User talk:Ed Poor/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 August 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Let me be the first to welcome you to the mobocracy.--PalMD-Talk 15:59, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Ed. Hopefully you can help us with our project. Do you have any experience working with wikis? --Huey gunna getcha 16:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I hope that last part was meant as humor...--PalMD-Talk 16:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Darn tootin'. Not to ring my own bell, but I thought it was pretty good. --Huey gunna getcha 16:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, my first step will be to take the lay of the land. I wouldn't want to assume that what goes at Wikipedia or Conservapedia is acceptable here. I suppose I'll comment a bit here and there for now. --Ed Poor 16:07, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Pretty much :) -Icewedge 16:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Ed. Very pleased to see you here. --AKjeldsen 16:12, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm happy to be here. I couldn't help noticing the brain drain a couple of weeks ago. I hope you fellas plan to put both hemispheres to good use. ;-) --Ed Poor 16:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I think this sounds like a good place to begin, Ed. As much as I couldn't stand you at CP (in the beginning) I do respect your skills and the eye you bring to all subjects. Welcome aboard and jump in when you get comfortable. Flippin;-) 16:16, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I hope you're peace-making skills are not needed very much. The idea on CP of walking away from the controversies due to futility will (hopefully) not be needed here. Time will tell.--PalMD-Talk 16:21, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't mean to hijack your page, Ed, but I wanted to post next to this comment. I tend to think of RW as a place for all the deleted/blocked/locked and otherwise totally missing articles from CP. We might just address such vulgarities as vagina, deceit and maybe even Jesus, but we aim to fairly. Just wanted to voice my opinion. Flippin;-) 16:26, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, I haven't gotten into vagina much lately, but I'm still opposed to deceit and I still love Jesus. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, Flippin doesn't come around here any more; PAL does occasionally, but I highly doubt he's going to look at your talk page, especially at responses to, um, sections that are three years and one month old. Sterile Playstation 3 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying this thread is sterile? --Uncle Ed bug me 16:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The response time is poor. Sterile Playstation 3 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Touché. --Uncle Ed bug me 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Anything to be a Bureaucrat, eh? --TK /MyTalk 17:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

"whistle blows" unnecessary cruelty--PalMD-Talk 17:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments and welcome[edit]

"The ability of "blocked" users to post to their own user talk page." - How convenient that that apparently doesn't work on CP. Or if it does by now, it doesn't matter since all banned users' pages are locked. And "HAR HAR" at your brain drain comment. I'm sure all the (quite forcibly) drained people will laugh along. ;)

Uh, I mean... Yeah, hi, Ed. :P

I don't think you need a "writing plan" here, we're far more relaxed than CP (No 90/10 here!) and people are actually allowed to *gasp* chat and have fun. :) --Sid 17:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Kind of like an IRC channel, but with public logging always turned on. --Ed Poor 12:19, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Uncle Ed![edit]

You're here! Good God! Do you know if Andy has any plans to come across too? Maybe he can bring the CP Panel with him. Anyway, delighted to see you. --Horace 21:27, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, please, please get Andy to come here. If he would be convinced by anything, I would be willing to delete my lovely image ;). --Linus(plot evil tech) 19:30, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


Hope this site doesn't disgust you too much. Helios-speak to me! 23:37, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

If we don't disgust people, clearly we're doing it wrong. Bring on the tripe! --Kels 09:16, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


Welcome, Ed. I agree with you about cranks - they are often needed to turn over dogmatic thinking; Galileo, Darwin, Wegener to name just a few. Mad Min 07:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

People dismissed as cranks aren't always crackpots. You have to consider the motives and the facts of both the "dismissers" and the "dismissed".
It's like Conservapedia vs. the Exiled Ones who started RW. --Ed Poor 18:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
  • "They laughed at Edison! They laughed at Einstein!"
  • "And someday, they'll laugh at you, too?"
  • "And when they do, don't come running to apologize!"
(From a comic strip I liked called "Eyebeam") -- 18:39, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Ed...I'm glad you haven't abandoned us!--PalMD-yada yada 18:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Must keep communication lines open - like the "hotline" between White House and Kremlin. --Ed Poor 18:24, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Nkhrushchev never replies to my email any more. :( --jtltalk 18:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I was thinking it was more like Arkham and the Batcave, but oh well. --Kels 18:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

So what's hot over on the Dark Side these days? Aside from under Karajou's collar?--PalMD-yada yada 18:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Meet me on #conservapedia or #cp-admin (I'm not good at using wiki for chat.) --Ed Poor 18:33, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
  • I meant #cp-cabal

I won't be on until later tonight. If you're there, see ya then.--PalMD-yada yada 18:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


Hi, Ed. Read any genetics books lately? Sterile 07:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

No, my approach to science is that it should be explained simply enough that I ought to be able to understand it merely by reading an online encyclopedia article. Please write an introduction to genetics for me! :-) --Uncle Ed bug me 10:50, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Eh, ok, I'll try. But there is a lot of science that takes more than reading an enc. article to understand. Sometimes there are advanced maths and such, and writing them out removes the "content". That said, a lot of science can be carefully explained using language a university student could be expected to understand. PS, I started a discussion over at cunt after reverting your deletion, using your edit summary. humanbe in 11:11, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I think SharonS did a whole series of Genetics related articles on CP. If my memory serves me right most of them were quite short and didn't involve advanced maths, so you could trying reading those. Andy said that he learned a lot from DeborahB's stubs so I guess you you couldn't do any worse Ed. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 11:32, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Ed, your apparent lack of intellectual initiative (or whatever your reasoning is here) is not my fault. There are subjects in this world that are "hard" and can't be explained in 1" of screen space, and not just in science (in politics, Bible studies and religion, etc.).

If you will like me to send you a "simple" genetics book, that could probably be arranged somehow. Also, I didn't get the impression that you read anything here, and I'm not allowed to edit at the other place. Sterile 11:52, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Some of the relevant parts relating to evolution & genetics (which is, after all, what this is really about) are here and here.Sterile 15:44, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

What is going on at CP?[edit]

If CP was ONLY anti-liberal it might not be considered extremist. CP takes plenty of positions that a lot of people would consider to be extremist.--Edgerunner76 09:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd love to see a list of extremist positions taken at Conservapedia. Aside from Young Earth Creationism, what else would be on that list? --Uncle Ed bug me 09:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I think it's pretty much at the main article. humanUser talk:Human 18:37, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Susan's list (for starters)[edit]

Resurrection after 3 days (corpses start to smell after 1 day), flood & ark, dinosaurs & humans co-existing, right to bear arms, support of Iraq war, extreme pro-life, extreme stupidity, extremely antigay, extreme intolerance of anyone who disagrees (alright - me too on that one), extremely strange definition of scientific greatness (not Einstein!), extremely Reaganite ... The list goes on and on ... Susantalk to me 10:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT) (probably extreme anti-feminist too- but that's just a guess) Susantalk to me

A pretty good guess Susan - check out feminista. Genghis Khant 10:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Wonder what the gorgeous (? Don't know the lady - benefit of teh doubt) Phyllis thinks of that? Susantalk to me 11:02, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Well she is rather elderly now (but probably a corker in her youth judging by the pictures of her lovely sons). While her record would suggest that she would support it whole heartedly. Genghis Khant 11:12, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait we have her picture. Genghis Khant 11:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
She reminds me of someone. ... Thatcher!11one !!!1 Susantalk to me 11:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

The resurrection, especially within apologetics, has always fascinated me. Christian apologists take the stance that the resurrection must have happened because Christianity could have continued and wouldn't have survived to the present day without it. However, I see a simplier scenario when I look at that story. I see eleven/twelve (give-or-take Judas) who suddenly find that they have wasted a significant portion of their lives. It seems that most will get over it and move on. My scenario sees one of them unable to accept this outcome (it happens plenty often when someone is confronted with something that destroys their worldview). He empties the tomb and goes on a bender with some of his companions. They eventually start seeing things. My vote for who is Thomas. It is always the skeptic that is the prime mover behind the scenes. The refuting of the skepticism reinforces the desired belief in the others. That's my take.--Edgerunner76 11:23, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
It fascinates me not. The writings, after the event, of those with a vested interest are always suspect and 2000 (nearly) years ago - say no more. If only he'd waited 'til now - there'd have been photos, cd roms & webcams (cryptcams?) - but being omnipotent he'd have known that, ... wouldn't he? Susantalk to me 11:34, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
For someone who claims to be not interested in religion at all, you sure spend a lot of time talking about it. ;-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I guess that I should specify that it is the willful ignorance that fascinates me. It is such an incredible phenomena. My interest/disinterest in religion is in a "Know thy enemy" sort of way. Or, to quote Homer Simpson, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand."--Edgerunner76 12:48, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

My interest is in the folly of others and their attempts to ram it down my throat. I don't have any interest in pædophilia but I'll talk my head off to dissuade anyone against it. Susantalk to me 12:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Yada, yada, yada......clunk. Genghis Khant 13:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh and yes, I do think that indoctrinating children with the myth of religion is child abuse. Susantalk to me 13:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget Santa Claus & the tooth fairy. Genghis Khant 13:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
At least everyone admitted they were fake - eventually. Susantalk to me 14:06, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


In relation to what you wrote about in the second part of your userpage, are you really Ed Poor? The Anti-Conservapedia 10:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And did you have anything to do with the "dissociated press" cut and paste yesterday, which showed familiarity with Kenservapedia, Rationalwiki and WIkipedia, as well as computer algorithms and just happened to originate from New York? We won't block you , but would just like to know. Genghis Khant 10:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I always post as Ed Poor, everywhere I go. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. It was a query, not an accusation. Genghis Khant 15:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Buddhist monks[edit]

For his incredible
spin in the Breaking
News and on the talk
page, Ed Poor receives
a (hastily constructed)

Ed. I have to ask: Are you aware that this is a complete fabrication and basically in direct contradiction of what every major international news service is saying - or do you actually believe this? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I suppose those violent monks broke those poor soldiers rifles with their skulls? The Anti-Conservapedia 13:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, DAMN! Two newbies rip your little fairytale apart on cp:Talk:Main_Page, and your reaction is to dish out blocks against both of them while pretending to seek discussion? AHAHAHAHAHAHA! --Sid 14:03, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

One of my favorite things that CP sysops like you do is to block and then reply to particularly damning arguments. As in, where someone points out just how dumb your argument is, you block them & then reply, so it looks for the record like the party quit the debate, admitting your superiority somehow. Deceit, much?-αmεσ (tailor) 14:14, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Worse, the replies look like he's trying to be a calm and polite debate partner while at the same time he's driving his opponent bat shit insane by blocking them in the middle of the discussion. Should be interesting to see if Jenkins falls for it once he races out of his 2-hour block. Graham can lean back and watch the potential Fatality, so I figure that his reaction might be more moderate (unless he figures that CP is a steaming pile of shit and does a Hero's Last Stand). --Sid 14:19, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I especially like the part where he lies about Jenkins making personal attacks on him. A real class act. --Kels 14:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Graham, not Jenkins, unless he made another claim elsewhere. Not that that claim is correct, either. Graham called for revoking sysop rights and banning... something that's not TOO outrageous when you consider that the front page news right now plain out LIE. But then again, sysops have special rights. They are allowed to make up shit as they please and post it as fact. :) --Sid 14:24, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins has received an invite to RW.-αmεσ (tailor) 14:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

And accepted, btw. -Smyth 15:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused...why would CP, a bastion of democracy and freedom, think that Buddhist monks fighting a military dictatorship is some sort of liberal plot? What is their motivation? To show that Buddhists aren't as peaceful as Christians? My brain hurts!!--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 15:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Let's collaborate here at RW on a "true version" of the Buddhist Monks vs. Riot Police story. I'll port back the good parts of whatever we come up with, to correct my erroneous CP version. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Yea then I can send an e-mail to Andy and tell him its copy righted and if he doesn't take it down I am going to send a DMCA to siteground! tmtoulouse frustrate 15:34, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ed - we don't give a hoot about the article there. We're doing this for your own spiritual health, man! Don't be nice to the junta! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

I thought I saw a notice here saying, "Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" --Uncle Ed bug me 15:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Funnily enough, I thought I saw a notice there saying that we could freely reuse stuff without attributions. Don't believe what you read, Ed - especially if it's about Theravadan monks. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I dunno, ask Andy, he is an expert in criminal law, copyright low, legal theory, relativity, evolution, mathematics, history...and well gee everything else. He is the one that taught the above trick. tmtoulouse frustrate 15:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Also note that Conservapedia doesn't use GFDL, so unless I'm totally mistaken, you can't copy GFDL material to CP because it doesn't use such a "restrictive" license.
Oh, and I'm not really buying your collaboration line. If you were honestly interested in collaboration, you wouldn't have blocked the first two people who actually made their homework and pointed out many errors in the first place. (Yeah, boohoohoo, they hurt your ego while ripping your story to shreds. I know, life is hard.)
How about simply stating what your second or so source said? That shouldn't be TOO hard. Today, police used tear gas and batons against the protesters who had been protesting peacefully for the past x days. While regrouping, some protesters threw rocks at the police. 200 were arrested (half of them monks), some died in the brawl, several injured (numbers in article, I'm working from memory here). Something like that would be a start. --Sid 15:47, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
About us doing your homework in regards to the article: I think the order should be "Do research -> Write news item based on research -> Post" and not "Post -> People protest -> Add random sources -> People still protest? -> Block them -> Problem still doesn't go away? -> Invite them to do your research for you". --Jenkins 15:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to think we respond well to criticism here. As I recall, Human tore into me for writing something really stupid, and I re-read it and agreed that what I wrote was kind of lame. I let his revisions stand for being less lame than mine. That's the easiest wiki-collaboration for a site like ours, rather than the whole "Submit it to the father figure and wait for a response" kind of thing. Viva Mobocracy!--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 15:56, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

"The question most interesting to Westerners is whether the civilian violence came first, or was a response to police violence."
No Ed, that's the question most interesting to you as you try to wriggle out of your racism and fabrication. And yet you leave it in, as if it somehow excuses the quite frankly racist paragraph that you left in after that. Can you please try to be honest once in a while? --Kels 15:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I should also note that neither of your cited articles suggest in any way that it was the protesters' fault, nor do either of them speculate on who was violent first. In fact, the clear indication was that the military tried to break up the crowd by violent means, but the protesters regrouped and fought back to some degree. To go from a misreading of that, which I could possibly understand, to your virulently racist "those savages aren't like us" and then try to claim to Wikinterpreter that you have "accidental conservative bias" is far too much to swallow. --Kels 16:02, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I find Andy's "This is a fascinating discussion, something that puts Conservapedia above Wikipedia" comment enlightening. Fabricate a controversy, and then claim that a "discussion" on the fabrication makes CP somehow "superior." "Moral relativism" is fascinating, isn't it? I'm not interested in collaborating on your site give the standards you have. If you were truly interested in collaboration, you'd unblock us, no? What are you afraid of? VirileSterileum 16:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT) Add: <sarcasm>Oh, never mind. Whether Bill O'Reilly is racists is more important than protests in a dictatorship.</sarcasm> VirileSterileum 16:35, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Me: But I could live with the block if you didn't pretend to be interested in collaboration and discussion. Blocking me doesn't exactly make it easier for me to fix your stuff, nor does it make for a good incentive.
Ed, in reply to me: How about someone helping me with the wording? *blocks again*
And for the log, how can I have a block for my SECOND attack? You gave the first "personal attack" block TO GRAHAM!
This is COWARDICE, Ed. You're just being a COWARD who replies and then immediately re-blocks to disrupt the discussion. And here I thought that it was LIBERAL style to try to have the last word in debates.
Whatever. I doubt I'll be around in two hours, so I'll use the time until my next online phase to reconsider my willingness to help your idiotic project. You certainly opened my eyes with your oh-so-great willingness to discuss on fair grounds. Har har. --Jenkins 16:48, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Par for the course at Conservapedia, I'm afraid. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
The fact is, Jenkins, Ed is well known to be dishonest and ready to sell his soul to whoever's in charge at the time. And he's one of the better ones. --Kels 16:53, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
  • per capita gun violence, by country:[1] Lookee who's at the top? VirileSterileum 16:55, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
If the folks at CP had any interest in 'fair' debates, they'd still be at Wikipedia. But whenever the argument is fair, they LOSE, and they KNOW this. Hence the "Disagree by banning" technique of winning arguments. --SockOfGulik 17:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Ed you are truely the master parodist, satirist and general-stirrer-upperist. I salute you. You're still busy trashing CP long after I got bored and outed myself. Wha's like us? Damn few and they're aw banned!
Auld Nick 18:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm happy to be an acknowledged master, especially when the acknowledgment comes from the master baiters at Rational Wiki. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:14, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


See BBC on Burma Susantalk to me 16:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

It was good today, wasn't it. Guy Horton is still one of the coolest dudes ever. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

good sait[edit]

Very nice this blog =)

Racist much?[edit]

So, Ed, we've accumulated some disturbing trends...

  1. Here, and
  2. here.

Could you defend these? Or is it just racism?-αmεσ (tailor) 14:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Con's "big problem"[edit]

Yo, Ed, I was kinda curious what Conservative's ominous "big problem" was. Care to enlighten me, or is it "Top Secret" like everything else any sysop on CP ever touches? ;) (Seriously, you wouldn't believe how retarded the "Every sysop discussion shall be done in private!" rule makes you guys look like...) --Sid 09:15, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, and ignoring it all the time only increases the retarded-looking-ness. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:46, 27 October 2007 (EDT)



G'night — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Hi all!

G'night — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


very interesting, but I don't agree with you Idetrorce

thx for this post[edit]

Oh, and did not know about it. Thanks for the information ...


Make peace, not war!


H. Klinton vs. Obama. How you think who will win elections?

H.. Klinton vs Obama[edit]

H. Klinton vs. Obama. How you consider, who will win elections in Unated States of America?

Snx for you job![edit]

Snx for you job! It has very much helped me!

Let's get acquainted...[edit]

Hello. Let's get acquainted! My name is Jessika.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Log on & you'll get your own personal USER PAGE! (introductory offer, no offer made here is binding upon the proprietors or their agents. Your consumer rights are not affected by this offer. No person purporting to represent RationalWiki really does; we're all figments in the mind of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.) SusanG 07:46, 7 April 2008 (EDT)


Just so you know, on the spectrum of argument styles, argument by stating your conclusion is pretty far from rationality. If you're interested in actually debating this subject, in a place where you can't ban people "just because," please let us know, but if you'd rather stay where you can stop the hard questions from coming at you, then... well... far be it for me to call you a coward, but I can't finish that sentence otherwise.-αmεσ (tailor) 10:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm...I'll tells you my take on this post.
Ed has recently had his taxes done and it turns out he's going to owe a lot more than he thought he would and is short of funds to cut a check to Unkie Sam. This plea for rationality is Our good friend begging God to let him get his hands on some found money...Conversely it could be that the refund he was expecting turned out to be much much higher than he thought and "gave thanks" by encouraging us all (as rational beings) to do the same.
Tell ye what Ed, cough up a Pi pledge and show me ye mean bidness. Then I'll think on your suggestions.
CЯacke® 11:34, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to repeat the quote from my user page: "I hate people who blame the Devil for their own shortcomings and I hate people who thank God when things go right." Ed, your user page exhortation to believe in Yaweh specifically is about as rational as your conduct on CP is honest. --Kels 12:03, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Second @ Cracker. That post reads like the "Jude" (I think) classified ads people run, I think after their prayers are "answered", but maybe in advance. Usually they are boilerplate, Ed seems to have indulged in creative license to perhaps get his hopes/thanks sifted to the top of the stack. humanUser talk:Human 12:36, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Magical thinking at its best. Or worst. Rational Edfaith 10:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)


You can follow the e-mail I sent you here. Feel free to comment or look at other comments. I redacted personal info.-caius (soldier) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Disgusting series of straw men[edit]

This is drivel - the most astonishing display of ignorance and strawman construction that I've ever seen on a site already known for those horrors. Jesus Christ. Take a chill pill.-caius (soldier) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

That left me wondering: What do have to believe to be a bad liberal? Could you please do 600 words on that, Ed? Cheers. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
It is mind boggling the crap you produce when you've got extra time on your hands. You really ought to get out more, Ed. Rational Edperception 15:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
He didn't even produce it. It's a copy-paste from the source. So he's not even being original. --Sid 15:39, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Its no less disgusting than the crap on this site. Take a chill pill, Ames. SHahB 15:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes. Sing a new song, would you Bodhan? --Kels 15:54, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bodhan is trying to tell us that CP is a brilliant work of satire and parody and not really "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" preferred by 9 out of 10 home schoolers? Rational Edperception 15:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
No, that is not what I am telling you. Try again. SHahB 16:03, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah, the vague you are just as bad argument, but are you actually then admitting that what Ed wrote was disgusting? Timppeli 16:01, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
What? SHahB 16:03, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
That's what! --Kels 16:04, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Bodhan, Bodhan, you've just admitted that the crap on CP is just as disgusting as the crap on RW. I rest my case. Rational Edperception 16:06, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I like how you can do an ad hom against an entire group of people on Con'pedia. Sterilexx 16:15, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

CP's position seems to be that liberals aren't people and that they're just nasty side-effects of Satan's influence on the world. ;) --Sid 16:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
"Seems to be?" I don't think they leave much room for doubt. Gives the term "demonization" a new sense of urgency! Rational Edperception 18:30, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberals are people. --Uncle Ed bug me 22:26, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie[edit]

One afternoon, I was in the backyard hanging the laundry when an old, tired-looking dog wandered into the yard. I could tell from his collar and well-fed belly that he had a home. But when I walked into the house, he followed me, sauntered down the hall and fell asleep in a corner. An hour later, he went to the door, and I let him out. The next day he was back. He resumed his position in the hallway and slept for an hour. This continued for several weeks. Curious, I pinned a note to his collar: "Every afternoon your dog comes to my house for a nap. " The next day he arrived with a different note pinned to his collar: "He lives in a home with ten children - he's trying to catch up on his sleep."

I cried from laughter Sorry, if not left a message on Rules. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Huh? Fox 14:23, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Eh? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Guh? 15:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Ha! --Uncle Ed bug me 22:25, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

WIGO Irony...[edit]

Glad I got a chuckle out of you. Maybe there's hope after all. Now submit a writing plan if you intend to continue editing here. PFoster 22:40, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


This is weird. I didn't even notice you here before. UchihaKATON! 22:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Well done, comrade! Your contribution to CP's downfall has not gone unnoticed, nor will go unrewarded in the end. --Kels 22:49, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Your edits[edit]

I, for one, appreciate that you found time to provide extra information for our articles, and I think most RWians would agree with me. However, your additions were all written in the first person, which you must know is a terrible thing to break into in the middle of an article. Did you think anyone reading them would just telepathically know they were written by you? In future, perhaps an "Ed's Response" section at the end would be more fitting.

And where's that writing plan you were asked for? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Tsubasa-Jelly 05:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

LOL! — Unsigned, by: Ed Poor / talk / contribs


Conservlogo late april.png

This is to certify that

Edmund Poor

was voted


By RationalWiki, on June 30, 2008

Thanks, but I must decline the honor as I am overqualified. Please refer to me as an imbecile or a moron. Spank you! :-)

Dear "gentleman" from another website, in regards to your articles[edit]

Have you ever written an "article" - as in, put one sentence composed entirely of your own words next to another, or do you prefer to string quotes together?-caius (soldier) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Yes. To both. ;-) --Uncle Ed bug me 16:47, 14 December 2008 (EST)


Hi Ed. On the off-chance that you ever check this, can you tell us why you trust TK? He's clearly detrimental to Conservapedia, as he bullies, blocks and/or drives away almost all productive contributors.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)

If you feel you can be productive there, I can unblock you. Same goes for anyone else wanting a second chance. See you around the campus. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:45, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Way to answer the question, you dishonest prick. Oh, was that a personal attack? Or just an accurate assessment based on behaviour at three different wikis? --Kels 21:50, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

With your permission[edit]

With your permission I would like to rework the Scientific consensus page. zieber 13:23, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

VERY strange place to post. ToastToastand marmite 13:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Zeiber, see my post on the relevant talk page; and we work by consensus here, not permission. TheoryOfPractice 13:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


You do realise that with a name like 'Uncle Ed', you sound like a sick pedo? (especially considering the way you carry on) MarcusCicero (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed![edit]

That is all. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 awards[edit]

Schlafly phyllis.jpg

This is to certify that

Edmund Poor

received the


From RationalWiki, on November 21, 2009

Eddie Poor[edit]

Hi bitch remember me your worst nightmare from wp and cp? Lick my vagina! — Unsigned, by: Billy Klub / talk / contribs March 1 2010

I think we'd all rather not. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

testing my new template[edit]

This user has been PWNED by Brianna for being a wandal, jerk, or otherwise being unuseful. :P
you make the "jerk" category. :P Brianna (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)