they know that everything has already been settled?? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 20:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
85 25 151 22: conservapedia is not a forum. If you want open debate, go somewhere else. Debating about the articles themselves is productive, what you do is not. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No. If you want to distort reality you must accept that people will disagree with you. And if you claim to be an encyclopedia or just open-minded to the slightest degree, you should welcome the debate. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 20:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The fact that Bodhan and the rest of the people in charge will not accept that puts lie to the idea that it is "trustworthy" or an "encyclopedia". Oh look, Bodhan lied again! --Kels 20:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
If you really "pity the fool", B, email Terry and tell him to pull his fucking neck in before he loses the last few remaining shreds of his dignity. --Robledo 20:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll quite happily admit, Bodhan's absolutely right. CP is not a forum. It's a hard right wing creationist blog and wanna-be propaganda source. --Kels 20:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan, let me ask you this: had YOU ever heard of David Hicks? DogP 20:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Good man. And how does that make you feel about people like Terry setting forth completely incorrect information? DogP 20:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan, if you're a man, you're going to apologize immediately with those you threatened for engaging in an otherwise healthy discussion, as well as publicly denounce Terry's power tripping. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 20:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you joking? I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls, vandals, wikistalkers, and disruptive users. If I knew I wouldn't get myself banned forever, I would block everyone involved in that pointless discussion. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Why is that discussion pointless? Go on, explain why? DogP 20:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. SHahBYou can't spell success without SHahB! 20:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It has everything to do with improving the encyclopedia, Bohdan. CP is still filled with horseshit, but at least a drive-by reader will now see a comment that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", and think "oh, it seems what that guy said is wrong". DogP 21:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
This is true in the sense that regardless of discussion or truth, sysops will put whatever damn fool thing they want into an article regardless of any consensus (see the Kitzmiller case page, for a good example of Andy just rollin right over editorial agreement). --Kels 21:02, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
If you banned everyone except Terry, you'd probably get Andy's hearty congratulations. --Kels 20:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Zero tolerance combined with cowardice doesn't play out too well. Why didn't you block TerryH from the get-go when he threated Aggrieved over a lie TerryH brought into a discussion on talk main? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Come to think of it, Terry is the only one in the whole discussion that fits the definition of "wikistalker", since he followed Aggrieved to his talk page to make his childish threats. The others all seem to have done the honourable thing, helping out a fellow user who was in the right against a bully. But of course, Terry is the only one there not in the slightest danger of blocking, and in fact Bodhan suggested blocking others to help him out, which in this case means "win the argument through bullying and lies". --Kels 20:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It is not a pointless discussion, hell, the talk page drama was started by one of your almight administrators (by the way, THAT is wikistalking) and is simply a continuation of another discussion that appeared on the mainpage and where two sysops were involved. In addition, your comment there said absolutely NOTHING about CP not being a forum or whatever, it simply stated you would block them when asked for taking part in a discussion. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Where does CP policy state that pointing out facts is disruptive? --Shagie 20:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry... maybe I miswrote that... "pointing out facts are disruptive"? It depends on what you want to agree with...
  • (Pointing out facts) is disruptive to CP's worldview
  • Pointing out (facts are disruptive to CP's worldview)
--Shagie 20:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It's all over the place. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

To answer SHahB question ofcourse I know what trolling, wikistalking and disruptive edits are, howelse would I have found the diff link? 3.14159 20:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way, here's a blatant attempt at turning CP into a forum, please block the perpetrator. If that's too hard a target for you, then here you may find easier victims. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
And what are you doing editing your userpage? Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, not Myspace. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The funniest thing about all of the above is: "How mature." from that archetype of maturity B****n. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Please take these scurrilous personal attacks to Shangrila Habib and her Buttsecks's talk page. I did :) ħumanUser talk:Human 21:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No, that would be wikistalking and we would be obliged to block everybody there who is not a sysop.
So, Bohdan, since you're not too busy to revert vandals, may you come back and defend your dignity? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't want him back, I want TerryH to come back and defend his dignity. He disappeared fairly sharpish once the facts started to start spilling over the sides of his ship. DogP 21:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I wasn't very expecting of TerryH before these events, so that's probably the reason for my apathy towards his idiocy. Bohdan on the other hand... NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

TH, Slabby-D, erection[edit]

Yah, TH just sorta vanished. And leave Slabby-D alone a bit, he's fixing CP's 2008 erection article for me. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Indecent reprisal[edit]

I am burned at the steak! Excellent, now I can go out for the evening. DogP 22:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
TerryH returned to seal our opinion of his character: moron, liar, stalker, and bully. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It gets better. DogP 22:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
PS, "Contempt of the administration" is now a blockable offense, although we always knew it was. Now it's in writing. How Nixonian. Bushian, even. Aggrieved has now been declared, in a terribly queer twist, an "enemy combatant". It's OK, Aggrieved (ok, DogP!), we've already snuck you off the boat to Gitmo and are offering you safe asylum in the United States of Canuckistan. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, sorry, normally I remain deep cover, but in the exciting back-and-forth I blew my cover ins a wee slip above which I didn't notice at first. Ooops. DogP 22:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I noticed, and should have at least deleted it (not the diff, just edited it). But just above, you kinda totally blew your cover. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

TerryH, what a fucking blowhard. Anyone reckon AdenJ or wandering will apologise? Ace McWicked 22:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh my god, that is great that needs to be saved so its still around after page deletion. 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm totally reading that in a Cartman voice. RESPEC' MAH AUTHORI-TAI! --Kels 23:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Wait, I thought TerryH was Cartman. He'd be like 16 now, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I call this "frothing at the mouth": "And you don't think you're actively deriding me? And am I not one of those in charge around here?" Two Terries rolled up into one? I'd give the diff link but I'm lazy. It's on Aggrieved's talk page (the banned user's castle?) after TerryH spews more threats and demands. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Holy shit, that was an insane experience. After such a display of superdickery, I would instantly banhammer TerryH and give Henry a very stern warning. This is the very definition of sysop abuse. --Sid 07:56, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sort of twigged at that whole "second offense" thing. I remember Aggrieved getting blocked by Ed Moon the first time, and it was for using the debate pages for actually debating things. As I recall, he was taken to task for it at the time, since it was clearly an ideoblock. Terry pulling the "second offense" thing is clear bullshit, like the entire balance of his "argument". --Kels 10:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Kinda reminds me of JM's "history of blocking" when he slapped down TomMoore fairly recently. --Sid 11:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Gang of Four[edit]

Obviously, at least for now, TerryH has earned inclusion as a replacement to the original Gang of Four, due to so many reasons cited above as to be obvious beyond 98 Schlaflies. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I proposed that ages ago! Hah! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 01:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

trolling, wikistalking, and disruptive editing?[edit]

Ban Andy for two of the three. Man enough to try that? :D NorsemanWassail! 02:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Sums it all up, really[edit]

This shows everything wrong with Conservapedia, compacted into one meaty ball of Stoopid. The thuggish sysops, the insistence that facts only have value as a structure to hang propaganda off of, the allergy to any sort of criticism or accountability, the squashing of debate in the crudest way possible... --Gulik 10:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia: A celebration of ignorance.
Auld Nick 10:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What time is it? MYOB o'clock![edit]

Wow, it's creepy how swiftly Karajou and TerryH accepted Crocoite's "MYOB" rule as a CP Commandment. --Sid 14:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

You missed my own block, Sid. I'm vaguely disappointed -- one of Karajou's most nonsensical comments yet, I thought. And, not especially surprisingly, he picked someone at random to call my sock. Smooth. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 14:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Man, he's always been bad, but this has really brought out his inner authoritarian little shit, hasn't it? This here is one of the big reasons why CP will never be anything but a parody of an encyclopedia. Protip: A real encyclopedia is responsible, first and foremost, to its readers, not it's administrators. --Kels 16:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

"They can't ban us all!" "Wanna bet?"[edit]

Get out the Banhammer, Bohdan...You've got a lot of work to do, as various peasants start thinking they can criticize the Elite and get away with it. And Andy gets to use his favoritest phrase in the whooooole world. --Gulik 17:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Karajou military redux[edit]

Remember Karajou's claim that "there are no Democrats in the military"? Well, I asked my dad (twenty-two year veteran of the army) and he said that, in the army at least, soldiers are overwhelmingly Democratic; Republicans only dominate the officers' ranks. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:24, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

At Rice, there was a big NROTC program; the kids I knew there ran the gamut. There was a really sweet girl who happened to be a creationist, but knew full-well that she couldn't win an argument on it; a brilliant scientist who happened to be liberal; a really good actor who loved his guns but was fairly moderate; and a crazy girl. So if they're future officers, that sounds right :-)-caius (spy) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou must be the exception then - ain't no way he was an officer. Unless I am seriously overestimating the US Military. Matt 22:02, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I think someone here worked out that he must have been a Semen First Class or some such non-com. It's all at the diatribe against him somewhere in the CP: namespace. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 22:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
That "someone" was me, silly Human : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Wasn't saying it wasn't sorry I didn't remember the cred., k? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Republicans are more successful, thus achieving higher ranks than Democrats in the military! (give them an avenue, and they will turn) NorsemanWassail! 02:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

My favorite image on CP[edit]

I found this [7] due to a good point our above-discussed friend Aggrieved was mkaing at talk:WPA.

First, it haz teh awesome title of "untitled". Second, somehow Jallen overwrote one of RobS' joynts and made the WPA article look even dumber, probably by accident.

Third, three pointzes to the first person to say what the key is. Two pointzes for whoever uses it in a "music" article. One more if they actually create an article on "inversions (music)". (Inversions are where the lowest note in the chord is not the root note) The race is on to save it from deletion! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

PS, I saved the image and a screenshot of its page for posterity. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:24, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It's D. Three pointzes! Or did I have to do it at CP? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No, you winz the prize of the first kweschun! D it is, indeed. I was also going to add "what chord is it", but that seemed redundant. What's odd is that wherever they stoled it from didn;t use C as an example, which is the more common form. Please record three pointzes for M. Arcan on the official tabulation! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of images[edit]

Taj really doesn't have a clue, does he. apart from "Can't we steal take whatever we want from abroad?" there's "If I show your picture it's publicity for you, so why complain?". Property rights, what property rights? (BTW Kajagoogoo's going over the top with his individual "tags" - one for each & every possible source - isn't he?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:12, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I only looked briefly at his tags, but my first thought was that Andy explicitly forbids the placement of distracting and large templates. Yay, double standards! --Sid 11:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

How quickly a year goes by?!?!?![edit]

So I go away for a couple of days and the "Article of the Year" is no longer the "Article of the Year," but a "Special Feature?" (And between the Lenski debate and the Guantanamo debacle, I really should have stayed home. I mean, getting married is one thing, but watching CP in full meltdown mode, that's priceless....)Anyway - how can they lay out a simple plan (Let's have an "Article of the Year")and manage to mess even that up?PFoster 11:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

You're married? Congrats!
If she really loves you, she'll watch WIGO with you. :P NorsemanWassail! 11:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Likewise on the congratulations. And there wasn't a "simple plan" in the first place. There wasn't a plan at all, Ken just walked in and took a dump on the main page and the rest of them scrambled to make it look like they meant to do it. So now it's the "Special Feature" and "Article of the Year" at the same time. --Kels 11:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Fully agree with Norseman and Kels on all points ;) Congrats! --Sid 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Congrats to the both of you! And Kels is right, there was no plan or discussion prior to Ken claiming AotY status for his pile of tripe. And PFoster's comment also reminds me that whenever we do a boycott, one of these classic CPlosions usually occurs. We should try to cause another one ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 16:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, there was "discussion" in the sense that Ken told a few select sysops that he would send them mails and then claimed that nobody really opposed his move. It's of course bizarrely silly behavior, and the consequences (that there would be no Featured Article for the entire rest of the year, for example) were also not made explicit. --Sid 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Congrats PFoster! Did you make sure to Marry a Conservative? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 21:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks all for the congrats. Marry a conservative? Are you kidding me? I WAS a conservative - in many respects, anyways - until this woman started me on the dark and difficult path to critical thinking and having some empathy for my fellow human. Now I am no longer a conservative AND I have a hot wife. win-win. 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Commiserations PFoster. I have been happily married for five years, the other sixteen were awful.  Lily Ta, wack! 15:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Marry a Conservative[edit]

Aside from the mind-numbing WTFness of the whole thing, aren't Liberals supposed to be the ones who start relationships based on ideology? It's so hard to make fun of Andy when he parodies himself so much more viciously than we ever could. --Kels 11:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It's truly weird. Apparently, things like "love" mean zip in a relationship. Rather, let's do a cost/benefit analysis based on political leanings! I'm also vastly amused by him not even supplying ONE benefit in his initial post. "The benefits are: ...*cricket*" --Sid 11:52, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Love means plenty. The "atheist substitution for love", which is all liberals are capable of feeling, means nothing. DickTurpis 13:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
This just in. Apparently Conservative's don't cheat on their spouse and are immune from STDs. He's hit the bottle early tonight. Oh - and I and I hate to be picky but technically Andy that's five, not four. RedDog 14:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, conservatives are very good at counting. 15:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Shorter Andy: "Liberal girls are sluts that must be punished. Mmm, I'd like to punish a few..." --Kels 16:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal girls probably don't want to have kids to be raised by a fascist so sneak the pill for life. SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
The exanples he gives are just too much. Surely Parody. Surely! Dear God someone please tell me it's parody. RedDog 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh my God he's added another. It's too much. The humanity! Sob, sob, sob. A heart warming tale of how Stan's liberal wife dropped dead leaving him free to marry a Conservative and dance on the filthy commie slut's grave. I feel dirtied having read that. Admitedly I am off my dish but that is one of the worst things I have ever read - and I've read Rudolf Hoess' 'The Commandant of Auchwitz' RedDog 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow...that's about the most offensive thing I've seen all day, and that's saying something. Andy might hate Liberals, but it's getting pretty clear he doesn't think much of women in general. I'm going back to watching Moyashimon, I need something cute to counteract the evil. --Kels 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
That came accross to me too. It's clear he hates women. This isn't Andy's encyclopdia, it isn't even his blog. It's therapy. RedDog 16:48, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
F*****g Hell! What is that thing masquerading as a human being? Someone call Phyllis & tell her her son's been stolen by the dwarves and replaced by a TROLL! SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)(listening to Peer Gynt)
Um...she's as bad as he is, remember? She taught him that all girls except mommy and his wife (who's basically there for sex and work, and isn't allowed to have opinions) are evil. That's Conservative family values. --Kels 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
He's a one man recruiting station for Lesbians International, that's for sure! : ) SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Maybe that's his plan...... His brother recruited him and he's shilling for the Gay agenda..... It all makes sense now..... Maybe not SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

On the discussion page, Andy mentioned Ronald Reagan's first wife.
Ronald Reagan's first wife.
Think about that for a second. :)
(Anyone want to sock up and try to sneak in a mention of Newt "I divorced my wife while she was dying of cancer!" Gingrich? --Gulik 17:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't all that long ago they were raving about St. Rudy of Giuliani, back when he looked like a winner, and even more back when he was the Mayor of Ground Zero. His marriage history...not so hot. --Kels 17:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

THIS JUST IN! I am the first block victim to have come about in relation to this mess. I'm just glad Andy didn't decide to insult my parents—instead, he just insulted me. --transResident Transfanform! 17:22, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but I beat you to it. [8]--Franklin 21:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Just plunking through the diffs... apparently, in example 3, the liberal wound up happy and the con. unhappy. Of course, he did marry a conservative. Hmmm. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
LOL ħumanUser talk:Human 19:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
That will never last. Too bad though. It's articles like these that make me wonder what inspires Andy to write this drek. Is it some sort of real life event? What is the name of his mysterious liberal-hating muse? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Mother. --Robledo 20:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
It's still there, and has been whitewashed a bit. What is getting old is that all these article end up listing each other, and all the other "liberal X" dreck. They almost write themselves these days. The "anecdotes" that Andy makes up calls "case studies" are a new twist, but easy enough to bot-generate I suspect. Hell, if Andy can do it, a solar-powered typewriter could! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This is probably the most roundabout way to say "CONSERVATIVES RULE LIBERALS DROOL"Shangrala 23:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Enemies list[edit]

Don't forget Nixon, the Conservative's dirty little not-so-secret. --Kels 15:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Mmm. I really must apologise for the Godwin's Law (izzat right?) but it is symptomatic of dictators that they start LISTS of threats. I think Andy's broken cover and shown what a little tin pot, banana republic despot he is. Nixon at least had some to challenge him - there's only peons saying anything against the CP-olitbureau SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski letter[edit]

We now have two WIGOs addressing this. Shouldn't the newer one just be an "update" to the older one? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

New WIGO poll code[edit]

It should act and look the exact same as before, but I have now set it up so that it should be possible to automate the WIGO maintenance tasks. If you notice anything odd let me know. tmtoulouse heckle 18:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Question: can we put the WIGO entries from the past few days back up somehow? UchihaKATON! 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
There are a bunch in "best of" and the rest are in the archive, nothing is ever erased. tmtoulouse heckle 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Ordinarily I wouldn't "complain" of the truncation, considering how much hard work is involved in best of/archiving these. But, sadly, the Lenski Affair and the TerryH debacle have been archived, and they are still fresh - and I think also very interesting to the casual visitor, being such classic CPisms. Just a thought. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
They are sitting in best of cp as we speak, they are not erased, and easy to move back. tmtoulouse heckle 20:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I know they are not erased, I'm just saying that WIGOCP is our one-stop-shopping visit for the curious, and just this time, it's a shame to have moved those out of the way. Is the numbering still on the same sequence? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
No all votes had to be purged because I have changed the "id" tag for each vote so that it is no longer encrypted. That will allow me to automate the WIGO -> Best of move. tmtoulouse heckle 20:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Alright, I don't mind much as long as the best of it ended up in best of after all. UchihaKATON! 03:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I thik it did, you can always go check, and as I said every bit of the WIGO entries are archived and can be moved back to the front page at any time. tmtoulouse heckle 03:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Night of the blunt knives[edit]

So does anyone else have a feeling that this will happen again?--TimS 22:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I doubt it will be nearly so dramatic - a lot of seditionists are shown the door in real time, so there isn't nearly the backlog of that last event. Some sort of purge might occur, though. Az 22:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yup. 22:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's think of a name in advance :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
"The Purge of Stupidity" "Purging those who argue with TerryH" "The Great Gitmo Purge" "Go fuck yourself, this is our wiki" ħumanUser talk:Human 22:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Think I'll get stabbed? I started the whole gitmo talk, he muse be angry with me cause so many people shit all over him because he opened his stupid mouth. DLerner 22:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
If CP lasts long enough, with the account creation policy it now has, I think its live editorships count will follow a "saw tooth" type of curve: Rising slowly from a base and then dropping suddenly; again and again and again. the NotBK probably won't be needed as most intelligent editors come to see what a laughing stock CP is when the hostility to common sense follows the same curve and provokes (as currently) repeated solo bannination or simply give up in disgust at the way their comrades are treated. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:12, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
How about "Night of the TerryH-bomb"? --SpinyNorman 01:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
"Night of the Sharp Clubs"? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:36, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


Whenever I take apart an article/essay bit by bit on CP, nobody even bothers to acknowledge it, it takes hard work people! DLerner 01:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

That's because people like Andy see a bit of text that's more than a paragraph and immediately start smashing things with a hammer. Tough luck, man. You're still awesome, though. Barikada 02:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I just blocked for calling Andy's essay a load of tripe, (WIGO'd it of course, I'd like to raise my profile a bit :)), To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: To describe Karajou as a piece of shit would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental DLerner 02:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
"Let's pretend you were stupid. And let's pretend you're a sysop at Conservapedia. But I repeat myself." Barikada 03:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
You've also got to remember that the first response to being beaten in a civil, fact based manner is to ignore it and pretend that nothing ever happened. Look at how many conversations and debates with Schlafly just die in the middle. The man cannot complete in open debate and it becomes painfully clear when he can't just banhammer somebody. Surprise surprise, his little blog attracts people who act the same way. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 04:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey DLemer. Sorry you're feeling ignored but trust me your contributions kept me chuckling all weekend. You have caused total outrage and hillarity in CPland over the past fwe days. RedDog 04:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I have noticed that no "Gitmo" blocks have been handed down. Ace McWicked 05:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


Hahahaha TerryH anyone? Ace McWicked 06:56, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

That is pretty funny, and incidentally, I agree with you about Bugler.... but I'll bet my Goat he's a parodist.... Whenever anyone is more over the top than Andy, my alarms starts ringing. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 06:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I think he's far too busy to be a fake. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Fish can wish 07:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, he is quite a fuck-tard if not a parodist. Ace McWicked 07:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

My parodist alarms also went off, but then again, they also went off during TerryH's meltdown, so I guess it's hard to distinguish between parody and true insanity. I'll head out now, but since this is quite likely going to be deleted, here are a few image backups (feel free to delete or overwrite as things develop): Original version, Bugler's version (as of right now), talk page (as of right now). --Sid 07:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, when I started reading CP, I wasn't really sure whether it all was real or if it was all meant to be satire. I'm quite sure that a least some of the sysops are parodists, and most active editors. The best humor on CP is the statements that just borders on the insane, but aren't wacky enough to be obvious parody. Etc 12:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Those aren't prdsts, they're just tolerant about each other's nonsense, for some reason, and they also insist on looking like an ideologically cohesive group, again for some reason, so they don't disagree in public very frequently. The consequence is that they end up having to defend the latest crazy insight from one of their own even when they don't support it.
Now, about Bugler, he MUST be a parodist, he is good at imitating Andy and knows how to do stupid shit without being blocked. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:25, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Kenny-boy's antics[edit]

Anyone catch the antics of Ken last night? It's mostly gone, but a few users asked him what the deal was with his "article of the year". Lil Ken made some half-hearted excuses, then promptly deleted his entire talk page (also inexplicably protecting and unprotecting it a few times). I also love his "archiving". He's been one of the most active idiots on the site for well over a year, and he has about 5 brief conversations that haven't been memory holed. Most of the crap on his talk page now is not talk, but crap he wrote that should be on his user page, not his talk page. Anyone have any idea what the matter with him is? Is he actually mildly retarded or autistic or something? If that were the case I might feel we should go a little easier on him. Fpr now I'm jsut going with the theory that he's a cretin. DickTurpis 12:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, after a year observing him, it is now clear that Kenservative isn't mentally ill or suffering from any form of disease. He's just really, really, really stupid. DogP 12:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I saw that last night - somebody mentioned that his "article" was located too far down on the main page to be seen without scrolling down. Dear Ken went off on a tangent about atheists and how high his page is ranked on Google, but alas, he burned the lot before it could be WIGOed. Probably easier for him than saying, "Oops, I misunderstood your question and talked about my obsession instead." --PsygremlinWhut? 13:20, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Gives me an idea: DogP 12:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Exit strategy[edit]

I regret having ever registered an account on Conservapedia. It's not an encyclopedia, it's a hate site. How can I go ahead and get myself blocked indefinitely (or five years, since five years is more loving and conservative than an indefinite block) without actually vandalizing?

As a followup, the entry cp:Affirmative Action President is just complete bullshit, propagated by someone who has an axe to grind. Their article on cp:John McCain states in the lead that he's a war hero, while the lead section of cp:Barack Obama goes on about every mistake he makes.

And yeah, I know I'm ranting here, but they truly suck. --Elkman 12:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I've never known anyone to have trouble getting a 5 year ban. It's nearly impossible to be semi-intelligent and not get one. Make whatever edits you think are good, and I'm sure your block will come in no time. Oh, and it helps to argue with the SS admins. DickTurpis 13:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, you wont need to vandalise to get that 5-year-ban you're hoping for. Here's a simple technique with a proven 100% success rate for bannination - just click Random Page and correct whatever incorrect information is posted in the article you land on. Then strongly defend that decision on the Talk Page, ensuring to back up your claim with substantial citations from official, non-blog sources. When you get to the point where you look like you're about to be blocked, ask the questioning sysop why Conservapedia is full of so much incorrect information yet claims to be a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". That should do it. DogP 13:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
(Edit Conflict)How to get a block without obvious vandalism:
  • Edit war on a pet article.
  • Ask, through a Parthian Shot on Andy's talk page
  • Mention Rationalwiki.
  • Obvious, over-the-top parody. (hit and miss - they might not get it)...create an article on "Liberal Cuisine" or "Liberal Jogging.".
  • Post a story about the ACLU doing something to benefit a Christian (this actually worked once).
  • Three words: Pacific Arboreal Octopus.
  • Edit the page on Slobodan Milosevic - or any other prominent bad guy who fits - and put the word "Christian" in the lead sentence.

Good luck. Any other suggestions? PFoster 13:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd go to This page and suggest that Andy provide a public disclosure of the status of the FBI incident before he asks Professor Lenski for any additional disclosures. That ought to rate a 5-year block in no time flat. --SpinyNorman 13:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Spiny Norman FTW!!! PFoster 13:12, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Boring solution: Just request a ban. I think somebody recently did that, and PJR complied... one moment... ah, there we go. Good thing that PJR doesn't ban many people, so it was still on page one of his log:
11:53, 3 June 2008 Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) blocked "JBrown (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (User request with the comment, "I don't want to be associated with spammers.")
Like I said, it's the boring way without many fireworks, but it gets you banned on your terms. --Sid 13:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm still partial to dropping an FBI reference, because it gets all the newbies wondering (and if they're naive, asking) what "this FBI thing" was all about. --SpinyNorman 14:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I've tried edit warring on cp:Barack Obama, even making an edit after the warning "revert liberal edits; warning of blocking of same liberal edits are made again" was given. I think Jareddr is being more persistent than me at making ideologically impure edits to the article. Maybe I shouldn't have pointed out to them several times that they block for ideological reasons -- it's making it harder to get blocked under that rationale. --Elkman 14:56, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree. A more flirtatious version of the same tactic would be to create an article on Steve Carson, or do some nosing around about him. DogP 14:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Just drop by Karajou's talk page and remind him of how many Democrats there are in the US military. Be sure to mention that you read about it here. You should see results soon. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 14:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
One other winning strategy is to drop some of the more uncomfortable Phyllis Schlafly quotes into articles, properly referenced back to her books and articles, and set your timer. --SpinyNorman 15:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Mention the name 'John'. RedDog 15:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Ideally, in a new Conservative Parable about "The Invisible Man" --SpinyNorman 15:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Site Maintenance[edit]


We are working on some maintenance right now. However, there no need to fear, Conservapedia should be back online by 5:00 PM EST Monday, June 16th 2008.

Thank you for your patience,

Conservapedia Staff

What's with the hideous site maintenance message? White on a red background? Lovely. And perhaps I'm projecting here but how do they make a message that short sound so creepy? RedDog 16:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(I fused our sections and slapped a copy of the message at the top. I hope you don't mind) No idea myself. Any bets about what they're doing? Whitewashing the database? Upgrading MediaWiki? Installing yet another extension to monitor puny non-sysops? --Sid 16:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
(Nice fuse job! Don't mind at all. If I could have worked out how to include the message I would have done. Excellent!) RedDog 07:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
"Please stand by while this site is purged for idealogical purity..." --SpinyNorman 16:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I've never seen a "maintenance" notice thing that counsels the user that "there is no need to fear". Or celebrate either, I suppose... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I think they're doing a MediaWiki upgrade. Maybe they'll finally how to use Special:Protectedtitles so they won't have naughty words showing up in the index. I just wonder if any of their special little hacks will get corrupted, like the one that makes you do a simple mathematical equation to verify your external links. (For example, they'll ask what 40/8 is, and if you don't answer "6", you get blocked.) --Elkman 16:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I think this is just a spiffier version of the thing every few weeks when the site half-crashes, and Andy has to feed the hamster. I think he has to reboot some back-end program to clean up a cache or something. That's probably what this is. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh for christs sake, I just woke up and need my lulz. fuckit Ace McWicked 16:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

ELKMAN CALLED IT (I think)! CP is back online with MW 1.12.0 and with "Special:Protectedtitles" showing up in the Special Pages! --Sid 16:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Nice :) ħumanUser talk:Human 16:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't allow editing though --Jellyfish 16:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I just noticed that, too. Not logged in, and all "edit" tabs became "view source" ones. Is it any different for people who are logged in? I certainly don't mind this - it lets me grab the source code of pages easily without having to log in! :D --Sid 16:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
The downside is that it's harder to see which articles are officially locked now. :/ --Sid 16:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe the ides plan is finally working... Sterilesnore! 16:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Sid, you never have to log in to get the source. Maybe they "accidentally" protected the entire site? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:56, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe your entire IP range is blocked. When I hit the edit button so far, I got to the "You need to log in" page that didn't have the page source (IIRC). --Sid 16:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Apparently they broke their math stuff fairly hard. --Shagie 16:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:36, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Should be easy enough to fix, there are two very common things after an install that would do that, which I can think of off the top of my head. For Andy I will do tech support for half my usual rate. Just let me know. tmtoulouse heckle 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
You think that's bad? Watch one of those articles' diffs (here, for example). NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Well that explains the problem AND gives us the account information for conservapedia, as well as its path structure.... tmtoulouse heckle 18:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*clicks* ... *screams* *closes tab* --Sid 19:00, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
This makes me sad. :( --λινυσ() 22:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
THEY JUST WIPED 20 MILLION PAGE VIEWS! Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 04:09, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh man they completely ruined their shit.Shangrala 08:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

<-- Since the update has anyone else had a problem with their watchlist not updating the pages they've viewed? Some of my links stay bolded even after a viewing. Jrssr5 09:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)