Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <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>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Anyone Else Having Issues?

Getting on CP's website? I just wanted to check if they did an IP block of the DC metro area. Also wanted to see how their presidental biographies compared to the offical White House bios. Not much is really said about 'W' but Bill sure has some props!--TimS 14:22, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I always feel like I have issues when I feel the urge to load some fo that stuff. If I'm gonna haul manure, I want to put it on my garden! human^{be in} 20:00, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Note: I just brutally archived this talk page. Feel free to copy back anything you were vitally concerned with from archive 5. human^{be in} 20:51, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Except for parrothead, (which I suspect) and Wisdom8976785, all contributors seem to be "block" or above in the hierarchy. So I guess "This site is stagnating rapidly" should ought be on the mainpage? CЯacke® 21:53, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Hence our joke slogans: "this site is growing rapidly", vs. "this site is shrinking rapidly" Weez phunny, eh? human^{be in} 22:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Porthos

I must say, I'm really impressed when told "You believe that by denying reality, you can somehow make it go away," Kookajou proceeds to do exactly that. --Kels 19:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Black Churches

I love this logic:

• . Church Arsons went down
• . Black Churches are churches

Therefore

• • Arson in Black Churches went down as well

Just another friendly Bit of Head-Up-My-Ass-Logic From the Schafly Horde SirChuckB 14:07, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Keep in mind this is from Ed "I-met-Jimbo-Wales-and-can-talk-down-to-you-therefore-I-are-an-intellectual" Poor.-αmεσ (soldier) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

HaHaHa! True dat! "Like nails screeching on a blackboard..." ---ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 16:08, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative: "High Google rank is important, but how we got it isn't."

Ahahahahaha...

(That's the current permalink - discussion is still in progress, but since Conservative tends to quickly remove discussions from his page, this might be safer than a regular pointer to his talk page. You should still check for updates, of course.)

So it's a Good Thing when the rest of planet Earth thinks that CP and Conservative's articles are absolutely idiotic because that makes them popular! How desperate must you be when you're this proud about being made fun of?

By this reasoning, RW is Conservapedia's strongest ally. Heck, Andy should pay us money - we're boosting CP's popularity and reputation as a Trusworthy Encyclopedia! Better yet, we should all be made sysops because we're contributing so much to CP's popularity! Godspeed! --Sid 21:45, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Unless the complaining websites listed factual errors or had substantive criticisms, I really don't care about them. Newton 00:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you want us to line-by-line it?-αmεσ (soldier) 00:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

What constitutes 'substantive criticisms'? Most every site I've seen that mentions Conservapedia seems to think it's a bunch of loonies with bad scholarship and worse biases. --Gulik 04:22, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Really, unban me, I never did anything wrong on CP. All I did wrong was hang out with this gang of infidels! Oops, if ya unban me, I prolly still won't bother to sign in and "make productive edits". Goatspeed!!! human^{be in} 05:38, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

However, RW and many others are boosting CPs page rank, and one might reasonably wonder whether this is really a good thing. It is a known fact that a substantial part of the internet users hardly ever look beyond the very first search results. --Sleeping Dragon 07:31, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a necessary evil. Keep in mind that RW is a Page 1 result for Conservapedia, which comes in handy when people stumble over CP and go "WTF? Is this parody? Is it serious?". While we don't exactly contribute to CP sinking into obscurity, we do point out how it is absolutely nuts (just like pretty much every other source that isn't as nuts as they are).

Also: Any halfway critical reader will easily dismiss CP. Their "concise" articles are too short to be of ANY use (they're either dictionary definitions, overly technical, or omit key things - see for example cp:Michael Crichton for an article created by one of CP's Top Editors), and their pet articles are basically overly verbose Chick Tract transcripts: "Screw any sort of reasonable definition, forget what the other side actually says, let's start preaching!"

As such, I'm not exactly worried about CP having a high search rank. --Sid 08:20, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that this is not one of our worst problems, I do not fully agree that this is a necessary evil. For example, one could provide the URLs without linking them, like <www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page>. --Sleeping Dragon 11:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, pretty much all of them pointed out bat-shit-insane errors. The thing is that you redefine the words as you need: "factual errors" excludes anything that goes against your own PoV, and anything that might vaguely argue against your preaching becomes "wrong", "liberal", "opinion", "garbage", "not encyclopedic", and whatever else you can think of, even if the material has authoritative sources.

As such, of course nobody ever mentioned any errors - by your definition, your material has no errors to begin with! And nobody managed to suggest good changes because - by your definition - all they ever suggested was liberal, post-modernistic garbage.

And you wonder why everybody starts crying and groaning whenever you decide to "improve" an article? (Yes, except for Andy, but I honestly don't think that he actually reads the crazy shit you write most of the time.)

In fact, I remember it well when you "improved" the Kangaroo article to become exactly what the press accused it of being: A ridiculously biased fairytale that plays down any possibility of evolution and instead argues that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Noah's Ark (or were catapulted there by a volcano - I loved that theory, is it still on CP?). --Sid 08:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Really? A V-O-L-C-A-N-O ? OMFG! Is this user, "Sleeping Dragon", Kenney? You banned his ass, and allow him back? This guy, it is like the religious people who knock on your door Sunday's. Only this bot never leaves or stops! His infection is spreading. He evidently has also "improved" the article on Hitler. -- --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 11:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

He should watch that as Hitler is one of TK's pets and Ken certainly doesn't want to cross the old borebear again. Genghis Khant 14:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The volcano theory and discussion took place on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas talk page, and all of it is still on CP today. One classic point is citing the movie Twister as evidence that tornadoes can safely carry animals. In all fairness, Ken didn't make any contributions to the Post-Diluvian Diasporas page, nor could I find any discussion of volcanoes on the Kangaroo page. The theory is still absolutely insane, but in this case, not Ken's insanity. --Brian 11:56, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Ahhh, yes, that was it! One of my favorite bits from CP, right along with "There are microbes on Mars because they were catapulted there from Earth during the Great Flood, via Hydroplate Theory!" (Link) Gotta love CP for those bits... :D --Sid 16:26, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Most of the links that RW provides to CP are no-follow tagged. tmtoulouse ^nettle 11:34, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Concise answer! I suppose that is so to not voluntarily provide CP with page views? --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 12:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You can still click on them to get there NT, but I believe it stops a search engine using them. Links from other sites is one way of upping your Google ranking, not that it would matter to Kenservative though. Genghis Khant 14:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

We bump their pageviews a lot, but they don't count as Google-rankable links, right?-αmεσ (soldier) 15:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Those links that are made with double brackets like [[cp:Main Page]] do count as Google-rankable links. --Sleeping Dragon 15:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Slavery & Racism

A personal challenge from Ken/Newton/Conservative can be found here. He challenges us to find non-Christian support for ending slavery/racism, etc. It was moved not to censor him, but because the topic did not pertain to this page.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:44, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

<sarcasm>You MOVED Newton's golden words? You horrible evil censorious Deceitful Liberal. </SARCASM> --Gulik 04:27, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was on the Main Page, rather than WIGO? --Kels 06:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Brevity

Just a thought, but aren't a couple of those more recent entries a bit on the long side? I understand if something's a "breaking story" you'd want to do some updates, but we might want to avoid whole paragraphs when it comes to the initial entry. Maybe they can be trimmed a little, like in the case of Graham's departure, which I assume is being covered in Banwatch as well. --Kels 14:31, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd go with one link per sentence. I think we need snapshots of the insanity not an overview of its wackiness. The truly insane and monumental ought to go on the best of page. MOO. CЯacke® 16:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Oops. I just added some not-very-brief material about Graham's case over on banwatch. I hadn't read this page at the time. But I felt that the burning of evidence just couldn't go un-remarked on. Should we add a new page titled "burning the evidence"? It seems they do it so much these days that we could easily pump material into it. Is there already a page on this topic? Gauss 17:17, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

There must be editors there who could copy the information, no? ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 17:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Harry Potter provided comfort

Those line ups and sighs of relief all across the globe after a new Harry Potter book was released seem to prove it provides a lot more comfort then I have seen the Bible provide people. And their is the same level of support for the science behind Harry Potter as their is for the science behind the Bible...........interesting....130.113.218.226 16:00, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

"Wait, What?!?"

Is there more to this than meets the eye? It's well known that CP loooooooves copying from .gov sources. For your reading pleasure:

• Conservapedia:Team Contest
• Conservapedia:Team Contest/New articles
• Conservapedia:Article Creation Record Attempt (June 23)

I won't remove the entry, but unless there is more going on, this could be turned into a "Yup, contest is still going strong, and the contestants do what they do best" thing? --Sid 11:49, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh, this one is particularly interesting.......take a look at the title of the article on cp... tmtoulouse ^nettle 11:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

You can't expect them to read something before they copy and paste can you? That goes against the entire "don't read an encyclopedia, write one" mandate. Looks like this contest is going to be nothing new. Debbie is already counting points for several articles that she actually copied and pasted back in June [1][2][3][4] and July (for the previous contest) [5] or even ones where someone else did the copy/paste instead of her [6][7] . --Brian 13:26, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

The reason I added it is because of the complete disconnect between the CP title and the actual meaning. The contest is patently ridiculous to begin with, but even within it there will still be lightning strikes of pure insanity. Stile4aly 13:31, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Ahahaha, sorry XD I didn't pay attention to the title under the assumption that they'd get that one right at least *laughs* --Sid 13:43, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Looks like the "Wait" article (unemployment rate) has been deleted, so the entry is now meaningless. Out of curiousity, what did it say? DickTurpis 18:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I've updated the entry. Put simply, it was just a copy-paste of the second link, but with a totally unconnected title. --Sid 18:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Someone needs to help "improve" this article, so it will be up to their high standards! Some are making it too liberal, according to TK. [8] ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 18:59, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Nah, see my CP main page post, its the FASCISTS! No, seriously, it is. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Look at the link I posted above! It deserves attention. Lots of it. Really. - --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 20:21, 30 September 2007 (EDT) 20:19, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

"Easy War"

So what military experience does Andy have, again? --Kels 16:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Same as his medical experience.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

And his legal experience and research experience.......guy is one step above living in his mommies basement. tmtoulouse ^nettle 16:26, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, as the patriotic man he is, I'm sure he's doing all he can for the war effort. I wonder, has he been promoting the recruiting offices in his wiki, or among his students? Encouraging the old among them to sign up as soon as they're old enough? To say nothing of signing up himself, of course, since I don't think he's outside the age range. That would be the moral thing to do. --Kels 16:31, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Fortunately, both the Army and the National Guard accepts new recruits as old as 42 years, so it's not unlikely that he could make it. And if not, well, better people than he have lied about their age in the past. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I am sure he has several yellow ribbons on his SUV. tmtoulouse ^nettle 16:38, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

He'd have the magnetic ones, so he wouldn't even be sacrificing a bit of paint. --Kels 17:04, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Fascism entry

Who posted the one about TK and fascism? Neither link actually takes you to where he's saying something relevant. I'd fix it, but I have no idea what the original reference is. --Kels 22:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I did, but the context is necessary. TK said 'we emphasise action, not debate'. Mussolini, upon being asked why he didn't go through political debates, said that it was because 'fascism is action'. I'll remove it though, if it's not going down well. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It's a bit tenuous. I mentioned it because I couldn't find the reference to TK saying that, which I figured would be necessary. --Kels 22:25, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

It was on the neocolonialism talk page, but TK's gone and deleted it. Oh well. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Infantile proxy jumper Nerd

Vandalism? Moved to IP's talk page. Susan^{talk to me} 15:31, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, so if I sign on, I can post here, but if I don't, I can't. Now I understand. --87.14.238.242 15:33, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Huh, wait... --87.14.238.242 15:33, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Can you explain that again? --87.14.238.242 15:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

If you're sensible you will be able to edit here as your original IP in 1 day (block length). But why not create an account anyway? Susan^{talk to me} 15:41, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't like accounts. And your statement about "your original IP" makes no sense. Look up "dynamic assignment" in a reference of your choice. --87.4.237.22 15:47, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Lessee, range block 87.4.0.0/16 does what? CЯacke® 16:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

A bit too wide (and possibly off target). I think 87.14.237.0/22 would get the IPs so far. I'm not sure how big of a netblock telecomitalia.it has. --Shagie 16:38, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

No need to sign in. Need to add "content", though. BTW, that odd wandalism should have been moved to a wandalism page, rather than the IP talk page, I think. Or, simply deleted... human^{be in} 17:11, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Mmm I would have moved it to a vandalsm page but a) 'tweren't funny & b) somewhere for the vandal(?) to talk if (s)he wanted to. I'll delete the page in 24 hours or so. Susan^{talk to me} 17:33, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Assfly on Ed Blocked....

"A Wikipedia administrator just blocked a Conservapedia editor and longtime Wikipedia contributor arbitrarily and without giving any reason..." Wow. After all, such a thing never, ever happens on Conservapedia. Screw you, Assfly. Take your pseudo-outrage somewhere else. PFoster 18:53, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, "arbitrary and without giving any reason" (that makes sense) is practically Conservapedia's trademarked approach to blocks and bans. And especially Ed throws those "x hours/days" blocks around whenever he feels that the other side might potentially be able to build a case that goes against whatever he invents. --Sid 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Update: I believe the technical term is "LMAO!" It would be absolutely hilarious if one of Ed's recent victims got creative, but I somehow think that Ed doesn't need external help at screwing up enough to get blocked. --Sid 19:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Slow reaction times

Brilliant! I expected maybe some obscure member (to give Ed the benefit of doubt), but HUMAN? That's one of the showcase guys of blocks!

Seems to be a trend, though. He also replied to Graham today (disclaimer: Graham apparently left days ago, but last time I checked, he was unblocked again), and Conservative also replied to one of my age-old posts a while ago.

Okay, I freely admit that they don't have an easy job: Considering how almost every non-sysop either left or got banned, chances are VERY good that a talk page reply to a post older than a week will be directed at somebody who isn't there any longer.

But at least Conservapedia is growing rapidly! Godspeed! --Sid 20:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

No offense for askin', but waht the hell did I have to do with this? Unless I missed it? Tx for tellin' :) human^{be in} 02:38, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

This was about the entry about cp:Talk:Slope - so you come into the mix because Ed finally bothered to reply to you :-P --Sid 08:47, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

TK has several times unblocked an account but left the IP addresses the account has loged in from blocked. This makes life difficult for those who have those accounts. In Graham's case, his account was blocked and IP addresses blocked on September 29th while just the account was unblocked on October 1st. There is also the question of 'does one want to exist on CP at the sufferage of TK?' For all practical purposes, Graham has never been unblocked. --Shagie 20:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Burka-Wearing Women on Conservative's Talk Page.

Wow. Kenny is a hateful moron with an infantile sense of humour. What an a-hole.PFoster 22:23, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

"Wow. Kenny is a hateful moron with an infantile sense of humour. What an a-hole." second or third'ed human^{be in} 02:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Grawert, Justice, concurring in the judgment.-αmεσ (soldier) 21:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Think I will sock him up, as suggested by learned counsel! ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 22:01, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

It just shows that Ken has as good a grasp of humor as he does of evolution. DickTurpis 22:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

We'll see how long it takes him to remove my question. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 22:22, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Even funnier that at this writing, the image he chose to replace the burka pic isn't working. --Kels 23:25, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Why am I not surprised? ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 00:08, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

His old pic of M.C. Hammer challenges us to find factual errors in CP's ToE article. Shall we takr him up on it? --Hjimachong 00:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Proably not without more communication. --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 00:45, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The picture at the end with the Russian guy says "a theory of evolution that I developed". He could say "an application for..." or "a practical use for...", but he can't say that it's a separate theory. Also, the existence of the science doesn't mean it's bad; jumping off a building will kill you, but you can't blame gravitation. --Hjimachong 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Lysenko's theory _was_ a separate theory--a sort of Lamarckian theory (evolution by traits acquired during creatures' lifetimes), as opposed to Darwinian evolution (evolution through random mutation). It was backed for ideological reasons by the USSR. Most people might take that as evidence that supporting a scientific theory for purely political reasons over evidence is a BAD idea, but not Conservative...it just indicates that Evolutionist Commies are DOUBLE EVIL. --Gulik 01:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

You might want to add that scientists supporting Darwinian evolution instead of Lysenkoism, were put into gulags. Not sure if this Stalinist practice counts as support of Darwinism. Tohuvavohu 02:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

To say nothing of the fact that, no matter how some scientists may have suffered, science is not about people, it is about facts. Verifiable facts about our universe... etc.,,, etc,,, etc,,,, oops, pick a booger now..... human^{be in} 02:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

wp:Thomas Samuel Kuhn. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:46, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

RobS and Global Warming

I don't think it's surprising that Rob would want a rewrite of the Global Warming article. I DO think it's surprising that he suggested that, in the article, a section on positive evidence should come before a section on critisism. Unlike, say, the evolution article, which for the longest time, the first paragraph after the contents was one about "Lack of Transitional Fossils," if i am remembering correctly. -- ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 08:45, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob? You mean Ed Poor, right? Rob didn't post about a re-write of Global Warming. Ed Poor did. -- --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ}

Rob writing an article about Global Warming would be immensely entertaining, though...

Rob: "Global Warming is caused by Communism!"

Sysop X: "Uhhh, Rob? We're sorta determined to show how Global Warming isn't happening."

Rob: "...oh. Well, in that case, Global Warming is just a Commie scare tactic to undermine capitalism and freedom!"

...and then we'll send Conservative in to "improve" the article :D --Sid 09:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

LOL! I did mean Ed, but I said Rob instead. My bad, sometimes the people at conservapedia all start to look the same...-- ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 12:55, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Nobody wants to play with Ken

Ken was fairly successful in chasing away from the atheism article first everybody who disagreed with him, then the few that didn't, and finally he even won Andy heart in the argument with TK about whether to open the article to the world. It seems however that he feel lonely in his new little kingdom, because right now he makes desperate attempts to inflame a discussion on the talk pages. Nobody wants to play with Ken. Serves him right. Maybe in the end he will even manage to make himself loose interest. Tohuvavohu 10:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow - does it really count as a "Talk Page" if only one person is doing the talking? Maybe they shoud install an "Insane Rambling Monologue page for him. PFoster 10:19, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

That's the article page. --Kels 10:58, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Somebody appeared to talk to him. Suggesting that the article isn't that great. I wonder how long he will last, if he is real. But I am suspicious that it is just a sock puppet. Ken's sock puppet. But that is of course wishful thinking. Tohuvavohu 11:45, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

TerryH's Medical Training

I recall seeing somewhere on CP that TerryH had proclaimed that he had medical training and therefore is a scientist. I just wondered if anyone had any evidence to support this? The majority of his edits have to do with the bible and he seems to miss some basic scientific understanding when it comes to biology. (I want to avoid sending my son to the school that TerryH attended, if he is medically trained)--TimS 10:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

TerryH did recently say "As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do" [9](second paragraph). He's also made mention of going to medical school [10](last paragraph). Interestingly, though, on his userpage on Wikipedia (as user Temlakos[11]), he describes himself as a software developer [12], not a doctor. On his blog, he claimed to be in medical school from 1980-1985 [13], and makes mention of being an intern [14], which would seem to imply that he is an MD.

It seems strange that an MD would refrain from making any medical-related edits, and would describe himself as a software developer (though he does claim to have expertise in medicine on his CP user page). I'm not sure that his claim is true, but his grasp of science does seem very lacking. --Brian 10:47, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know about that, but I do know ConservATory is Canadian. Nobody outside Ontario would reference Premier Dalton McGuinty. --Kels 10:56, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if he is fooling anyone by saying he has medical training? His scientific knowledge is lacking to the point I question his claims. I smell deceit.--TimS 11:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, if you take the above at face value, it would make sense if he dropped out of med school at some point. Failure or his own decision, it wouldn't matter, although I'm guessing the former. If he then went into computers instead, he could still claim to have "medical training", even though he gave it up more than 20 years ago, and probably wasn't very good at it then. --Kels 11:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I just asked [15]. I'll probably get banned for it, but maybe he'll answer or delete it. In any case, a refusal to answer is a sort of answer, in of itself, is it not, Grasshoppers? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 12:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't even get me started.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 15:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

We should keep a list of his comments that are out of sorts with the medical community...-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Cranky Ed

So, will he block TK for calling him a crank the same way he blocked Jenkins for calling his edits biased? Or will he show his neck to the alpha male? Or did I just answer my own question? --Kels 11:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

For some reason when I think of Ed I envision a sub getting ready to take a beating by a dom.--TimS 11:16, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur

Andy has approvingly called Conservateur a parodist, which Cons did not dispute. From that I can reasonably take it that this is one of the sysops posing as a parodist in order to disrupt conversations critical of CP (which is most of what Cons does), rather than anything genuine. DanH has also pointed out that he's a parodist, and despite not being shy about blocking parodists has done absolutely nothing to him. This leniency is extremely unusual behaviour on the part of the sysops, and it makes the whole thing painfully obvious. --Kels 13:59, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

He's gone Czolgolz 18:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I already posted something about what an AMAZING COINCIDENCE that he was banned very soon after I posted that. Isn't that amazing? --Kels 18:11, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I say without hyperbole that TK is nasty little prick not a very nice person and he revels in it. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 18:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, Tattletale, there goes hours of effort down the drain. The tragic irony is that aside from my sometimes overly-polemical talk page comments, I was actually making mostly reasonable edits to articles for the last two or three months, occasionally to correct stuff pointed out here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.--GeeThanks 19:00, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

You have got to be shitting me. --Kels 19:05, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

No need for proof?

If there's no "need to prove something doesn't exist", I think a few radical changes to CP's articles on God, Jesus, the Moon, and Ronald Reagan may be in order. --SockOfGulik 15:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Too funny

It's not really worth a WIGO entry, but this one from Ken makes me laugh. I read that bolded section as wild-eyed, zealous enthusiasm and imagine the reaction of "Oh, God, get him away!" and I giggle. 'Cuz I'm immature like that. XD --Kels 22:53, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, since we're being immature, I've got to say that I'm mostly amused by his inability to spell the freaking site name in the headline. ;) For the log, right now it's still not fixed. --Sid 23:11, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that. Good catch. --Kels 23:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

He repeated it in the first line as well, but got it right after that.:--Remarcsd 00:45, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Have you noticed: with conservative/newton it's always "jam tomorrow", never jam today? Susan^{talk to me} 23:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Goat gone

cp:Unicorn now in @ number 10. Btw has anybody got more sub pages than conservative? Susan^{talk to me} 23:08, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Nope, he's definitely the top guy there. What's funny is that subpages are NOT covered by the Castle Rule, so him protecting them and filling them with useless junk might not be Good Style (but then again, he's a sysop, so any complaint about that will surely end up with him boasting about how ebul lib'ruls are so afraid that they try to censor him). --Sid 23:18, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Goat has gotten "protection" from User:C, after he deleted it and recreated it; it has over 5300 "hits" as of the timestamp of this post. CЯacke® 00:40, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Over 7300 now. CЯacke® 01:02, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

You'll wear your index finger out! Susan^{talk to me} 01:07, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Nah, I set my auto-repeat om the keyboard just low enough to allow the cache to clear, I get about 500 "hits" per minute holding down ctrl+shift+r I'm too lazy to be stupid. CЯacke® 02:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I was doing the same at "racism" on metapedia. Until I got embarrassed and left the site. But I tripled its hits... (PS, pumped it up, it's 3rd after main and Adolf frickin Hitler now) human^{be in} 02:32, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Alas, Conservative hijacks another page! VirileSterile^{pie chart?} 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor - WTF?

More of a global observation, but certainly a "What's going on?" case: WTF is up with Ed these days? He's hyperactive and totally determined to... I dunno what. But here's what I noticed (check his contribs since I won't wikilink every single item):

• Burma monks, along with the blocks of Graham and Jenkins
• Goes crazy about Jenkins pointing out that CP sysops engaged in POV-pushing on WP, blocks him (despite clarification about Jenkins not meaning that Ed did that) and censors talk page post
• Grim determination to play down global warming (Montreal Protocol talk page)
• His "Global Warming" talk page stunt.
• Playing up the low death toll of Chernobyl as environmentalist liberal deceit and promising more
• Whitewashing Michael Savage's entry - because gossip is only gossip when it's about conservatives
• Replying to people who have been banned for months (Talk:Slope)
• Sob story about how the evil Wikipedia blocked him, followed by him being very grumpy/dismissive when people point out how that's not really Main Page material

I fear there is more; this is just what I noticed by occasionally checking the Recent Changes. Seriously, what is up with the guy? If I didn't know better, I'd say he's some sort of deep parody mole, trying to make CP look even crazier than it is already. --Sid 23:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Re: Chernobyl, CP's own cite at cp:Chernobyl hype actually estimates the total number of deaths at 4000. 50 is the stated number of deaths due to acute radiation exposure. Do I automatically get the deceit brand for carefully reading the source? And a couple of related points:

1. Sure, I understand that there have been plenty of anti-nuclear power crazies, but regardless of how many people died at Chernobyl, it was a freaking nuclear meltdown. Overhype? Aside from a comet smashing into Mount Everest, what non-war-related environmental event should should be hyped more?
2. From what I understand (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), environmentalists these days generally support nuclear power (it's safer now, it's cleaner than burning coal/gas, and all the rest). So I'm not sure what the point is here--Mr. Poor appears to be railing against the liberal environmentalists on this issue, but it seems they'd agree with him (though maybe not on the "Chernobyl wasn't a big deal" opinion).--Bayes^update 01:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)<--secretly believes that lower-back tattoos are deceit brands

Carefully reading sources is not the CP way. See: Burma monks, front page thingy about bird migration, and so on. (I still remember Andy citing a paper called something like "Suggested tests for the Moon creation theories" to support his claim that the theories are untestable...)

And even with a low Chernobyl death count, you should factor in the damage control and medical aid/progress, I think. If people had gone all "Yeah, well, don't worry about it", more could have died. So the fact that the actual count is lower than projected is as much good luck as it is limiting the effects, unless I'm completely mistaken.

At the same time, (if memory serves me correctly) not THAT many people died during the 9/11 attacks, so should the events following it be called "9/11 Hype"?

Not sure if you can make a blanket statement about environmentalists, though. While nuclear power certainly is cleaner than coal and whatever, the waste disposal is still an issue with them (See the CASTOR transport protests in Germany, for example. Here is an English source I found after a quick Google search). Most "green" dudes here favor things like solar energy. However, few people nowadays hype against meltdowns and stuff, I figure. --Sid 08:40, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed on point that more people would have died if nobody cared. Didn't mean to make a blanket green statement. I guess I'm under the impression that (speaking very generally), greens today would prefer to get energy from solar/wind/water, then resort to nuclear power, and only then burn fossil fuels as a last resort. As opposed to, say, in the 1970s, when there was more of a backlash against nuclear power. You're right, I probably shouldn't have said that greens "support" nuclear power, but it seems that given the choice of nuclear power or burning fossil fuels, more people would choose nuclear now, which wouldn't have necessarily been true 25-30 years ago. But that was before my time, so what do I know?--Bayes^update 11:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Startling admission by Assfly

He should seek help. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 16:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh. Dear. What a sick, sick, filthy little pervert. I hope someone in the US reports him to his local Constabulary. Spica 16:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Ken deteriorating?

I'm not sure if it's my imagination, but over at the AFD for his new pride and joy, doesn't it seem as if Ken's getting a bit more off the rails than usual? As you go down the page, he gets more and more desperate for people to understand his point of view, and his editing gets even more manic. To say nothing of the writing style, I mean look at this gem, in all it's rambling, incoherent wonder. And that took him three edits to do! --Kels 21:53, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

What saddens me the most is how he focuses on quantity instead of quality, and on constant re-arranging instead of thinking of a structure in advance. Not just in GBS, but also in ToE, Atheism, and what else not.

Encyclopedia sections aren't really modular. Or at least, they usually shouldn't be. Good articles should have a... I think the English term is "golden thread". If not, I mean the guiding principle that goes from the first to the last word. Each section leads to the next, sections build up on another, you got the intro, the main part, and the end... things like that. Yet, Conservative shoves sections up and down as he sees fit right then and there. The fact that he can actually do so shows how his "articles" are only thrown-together patchworks.

And his hasty drive-through editing style really shows when he makes a bazillion edits, but doesn't take the time to even properly format his references. I can't even click on some of the GBS reference links because URLs from the other column reach all the way over them. Don't even get me started on the horizontal scrollbars(!) and the multiple mentions of the same few sources (a problem that could be fixed in all articles once the risk of sections moving wildly sinks under, say, 75%).

It's not gloating or snark for once, it's genuine pity and advice. Conservative obviously has a lot he wants to tell the world, but his approach lacks proper planning. Instead his "articles" are ever-shifting as he decides that the sections should be ordered differently or that there is yet another thing he just HAS to include. Maybe he should take a deep breath and think more like an architect. Plan, execute. Plan, execute. --Sid 22:56, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, on pretty much all counts. The pity only deepens when you look at his conduct on the page, where when faced with opposition, not from those he's marked as "enemies" but from people who should be lapping up his every word, he doesn't have the language to deal with it. He's left with becoming ever more frantic, repeating the same points as if that will convince them. Of course, you see a certain degree of that here when he trolls for page hits, although I have no idea why he'd want us to look at his shit more, since all we do is just make fun of it. But it's quantity over quality, as you said. --Kels 23:04, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I think his pimping here is basically his try to game the Google system. Somebody earlier today posted his results of googling for atheism conservapedia, and most results were either caused by socks of Ken and potential socks of Robert Turkel, I think. Notable because one of his Talk:Main_Page posts here about atheism was on the first page, too. So he just wants as many sites as possible mentioning Atheism and Conservapedia in some context to rise in the Google rank.

And yes, his massive FAIL on the AFD page showcases how much he relies on hollow or off-topic replies filled with empty quotes or pointers to quotes. It mostly shows nicely because, as you pointed out, these people are the hardcore, no-fun sysops we all learned to love/hate.

But as much as I pity him (and a part of me does pity him a bit, really) for being torn to shreds, this is a LONG OVERDUE and well-deserved slap to bring him back to reality. People there don't want to hear about Yet Another Bad Thing About Homosexuality in the form of "he said she said, and look at AiG's article". They don't want to see yet another pet project of the week to clog the Recent Changes, especially since it'll be his exclusive property even when he gets bored with and finally abandons it.

Yo, Conservative: A little bit of team spirit and collaboration goes a long way. --Sid 23:29, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Communazi

Take a look at Unencylopedia's entry on Communazi [16].

Oh hey, wait til you see what I'm going to do with Matsuoka pact. Anyone wish to wager one year from now both these terms generate 30,000 Google hits each? RobS 00:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

My but you're a self-obsessed little tart! Counteroffer: if within a year the terms together and in quotes total more than 3,000 hits, I'll buy you a pony. Also, I don't care. Your silly taunts are rarely humorous, but they are all the more so when they're incomprehensible. So, as for this latest one, good job.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:29, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, take a look at it now.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Tee hee. Whatever, I had a good time. I got to prove to you what a moron TerryH really is. Sheesh. I even left little clues for you, which I'm surprised weren't picked up on by some of your more ban-happy sysops. You have to wonder, now; how many other people on CP are just socks? I'm the last old cabalist to have a sock, but the new guard is more virulent.-αmεσ (soldier) 01:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

There's a Simpsons episode in which McBain takes down some Commie-Nazis on his way deliver UNICEF pennies [17]. That's close enough to "Communazi" isn't it? I smell a source! Cite it. Cite it!--Bayes^update 02:55, 4 October 2007 (EDT) I surrender! Not so fast...

Um, doesn't the Simpsons, like South Park, like Family Guy, (in reverse order?) essentially have a goal to insult everyone, thus neutralizing their "message" - or, importance? human^{be in} 03:54, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

TONS of non-sysops are socks, I think. Not everybody, but I'm willing to bet that the majority is.

Oh, and Ames, I wouldn't make Google bets - after all, Rob seems to be Conservative's good buddy now (judging by how defends GBS even to the degree of effectively calling Con's pay-portal-sourcing policy a wonderful feature), so all it takes is one snap of Rob's fingers to send Conservative to hundreds of forums to spam the link. --Sid 08:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, I hope he does. If there's anything in this world that'll effectively discredit the extreme right political and religious movements, it's the collected works of Ken and Rob. More people should see this stuff, and its utter, raving insanity. --Kels 08:46, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

This gets me thinking. Conservapedia isn't a conservative Wikipedia, it's a conservative Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is pretty liberal. Conservapedia is, well, conservative. The only other difference is that one knows it's phoney and the other doesn't. Betcha can't figure out which one is which. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 15:03, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, and whereas Uncyclopedia's editing disclaimer is to "be funny and not just stupid", Conservapedia's seems to be: "be stupid and not just funny". I'm also not sure about Conservapedia's "funny". I don't think they mean funny (hah-hah). I think they mean funny (something else).

Oh my...

Didin't know where to put this, it's not from CP but its Mr Schlafly on WorldNetDaily, He is now an expert on breast cancer issues... [18] TimoT 11:55, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, it does just call him "an expert." And he is an expert of making a fool of himself. -Smyth 14:42, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Put it on Template:According_to? Susan^{talk to me} 12:44, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

GBS

Does it only affect gays or does it also affect women who have anal? And if so should it not be renamed to gay and women who have anal sex syndrome?-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 13:10, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, here's the thing. Anal sex is not family friendly, so CP will of course not have an article about that. Anal sex among homosexuals, however, is related to Homosexuality, and one of Conservative's Conservapedia's goals is to educate people about how wrong it is to be gay.

So of course it's only about gays. You know, because you get GBS not really from the anal sex, but from being gay while having anal sex ;) --Sid 14:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, you've got to remember the double-standard. Gay anal is..., well..., gay. With women, it's hawt! --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:46, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, lesbians are hawt whereas gay men are icky. --Kels 14:53, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Just to be clear on the topic, gay sex between two men is icky, gay sex between two women is hawt, anal sex between two men is icky, anal sex between two women is hawt, anal sex between a man and a woman is hawt, What about anal sex between a man and a woman involving a strapon?-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Not sure. I think we need to send that one back over to Conservapedia to get an official statement. My bet is icky. Maybe RobS or Newton could give us a heads up when they come to a descision. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 15:20, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I'll have you know that Ken and Rob spend a great deal of time thinking about anal sex. Why, they have their heads up their asses right now! --Kels 15:23, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if Newton is suppressing some inner feelings with all this talk about anal sex?-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:24, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

As in "methinks he doth protest too much"? Susan^{talk to me} 15:29, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

lol-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:30, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

"Pegging" is officially hawt. Dan Savage was on Colbert last night and they covered it explicitly. human^{be in} 15:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Looks like GBS is a hawt topic at CP today...-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

My talk page has a small blurb on so-called Gay Bowel. Also, as I recall, I got in a bit of trouble for suggesting that lesbianism is hawter than other -isms. Anyway, Gay Bowel is not unique to gay men. It is a term that has been left behind, not because of the obvious Homersexual-AMA Conspiracy, but because it's just not medically useful.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:12, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

RW Gay Bowel Syndrome is up and running.162.82.215.199 16:45, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins

Im gonna take a little stroll over to RichardDawkins.net--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:34, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Be careful, you might get GBS (goat butting syndrome)! --Kels 18:44, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

its not libel yet but getting there-αmεσ (soldier) 18:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

My work computer won't get on over at their forums. Oh well. GBS=glioblastoma multiformae, but I'd rather have goat butting synd.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:49, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking more along the lines of defamation at this point, Ames. But Libel's only a short hop from where they are. And Goddess help us, Andy would probably relish the prospect. --Kels 18:53, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Jesus fucking christ on a stick, don't get Dawkins to sue Schalfly! It'd be gravy for the groomer. Loads of free publicity, interviews on Fox...Okay it'd be entertaining, I'll give you that. CЯacke® 18:54, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't ever say "gravy for the groomer" again. --Kels 19:11, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins suing Schlafly? I don't particularly like either of them, but I'd pay good money to see that. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:40, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Cage match! Bring on the killer robots!162.82.215.199 20:04, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why it still surprises me that assfly acts as if he is a mentally retarded child with blinders on. This stuff was CLEARLY explained to him on the main page and he just ignores it. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. How does he even tie his shoes in the morning? Perhaps I'm the retarded one for thinking he might be able to put a cohesive thought together. ollïegrïnd 12:18, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Thing about Andy is he fits the same mold as the modern neoconservatives, like Bush and his crew. The central proposition is never admit a mistake. In fact, defend it to the death, and make as many counterattacks as you can. Apparently admitting you made any mistake, ever, is a sign of great weakness. Andy's eaten this lesson up, despite the fact that it makes him look like a petulant child instead of the strong, fierce defender of Christianity and Conservatism he sees himself as. --Kels 12:46, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

He, Andy, is an unwitting self-parodist. He doesn't believe what he is saying but thinks the rules don't apply to him, so that when he lies its OK (not even a real lie) so that when other people disagree with one of his lies, well that's deceit. People who are pathologicaly dishonest can't be honest, on the one hand, and don't beleive anyone else is honest on the other. It is actually quite sad. Worse, given his focus, he is likely a pediaphile and thinks THAT is OK for him , but not for others, but that everyone else wants to bugger little boys too. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 14:05, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

TK nukes teh ACLU...

Dammit, that cost me a perfectly good sock. PFoster 18:48, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuals everywhere!

Seriously, at this rate CP will have more articles about homosexuality than WP! And without even a fraction of the facts! --Kels 20:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

And with all this "renaming for search engine term optimization", Conservapedia will soon rename itself into "Conservative", "Wikipedia" or "Homosexuality" :D --Sid 21:01, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure Andy will be so proud when he realizes that his wiki has become the go-to place for gay lulz. XD --Kels 21:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone should email Phyllis and let her know her 'tarded boy done good! human^{be in} 21:24, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

And to think, if it weren't for CP, I wouldn't know her son was a "confirmed bachelor". Gotta include that too. --Kels 21:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Slow news day?

Thank you for pointing out to me that I made a mistake with Corvus. I'd have to imagine though that if you went to all of the trouble to read my entries, that you may have noticed the oversight I made. It's not quite as sensational though is it? ;-) As for the Big Bang edit, thank you. If you don't like it, then I know I'm on the right track.

Since you also seem to spend more time looking at my entries than I do, I would appreciate you pointing out any other scoring difficulties so that I may arrive at my final tally honestly based upon the work I have done. Thank you. Learn Together 00:40, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

You call a bunch of copy-pasting "work"? The contest is a joke, which is only appropriate, since the site is a joke. Stile4aly 01:05, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I haven't done any copy-pasting (apart from references). All of my entries are written by hand. Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Funny, the thing with the big bang theory is that you said it was an entire rewrite in the edit summary and then listed it as a quality edit when all you did was make one interwiki link (pretty much added a "[[" and a "]]", hardly quality in my eyes). It's not a question that we don't like it, just showing your hypocrisy in using deceit while slamming others for it, if you really think you're on the right track why don't you go and wikilink every word in the article? 58.164.20.221 01:13, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

He did actually add a few sentences later on in the article. Scroll down the page.--Bayes^update 02:30, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I don't expect to get a Nobel Prize, but I thought it was ok for 4 points. Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Also note that you added this single sentence article as a quality edit, and this where you pretty much corrected a typo and added a category which you also did here when the scoring system clearly requires at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact [19] of which you did none, and that's just going through and randomly selecting edits. Perhaps you better check all of your scoring, lest Andy have to desysop you after watching the points go down and call your behaviour part of the liberal agenda (because we all know conservatives don't practice deceit) 58.164.20.221 01:21, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Until yesterday I didn't do my own scoring, a condition that I liked for the impartiality of it. Abbie Hoffman is a toss up; it was based on 4 different types of edits and possibly that I missed that Luke added information in the middle of my edits. Andy's main rule is have fun. He's given some general guidelines, but he wants us to pretty much figure for ourselves what we thought it was worth. Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

"you also seem to spend more time looking at my entries than I do" If you mean what the world calls "proofreading" you're probably right. We should charge you guys. human^{be in} 02:10, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I actually do appreciate hearing about anything that I missed, but you take this way more seriously than we do. If I have over 100 edits in a day, I'm not going into painstaking detail to assure scoring perfection. I think Andy would prefer I get with the spirit of the contest and get back to putting more entries. Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I hope that at least one CP sysop has now learned that it isn't so fun to be cavalierly accused of deceit. Maybe one day people there will also realize that copying from glossaries without attribution to make the contributions look original is a form of deceit. And maybe I'll wikilink to deceit a few more times to beat my point into the ground and make myself look ridiculous (in a non-deceitful manner, obviously). See deceit.--Bayes^update 02:30, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

It's up to you to see follow for yourself whatever your value system is. If you hold yourself to a high personal standard and your actions mirror the same, then don't take it personally. Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

All you liberals do is resort to mockery and deceit, in this case, deceit by liberal mockery... Goatspeed!!! human^{be in} 02:53, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I think Godspeed is a little faster. ;-) Learn Together 03:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Goatspeed tastes better. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:14, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

FYI, Learn isn't on the CP Sysop list. ----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 09:09, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

...yet. ;) Besides, he got Block rights, that's practically Sysop Lite already. --Sid 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

"If I have over 100 edits in a day, I'm not going into painstaking detail to assure scoring perfection." ...or ever manage to get a date....PFoster 09:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually that's not a difficulty, but thank you for your concern. ;-) Learn Together 10:22, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Really? Do chicks dig the whole "I don't respect your gender or your rights to your body" thing? I wouldn't expect that to work - think that might get me only a swift kick to the balls and an emptier apartment, since my girlfriend would probably respond by moving out... But different strokes, I guess.-αmεσ (soldier) 15:40, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I'll bet he's a big hit with the Prairie Muffin crowd. --SockOfGulik 16:49, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

After Ames' comment, I was actually expecting that link to have more to do with prairie oysters. Imagine my disappointment. --Kels 16:53, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't know, but I do know they like it when men can be counted on, are trustworthy, care about them, listen, and are strong and sensitive (the two have to go together). Oh, and make them laugh! ;-) Learn Together 01:57, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

1. Make me laugh. 2. Make me think. 3. Make me come. Those are three rules of dating. OK, there might be boyz and girlz who are excited by Randian sex... but I haven't met any of them, yet... human^{be in} 02:04, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Randy sex is much more fun. --Kels 06:39, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Flag Pic

I find it really funny that, unless you spend time here on your goat at Rationalwiki, TK's comment about Retroactvive application makes no sense whatsoever..... When "spying," on the enemy, it's a good idea to not broadcast your findings SirChuckB 14:56, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Yep, pretty obvious that one was for us. And with the slew of items pointing out his idiocy, he seemed to be getting pretty riled up yesterday. -Smyth 15:09, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I should have some sympathy. I mean, I wouldn't want someone documenting every stupid thing I posted online everyday..... but he's both a moron and a bully.... so I care not SirChuckB 15:12, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

It seems pretty obvious that TK either doesn't read people's responses or has absolutely zero reading comprehension abilities. He just keeps shitting out his keyboard and he can't seem to figure out that everyone can see through his little Andy impression. ollïegrïnd 15:13, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I would have some sympathy if he wasn't a tyrant, and tyrants seriously diminish my empathy. He also received plenty of calm, patient instruction from folks before the mass banning, and apparently didn't learn a thing. I'm still not convinced that he's not a mole, but regardless: he's done more to take down that site than anyone I've seen "contributing" there. I'm surprised Schlafly hasn't recognized this and tried to muzzle him a bit. Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate parody after all? Sometimes I feel like I'm down the rabbit hole when I'm watching that site. -Smyth 15:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Good thing they didn't mention that the "Union" flag is a modern one, (with fifty stars), whereas the whole of the union including the "states in rebellion" and the "border states" had only 33 states. CЯacke® 16:44, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. Also, at its "creation date" in the 30's, a "modern" flag would have been a 48-star one. Very obviously different, because all the rows have the same number of stars, and are not offset. Gotta go look at that again... human^{be in} 16:56, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

More issues... yes, the CP version is a 50 star flag - except, with that curved bottom, it is not a "legal" flag, and as such is an improper display. The "original" is hard to make out, but almost certainly looks like the stars go all the way across the top, making it closer to the concept of "bunting". It also looks like 33 stars (3 5's, 3 6's), but that's hard to be sure of. human^{be in} 16:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe this is the source image in question. Maybe better than the coin they had on CP. --Sid 18:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Nice find. So that's a 13-star bunting kind of thing on the left. Here is the 1936 comm. 1/2 dollar. Hmm, copyright, maybe? And that 50 star thing - sort of elevates the racist flag on the other side to being equal to the modern Union... ugh... human^{be in} 19:00, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

You know, I fully admit to being obsessed with the intellectual dead zone that is TK (Not in that Rob Smith, I-Praise-Coulter-so-I-can-f**k-her-someday-way) But his behavior has been slowly sinking into a serious condition over the past few weeks (weeks, months, years.... whatever) I'm amazed someone that paranoid can even put socks on without checking for liberal microphones... Maybe that's why he doesn't "have your large amount of idle time to go reading obscure edit notes on images." He's hunting for liberals. SirChuckB 23:22, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Eh, in this case I don't think it's anything so sinister. He saw someone criticizing CP and tried to shut them down by attacking them instead of actually fixing the problem, as per normal. The user kinda blindsided him by actually providing Karajou's comment, so he was saving face. --Kels 06:35, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Ubuntu Christian Edition

Does Andy even recognize thinly-veiled mockery right to his face anymore? Feebas factor 22:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, come to think of it, I may be wrong and the sig might just be a somewhat hilarious unintended consequences. Maybe. But this is Conservapedia... Feebas factor 22:52, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

He started using "Mhancoc7" on Wikipedia in January and claims that his name is "Jereme Hancock". So it's very likely the latter case. --Sid 22:56, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

My funny is ruined! You and your accursed "facts", and "researched and verifiable information"! I'm tempted to go back to CP where I don't have to put up with this sort of crap... Feebas factor 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

robs and the kgb

could someone do the research and copy/paste for robs's reverting of old amesg socks that is worthy of the old KGB removing disscrased politicians from photos? The system I'm on now doesent make spelling check or copy a and paste that easy. --Shagie 00:25, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Talent, I think! I also told him Aschlafly to pull all my content. Hopefully it works. Does he host it himself, or through someone else, do we know?-αmεσ (soldier) 00:39, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy says STDs are family friendly

What do you say we head over and create a few STD articles on par with the Gay Bowel Syndrome article, since they're now acceptable content? Stile4aly 01:05, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Fisting? Double Penetration? Cat-O-Nine Tails? After all, the kiddies need to be warned!...--ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 05:18, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Who broke this?

Damn, it's all screwed up. Wha happen?????? human^{be in} 02:16, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

eh, never mind< I got WIFOCP all mixed up with this page? human^{be in} 02:22, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm amused that a man with no children can speak on behalf of "all conservative parents". Is he getting even more delusional about his stable of nubile young homeschoolers, or just more of his "make shit up, assume I'm right" style? Of course, while talking about sexually transmitted diseases (only the ones that affect fags, of course), you can't actually have articles about the parts that contract them... --Kels 06:44, 6 October 2007 (EDT)