User talk:Newton/Archive1

Introductions

Welcome to RationalWiki Newton, am I correct in assuming that you are cp:user:conservative? - Icewedge 13:50, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Its Ken, which is cool, welcome aboard, you have no fear of being blocked here. But it might be tough, since you can't block, delete and lock out your opposition. It will be good for you though if you do decide and stay a while. Bohdan loves it here, so does Karajou. tmtoulouse ^irritate 13:52, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

That means I just pwned a Conservapedia sysop. Cool! Welcome to RationalWiki, CP resident quoteminer! --_transResident Transfan^form! 14:06, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Newton! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Which one of us is Karajou? And you forgot Hoji, he makes his own goat pilaf, which is yummy! human^{be in} 14:08, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Karajou is a lurker, he is playing good cop/bad cop with himself while saving our page dumps. tmtoulouse ^irritate 14:11, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Holy crap, Conservative is here on RW? Sweet! --Sid 14:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi there! You don't know me, but...uh...why was I posting here again? --Kels 15:08, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

To artificially inflate your post count, of course! PalMD's only 31 pages ahead of you! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:12, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Curses! My eternal foe! --Kels 15:13, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Woah ... I have some catching up to do. But Icewedge is in my sights! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Wow, never looked at that before but I'm waaaay down there! Consider this an attempt to rectify. Ohh, and to stay on topic, hello "Newton" and welcome to RationalWiki. Pull up an intestinal parasite and have fun! _Hexspecimen^{It's an X} 15:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Shhh!! Don't say anything with "rect" in it, Ken gets a bit...excited! --Kels 15:38, 7 August 2007 (CDT) (I'm more popular than goat)!

Must be the grace of God inside the rect...............ory!! _Hexspecimen^{It's an X} 15:45, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Name source?

The Fig, the Physicist, or the Fink?

Now you're just trolling

Please stop. --_transResident Transfan^form! 18:35, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Not trolling. The lie is still in the very beginning of the Conservapedia article and it is true that RationalWiki does not do its homework in regards to its claims about conservapedia. I still say if the article lies in the beginning why should I believe the rest of the article. Newton 18:39, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Your right Ken you shouldn't. Everyone else is free to read the article, except you, you must accept by faith that it is all lies. And go away. tmtoulouse ^irritate 18:40, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

We're not asking you to believe it. We're trying to persuade you to do so. If it doesn't persuade you, then don't go all Gene Ray on us. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

tmtoulouse, you must have those special RationalWiki glasses that sees between the lines in Conservapedia's homosexuality article that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American (Is this Wiki really a spoof to make liberals and atheists look foolish. If so you are doing a great job and I have to pat you on the back!)? Newton 18:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Go back and find where our article claims that CP states that homosexuals are anti-American.--MountainTiger 20:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

BTW, "Newton", I liked the way you got your articles higher up in the polls:

• 13:22, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hubble Ultra Deep Field"
• 13:21, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Scientology"
• 13:20, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Unicorn"

And then recreated the same articles with no page counts!

• 13:22, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (New page: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field...
• 13:21, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (New page: Scientology...
• 13:20, 29 July 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (New page: The unicorn is a mythical beast...

SHEER BRILLIANCE!!!

And no hint of Deceit.

CЯacke® 18:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

mmmmmm beer goggles. tmtoulouse ^irritate 18:58, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Everyone's talking about beer goggles. But I can't find the plans for them anywhere! --_transResident Transfan^form! 19:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Thats cause i didn't cite it. See if I dont cite it its not real. But the moment I cite it its real. [1] tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:01, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

While you are here

you should learn about The incontrovertible evidence of common descent. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Why should I look at the above article now, when I know that RationalWiki does not care about the truth as evidenced by its first statement in its article on Conservapedia which lies as I so amply demonstrated in the talk page? First socks then shoes, tmtoulouse. Deception is actively encouraged here and you know it as evidenced by your refusal to correct the blatent lie in the beginning sentence in the Conservapedia article (see the talk page). Newton 19:09, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.

Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.

"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

Tmtoulouse, Don't Worry about being blocked and it might be tough! The irony is delicious!

Tmtoulouse wrote:

"Its Ken, which is cool, welcome aboard, you have no fear of being blocked here. But it might be tough, since you can't block, delete and lock out your opposition. It will be good for you though if you do decide and stay a while. Bohdan loves it here, so does Karajou."

• I wouldn't say I love it here Bohdan 19:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Of course, once Newton begins pointing out in a pointed fashion that RationalWiki lies in its first sentence in its article on Conservapedia (see talk page) what happens? I, Newton, gets a block that states I am blocked infinitely! Newton 19:26, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I know you christers have a persecution complex, but how long were you actually blocked for? Wikiinterpretor reversed it within seconds, it was a joke block. A joke we do that around here, you know we like to laugh and stuff. Its nice you should try it. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:28, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

• Christers? Sounds offensive. Bohdan 19:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I enjoy laughing tmtoulouse. I thought the timing of the block was rather ironic and humorous given your welcome to me.Newton 19:31, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Dude irony rules. Cheers to laughing and an appreciation for irony. Everyone can share something with anyone. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:32, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Hello, Conservative, if it is you. Bohdan 19:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Pigpile! I had to block M. Newton as well, I couldn't help it. For three long, tortuous, helpless seconds. Hi Bohdan! human^{be in} 20:14, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

And yet, here you are, whining away as mightliy as ever. If this were Conservapedia, once a mod took a dislike to you the only way anyone would ever even see your name again would be when other editors get perma-blocked on suspicion of being you. --Gulik@work fnord

Well spoken, Gulik. @work? hahaahahahahah 01:31, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I here by nominate you

You are our resident intestinal parasite! Here you go:

RationalWiki's official resident intestinal parasite is Newton (aka Ken)!

Wow, the coveted RIP Award! Lucky Bastid. CЯacke® 19:52, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I wonder…

I wonder how it feels to be able to silence someone with a movement of the hand, and then to be suddenly propelled into a world where the opposite is true? This is, of course, totally unrelated to C here. Of course. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

"…since you can't block, delete and lock out your opposition". Well and succinctly put, TMT. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:55, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

So....

"User:N", how many "homosexuals" do you know personally, like have eaten dinner with? CЯacke® 20:10, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Ooh, ooh, me, me, can I answer? Call on me! human^{be in} 20:15, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Someone has their hand up...Yes, Human you may go to the boy's room, ALONE. CЯacke® 20:22, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Clean Slate

^{— Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.23 / talk / contribs}

Seconding the anonymous IP vandal on this one. human^{be in} 14:07, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Seriously? Where did we give him treatment that we don't give anyone else? --Kels 14:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not saying "do anything different", I just felt the need to leave a deuce here. human^{be in} 14:16, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, carry on, then. --Kels 14:20, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

The number 2 search engine in the US ranks CP's evolution article #5!

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks Conservapedia's "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Newton 18:45, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

And how do you know that traffic isn't from people laughing at that ridiculous anti-scientific essay you call an article? --_transResident Transfan^form! 18:57, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Well its not "traffic" its just a ranking, it means nothing, but Ken is wrong about yahoo being number 1. Google gets close to 3 times the amount of search traffic as yahoo. [2] tmtoulouse ^irritate 18:59, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that's, uh, awesome, dude! (btw, Google returns 116 million hits. CP is around #40 or so there). I especially like how they chose a sentence with a typo in it ("blunder may force a rethinking of theories amoung evolutionary theorists on when"), and possibly a minor grammar problem, too, to put under the link. Excellent work over there! human^{be in} 19:00, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, ok, no grammar problem. Now go correct the spelling of "among", will you? human^{be in} 19:07, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Once again, tmtoulouse spouts a post with no authorative citation(s). Not suprising but rather uncompelling. Newton 19:01, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Google is indeed the #1 used search engine by a long ways. NUMBER 19:02, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

They are all just jealous of CP's popularity. Bohdan 19:03, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

You mean infamy. <McClaine>Yippie ki yay, mother f***er</McClaine> --_transResident Transfan^form! 19:07, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

It's more important to be popular than good. --Kels 19:05, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I did source it, here thats the wall street journal. Want another interesting read? Try here. Also search engine ranking DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO TRAFFIC AT ALL. We are not "jealous" just calling Ken out on a falshood. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:04, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Google has a lot of garbage characteristics to it. See: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27041.html Wikipedia articles that are just stubs rank high. The more I know about Google the less I like it. Newton 19:07, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

So because you dont like it its not number one? Ha, thats funny. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:08, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I am guessing my article is old and Google is #1. However, yahoo's market share is growing as your article indicates. More importantly, read this: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#f28 Given that Conservapedia is such a new site we are doing very well. Conservative 19:09, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Here the question, how many people are actually going to CP for the search term "theory of evolution", that information is easily available from andy or cp webmaster. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:17, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm fascinated by how you spam that post all over the place while Andy scolds (banned) people, saying that search engine rank and traffic are of little concern for CP. And Andy even orgasms right along with you. Comedy gold. --Sid 19:20, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

How high are rationalwiki's articles regarding the theory of evolution ranked?

How high are rationalwiki's articles regarding the theory of evolution ranked? Given that the the theory of evolution article at RationalWiki has 2 footnotes I think I know the answer to this question! Newton 19:18, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

We do not need to be a top ranked search for TOE since our view point the dominate one and we are not trying to be a definitive source for evolution. You need to understand what RW is trying to be before you try and mock us for search rank, also you should figure out what search rank actually means. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:21, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse, RationalWiki ranks very high for obscurity. Newton 19:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

We are doing pretty good actually. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Not very high. But our ranking for "goat" is doing quite well, thank you...PFoster 19:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Really, there are very few search engine terms we care that much about at the moment. Conservapedia is one of them, and we are getting a lot of incoming traffic from people that search for that. We get between 600-3000 users visiting a day, with more than half staying for longer than 30 minutes. We are gaining 4-5 new productive long term contributors every month, and have some very good pages to show for our effort. We have a long way to go, but for being 2 months old I am more than happy. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:29, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm actually quite amused by what happens when people google for "Conservapedia":

1. CP main page
2. CP About page
3. Wikipedia - based on news articles and thus doesn't exactly say "Yes, it's a great site!"
4. Jon Swift - parody that pokes fun at CP and points out dumb articles
5. Shakespeare's Sister - mirror of Jon Swift's entry
6. Cosmic Variance - pokes fun at CP and points out dumb articles
7. Ars Technica - actually a good analysis, though they don't exactly praise CP to say the least
8. Abstract Nonsense - not charming
9. Wired - sums up the blog rush and thus is hardly charming
10. RationalWiki - duh

Oh yeah, such a Google result page really makes potential visitors go "This is a wonderful resource! I must trust it 100%!"

My tip: Stop polishing your pet article and try to salvage the site's reputation. --Sid 19:41, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

"polishing your pet article" hahahahahaha I have to pwn that one day. human^{be in} 19:45, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

One of the things to remember about google searches is that they will report based on what you search on. For me, I often hit Wikipedia thus Wikipedia is #1 for me. The more you click through it, the higher it appears to you, but that may not affect the reality of the rest of the people who search. --Shagie 20:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

A very good point, though I believe this only applies to users who have Web History (for Personalized Search) enabled. It's something that only works for logged-in users, and only for those who didn't delete it from their profile (or pause it). --Sid 21:27, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

You might be interested in these results, C… google:Conservapedia. I know there was another one similar to that… and our page documenting what you guys try to hush up is the number 1 Google hit for conservapedia fbi. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:49, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

That google link inserts a wiki underscore and doesn't work. Try this instead. human^{be in} 21:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Scienceblogs

You know what, it would be really fascinating to know the percentage of traffic to CP that comes from scienceblogs compared to google searches. I bet scienceblogs and links from places like pharyngula make up a HUGE percentage of CP traffic. Andy, of course, knows this but he won't ever tell. Its too bad too. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:39, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

human^{be in} 19:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse , get back to me when the RationalWiki article on Conservapedia stops lying.

tmtoulouse , get back to me when the RationalWiki article on Conservapedia stops lying. The moral depravity of this site is sickening. The RationalWiki website is disgusting. Newton

Gessen was an artist monk. Before he would start a drawing or painting he always insisted upon being paid in advance, and his fees were high. He was known as the "Stingy Artist."

A geisha once gave him a commission for a painting. "How much can you pay?" inquired Gessen.

"Whatever you charge," replied the girl, "but I want you to do the work in front of me."

So on a certain day Gessen was called by the geisha. She was holding a feast for her patron.

Gessen with fine brush work did the painting. When it was completed he asked the highest sum of his time.

He received his pay. Then the geisha turned to her patron, saying: "All this artist wants is money. His paintings are fine but his mind is dirty; money has caused it to become muddy. Drawn by such a filthy mind, his work is not fit to exhibit. It is just about good enough for one of my petticoats."

Removing her skirt, she then asked Gessen to do another picture on the back of her petticoat.

"How much will you pay?" asked Gessen.

"Oh, any amount," answered the girl.

Gessen named a fancy price, painted the picture in the manner requested, and went away.

It was learned later that Gessen had these reasons for desiring money:

A ravaging famine often visited his province. The rich would not help the poor, so Gessen had a secret warehouse, unknown to anyone, which he kept filled with grain, prepared for those emergencies.

From his village to the National Shrine the road was in very poor condition and many travellers suffered while traversing it. He desired to build a better road.

His teacher had passed away without realizing his wish to build a temple, and Gessen wished to complete this temple for him.

After Gessen had accomplished his three wishes he threw away his brushes and artist's materials and, retiring to the mountains, never painted again.

Wait… the Conservapedia article is morally depraved? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:52, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

The latest craze is to post Koan's in response to troll comments. Try it, its fun. tmtoulouse ^irritate 19:54, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

If nothing else, it's a great chance to read up on some really awesome koans. I need to find more good taoist stuff. --Kels 19:55, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Troll, troll, troll your goat, gently now, Godspeed! human^{be in} 19:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Lowering the tone... :)

Why so down on bumsex, fella? Try sticking your finger up your arse next time you have a wank and you'll find your loving Creator intelligently designed your prostate gland with this fantastic secondary function. You'll love it. Promise. Oh, and don't ever click this link [link removed due to obscenity].^{And don't even think of looking for it in the history. You won't like it...}

Sweet dreams, --Robledo 22:56, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Mmmmm, that's a nice pic! CЯacke® 23:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

So are you looking forward to demons taking you up the ass in your next life. Craker? GirlConservative 23:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

There'll be more BUTTSEX??? Tell me more.

Add links to this demon pr0n too.

CЯacke® 00:10, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know whether to be disgusted or titillated. Oh, wait, Robledo, you bastid, how did you know how I spend my spare time? Awesome photo, by the way. Did you ever see the movie? human^{be in} 00:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

pr0n gone?

That was a Mapplethorpe pic...ART not porn. CЯacke® 01:19, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, WFB Jr.'s favorite, as I recall. And did you see the movie? I axed already above of anyone who'd listen... human^{be in} 02:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

No, fella, haven't seen the movie - just enjoy winding certain people up about their deep repressed manlust. I'd bet good money he dreams about it most nights, you know. Starts off smiting, of course, but it inevitably dissolves into some hot sweaty seething tangle of sodomy. That Homosexuality article = the work of a feverish penitent ;) --Robledo 17:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Delivery

Hey "David"! I just wanted to say that I delivered your message after all. --MStort 16:15, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Google keywords

Further up, you wrote

“”I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

However, I just followed that link, and "evolution" has higher search volume and higher competition than "theory of evolution" (More info on the image page). Maybe you wanted to point at something else, but the way you phrased it, things point at search volume comparisons (the default setting on the page you linked to). Explanation? --Sid 20:00, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

You may be interested in these results, Conservative… google:theory of evolution. No mention of CP on the first page… nor the second… nor the third…nor the fourth… and finally it appears as number 3 on page five. Hardly the success which you laud. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

And a search for homosexuality yields CP as #12, a fall in ranking, if I recall correctly. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:15, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, last month I checked google adwords and "evolution" was the most popular search term with "theory of evolution" somewhat lower but not much lower. I thought the situation changed in regards to the adwords as I checked it recently. I must have misread the data as the data is about the same as what it was last month.Newton 13:17, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Linus, the Conservapedia www.google.com ranking goes up and down. This week it has moved up to 12th. But if memory serves, the highest google rank the Conservapedia homosexuality article achieved was #9. In about 14 days the Conservapedia homosexuality article may be higher in google ranking and be in the top 10 results because some new developments may be occuring. What are those possible developments? I am not going to tell you. :) Newton 13:15, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

oh oh oh let me guess...............you sold your soul for a google rank? tmtoulouse ^irritate 13:16, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

tmtoulouse, Kels wrote the following: "As to the second, one reason I'm suggesting this is to start weaning ourselves off CP and start going after irrationality everywhere, not on one little corner of the internet that's largely populated by dustbunnies these days. CP is played out, and we need to get our act together if we don't want to follow them into obscurity."[3] Can you give Kels a message please? Please tell Kels you have already arrived at obscurity. The theory of evolution article at Conservapedia is receiving more traffic than any article at RationalWiki would be a safe bet as the article is one of the most popular at Conservapedia and it seems to be getting the most traffic now at Conservapedia. Newton 13:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

That is only because it is funnier than anything we could try to write. human^{be in} 13:28, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Sozan, a Chinese Zen master, was asked by a student: "What is the most valuable thing in the world?"

The master replied: "The head of a dead cat."

"Why is the head of a dead cat the most valuable thing in the world?" inquired the student.

Sozan replied: "Because no one can name its price."

question

Newton, I am not sure if you are interested, but do you want to take part in a fun discussion about whether or not atheists, specifically Richard Dawkins, can be fundamentalists? See: Talk:Fundamentalist. your input would be appreciated. Bohdan 13:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Bohdan, thanks for the invite but I don't have much interest. Newton 13:32, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, while you're around!

(Moved here from the Main Page talk - that's what I get for not keeping an eye on the title)

Just an idle question I ask sysops for shits and giggles as I encounter them: Did TK consult with you prior to my July 13 ban? He claimed that the majority of sysops agreed with his decision to ban me (prior to him banning me), but neither Ed nor Geo were willing to tell me whether or not TK had actually contacted them (or whether they agreed). So, how about you? I just wanna know if you're part of the silent majority. If you don't wish to reply, that's fine. You wouldn't be the first one. --Sid 14:23, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, no offense to you but a lot has happened since July 13, 2007 and I don't remember the details regarding your banning. For example, I don't remember if you were banned when a lot of other people were banned or if your banning proceeded that or came after. I can tell you that I hold no personal animosity towards you because you helped me with this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help Newton 14:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

No, I wasn't part of some major sweep, it was an individual case. And thanks for the kind words regarding my help in the past. I was banned because of fake reasons. You know, the stuff where constructive disagreeing becomes trolling and being contacted by a sysop is an attempt to play said sysop against TK. TK had to improvise a good bit to come up with a reason that sounds halfway acceptable. The point is that he claimed to Rob that he had "checked with the majority of Sysops, and they have shown no disagreement", even though Rob hadn't been contacted. Ed and Geo refused to reply as to whether or not they had been contacted.

It's not terribly important, so no need to dig too deeply. It's just a silly hobby. :P --Sid 14:50, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, I am not privy to Rob and TK's email correspondence. Secondly, if you want to contribute to a conservative wiki perhaps you should start a wiki of your own called www.neoconservapedia.com :) Newton 14:58, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not privy to their communication, either (although it more and more looks like pretty much all mails from non-sysops to sysops get circulated anyway, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you were privy to at least some of their exchanges). The point was your potential communication with TK since you may have been one of the member of TK's ominous "majority of Sysops". And I'm not really interested in "conservative vs. liberal", especially not in the US sense of the words. Just like I'm not the "ultra-leftist" TK loves to classify me as. My interest was to help a new wiki project to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, this led to me voicing criticism of sysop abuse - and everybody knows that that's an instant ban-ticket ;) --Sid 15:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, at one time I had a whole page of Sysop abuse allegations regarding me. I have a thick skin and I don't take things personally so the thought of banning people due to allegations that I thought had no merit never occured to me. So I don't think that allegations of Sysop abuse at Conservapedia is a instant ban-ticket and I think my case proves this matter. Newton 15:23, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I admit you're not as ban-happy as some of your friends (even though I think there's the distinct probability you occasionally hammered people who played by the rules - however, this isn't really about your ban behavior, so whatever, it's not really my concern or interest), but the general impression is that complaining gets you banned. Look at MissInfo there. Banned after one edit (see Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia for details and more examples). If you check the block log, you'll see quite a few cases where people get banned by different sysops than they complained about. Often enough with charges like "trolling" or "90/10" (which some sysop, maybe even Andy, admitted to being a rule to silence people who annoy them).

I got banned by Karajou for confronting him when he banned people for questioning some book about the Bible (not the Bible itself) that had a typo (a hilarious story, really). I got banned by TK for made-up charges, and neither Geo nor Ed could prove TK's point when I showed them exactly what had happened. They never said the ban was unjustified, but it's quite telling when two senior sysops go silent when presented with the accusations and the actual events.

Hate to break it to you, but the sysops around you are quite willing to instantly ban anybody they are not comfortable with. Hell, RW is filled with these ban victims and with stories about many others.

Trust me, I got a pretty thick skin myself. And I'm not here to accuse you of anything. I justed dug out my happy-fun question because, quite honestly, I don't believe TK's banter about some silent, anonymous majority agreeing with him there. And if they did, they were like Ed and Geo - they simply agreed semi-blindly because the proposed reason sounded plausible. --Sid 16:56, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Y'know, we should really just lay off the guy…

…"clean slate" and all that… --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 15:19, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

He was given a clean slate, look at how we responded to him when he first showed up. He had his clean slate and muddied it up by his actions here. His subsequent edits to this site marked him as a troll and he will be treated as such. I need not refer to a single off site post to prove this point. tmtoulouse ^irritate 15:25, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know if any of us would have really talked about his involvement with the CP evo page if he didn't insist on talking all the time about how wonderful it is. As per above, he's acted like a troll since his first post, so why not respond accordingly? --Kels 15:54, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I find it funny that he is basically spamming our site with refs to an article at a web site that forbids the mere mention of RW. How about some recip. links, dude? They don't have to be complimentary - maybe a link at the end of your ToE article saying "RationalWiki.com has a crappy article on this topic"? human^{be in} 16:02, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Ken, welcome to RationalWiki!

I'm impressed to see you make the jump. Could you link/e-mail me the full article that you reference here? How's the RW discovery been?-αmεσ (!) 10:52, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

AmesG, I am not going to get into the "Ken issue" which I already addressed here:.....Googledumping....Newton 15:32, 13 August 2007 (CDT)newton

Ken, the cited page tends to prove, rather than disprove, that you are KDBuffalo. Hoji's been very kind in providing the IP matches, too. So... Also, I'm looking at your article. Looks promising and unbiased from the Discovery Institute :-P-αmεσ (!) 17:03, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Hoji never revealed his raw data and the whole SUNY at Buffalo and Buffalo community has access to all the terminals I have typically used to edit Conservapedia. Newton 17:25, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Even assuming that all that's true, it still must be a GREAT coincidence that Ken DeMeyer shared a terminal with you. Especially since both you and Ken argue exactly the same way and about exactly the same things. You both make up new names wherever you go (Conservative, Creationist, Newton, and Ken with Ken DeMeyer, kdbuffalo, LeCamus, etc.), you both copy-paste effectively the same quotemines from creationist sites, you both instantly shift any burden of proof on your opponent (even though you are usually unable to prove you actually read the full articles - so far, I think I have seen ONE instance in which you managed to produce an actual full article link that didn't take people to pay portals) after making random claims, you both refuse to engage people once they make good points, instead fortifying your "No, you didn't prove XY, I won't give you a proper answer before you do" position.

Comparing this discussion with your behavior and the Astronomy sections in cp:Young Earth Creationism or cp:Theory of evolution should be enlightening. --Sid 17:59, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Ban 'em ALL, just to be safe! (Oh, wait... this isn't Conservapedia. We have a certain minimal tolerance for Heresy, and LET people who are Obviously Wrong post here.) --67.102.192.7 18:01, 14 August 2007 (CDT) (Gulik@Work)

Quick update with a few more links to Ken's posting spree of that astronomy gig: Check the activity here as "creationist", here as "kendemyer", here as "timothy44", here as "moses's_bulldog", here as "kendemyer", here as "kendemyer", and finally the "central hub" of quotes... and look, you're the main contributor! What a stunning coincidence that somebody so close to you is so much like you! He copied your interest, your article, your style, AND your location! Must be some kind of freaky stalker. ;) --Sid 18:11, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Or possibly an archetypical, yet appropriately nefarious Evil twin!!! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:14, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, I don't believe you built a solid case above. For example, certainly asking your opponent to demonstrate his contentions is common and creationists often use embarrassing evolutionist quotes (Henry Morris created a book of them). Also, you certainly don't have access to Hoji's IP checker in order to demonstrate there were actual IP's shared. In addition, I can pick the name PeterJensen to edit at several websites but that doesn't mean I am Peter Jensen. Newton 18:27, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I think I just built a quite solid case. We got a guy who copy-pastes your article, shares your IP(s) (quoting Hoji: "using the information available here and the CheckUser tool here, your IPs have been verified"), shares your style, your sources, and the level of aggravation caused among people arguing with him.

Right now, it's your assertion that we're wrong against an impressive flood of pointers at "Ken = Conservative". Are you really suggesting that this is all a HUUUUUGE coincidence? Please. I don't even get why you're so horribly in denial. It's not a bad name. I mean, sure, there's a long history of being kicked or laughed out of forums and stuff, but so what? --Sid 18:44, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Sid, get back to me when you have a solid case. Newton 18:50, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

You actually picked a good moment to go "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU". It's almost 2am, and I wanted to go to bed. :P *high-fives you* Seeya later! --Sid 18:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

One might think this was Conservative Deceit, if such a thing were physically possible! --67.102.192.7 18:51, 14 August 2007 (CDT) (Gulik@work)

Do Not Feed the Intestinal Parasite,
for you will only make it stronger.

This is really quite poor argumentation... even for you, Ken. The point isn't that you're necessarily Ken DeMeyer, but the point is that, whoever you are, you're all the same person who consistently fails to present a positive case for creationism, and in fact embarrasses, at all turns, everything that he attempts to defend. Truly, your record is so poor that you don't even want to own up to it. I admit that Sid's case isn't 100% - it's 99%, probably, since in theory some two people could go to the same college, use the same computers, and have the same viewpoints, but the chance is that you would know this person, and could produce them to us to discount our claims. Having presented a strong prima facie case, legally, we've met the burden of proof, and it shifts to you to rebut it. You fail to. Unless you can, we'll presumptively carry the issue.-αmεσ (!) 21:19, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

FBI

Hey Conservative, do you have any updates for us on the FBI cases? Have Andy or TerryH been interviewed yet? Keep us up to date, eh? Doggedpersistance 19:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

There's no legal case; it should be exciting to follow :-)-αmεσ (!) 21:14, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservative's Article

You linked me to this article, Ken, saying that it discredits evolution to some degree, apparently especially because it comes from some high level of authority: a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, it, like all of your quotes, turn out to be highly suspect. Here we find that Philip Skell is, actually, yet another creationist partisan & hack, and not the unbiased educated evolutionary biologist who the Discovery Institute boosts. While a chemist, he is not a biologist, and not an evolutionary one, not by a long shot. So his statements turn out to be little more than opinion. I will some day be a civil appellate lawyer. Just like I wouldn't expect my opinion on criminal law to carry much weight, we shouldn't expect much of a chemist talking on the biological ramifications of evolution.

Finally let's assume arguendo that evolution isn't that important of a heuristic. This doesn't make it false. Nor does it make creationist attacks on the theory any less offensive to reason. Just because a theory isn't important doesn't mean that we can substitute it with magic, which is still what creationists would have us do.

So what we have is a shoddy source for what is, at BEST, a peripheral argument. Unimpressed.-αmεσ (!) 21:52, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

AmesG, I find your statements above to be unwarranted. Where does the Discovery Institute say that Skell is a evolutionary biologist? Second, I don't link to Discovery in the TOE article. I link to the actual article. Third, Skell said he worked in the area of antibiotics in my quote. So perhaps he is actually more of a biochemist but perhaps not. Also, he cites the work of Fleming in regards to the heuristic issue. Newton 15:16, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

The point remains that he's still a creationist hack, who happens to have dabbled in antibiotics as a chemist. The citation to Fleming is to the fact that Fleming does science; not to any statement by Fleming as to the value of evolution. And the article remains unpersuasive, since it's written by a biased source. You should read articles first.-αmεσ (!) 15:32, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Social Effects of Evolution

I've started work on your "article" on the social effects of evolution, as you can see here. I haven't gotten far, but as embarrassing as your major premise is, your hack job on HG Wells is even worse! For shame. You'd get disbarred for something like this IRL.-αmεσ (!) 00:29, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

You comment above while being contentious was also unfortunately vague. You don't show that I in anyway did a "hack job" on Wells. I merely quoted Wells in the articles. Newton 15:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Did you quote Wells, or did you quote somebody quoting him? Not that I expect you to answer honestly, mind... --Kels 15:46, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to read the link that I provided. Then respond.-αmεσ (!) 15:32, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think you demonstrated your contention. Newton 15:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Your failure of comprehension does not surprise me, sadly. "When a man's paycheck depends on him not getting something, you can pretty well depend on him not getting it." -- Upton Sinclair.

--Gulik@work (67.102.192.7 15:42, 15 August 2007 (CDT))

Ken, I hate to see you getting beat up on, but I think this is what happens when you can't ban us for calling your bluff. Now, your bluff duly called, what is your explanation for this seemingly blatant misquote?-αmεσ (!) 15:55, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Saying that doesn't make it so. Read the article written by me to which I linked you, and then follow the link from your footnote to the actual quote from Wells' work. Then read the chapter that contains Wells' quote. ACTUALLY READ IT. Then reply.-αmεσ (!) 15:40, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Off-Topic Rant

Darwin was a proclaimed agnostic (and a closet atheist) and Darwin's Bulldog, Huxley, was an agnostic. To pretend that this was not the case is foolhardy. I cite the following:

"Huxley was famed for some of his other exploits. Among these, his debate with Archbishop Samuel Wilberforce, his "progressive" philosophical work, and his supposed coining of the term "agnostic."

Huxley was initially reluctant to throw his full support behind evolution. This was common before Darwin published "The Origin of Species." Darwin did not invent evolution by any stretch of the imagination. There were many scientists who preferred the concept of evolution to creation. Yet, there was no logical, plausible explanation for how evolution proceeded. Darwin's book suggested the mechanism of natural selection, and was embraced by a community eager for support of their preferred view.

Thomas Huxley was one such supporter. He was thrilled by Darwin's work, and defended it to great publicity and effect. Huxley did not agree with the entirety of Darwin's theories, however. Huxley could see the problems with Darwin's slow-moving, gradual evolution. There was (and still is) a lack of fossil evidence to support transitional forms, and a great deal of evidence to suggest a sudden explosion of new species. Huxley believed in a much more rapid evolution - a notion that entirely different species could spring up in just a few generations. Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin argued endlessly about their differing views on evolution.

Huxley also tangled with scientists for mixing his philosophical and scientific work. There are many instances in Huxley's work where he takes on an anti-religious message, somewhat off-topic. Thomas Huxley had a marked involvement with agnostic and atheistic philosophy."[4] Newton 16:13, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

This rant seems almost 200% off-topic, so I gave it a new header. I can't imagine why you just dumped that quote here.-αmεσ (!) 16:15, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. So what? The truth of a scientific theory is utterly independent of its proponents, and if you plan on rejecting scientific theories just because someone who promoted them had Atheist Cooties, you're going to need to move back to the 16th Century or so. --67.102.192.7 16:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT) (Gulik)

I have been flirting with the idea that this argument by authority/quote mine crap is really a modern day perversion of scholasticism that has some how passed down in religious circles as a kind of septic infection over the last 600 years. 24.141.169.255 16:34, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Save a goat, starve a troll!