Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <6>, <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)

Macro determine CP users[edit]

Is it possible to make a macro to see...

  1. how many users have registered there
  2. how many are blocked, and,
  3. avg time between registration and blocking?

-αmεσ (ninja) 10:51, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

The first two should be easy enough. Number of users is both in Special:Listusers and Special:Statistics (even though the numbers don't match - WTF! Stats says 14,344 while List says 13,873 O_o). And I figure that you can check the IPblocklist and filter out IP blocks.
The third one is somewhat tricky since there are a few factors to consider: the New User log was installed fairly late, and so you have to work from the time of the first edit (if applicable - I wouldn't be surprised to see users that registered silently without ever editing) there. A reading wikibot/script might be a solution...
Oh, and somebody here once did a blocking-related article... ah, there it is! Conservapedia:Block Statistics --Sid 13:07, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
With so many sock puppets (5:1 ratio?) the statistics would be meaningless, no? ----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 15:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't be too hard... Ug! I'm so busy. I have the blocked users list on my computer already from a few weeks ago from the deceit stats on the hijacked articles page. The reg. users list shouldn't be too hard. It'd make a good histogram!!! VirileSterileyawn! 08:38, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

The trick paid cash[edit]

I'm amused that the girl is the one with the sword. Unca Sam's gonna git shivved! --Kels 16:47, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Surely, the Conservapedia version of this should be "Fathers! It's your job to protect your sons' virginity!" You know, because those pesky homos are everywhere. --Jeeves 20:51, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
Trying to spread their hot sweet Gay Bowel Syndrome. 21:46, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
But what about the mothers preserving their sons' virginity? If the sons are verginz, the girlz can't get deverginized? Right? Unless they use strap-onz.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
Or ride bicycles, which (I've heard tell) several young thangs have "lost it" whilst enjoying a bumpy road on those stiff, hard seats.CЯacke® 21:53, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Placement Bias[edit]

Anyone notice this article? They did a one-up on librulz with staggering hypocrisy. 22:17, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

God, yes. Extra hypocrisy fun: Andy! Conservative! (I originally wanted to take one of his Atheism movings, but I couldn't find it in his HUNDREDS OF EDITS.) --Sid 22:57, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Quote hilarity[edit]

God, I love this. Just noticed CP's William Corliss article in the Recent Changes and decided to check it out since the edits were made by Conservapedia's resident gay expert.

Somehow, this passage stuck out: "Science magazine New Scientist wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging"."

I wondered if it was maybe quote-mined. So, step one was to check the source reference. It wasn't New Scientist, but rather William Corliss's site, where the exact same quote is used to pimp one of his books. Next stop: Google. And hey, it was like some sort of happy family reunion:

Results 1 - 6 of 6 for "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging"

  1. Science Frontiers Anomalies Search Results - William Corliss's site
  2. Science Frontiers Anomalies Search Results - same
  3. William Corliss - Conservapedia - Hello, Conservative!
  4. > Geological Anomalies / Evolution Hypothesis - Hello, "kendemyer"!
  5. William Corliss - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science - almost identical to CP's article, but that's because this one was written by "Creationist", Conservative's CW name.

Man, it's a small world after all. ;) --Sid 07:49, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Well...I thought that word "cataloguing" stuck out, so I googled everything but that word. At the very end of the article. However, the whole article sounds more like advertising if I'm not mistaken. I don't haff teh credenshuls of a skolar. 10:34, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Interesting find! And funny how, even when you leave out the last word, the New Scientist article is the only result that is added to the list. --Sid 11:10, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

CP's new motto[edit]

"Welcome to Conservapedia! Where we list all things gay and are as analy retentive as our name implies."

Do you think Conservapedia is losing their family friendly status with all this gay talk?[edit]

Just wondered because they have a higher percentage of articles with homosexual in them than wikipedia does now.-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 23:41, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Not until they have the "brown worm" article. Ugh, homophobic trippin'. humanbe in 02:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Eh, CP lost that status a while ago. Although, I can show a group of students and tell them, "see, this is what you should laugh at." :D 02:43, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Didn't you get the memo? Telling kids how gay buttsex can lead to their dick falling off and their ass getting cancer (or something) is "family friendly"! I seriously wonder why CP suddenly thinks that all STDs and assorted things are family friendly now. Teaching them only about STDs (but not about safe sex or even vaginal sex, it seems) can hardly be the way to educate a normal child. Unless CP is actually liberal parody that wants to make conservative children so afraid of this evil "sex" thing that they remove themselves from the gene pool... --Sid 04:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
The only sex that is CP-approved is marital sex - with your first and only wife/husband. Yes, otherwise your dick falls off, your uterus dries up, and gawd smites you with his holy sceptre. Or, septer! Hahahahaha. humanbe in 04:41, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Damn, you're right (although that doesn't quite explain cp:Child :P) --Sid 04:46, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Gay Bomb and 9/11[edit]

Horribly enough, I can't tell if Rob is kidding or not. I laughed long and hard, but a nagging part of me still goes "You know that he may very well be serious." --Sid 04:42, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Doubt he is kidding, but I can't wait to see his response to Karajou. Also, the reference they have shows the idea came from the Air Force, and that's it. I can't find "Clinton" in any article related to the gay bomb, not even to say "during his presidency." MUST BLAME CLINTON ANYWAY! H8! 11:24, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
I guess he's kidding only himself? 12:53, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
LOL! Spoke too soon! Jesus tapdancing christ! 13:01, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
The Gay Bomb is now on one level with AIDS, Venona, and Watergate. Jesus, this reminds me of DBZ, where a simple issue is elevated to a global catastrophe. Only difference is that, unlike in DBZ, only Rob continually increases his Power Level while his opposition only stares in confusion. In fact, it looks more like this (can't hotlink - go to page 3) to me. (Disclaimer: Buttlord GT is a hilarious DBZ parody, but not exactly family friendly due to language and other stuff. The "language" part also applies to the linked page.) --Sid 14:04, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


Gotta be a troll! (or am I stating the obvious?) Susantalk to me 09:45, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

He and TK got together quickly. Reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where Falwell and Robertson start making out after the rapture. 11:24, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
I am 98.76% certain that Boru is a sock being run by one of the sysops, likely TK himself. --Kels 12:06, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Maybe Boru is the real deal, and TK is Boru's sock.--WJThomas 12:59, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Maybe you are Boru's sock, hmm...maybe you're ALL Boru's socks!! --Kels 16:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Calling me Boru is deceitfully liberal, something that most liberals do 98% of the time. See deceit. Godspeed. >=O 20:24, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Nah, Boru is singular and genuine (a genuine parodist, that is). I look forward to more of his work. 17:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I love this guy! Not like some of the sysops there love him, mind you, but nonetheless, brilliant stuff - and unlikely to ever be changed, either. 17:27, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

This one comes off as a bit odd, probably just TK being his usual addled self. He blocks Maestro, apparently because he's giving lip to Boru, of all people. But he'd already blocked Boru for two weeks, so what's the point? --Kels 21:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins flap[edit]

The talk page on dawkins just gets more and more interesting as Andy reasons himself back into the stone age. I wonder who could have ignited this kind of debate? It must have had an intelligent designer. 11:25, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy's just digging in his heels more and more, just to avoid admitting that his original entry was nothing more than petty and spiteful. He certainly seems willing to stake whatever little credibility he thought he had on this doomed argument, though. Notice he's picked up Ken's "you didn't cite any specifics" even though in the previous section someone did exactly that? He's quite obviously lying now, and seems unaware that anyone's figured it out. --Kels 11:43, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
"Anything I say three times is true!" Susantalk to me 11:56, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
He's aff his heid. He wis aye aff his heid, an will aye be aff his heid. He's a sairious heidbanger. The mannie needs helpin! Auld Nick 12:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

You know, someone should save these conversations as a teaching tool, to explain why despite all evidence some people deny things like evolution, relativity and global climate change. If someone can still maintain an obvious lie and character assassination in the face of such painstakingly explained evidence, then there's something seriously wrong with them in a fundamental(ist) way. This really is quite clear and instructive in Andy's "defenses". --Kels 12:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Do the CP pillocks deny global climate change or just that human activity is responsible for it? WhatIsG0ing0n 12:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Depends on the pillock. Earlier on, before things started to get overwhelmingly obvious and their own leaders started making statements about it, the general consensus was that it wasn't happening at all and some of them are still like that. The next step was to downplay it, and finally we're seeing them say there's no human influence and we can't do anything anyway, so why change our ways? I assume the ultimate position will be that the "liberals" or whoever allowed the situation to happen despite the best efforts of their people.

This should be interesting. Over at Dawkins' forum people seem to be mentioning the need to write a letter to CP's hosting company for the slander that Andy did to his article on CP. I wonder how that will go down since Andy seems hell bent on slandering Dawkins to the point of lieing about his credentials?-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 16:28, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Muwahahaha! I have an inordinate control over teh tubes and what beautiful ooze pours forth! 16:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
I strongly suspect that if Dawkins did send Andy a "stop lying about me" letter, Andy would just start screaming about T3h evul fascist Libruls are trying to SUPPRESS OUR FREE SPEECH!1!!@!@!!one!. Which doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy seening it happen... --SockOfGulik 17:31, 8 October 2007 (EDT) (whatever happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor", anyway? Did someone figure that only literally means the guy living next door?)
Man, reading that talk page is classic. You've got 3-4 people essentially trying to clear up a dishonest attempt by assfly to call Dawkins a liar, and assfly, endlessly answering "no, no, no, I'm right", each time looking dumber and dumber. And his "analogies" are just lame. Better would be to ask "Is a professor at the Harvard Business School a Harvard professor?" Gee... And Dawkins should spend a couple of bennies and get a lawyer to send a pro forma complaint to siteground (and cc: thesmokinggun, of course!). Just for the lulz. humanbe in 18:17, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Boo, Jenkins and Ajkgordon seem to have given up. OurMike is still spear-heading, but it'll only be a matter of time I guess. The worst they could have done is give up, as it just feeds Andy's "I can't lose" ego. Also, WTF is with TK's poetry on Andy's talkpage? 18:59, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

(aside: Wonder if TK knows that Coleridge was so high on opium when he wrote Xanadu that he was unable to finish it after the man from Porlock had been & gone. Susantalk to me 19:47, 8 October 2007 (EDT))

Maybe he is trying to woo his master for teh buttsekes. 19:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Uh-oh... Down swings teh banhammer for Cornovius... 19:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Blocked for a day!... for "deleting factual material", but he sure threw the gauntlet down by calling Andy's edits as deceit. Kenservative is adding his own crap to make the article look even worse. Wassail, Cornovius. 20:16, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Maybe that's Ken's clever damage control plan. It looks like Andy's heading towards actionable libel, so Ken inserts so much garbage that the article isn't even about Dawkins any more. Problem solved! --Kels 20:22, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
And now, Ed joined to "improve" the article even more! At this rate, Rob might soon join in to add his own "improvements"... I can hardly wait :D --Sid 20:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Nancy Pelosi is bisexual?[edit]

I'm actually not sure how to explain it, but I got two theories:

  1. If I recall correctly, Joaquin has a history of adding stunningly unrelated "See also" links, so this might just be one of his "Brain switched off, the rest activated Cruise Control" moments
  2. Conservapedia slowly tries to bypass the commandments by exploiting the "See also" links as some sort of drive-by smearing. I think TK mentioned something about "See also" links recently... one sec... ah yes: They "may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject" - Of course, having a name like Pelosi in an article about Bisexuality creates a link for the reader, but nuh-uh, that's, like, totally not their intention. At all.

I'm not sure what to consider to be more likely. The realistic/pessimistic part of me thinks that CP recently switched into Attack Mode (Clinton and Gay Bomb, tons of homosexuality articles, new liberal-themed articles like "Liberal tools", Dawkins, etc. etc. etc.) and that this case is just another step. The rest of me thinks that that would give Joaquin too much credit in this case - he often struck me as a sort of random lemming in a crowd of rabid squirrels. --Sid 13:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)


Nothing says carefully researched, totally neutral encyclopaedia article like getting the facts totally and utterly wrong and then adding a personal attack to really ice the cake. The phrase "Bushisms" was originally coined for daddy Bush, who in his way was just as creative at mangling the language. Also, how in the name of goat do you misspell a saying? --Jeeves 16:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob and teh Ghey Bomb[edit]

As... fantastical as this article is (as well as it spilling onto the Clinton article), the subject seems to have occupied a lot of CP news lately (5 times), and not all of it is that dissimilar. Could we maybe merge a few of these news points? Feebas factor 22:24, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

CP supporting evolution, who wudda thunk it???[edit]

In the CP Goat article, the opening comment says that goats are "closely related to sheep". If creation is accepted, as it is by CP, then under what basis are any animals related at all, and if there is no relatedness, what is the point of adding the "closely"? Only if you accept evolution is there any reason to suggest not only relatedness, but degrees of it. --Remarcsd 18:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm almost willing to bet that CP's explanation will feature the word "Baraminology". --Sid 18:59, 9 October 2007 (EDT)


So why is TK removing the history of the articles by clarifying?-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 08:04, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

He's deleting and recreating all the articles that were at the top of the Popular Pages list to get rid of the page view count for articles which were embarrasing to CP, like Unicorn, Parasite, Kangaroo, and especially Goat which kept coming up in the top 10 pages despite being deleted and recreated several times in one day. All of this while talking about how "page counts are absolutely meaningless". I wonder if deleting the most popular pages to clear the page count causes the total page views that Andy brags about on the front page to actually decrease... --Brian 09:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
No, the total page views don't go down. He started getting slightly arbitrary with the articles he was deleting too, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, United Kingdom, and Canada. As far as I'm aware those articles hadn't been artificially inflated. I'd like to know who was hitting Goat that last time though because they were doing it at an amazing rate - about 50-100 times a second. 10:22, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I am thinking of making a bot that will hit their most embarrassing articles and rapidly increase their page views. I wonder how they would like to be known as the wiki with GBS as their most view page?-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 13:33, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe the droid you are looking for is while [ 1 ]; do wget -O /dev/null; done --Jeeves 13:42, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
There we go, goat is now back in the top one thousand most popular articles. Officially more popular than Paul Wolfowitz and Slayer. You heard it first on Conservapedia, kids. Now some brave soldier needs to take over, before my ISP gets angry. Conservapedia: The page views for 'Goat' is growing rapidly! --Jeeves 14:13, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
We'd already been doing that - someone had put 'FBI', 'Parasite(?)', 'Unicorn' (I think) and 'Goat' into the top 10. After Conservative deleted Goat I bumped it back up into the top 15, and put GBS into the top 10, partly for embarrassment, and partly as a little sweetener for Ken. They stayed there for a few days until someone brought it to TK's attention [1] and then someone bumped Goat up to #2, which unfortunately was just asking for trouble. I think the fun's been had now, especially as TK now knows how to stop it. The only thing I could suggest would be to bump 'Homosexuality' up to #1. As I'm sure TK is reading this, feel free to let us know if you'd like the rank increased for any of your articles TK :) 14:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I guess what I do not understand is if they are so proud of those articles why are they trying to hid them from being top in page views? Is that not deceitful?-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 14:54, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure some of them are proud of Kangaroo, Unicorn, GBS etc, but TK isn't that crazy, at least not in that way. 14:58, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
I figure they want their pet articles (right now, GWB, ToE, WP Bias, Homosexuality, WP, Liberal, Clinton, etc.) in the Top 10 to claim that those are the high-quality ones that many readers check out for educational purposes or to learn The Truth about the nasty Wikipedia. While that doesn't explain why GBS got "clarified", it nicely hides the fact that Conservative was practically the sole editor and wasted hundreds of edits on it. --Sid 15:01, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

I've been working under the assumption all along that the reason TK "makes mistakes" in archiving the Main Page when he doesn't do it elsewhere is to prevent people (i.e., us) from looking back through the history to see what he and others have been up to. Kenservative doing the same to his Gay Ass Disorder or whatever page is similar, because we've started to keep track of that stuff, and he doesn't want it highlighted. That way he can continue to lie about there being other significant contributors, same as he's been lying for ages about ToE. --Kels 21:07, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Robert's Math questions to Andy[edit]

The ones that are getting people banned for asking about. Maybe someone here in the know could answer them so that students could come here instead of CP. --Edgerunner76 15:21, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

On a related note...[edit]

I'm putting this here since we've all seen the WIGO posts pointing out how such-and-such school shooting was a result of the public school system. Think CP is going to post a huge headline about this thwarted attack?

P.S. - If this was mentioned elsewhere, you have my apologies and can delete this posting. Sandman 15:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Meh, they'd probably blame it on the fact that he USED TO go to public school. Sandman 15:31, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Bootiful. Susantalk to me 15:37, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this might be a dumb question, but as a guy from Europe, I kinda ask myself how a 14-year-old kid has access to HAND GRENADES. I know you Americans got the right to bear arms, but please don't tell me you count explosives into that, too. --Sid 15:59, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh, foolish Euro-commie. We have the absolute right to bear arms--and arms are anything that goes boom that you can carry in your arms. Granades, yes, ICBMs, maybe. 16:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I need my 18 oz of weapons grade plutonium and giant death robot in case the IRS agents show up in their black helicopters. Stile4aly 16:18, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

"The weapons included a 9mm assault rifle that the teenager's mother had recently bought for him..." Hmm, seems a reasonable thing for a mother to give her 14 year ol- wha?!? -Smyth 16:14, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Never fault improvisation. The etching plate material in my shed alone is probably enough to orchestrate the coup of a small Central Asian country. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

This story raises the pointed question of what percentage of attempted or actual shootings like these were perpetrated by homskollars vs. the percentage of students who homskoll overall. Even one example like this might raise the homskollar quotient above their representation in the population at large... humanUser talk:Human 21:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)


I'm no expert on Communism. In fact, you could say I'm the opposite of an expert. But even I know that Rob is making himself look like a deranged idiot in trying to call an anti-Communist editor an apologist. He seems to be having real trouble with the idea that yes, you can criticize the concepts behind Communism and the states that tried to implement it in the same article. If I hadn't seen him in action so many times before, this alone would kill his credibility for me. --Kels 17:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I, too, find myself seriously kvestioning hiz kredentialsch. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I'll put it on the line. I don't believe he's a real historian, or at least not one taken at all seriously by his peers. --Kels 17:21, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't think he understands anything about communist/socialist theory. Even if you hate communism (especially if you do, really) you should know dialectical materialism from dielectric constant.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 17:32, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
You should, especially when they have such an exhaustive article on cp:Dialectic. :D --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
That's fucking pitiful!User:PalMD
No, it's not! User:DocSock
Mediocre, I guess. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, what? --Kels 18:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Looks like Rob is OD'ing on Toynbee. Again. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:20, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I too don't believe RobS is a real historian. Back in the day, I tried to add a "history of Communism" section to the CP Communism article, starting from the birth of co-operative movements in Britain through things like the first international, the Jura federation and the Paris Commune.

RobS, however, stuck a spanner[1] in the works very early in the endeavour, espousing the opinion that discussing the history of Communism is in some way akin to Holocaust denial. His attitude was very strange. I would expect a historian to be keen to discuss this sort of thing, even if he would add a right wing spin to the facts. Either RobS has had some extremely bad experiences at the hands of a Communist regime, or he isn't a historian.

If you asked me to judge based on the evidence, I'd guess that RobS is a young teenager. I recognise the attitude from my own teen years. --Jeeves 18:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Here's the deal. It is not our intent to explain any theoretical basis or quasi-intellectual history of Karl Marx, Fredich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Communism, Mao, and other Marxist "theories" and "doctrines." It is to place these frauds upon the ash heap of history once and forever, as Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, National Socialism.
Karl Marx was a punk-ass bitch, and he never met RobSmith. Call me the Simon Wiesenthal of Commie-hunters. RobS 20:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Those who forget history (or never understood it in the first place) are doomed to repeat it. If you do not understand the doctrines and what led to their adoption, you are not useful. Any good anti-nazi or anti-communist should be able to out-marx marx.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:52, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
The problem is, and has been, Communism must not be discussed as any sort of "intellectual" doctrine whatsoever. It is not a philosophy, nor an economic theory, nor a social theory, not a even a poltical doctrine. It belongs to none of these categories of humanities. It is a cult, like Satanism, Scientology, Jim Jones temple, Heaven's Gate, or any one of thousands of mass psychosis that has plagued the human race since its beginning. It is not an alternative theory to anything. And its epitaph must clearly reflect that. RobS 20:59, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Of course you are right--and wrong. It has usually become a cult, like Christianity. Where you are wrong is the whole rest of it. Of course it must be discussed, as must Scientology, Christianity, etc. We must understand what motivates the people who follow these doctrines, and what motivates societies to be caught up in them. Head-in-the-sand'ism never helped anyone.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 21:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I beleive I've outlined the basis of the examining marxist "theory," "the envy and hate that possessed Cain to murder his brother....Communism...did not... amount to anything more." Add Judaism to you list of cults then, that is where this doctrine of condemning envy and hate of your brother originates, and the idea of [[justice]] for such offenses. RobS 21:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Going with the "Ignorance is Strength" method of encyclopediaism, eh? Color me unsurprised. --Gulik 21:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Engaging in thoughtcrime, hm? Perhaps re-education would be appropriate... --Kels 22:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Seriously though, I'm quite amused at the sight of a so-called "historian" singing the praises of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA". --Kels 22:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, wonder boy, let me school you a little. In the 19th century, a scientific renaissance was taking place. Many people felt that human societies, and the injustices therein, could be engineered in much the same way as, say, a railroad, if only how people operated in groups could be understood. Marx and his philosophical predecessors came up with one such idea.
They developed an economic model of human behavior, in which people operated based on their economic interests. I can go into detail, but you don't like detail. Communists believed that the evils of czarism and imperialism could be countered by a rational approach to human organization and government (forgetting that people aren't all that easy to herd around).
The ideas took hold in the fertile environment of industrial Europe and the ills that afflicted it, and people saw it as a modern, rational alternative to the oppression they experienced. They made an error.
Like many movements that attempt to manage large groups of people, most socialist movements became corrupt, totalitarian, and brutal, and replaced one form of oppression with another.
Then Ronald Reagan rescued them all.
Wherever people are oppressed, they will cling to ideas that promise hope, even bad ideas. That's why we need to understand things.
So history, far from being irrelevant, is quite important. Goatspeed.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 22:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
  • In the 19th century, a scientific renaissance was taking place. Many people felt that human societies, and the injustices therein, could be engineered in much the same way as, say, a railroad, if only how people operated in groups could be understood.
  • This has been addressed in numerous forums, like here [2], excerpted,
"When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races, [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man'. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to."
My good Doctor, pardon my frankness, but you sound just like [[Josef Goebbels]].
  • They developed an economic model of human behavior
Yes, see the entries on [[Economic planning]] and [[New Ordeal]]. RobS 00:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Is this some weird kind of "Mad Libs" game you play inside your head, Rob? Because it's just incoherent trash to the rest of us. --Kels 08:11, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and Cain and Abel don't really have anything to do with it.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 22:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Er, yeah. I imagine your historian colleagues must be fascinated with your deep insights in to post-industrial society such as "Karl Marx was a punk-ass bitch." I'm definitely going with "teenager lying about credentials to give his opinion some sense of authority."

Here's the actual deal. Conservapedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia entries convey facts, they don't pass judgement since that would involve opinion rather than fact. When you're writing about a school of political thought, then you can write only two things about it. The first thing is a description of what it is, the second is the history of the thought and its applications. Conservapaedia's Communism article pretty much falls dead on both scores. At very best, it's an opinion piece criticising Communism, and even judged by that standard it's pretty incoherent.

If you really think Communism as an ideology is so abhorrent (as opposed to Communist government under, say, Stalin or Mao, which it is clear was fairly unpleasant, and not likely to be repeated on account of the main protagonists being deceased) then it is in your best interests to study and write about the history of Communism in political thought.

Communism as political thought was a product of the social changes of the industrial revolution. An increasingly urbanised population, the creation of the middle class, and the disparity between wealth of industrialists and merchants and those who worked for them. Many people of the same period of time came independently to many of the same conclusions about how things had to be changed for the better, and their responses were similar varying only in the magnitude of their ideas on how to implement change.

Contrast for example, Titus Salt and Petr Kropotkin. Similar, privileged upbringing a generation apart (although Salt was middle class, Kropotkin minor aristocracy.) Both had good prospects from an early age. Salt's response to the deprivation, disease and squalor of Bradford at the time was to build Saltaire such that his workers might have a safe, clean environment in which to live. Kropotkin's response to similar conditions in the Russian peasantry was to push for much of the same changes, but not for one group of peasants, but the entire nation. Different men, same conditions, similar solutions, different scale. As a snide aside, I'll also note that that arch-liberal Titus Salt was one of the first mill owners believe that the smoke from their chimneys was affecting the health of the workers of Bradford, against a background of dissent from his fellow industrialists. Draw parallels with the modern day as you see fit.

Study history and you'll begin to see what's required of you and your fellow men if you wish Communism never to become a political force again. You'll see how some of the very things that conservatives rail against, such as government regulation and the welfare state were actually instrumental in the decline of Communism as an alternative to the status quo in western Europe. Actual historians would be being extremely kind to me if they described me as an enthusiastic amateur historian, but actually reading about these things and attempting to draw conclusions is actually very interesting. I suggest you try it, Rob. Limiting your discussion to "Communism is totally evil, so I refuse to even discuss it" teaches neither you nor anyone else anything. Neither will it ever convince anyone when used as a debating tactic. --Jeeves 22:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Jeez, Jeeves, I guess we both couldn't stand the intellectual vacuum any more.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 23:00, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob, your blatant subjectivity, judgmental attitude to the past, and wildly anachronistic interpretations leave you a world apart from what actual, competent professional historians do. As such, I find it hard to believe that you have received any actual training in the historical method other than reading Toynbee, or if you did, something went extremely wrong somewhere. I have to ask if you can back up your claimed credentials with something tangible, such as publications? You're welcome to email me if you're concerned about your privacy. Also, I strongly suggest reading less Toynbee and more Marc Bloch. Heck, even Carr or Elton would be better. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 04:11, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Why does God ask Cain where Abel is? That has always bothered me. Shouldn't he know? Isn't he God? Those should have been Cain's first reaction. --Edgerunner76 07:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Why RobS is a Communist[edit]

I find it particularly hilarious that a virulent anti-Communist would have us crush Communism by denying its existence and burying its history. This is, in fact, a Communist idea - that is, the suppression of dissent and dangerous ideas to protect the state. The American proposition to the contrary is well-founded:

...[T]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

 ::Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

This dissent, from Oliver Wendell Holmes, defending the right to speak about Communism, and advocate for it, is the foundation of American liberty - that ideas must be debated, and that democracy should win through debate, and that winning through suppression is the kind of evil that America fights against. I suggest that to reject this doctrine - as Rob would have us do - is to reject freedom, and fall into Communism's greatest evil.-αmεσ (ninja) 01:25, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the "it's BAD" reason is actually fine in the short term but if one wants to protect future generations, one should document all aspects of where and why communism failed. Burying the past is a sure way of somebody down the road digging it up....Maybe they'll think "ah the hidden 'wisdom' of the ancients!" Maybe Agent RobSmith just likes the irony since premier Khrushchev tol' us "we shall bury YOU!" CЯacke® 12:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I just love RobS' "fight the symbol, embrace the fact" attitude :-).-αmεσ (ninja) 15:21, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

On Soviet Konserwapedia, symbols fight YOU! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:44, 12 October 2007 (EDT)


somebody should add factual information, and see how Andy likes it. --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 01:51, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

With the newest addition there, the Forum Nazi, SSchultz on the job, it is doubtful! He even called one editors formatting as "Liberal vandalism"! ----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 02:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Wow, Andy's latest threats sound ominous. I guess this is what is called a "honey pot", isn't it? Leave an article unlocked, engage in an edit war, and then announce that all those who were not on Andy's side in it will be banned. Also, SSchultz is sorta creeping me out with his attitude and enthusiasm to push POV. Oh, and now Andy goes deeper into semantics over the exact date. God, why can't the man simply admit that he wants to say bad stuff about Dawkins? I didn't see anybody digging this deeply about AiG, GWB, or whoever else CP loves. (I normally shy away from Nazi comparisons, but when a user with these initials and that "must protect Andy" attitude comes along, even I get a weak moment.) --Sid 07:15, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
The Nazi thing is totally fine. I mean, this guy was on Hogan's Heroes after all. --Edgerunner76 07:35, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
SSchultz seems a bit more agressive than his namesake ;) *loved his "I see nothing! Nothing!" to bits*

--Sid 08:15, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

TK's done his stopped clock impression and blocked the little sycophant for a day. I wonder what his second right move will be? --Kels 08:17, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Second right move by TK? I nominate this edit. --Sid 08:45, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I suspect that what we're seeing here is a combination of three things: 1) Typical fundamentalist hatred of Dawkins, 2) Andy's usual aversion towards admitting he's wrong, and 3) a genuine confusion on Andy's part of how Oxford works. You have to admit that the workings of British academia are not always entirely obvious, and Oxbridge is obscure even by British standards. It's quite possible he simply doesn't understand how the organization works. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:17, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Given Andy's history, and the history of the discussion, option 3 doesn't seem to be the case. Andy is showing every sign of looking very hard for any blemish on Dawkins' record, and any little weasel wording that can possibly cast doubt on the rest. And, of course, so long as the slightest shred of doubt can remain, he's insistent that the entire pack of lies stay in public view for as long as possible. We've all seen it in the past, and it's screamingly obvious here.
Giving someone the benefit of a doubt, and assuming good will, are right and admirable things, and should be striven for. But when one has many times betrayed that trust, there comes a time when you stop trusting them. --Kels 11:54, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
No bout-a-doubt it, Schlafly would have made a helluva Scientologist. "What are your crimes Dawkins?!" CЯacke® 12:07, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Hello. I feel like I've been wrestling fog. Weird and cognitively dissonant fog. You guys have been involved with CP longer than I have, so I need some advice: Would I be rash in assuming I can unwatch the Dawkins page now? OurMike 14:52, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Unwatching it may be better for your blood pressure, certainly. Don't expect anything like facts to enter the article, Andy's bent on character assassination at all costs, and when he gets like this, every little thought that enters his head is tagged as irrefutable fact, and no matter how much citation you provide he'll just revert it. And probably ban you in revenge. --Kels 17:02, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
You think that just because you've clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that you're correct means that there won't be a continued dispute over the article content? You really are new to all this. ;-) Stile4aly 14:55, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Ah yes. He's just reverted it. Liberal fact removing. OurMike 17:48, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Seriously, this must be defamation by now. OurMike 18:43, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, we've mused that maybe he's trying to get Dawkins to sue, under the "any publicity is good publicity" method of thinking. CЯacke® 18:52, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

And on it goes. Tohuvavohu 23:12, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Rampagin' Homskullerz[edit]

Some one might want to post about the home-schooled kid caught planninga Columbine style shooting... since Andy seems to think every school shooting shows the superiority of homeschooling over public education... QNA 12:20, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Didn't somebody already make some reference to it? I can't remember where I saw it, here or over there. I'd rather not make political hay out of it, though. --Kels 17:02, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Sweets for freak[edit]

WTF Award
for Inanity

For our friend RobS for service above and beyond,etc.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 13:55, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Ken and GBS[edit]

I just took a peak at the CP recent changes and as of the timestamp on my signature half of the recent edits are his to GBS. What the hell is wrong with this guy? He must be just totally repressed. I mean come on, he's more not gay than Larry Craig. --Edgerunner76 14:52, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

That reminds me, did anyone give Ken their best wishes yesterday? --Kels 15:05, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Crap! I forgot. Has anyone seen the Larry Craig "I am not Gay" claymation? It was on Countdown. I'd like to see a Ken "I am not Gay" DeMeyer claymation video. --Edgerunner76 15:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
This one? Cute, I woulda hoped the song was sung by professionals or really good amateurs though. CЯacke® 19:01, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

TK's Venus[edit]

You can't fight flawless logic like that. However, wouldn't the Sun be an even better place for Hell? If he is right though, I think that CP had better petition for a renaming of Venus. The word Venus does quite convey the right image. Though I suppose they could be thinking Venerial. --Edgerunner76 15:01, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

After a little digging, it appears that the hell bit was inserted previously by the not-so-subtle parodist Darthmallrat, who was subsequently reverted and blocked. Though maybe if we look hard enough with magical see-through-clouds telescopes, we could see the damned writhing in agony on the surface.--Bayesupdate 16:51, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
So when hell freezeth over, it temporarily relocates to Pluto? Makes sense, I guess. Though I wonder, why Venus and not Mercury? That's got to be even more unpleasant. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:59, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
I hate even mentioning this, as it gives TK's incredibly moronic edit more weight.... But if we were assuming Hell is a physical place, not a metaphysical realm, and it's located on a planet, not a star (which would exclude the sun) Wouldn't Mercury be a better spot? I mean, Venus is only hot because a build up of Gasses that trap available heat... It's not like it has fire shooting from it's core... Mercury, with it's proximity to the sun would be a much better candidate.... BURN ON MERCURY FOREVER SirChuckB 17:06, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, Venus makes more sense. It's punishment for those secularists who believe in Global Warming! --Kels 17:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Mercury's climate is not as conducive to the spread of Gay Bowel Disease.--Bayesupdate 17:15, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I remember a while back I was doing some reading in Japanese folklore, and the Buddhist "hell" (or was it Shinto? I can't recall) was actually considered to be in this region of sulfur vents near a semi-active volcano. Apparently it wasn't too far off from the sort of thing the Christians find so essential to their carrot and stick conception of heaven and hell. --Kels 17:07, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in Decline[edit]

What's all this nonsense that Andy and the other whackjobs are masturbating to this time? Every time I try to follow one of their links, it fails. --Kels 16:46, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

You mean this...
Liberal Wikipedia is in decline: "an independent analysis reported Wednesday showed that activity in Wikipedia's community has been declining over the last six months."[2] Timing of the decline corresponds to exposure here of the liberal bias on Wikipedia.
I don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that (current events aside), wikipedia is almost "finished"? And I'm sure that whatever the "real" reason is for lower activity, CP ain't it. Oh, and that slashdot link just seems to be overloaded. Which doesn't make sense, how can slashdot get slashdotted? Anyway, Assfly and His Glorious Krewe of Kneejerk (emhasis on jerk) Konservatives (initialization intentional) have certainly brought Western Civilization to unprecedented new heights, thank the Lord and pass the crumpet! I especially liked the data-mined and selectively corrected "graph" of their donation vs. starry scandals. humanUser talk:Human 16:55, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Try this /. link: if it doesn't work, go tot he root, search for wikipedia, it's like the second article. And totally trusworthy:
An anonymous reader writes "After more than a year with no official statistics, an independent analysis reported Wednesday showed that activity in Wikipedia's community has been declining over the last six months. Editing is down 20% and new account creation is down 30%. After six years of rapid growth and more than 2 million articles, is Wikipedia's development now past its peak? Are Wikipedians simply running out of things to write about, or is the community collapsing under the weight of external vandalism and internal conflicts? A new collection of charts and graphs help to tell the tale."
Anonymous reader? "independent analysis"? Where? Looks like CP placing items they can then cite... humanUser talk:Human 16:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
If they're getting this from /. shouldn't that be "Anonymous Coward"? --Kels 17:04, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
I think that this trend would be reversed should Jimmy Wales BUY A DOG. It would have stopped these Anonymous readers from treating wikipedia like a real-life video game, for a start. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

"Many" liberal editors?[edit]

Take a look at CreationWiki's article on CP, and read the third paragraph of the "attacks" section. It mentions "many" liberal sysops. --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 18:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Many it's their way of saying "One is too many"?CЯacke® 18:29, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
I love when the enemy fights with each other...... by the way, is it just me... of does this read a lot like the Liberal Style essay? SirChuckB 18:35, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Where liberal is defined as "People who don't believe Satan and all his little imps and demons are living on Venus." --Jeeves 22:34, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Fred Phelps[edit]

"Fred Phelps - confirmed liberal. Why? Oh, he once supported Al Gore, 20 years ago." Uh, have we/you seen their page on him? As a right wing freak, isn't it funny that Cp claims he is no True Scotsman? humanUser talk:Human 00:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is also listed at cp:Liberal Activists and mentioned at Liberal Hate Speech (for anti-gay speech, no less!). I love the CP political spectrum--it's circular. You go in either direction and you're bound to wind up on the left side; aren't the elements of far right fascism "liberal" as well, in addition to Phelps? At least CP's disownership of him is an indication that they recognize that he's a crazy hatemonger. 'Course, being a crazy hatemonger == being librul.--Bayesupdate 00:52, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't post here much, but...[edit]

... I have to say I was impressed that you guys knew I was banned before I was. :D Aziraphale 00:34, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

That's hilarious, eh? And just a little OCD... humanUser talk:Human 00:40, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Been working with this guy on a new animal model of OCD on rats.....the test for OCD is putting the rat in a situation where it has a "homebase" and a "point of interest" that will occasionally have food. Normal rats will learn when to check the POI and mostly hang out at its homebase, the OCD rats run back and forth constantly..... tmtoulouse pester 00:44, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
No wonder Ken makes all those edits! He is so busy running to check for food, and forgets what he was doing. -- --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 00:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
I stand by my original diagnosis of Ken as Borderline Personality Disorder, its probably the narcissistic tendency that makes him post so much not so much OCD. tmtoulouse pester 01:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Is that the same as being an attention seeking infant? Susantalk to me 01:06, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I just liked the imagry, really, nothing more than that, TMT. ;-) ----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 01:08, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
The difference between being an attention seeking infant and a borderline, is that an attention seeking infant just wants attention a borderline thinks they deserve to have your attention. And the imaginary is funny NT, I also enjoy the image of CP as a food pellet dispenser. tmtoulouse pester 01:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
So, uh, what is my problem? Oopsie, I had to ask. Most of you have self-diagnosed by now... humanUser talk:Human 04:48, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Mostly I'm too smart, too charming, and too good-looking. I spend lots of time online to avoid all the attention that might normally garner.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 08:03, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Really? Impressed? *Blushes*... aw shucks. Wanna go out sometime? Certainly not OCD... come on. :O 11:03, 13 October 2007 (EDT) (I even predicted TK would unblock... I think you're right)

Sorry, my mamma taught me never to go out on a date with an unrecognized IP address; you never know where it's been. :P Aziraphale 21:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, I did register finally, but it's just coincidence you said that. T_T Norseman 09:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I like my image of ken as a child at a grown-up's party trying to get people to praise his drawings.
Come to think of it, cp as a whole is a bit like the gang of kids in the woods making a tree house with lots of arcane rules. There's the one nobody likes but owns the tree house, the bully who creeps around him enforcing his rules on the other kids, the creepy one with the dirty mind who brings the tit 'n' arse mags and then the peons who're tolerated as long as they follow the rest around cleaning up after them. Susantalk to me 12:40, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Deleting pages[edit]

We're gonna have to start copying things. As soon as we begin to mock things they delete 'em. What was it about Pine Ridge anyway? Susantalk to me 12:20, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

See you fixed it Kels Susantalk to me 12:32, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

"Classic CP article?" Hardly seems fair since it was created by a user who's been a member for less than a day... (He was also blocked for being the same user who posted it to WIGO so... deceit much?). 12:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
I think it was about the picture gallery. Dungeons and Dragons game boxes. Just a thought. --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 13:53, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I dunno, all I did was refresh the link after TK moved it. I never really looked at it for content. -- 14:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

It does appear to be still there! here, but with the re-direct removed! I think TK was just trying to ruin the link here. Seems he should be better spending his time warning Conservative about Homosexual content added to his "masterpiece". ----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 15:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
It's just TK being a d**k.... No reason to worry, eventually he'll have to go back to servicing Andy and won't have time to do it. SirChuckB 16:11, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Playing devil's advocate here, but they have some policy about capitalization of articles. It used to read "Pine Ridge indian reservation" before. Though, that's not to say the effort wasn't to ruin the link. Norseman 16:59, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
True. TK's been capitalizing articles (and working against the software to do so) for ages now. Plus, someone actually mentions capitalization on the talk page. So I think it's giving both him and us too much credit to say he did it to break the link here. --Kels 19:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
TK's "capitalization decision" was the most idiotic thing - he admitted he made this choice on his own, even though a half-dozen editors, (including other sysops) pointed out why this was a bad idea, non-standard treatment, and works against the wiki software - but as usual TK's ego is soooooo big he refuses to admit he is wrong. He's a moron. 13:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Gender Differences[edit]

So then, according to Ed Poor, do flat-chested women make poorer mothers? Stile4aly 18:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Sexist bastard. Everyone knows manbewbs are better suited for comfort. Norseman 20:31, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
I have manbewbs and I'm a software engineer. Best of both worlds, baby, yeah! But seriously, get Ed Poor the fuck out of my profession. --Jeeves 21:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor and Racism[edit]

Now, now. Just because Poor Ed disapproves of black people, that doesn't mean he hates them. Oh, wait. That's supposed to be gays. --Kels 23:18, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

  1. "wrench"