Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive9

This is an archive page, last updated 13 June 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <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)

Quickly!

Someone take a screenshot this time! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=RationalW&diff=prev&oldid=320215 Uchiha 13:28, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Done. Norseman^Wassail! 13:40, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, thanks - I'll chill the fuck out now. I've seen what happens to those pages before, though, so I was hoping to see it preserved despite their best efforts. Uchiha 13:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Norseman! I was really worried that we wouldn't catch the monumental occasion of someone editing an open wiki! ZOMGROFLCOPTER1! Lurker 01:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Gee, I didn't even upload it. Don't have a carapace hemorrhage. Norseman^Wassail! 17:29, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone loaded it anyway [1]. Is it really that hard to edit an open wiki? Why are you guys so proud? I woke up this morning, but I didn't go shout it on the mountaintops. Lurker 11:27, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Lurker, you are a mutated hydralisk overvalued by n00bs. Although I can't resist your intense area of effect underground spine damage.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 01:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, perhaps my starcraft reference was unnoticed.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 01:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I noticed the reference, but not being a StarCraft fan I didn't get the reference. Lurker 00:46, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Assfly = nutjob part deux (notice the liberal french)

If he were to simply say, "Oxford has created a professorial position for Dawkins, showing their hand as a typical academic bastion of liberal atheism" then all would be done with. He as a serious perseveration problem. I mean, what a fucking tool.70.88.105.237 14:30, 21 October 2007 (EDT)PalMD

Frontal lobe degeneration. tmtoulouse ^persecute 17:20, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's million hits

Uh, RW gets more traffic than the his previous two big hitters combined........you need to aim a little higher Ken. tmtoulouse ^persecute 17:09, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Really? We get more than AmericansForTruthiness? Win.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

For what it's worth. tmtoulouse ^persecute 17:23, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Gee, maybe he should post on Andy's page, boasting that we link to him! XD --Kels 17:33, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems TK had the same thought, and challenged Kenservative about the HUGE TRAFFIChis whacko sites will bring, on Dawkins talk. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 08:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's been at it (Jam tomorrow that is) since at least April: Quote:

[edit] request I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative Conservative 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

(couldn't sort out the diff!) Alright the old hands knew, but it's news to some. Susan^{talk to me} 12:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

New Dawkins revert war

Wait, do I see this correctly? Conservative basically sides with Order, Oppen, and who else not? Priceless! Really priceless! --Sid 18:30, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Update in the light of the recent Wheel War: TK, Conservative, thank you both for doing this exactly during my short online time today. :) --Sid 18:41, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's what you see :-) -αmεσ (heckuva job!) 18:46, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I'll be honest, as bad, and indeed defaming, the material is, I agree with TK about leaving it in unless Andy publicly says so. After all, he's had a very public, very long argument defending that information tooth and nail, to have someone just come along and strike it out is a bit of an insult to the blog owner senior administrator, who has made sure the place identifies with his views. Although that means he has to deal with the worst of Ken's stubborn/OCD nature, and his desire to excise anything that doesn't fit with his self-promotion. --Kels 18:55, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Amazing how they (Andy and Conservative in this case) can break so many of their own commandments and policies on just one article, yet lowbie users get blocked for the dumbest of reasons. Its like Richard Dawkins only had to exist just to defeat them. Norseman^Wassail! 19:52, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I have to wonder when Andy will finally realize how worthless Ken is? Will it be here? Now? Or tomorrow?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 20:01, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Ken may have overstepped his bounds this time. Running afoul of TK is one thing, but taking out the words Andy has staked his credibility on, that's an insult. That, and I wonder if Andy will eventually get tired of Ken's "jam tomorrow" promises. --Kels 20:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

not enough "jam". That's why I gave up on Mick Jagger... human 20:49, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Ken must have gotten his ass kicked behind the scenes, he's removing all traces that he objected to Andy's "content". I think it might be a while before he starts coming here to pimp for "his" Dawkins article, huh? --Kels 21:35, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

My guess is that Conservative realized that the professorship issue does the article more harm than good. He might fear that it could undermine the credibility of "his" article, and wants it to be in good a good shape when it is featured by the international press. Tohuvavohu 23:09, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

My guess is that Conservative is trying his level best to be the first man banned from Wikipedia, Conservapedia and Creation Wiki for pushing "intelligent design". --Jeeves 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

He's still active on CW...-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Holy crap, this is awesome. Revert war causing collateral damage left and right, and then DanH makes sure that it gets personal. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=320905 Slink 01:52, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

DanH or TerryH? -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 02:35, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Uh, that second one. Slink 12:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Has anyone noticed that the Assfly has avoided the Dawkins talk page for the last two days? I think I see a pattern here. Andy gets his ass kicked in the Franklin discussion, stops posting to it, then it gets archived and he hopes everyone forgets about it. I suspect this is what he is doing on the Dawkins page, although I imagine that he is seething over Kenservative's suggestions to use Fischer.--Franklin 09:56, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I actually feel badly for Ken. TK's handing his ass to him. Hard. And for once, Ken's actually right. This is what happens when far-right conservatives get together: the authoritarianism and suspicion that attend far-right political beliefs never mix well together... and kudos to Ken for thinking for himself.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 09:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

The strange thing is that loyal conservapedians probably agree with TK. Never mind that Ken has a sound logical argument for once. If it means Andy has to admit he was wrong, they simply cannot have that.--Franklin 10:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

For shame on TK, AmesG and Franklin! Ken right? Ken logical? Too many trees for all of you to see? Can "logic" be selectively applied? Anyone have socks to burn and care to try and force Kenservative to apply his new-found logic to TOE? To all of the "Gay Disease" articles? To any article he has ever touched? Now that would be amusing! I don't see TK disagreeing with the methodology Ken proposes, but more being mocking of Ken. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 12:17, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

All I can see is that in this context at least, Conservative is making perfect sense for once, while TK is basically trying to subordinate methodology to an appeal to authority. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:34, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Hate quite often stops people from seeing the obvious. That isn't good methodology either. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 12:39, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Having gone through the whole debate it's quite obvious that Conservative is in the right. TK's approach of "It must be right because Andy said so" is so obviously, blatantly wrong that it must be alienating any few reasonable editors they have.--Bob^{bing for apples} 12:45, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

What a curious comment, NightTrain. I certainly don't hate anyone at CP (why should I?) - I rather regret that they're unable to expand their impossibly narrow worldview and come join the rest of us in the real world. That's beside the point, however. The point is that Conservative has, at least on the surface, unexpectedly decided to join the choir of reason, while TK and the rest of the Godspeed Squad are scrambling around to preserve Andy's aura of infallibility, as usual. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit that I am surprised to find that I agree with Kenservative about anything. I was stunned when I read his argument for applying the standards of historiography to the Dawkins discussion. I know, he does have this very weird fixation about homosexuality which makes me wonder about the boy.--Franklin 14:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Curious comment, AKjeldsen? Did you perhaps think I was addressing you personally? Sorry, I wasn't. One cannot logically find anything positive in what Ken is doing, and claim to be rational. Why? Well, DUH!! Because he isn't practicing what he is preaching anywhere else! I checked, and don't see the "reason" some of you are praising, displayed on all his other locked articles. Therefore he is using a ploy, a red herring. Practicing deceit if you will. I find it difficult to muster any praise for Kensevative, simply because if there is any "right" in what he is doing, it is totally for the advancement of his personal agenda, not in honour of collaboration or consideration of his fellow editors. --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 18:39, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Ken fellating homophobes in exchange for links

Ken's now fellating this guy, a graduate from barely-accredited Regent Law. Awesome.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 19:31, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Probably brain damaged/punch drunk. Susan^{speak your mind} 19:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

That is one of the guys, they other one is LaBarbera, who Ken is altering articles for, in exchange for linkage! Take a good look at Homosexual. It is like a hero whorship site for LaBarbera, complete with pictures and links. I wonder if Assfly is just too stupid to pick up on it. --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't ashfly hate teh gheys too, though? (I put in a new header) human 21:07, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

LaBarbera, didn't he make up Fred Flintstone? --Kels 21:08, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey.... where IS Aschlafly around all this?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 21:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Lying [on the down] low. --Kels 21:17, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Torn, I am willing to bet, therefore hiding under the bed. ;-) --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:20, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Tk still doesnt understand IPs

One of the things that cought my eye with tk vs ken was the ip block. Looking at the logs, I see several xxx.yyy.0.0/22 and xxx.yyy.0.0/24 blocks. I thought he learned how to properly do ip blocks. As it stands, those blocks were completely ineffecive. How did he ever get block rights an completely and consistently mess up ip blocks? --Shagie 00:08, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I thought the only ones that worked were 0.0/32 or so. At least, that's what I do on RW when I'm bored... Like, you ca tell I don't know what I'm talking about, but you know what I mean. human 03:50, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Sub header should be re-titled "Shagie never understood IP blocks". :P ----Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 05:52, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, actually Shagie's most likely right. I suggest people check Conservapedia:IP blocks and the linked sources again. Range blocks are highly unintuitive, though, so tripping up is no biggie (God knows I did it often enough myself).

"x.y.0.0/24" blocks "x.y.0.0 - x.y.0.255", which is correct only if the third digit really is "0" in the range TK wanted to block (I have no idea if that is true true or false, but there is a 255/256 chance that it's false).

The "x.y.0.0/22" block is a fairly odd range. Lemme check... "x.y.0.0 - x.y.3.255" (1,024 IPs)

Block ranges ending in ".0.0" are usually the overkill-ish /16 blocks (the toughest MediaWiki allows unless you patch the software), which cover "x.y.0.0 - x.y.255.255" (65,536 IPs).

So it's fairly unusual to have /24 blocks for a ".0.0" IP. /24 blocks usually have a non-zero third digit. --Sid 07:50, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

And that makes it right, in saying 0.0/22 and /24 would not block the Syracuse library terminal IP he uses, how? --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ}

Well, I don't really know (or care) what IP Conservative used on that particular day, so I can't say if it was a correct block or not. However, if the third digit was larger than three, it was not a correct block. Not having access to CheckUser, I can only say that (1) TK has made quite a few "x.y.0.0/24" blocks and (2) the mere odds of Conservative having an IP with a 0, 1, 2, or 3 in the third block are quite low (4/256 to be exact).

That's why I said that Shagie was most likely right. I can't be 100% certain since I lack info, but I can make educated guesses and tell people how range blocks work. ...not like my schedule actually allows me to do more these days... --Sid 20:31, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Very understandable, Sid. Thanks. If people here know something isn't right, and it screws with Kenservative, perhaps they should be contacting the sysops there and making sure they get it right? -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 20:41, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

He seems perfectly capable of screwing himself right now. --Jeeves 03:00, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Now that I am back on a proper desktop ... I would have tried telling CP sysops (TK) that he messed up the IP on CP... and while he has unblocked my name, the places I was on vacation at were blocked (and my home and work are still blocked too). Intresting, the rural midwest dsl where I was staying on vacation was blocked as part of a university four states away. Must have been one of those early /16 blocks. Contacting CP sysadmins is difficult at best, and sometimes they read about it hear as we laugh at them and fix things.

Typically (in every network I have been part of), low bytes in IP addresses are routers and networks used by routers or other network wide resources (important servers). This is often because of the mnemonics of low numbers - its easier to remember XXX.YYY.2.6 than it is to remeber XXX.YYY.45.101. This is not always the case, but it is the convention that network admins tend to use. A quick poke with nslookup shows that 128.205.1.1 is 'rtr1-3.buffalo.edu'. 128.205.1.2 is ns.buffalo.edu (the name server). This fits with the conventions that you would see in a network. And so, it is very doubtful that anyone would have a PC connected to 128.205.0.XXX. Even the /22 block likely missed, the closest I could find to a library machine was library.buffalo.edu at 128.205.5.32 (though this sits on the same network as myub.buffalo.edu which is likely another server, so this looks like another server subnet, which again is how a network would be organized). I would find it very unlikely that there would ever find someone logging in from an IP that shows up in a XXX.YYY.0.0/22 ip range, much less the XXX.YYY.0.0/24 ip range. --Shagie 01:35, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Steven45 and "God's Plan"

Assuming for the moment that this guy isn't Icewedge under deep cover, this quote really ground my gears:

“”If God in his infinite wisdom has justification for global warming than man should not attempt to alter his almighty plan. God has created every man, animal and flower on this planet and if (like the dinosaurs from 8000 B.C.) he sees a reason to remove them, we should not question his divine authority.

What a steaming load of produce. Humans have altered God's plan PLENTY of times. We've wiped out passenger pigeons, European lions, and dodos. We've levelled mountains, made deserts bloom, turned forests into wastelands, and changed the course of rivers, for our own convenience. We've sent living people into the airless depths of space and the bottom of the oceans and BROUGHT THEM BACK ALIVE, and we've defied the plagues that God so painstakingly crafted to torment us with such heathen accomplishments as penicillin and antisepsis, and if God has a problem with THAT, he's welcome to say it to my face. We've turned night into day with electric lights, and we've turned wolves into dogs! Thud, we've even made it possible for two idiots on opposite sides of the Earth to yell at each other, using this obviously un-Biblical "intarwebs"! Is he prepared to give all these up, just because God might disapprove? --Gulik 00:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I saw Steven45's initial edits and I was sure that he was a parodist. I'm still pretty convinced. I'm much more shocked that he wasn't banhammered. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 07:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

What is this 8000 BC crap? Everyone knows that the Earth was created in 4004 BC! Sheesh! ollïegrïnd 07:33, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

That's more to my point. But, YECs do seem to often say "6,000 to 10,000 years" for the age of the Earth. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 07:44, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes the best way to stay hidden is to hide in plain sight. They're not too bright over there when it comes to satire. Jrssr5 09:48, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Woo

It's us again. Aren't we just great? Uchiha 17:00, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Quick! Someone contact clueless TK and show him how to get around the CP spam filter! :D -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 18:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

He can read it here I'm sure. Just replace the l with a 1 (L with one), or sumpin'. human 18:55, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

The Conflict Seeps

Is this how the end begins? Will the wrestling of the great powers-that-be spread and tear the site in twain? Probably not, but it's good fun to watch. Uchiha 20:35, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm just amazed at how Ken just plain doesn't get it. He single-mindedly continues to do what he's always done, apparently unaware that there's any problem. And I'm not sure if him bragging about yet another exploit to gain page views to TK is an insult or just cluelessness. --Kels 21:06, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

More than one sysop and editor there have told me they think Ken exhibits many traits of Autism. Like that tunnel vision obsessiveness, and inability to change topics easily, etc. Might be something to that..... --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't wanna go that far, and attribute diseases/maladies to him other than, well, your typical creationist delusions... I think he's just obsessive.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

In light of Ken's predilection maybe "anal" is a better description. Genghis Khant 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I think it has been proven many times over that being a sysop on CP aggravates, if not causes, mental illnesses. Just as editing on RW can cure, or at least provide a healthy outlet for, them. I thought Ken was more OCD, but then, I don't follow his every move... Heh, I just remembered, he blocked me for a month once for deleting one of his cut'n'paste quote mine sections... ah, them's were the good ole daze! human 21:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Welcome to the zone where normal things do not happen very often. Amazing. Someone should turn this into a play. Tohuvavohu 22:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I think if anyone has some sort of mental disorder along those lines its RobS. The fact that he takes very simple statements and repeats them back in some mangled form nothing like how they originally appeared could be intentional, but it has all the signs of someone who can read, but can't quite grasp what he's reading. There's countless examples of him completely misconstruing comments made by others. I suppose it's more likely that his defense when he knows he has no logical response is to intentionally ignore any questions asked and instead address an issue completely off topic (under the illusion that he can't lose an argument if he refuses to participate in it), but I'm starting to give this mental disorder theory a bit of creedence. DickTurpis 01:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bangalore?

While following the TK vs. Conservative deathmatch, I noticed something slightly odd on TK's user talk page, a link to a golfing community north of Bangalore. Is TK seriously considering splashing upwards of half a million bucks on some house in a upper class white twit resort? Doesn't he know that all the cool kids live in Aamby Valley City? Doesn't he know that half the people in Karnataka proudly display the hammer and sickle on the back of their vehicles?

Well, I suppose we can only hope he's kidnapped by marxist guerillas. Goatspeed, TK, enjoy the golf and if you ever see me in the nineteenth hole of the Sankey Road golf course, you have my permission to shoot me. --Jeeves 23:55, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk about post-colonialism... --Kels 06:48, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Archiving?

This might just be an error of some sort (one sort of hopes it is), but how can TK remove 116k worth of Dawkins talk page, but only archive 25k of it?

I'd suggest he only has so much space in his buffer, but it cuts off at a natural spot, at the end of one of the sections. Seems weird that after fighting so hard to keep the last parts with Ken's weirdness in, he'd suddenly let them go now. --Kels 06:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I see where he archived another 66k before the deletion, but there still seems to be a bit unaccounted for, unless that's some weirdness in how the wiki software keeps track or something. --Kels 06:52, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed that myself, but check it out: Combined diff - the entire "principles of weighing historical evidence and the professorship of dawkins issue" got silently cut because of the 11th Commandment. --Sid 06:53, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bohdan

Damn you Bohdan, how dare you steal our lulz? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:02, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

"Page Was Empty"

TK is apparently seeing just how credulous people are, deleting and recreating the Dawkins talk page in order to get rid of the embarrassing history, and covering it up with the most blatant lie ever told. I'm rather astounded. --Kels 20:34, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

That seems to have more to do with Kenservative restoring the argument, which TK had earlier just reverted. Apparently he hasn't had enough fighting. I predict a fury of editing to "improve" one of the homosexual disease articles for the Mothers Against Fags people. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

TK's been transparently doing this for a while, removing content from a page to archive, then deleting it because "well, it was empty", which is the sheerest bullshit. Then, magically, when it's re-created the history is no longer accessible. He's done it to the Main Page over there lots of times, and I doubt he fools anyone. --Kels 21:53, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Did you really entertain the idea he thought he was "fooling" anyone? I suspect it is just another example of his "fuck you" attitude. Too bad he doesn't just do it for fun, instead of helping them at CP, is all. But at this point anyone screwing with Ken is fun for me! --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:58, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

These bozos would embarrass the Ministry of Truth.... --Gulik 22:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

But how would MiniLuv feel about that? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:00, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I see poor little Kenny is re-introducing his masterpiece of reason to Dawkins Talk, and it keeps being removed. Poor fellow! Look for him to slink back here for a tried and true audience. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 01:51, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Holy crap, that's great! With his help, we may get enough page views to put this little wiki on the map! Slink 04:08, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeesh. Good thing I saw that behavior coming and made my own copy of the "current" talk page (the version before the initial "archiving").

The issue here is an interesting one, though: Is the "11th Commandment" actually an official policy? As in: Is it actually written down in an official guideline/rules page? If not, then this is a fairly weird one since we got one sysop arbitrarily removing content while another one sorta arbitrarily re-inserts it.

In a way, this just highlights how the sysop on CP are not normal editors. Sysops win content discussions if they are stubborn enough, sysops may freely revert and remove anything they don't like (regardless of sources or truth), sysops always try to present a united front to the outside world (which means that they have their discussions in private for some reason).

This. Is. Stupid.

If the sysops think that this makes people think "Oh, the good conservatives never get into discussions and always agree on everything, so if I disagree, I'm the only one and thus can't be right", they're dead wrong. It's a case of sysop sockpuppets (or meatpuppets, to be more precise), and any human with more than two brain cells sees right through it.

Content and policy discussions belong on a wiki. A wiki is a community project, not a VIP-only party. It's completely natural that some sysops may actually develop some sort of own opinion, and they shouldn't be punished for it. Not on CP, though. Here we have a sysop who *gasp* thinks that Andy is wrong. Naturally, this cannot be (only Godless Liberals disagree with Andy, and Godless Liberals usually don't become sysops), so CP engages in some sort of hilarious (and sad) self-censorship. The end result is easy: Either Conservative joins the Hive Mind again, or Conservative will soon be kicked out of the Hive. I personally root for the latter. Both because I want to see him de-sysop'd and because I like it when somebody develops a spine and defends his opinion. It'd nicely point out that on CP, only one POV counts, and that's the one Andrew Schlafly approves of. --Sid 06:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Ladies and gentlement, this is a great moment in time. We are witnessing nothing other than wp:Max Weber's concept of "Routinization of Charisma" in actual practice, with all the lovely conflicts and disorder that entails. Fascinating. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:59, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

any human with more than two brain cells sees right through it. Good thing that's not their target audience, then. :) --SockOfGulik 17:24, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

TK removes all content from the page, and then deletes it, saying it was empty. It's still deceit, though. That's the case of the now ultra-blocked Boru, TK's ex-boyfriend now apparently :P. If anyone cares, on the risk of being called OCD, I screenshottededed and saved the source code of the Dawkins talk (and archives 1 & 2, all of it) before TK deceitfully deleted it, after I saw mention of RW and figured their attempt at whitewash might follow suit. Norseman^Wassail! 16:06, 25 October 2007 (EDT) deceit deceit deceit!

Has any appropriately paranoid/annoyed person considered hooking up a script to the recent changes page on CP to grab diffs (and thus histories) of articles prior to deletion? --Shagie 16:24, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

So do we have the text of the Dawkins Talk page still?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:43, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but I've no clue what to do with it. 36 screenshots (one line overlapping for easy puzzle put-together) and the source code. >:U Norseman^Wassail! 12:17, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Source, cool! That makes it easy and efficient to present on another wiki, if there was a need. human 12:25, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob's got it & kenservatives got a copy on user/evidence Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 12:25, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

See here Conservapedia Talk:Burning the Evidence--Bob^{bing for apples} 12:28, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Eww!

What is it with that god-awful new pinkish/salmonish colour on the front page, anyway? It looks positively social-democratic now! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:02, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

It looks pastel cream-ish to me. Just enough Martha Stewart to not look completely gay. Still, a pity they switched. I actually liked the old, blue background. It worked well with the dark blue headline bars. Once I get more time, I'll have to adapt my Stylish settings to get the old color back. --Sid 14:13, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

It is the color of white people ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 14:21, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

• Conservapedians are just dull. Look at the whole site: the colors are depressing. Agggh! 201.229.143.205 14:50, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I think its because they are old people! Elassint 15:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

The pink strikes me as a little, you know, gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that...PFoster 16:23, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

"If Dumbledore can do it, we can too!" Norseman^Wassail! 16:24, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

The gift of trial and error. Ok, you dislike the colour, you change it. JustineA 00:16, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

You should so totally do the random color thing we almost did....24.141.169.227 00:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Whatever color you pick you really need to get rid of the blue border around each column, which is half the problem 67.159.45.52 05:36, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy's Lecture

I would just like to point out that as I quickly looked over Andybaby's lecture I noticed several spelling mistakes and this little gem of a quote

By the late 1960s, the Vietnam War was raging in Southeast Asia and college protests were prominent in America. The media began covering the war as no other war had been seen before. Goring and disturbing pictures of violence and death on the battlefield were piped into millions of American homes. Public opinion shifted because of it.

Notice, if you will, the glaring errors, the biggest would be "...media began covering the war as no other war had been seen before," and don't forget "Goring and disturbing pictures." Sometime he makes it too easy SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:30, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be "Gory and disturbing pictures..."? "Goring and disturbing pictures..." seems as though it could only mean pictures dealing with a horned animal attacking someone, right? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 07:40, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that would be correct... Goring and disturbing pictures actually implies that the pictures themselves can gore you... as "goring" and "disturbing" are being used as adjectives for the noun "pictures." Also, gory is a relative term... Graphic is the word I beleive he should have used SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:59, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedian Vandal

Can someone please explain to me how you know the vandal was from Conservapedia? You guys are just waaaaay out of my league, in terms of intelligence, so could you condescend yourselves down to my level to explain your higher reasoning? Lurker 17:48, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Linus & Co. have access to enough internet technology to see into YOUR VERY SOUL. An IP address trace isn't such a big deal, by comparison. And if the IPs are the same, it must be the same person, as we all learned together on CP. --SockOfGulik 19:04, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

And if they're from the same city, state or vague geographic vicinity, there's a 98.24289% probability that they're the same person as well!! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:21, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, unless someone here is (literally?) in bed with whomever it is from CP, why not say who? -- 23:18, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

RobS Email

Can we best-of this? It seems important enough. Slink 18:04, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm curious about the circumstances. Does Rob just randomly send out letters confessing to not taking Andy's substitute penis blog seriously? --Kels 18:34, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't tell me your surprised that no one, not even the site sysops, actualy think of the project as a real online encyclopedia. It's painfully obvious that they use it as a place to rant and try to anger liberals. The sheer amount of downright lies and distortions that they add to articles, admit to, and refuse to remove is testament to that. I suppose it's slightly surprising that Rob, in admitting this, actually said something honest for about the first time ever. DickTurpis 22:48, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

What email? -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 23:16, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Here. Norseman^Wassail! 00:31, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I think it's important, I'm glad you agree. I effectively think it means that RationalWiki has won: we've destroyed Conservapedia. Not by subterfuge or wandalism, but by just being here. As for the circumstances, Rob & I have e-mailed before, only when I've seen something just particularly stupid that he needed to be bitched out regarding. This was an extension of that paradigm...-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:38, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

TK, master of deceit

From a private email from TK:

Terry to me
More options Oct 23 (3 days ago)

Oh well, such is life. They should choose their roommates with greater care!

Phelps isn't much of a liberal anymore, by today's definition. He was at one time, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Six years or so ago is when he was pumping money to Al Gore.

||| TK

How can he reconcile such statements with this edit? Oh sure, Terry, conservatives don't practice deceit. No, not at all. 24.29.72.31 01:16, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

(Cleaned up your email message slightly to make it more understandable)

However, could yew ex-plane how you retrieved this e-mail? I must question your validity, good sir, seeing as how you edited the Fred Phelps article with the intent of calling him conservative. Norseman^Wassail! 09:32, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

After I (and my roommates) were blocked (I was user BillyFranco), I sent an email to TK asking why. That was his reply. I sent a follow up email but receieved no answer. As for my Phelps edits, it's pretty obvious he is a conservative (or at least holds many conservative views). 24.29.72.31 09:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, good to see you here, BillyFranco! I recant my questioning from before, and I apologize for the apparent scrutiny. But, six years ago? Does TK know anything about Phelps? I'm not sure what the general consensus is on the Phelps article here, so I'll ask on the talk page to be sure. Norseman^Wassail! 10:09, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, in my unanswered reply I pointed out to him that Phelps abandoned Gore during the Clinton campaign. 1992 was substantialy more than 6 years ago. Seems TK understands math about as well as he does politics and honesty. Hardly surprising that conservapedia isn't exactly a hive of intellectualism. 24.29.72.31 10:24, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, check out the bottom link TK added in the diff I linked above. His source is a web discussion between a few random people. Is that supposed to tell us anything? What sort of "encyclopedia" is this? 24.29.72.31 10:55, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

CP is not so much an encyclopedia in the normal sense of the word as it is an extension of the American Conservative Movement's ongoing efforts to create an entire alternate universe out of PURE BULLSHIT. --SockOfGulik 14:05, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

(And my personal consensus on Phelps is that his continued non-Smitedness is one of the best arguments for atheism imaginable.) --SockOfGulik 14:05, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

So, someone who uses "deceit" or used deceit on CP, and who is claiming to be someone who was blocked on CP, and who doesn't have an account here, just some IP number, is complaining about another person who apparently is/was using deceit, if not outright parody, on Stupipedia? Do I have this right? Instead of posting here about factual idiocies we can see and verify, we are now just accepting any old IP saying something is real? And we are actually posting to this? What is next? GWB posting (as some IP number), his recent chat room convo with Bohdan and AmesG, taking them to task for abusing kittens? -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 14:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, you can see from this edit and this block that I was blocked by TK, so using my IP and not some random account here is, in this case, less anonymous. Furthermore, can you point out any deceit in my few posts at CP, as opposed to TK and Rob, who lie through their teeth? If you want me to forward TK's message to me, give me your email address and I will. In any case, deceit in an informal discussion is not as serious as purposefully putting poltically-driven disinformation into an allegedly "trustworthy encyclopedia", would you agree? 24.29.72.31 15:09, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

[liberal deceit]GWB is abusing kittens?! :-O I knew it! [/liberal deceit] --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes! And why hasn't their been some explanation for those three chatting with each other? Hmmmmmmmm? -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 19:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Looks like you were a vandal,so no need to point that deceit out to you, (BrianTrust) 24.29.72.31! But welcome to those of us dedicated to keeping CP the source of misinformation that it is! ----Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 11:12, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

It's impossible for more than one person to use the same IP? 24.29.72.31 15:40, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

WP vs. CP growth

We all find the exclamations of how CP boasts how rapidly it is growing to be funny. It's also stupid. However, I never noticed how stupid it truly was until I was doing a bit of editing on WP just now. Clicking on WP's Recent Changes link, waiting the brief time for it to load, and then clicking Recent Changes again will give you two different pages. I figure you'd have to set it to show, say, the last 100 changes before you would still see the top however many on the first click as part of the second click (albeit at or near the bottom at that point). --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:44, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

All that means is that liberal lies are being added to WP faster than CP can put out the real truth! human 13:48, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Not really a good example. 10,000 mindless edits by fourteen year olds on WP in one hour, or 10 mindless edits on CP are still mindless edits, no? Touting growth is something society demands, not Jimbo or Assfly...I believe the word is "synergy" inducing. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 14:03, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, now that we see promotional, nonsensical, crap like this being added to CP (and apparently not being deleted) maybe CP is becoming the next Wikipedia. DickTurpis 14:53, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, they eventually deleted it. For some reason they called it a parody, when it wasn't, it was some just crap about some guy having a record of nuber of screenplays in production or some nonsense. The sort of interesting thing is that while that stuff appears all the time on WP (and is usually sent to AfD pretty quickly, if not deleted outright) I'd not seen it before on Conservapedia, presumably because no one saw CP as a place to promote your stupid crap because no one would ever see it there. Apparently at least one person thinks that's not the case. Or maybe he had too much time on his hands. DickTurpis 16:32, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring the question of whether somebody would actually go to CP to post a trivia article, the base situation is a bit different on CP.

On Wikipedia, you could create a weird article that, with some luck, slips under the radar of the Recent Changes watchers. And then, your weird article is just one of the other bazillion articles on WP, and as long as you don't edit it too often, chances are that it stays low-profile until somebody stumbles over it.

On Conservapedia, your weird article will usually remain in the Recent Changes for HOURS because CP's editing rate is so extremely low (exceptions include things like vandal sprees, Karajou uploading tons of images, copy-paste orgies, and revert wars among sysops), and the majority of editors are sysops. So if you create some weird article, it will stick out, and there are no actual policies about what gets to stay or not, so it's enough if a single sysop thinks it should be deleted and BAM, it's gone (and usually, so are you). --Sid 17:16, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, absolutely true. My point was the motivation of the guy posting about whatever the fuck his point was supposed to be. He probably knew nothing of how CP works (in the sense that it "works" at all) and was just hoping to post his promotional bit elsewhere after (I assume) he had it deleted from Wikipedia. The fact that he even considered CP as an option shows that more than just the few neocons and the gawkers are looking at the site, even if only to spam for a minute. When it comes right down to it, I think a few of those posts don't mean much, but if they start getting a lot of them it could be a sign that some people are assuming that CP is a site with serious traffic. DickTurpis 17:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

40%

I just want to know where the article that Andy sourced that claim from got those figures. The article is an opinion page of that online paper and provides no sources for that 40% of public high school students are victims.-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 14:06, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I would guess the traditional way: Pulling numbers out of thin air and calling them "assumptions". --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I also particularly liked the fact that atheism was the apparent cause. I suppose it's at least nice to know he's not really making any effort to hide his completely unsubstantiated correlations anymore. Uchiha

Welcome to the world of the Schafly Statistics SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:59, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Hoji

Huh? Did I miss something? Why did he lose his powers? Any special reason, or did Andy just pull an Act of God and yank away the powers because he felt like it? --Sid 17:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

It looks like he pulled sysop status from inactive individuals, though I'm sure he was chomping at the bit to find a way to purge the last great liberal from CP. There is now no reason left at all. RIP, Hoji. Stile4aly 19:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Hrrrm, I see what you mean, but here are a few current sysops and their last edits:

• ChrisS: Sep 14 (and the edit before that on May 25)
• CPAdmin1: Oct 23 (but only 4 edits in all of October)
• David_R: Aug 31
• Will_N.: Sep 25 (and the edit before that on Aug 21)
• Ymmotrojam: Aug 30

Funny, I don't see any of them getting the boot for some reason... --Sid 20:15, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Fox got the boot last month I think. He was conservative but reasonably sane so often ran into arguments. He was very active indeed for a while, worked hard for sysopship, got knocked back, kicked up a fuss, got promoted... and then went quiet fairly soon after. Matt 04:08, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Fox was a sock of several, I am told, both from reading here and on CP. --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 06:35, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Fox was not a sock. Refugee^{talk page} 14:56, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

IM me sometime, and I would be happy to debate the issue. ;-) -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 20:40, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know you, and you don't have an IM listed on your user page Night Train. So I guess that's not possible. Anyway, I know people here made joke pages saying they were a sock of Fox and all, but Fox and I emailed several times and he was a really nice guy. He quit CP once and I asked him to stay... little knowing I would become disillusioned and leave myself. Well actually, to tell the truth, I have edited there again since leaving. It's hard to stay away, as many people know, there's too much temptation to add good content to counteract some of the stuff that is there, and it's also just really fun being the very first person to create pages.. can we do that at Wikipedia? No, everything has been done, overdone, and better than I could do it that's for sure, so it's pretty cool being able to create new pages, and almost everything needs doing at CP, since it's just starting out.. but I really like the people here they are more... well, rational. lol. And I would create pages here too, but I am kind of in awe of the minds here, and I don't think anything I could write would be up to par, but if I can think of something I will. Refugee^{talk page} 23:18, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha, Refugee you give your identity away, but I'll hold my tongue. I agree with you about Fox, the sock thing was was a diversion because he was zapping so many old favorites. I corresponded with other editors here about whether he was a deep cover mole but basically he just followed edit histories to uncover the spoofs. This is what caused the Information Warrior's Handbook to be written. I would be very surprised if NT could supply evidence that Fox was not who he seemed. RobS would wet himself to get hold of evidence like that! Genghis Khant

Refugee, you sorely overestimate us. PLEASE write articles! The more biased the better! I'm impressed, by the way, with your apparent ability to play nicely with the sysops... you're a better person than most of us.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:46, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

wow....

This is complete bullshit. Conservapedia makes it look like he's changing his views because he doesn't like creationism....they fail to realize and/or admit that he just doesn't like quote mining. Plus, I'm pretty sure that they only have the news article there because of the RW mention of it; the irony is paramount. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 22:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, some ppl our just crazy! They try to prove the truth but than they twist is so that its not the truth anymore! 12.75.66.237 22:15, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

indeed, i wholly agree. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 22:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I think it's pretty funny they have an article which RationalWiki hosted in almost the exact opposite context. Congrats to the moron who brought it up there, I hope they're proud of their conservative ignorance bias perspective. Uchiha 23:47, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's technical problem

Anybody care to guess what Conservative's current yapping (on the talk pages of Andy and Ed) is all about? --Sid 22:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Props to us?

Could this be a thanks to us for pointing out some alleged vandalism? That would be unprecedented. Besides, is there proof it was vandalism? TK has stated that a "see also" needn't have anything to do with the article (for example, there is still a link to Nancy Pelosi at bisexual, and it's protected, no less). I wonder if TK or Rob will revert HelpJazz. DickTurpis 11:04, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Dick, Jallen, and even TK has added thanks to RW after reading here. I doubt Andy has. But "proof" that it was vandalism? If it had been added by Rob or TK instead of the user posting above, I could agree, it might have been deliberate and unfunny typical CP sysop work! --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 11:21, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Mentally unhinged mobs of the left

Could that possibly be Operation Yellow Elephant inviting recruiters to talk to College Republicans? --Kels 15:56, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Do you think Andy Schaftly is gay? (sorry if i dont know how to spell his name) 156.7.6.111 20:46, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

No. --Kels 20:58, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

But he is into good grooming, and is certainly protective of young Sharon and Bethany, it seems. :D -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:03, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Certainly. Just thought I'd be concise. --Kels 21:21, 27 October 2007 (EDT)