User talk:Newton/Archive4

Your message to me

Yo, Conservative.

I noticed you replied on the Speed of Light talk page. Well, in case that you haven't noticed it yet:

"

I AM BANNED THERE.
I CANNOT REPLY.

So stop pretending that you're actually willing to discuss. If you were, you would've unbanned me so I'd have a chance to reply. I think I actually remember that Webb claim, and I think I remember that it did NOT lead to the result you'd like.

But you know what? I am obviously not wanted on your precious site, so I won't do your homework for you. So I'll just sit here and laugh at your idiocy. If you want more than my mocking comments, unban me. --Sid 18:43, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Ken, a debate like this could garner a lot of interest on the internet. I know of several bloggers who would be interested in following something like this and then it would be picked up the mainstream media. That could only serve to increase the number of visitors to CP and thereby boost your pet page count without you having to artificially inflate it. I look forward to a scholarly debate! Genghis Khant 16:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

He's ba-ack....

Hi, Newton! Are you planning on staying for a while this time? --67.102.192.7 13:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Weird Vandal Attack.

Strange that of all the pages on RW, this one should be the subject of one vandal's attention. I mean it's the page least representative of us.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Notice, though, that we're reverting it when it hits and banning the offenders. Tell TK.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 15:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Of course. But as I mentioned elsewhere, you don't get the quality vandals anymore do you? Where is the humor? The wit? The sarcasm? These young lads today - just no style.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:15, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I think TK already knows - unless he's doing it in his sleep. Susan^{talk to me} 15:20, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I've not been around that much. Why do we feel that our most illustrious troll might be involved?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:27, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Dunno, there's just something about it over the past week or so. Might be just me. Susan^{talk to me} 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea why you'd think that... --Kels 15:42, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

TK e-mailed me whining about how it's not him. I don't know why he whined to me. But keep in mind he claims a lot of things.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 16:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

If it annoyed him that's enough for me. He he. Susan^{talk to me} 16:25, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Equally there might be something in here http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:64.79.209.23 User talk:64.79.209.238--Bob^{'s your uncle} 16:35, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

? Susan^{talk to me} 16:42, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about that. It's correct now.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 16:47, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

You are stupid with images. --ThomasMazouradesh 19:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey, that's the definition of television! human^{be in} 19:25, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

info for user newton

The wandalism was that someone uploaded a new image over your user page one, and now I guess it's deleted to "fix" it. Feel free to re-upload the one you had when you return. The wandal was slapped around appropriately, and knows Putin is always watching him! human^{be in} 21:21, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey newt, did you look @ your user page history? We worked our butts off for you today. Susan^{talk to me} 22:22, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

From main page off topic discussion moved here

Conservapedia's atheism article becoming somewhat well known

In the last 24 hours Conservapedia's atheism article has gotten about 450 views and is becoming somewhat well known. I plan on doing some additional work on the article to see if I add some additional relevant material and increase the internet traffic. I was curious to know if RationalWikians think I should put in a picture of the ex atheist Lee Strobel or a pic of the ex-atheist Anthony Flew. I am leaning towards Strobel but I am open to suggestions. Newton 21:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Why not both? The more, the merrier! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:55, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I could get you a picture of me - a really bad one, if you want - to show the effects of turning ones bum towards the Lord... human^{be in} 21:57, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Vanity, vanity, thy name is Newton Conservative SJG^sjg 21:59, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I decided on Strobel because he has a Yale Law degree and good track record as an investigative journalist. The picture of Strobel is quite dapper but can anyone suggest a more dashing picture of Strobel? Newton 22:09, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Instead of asking us, why not put the question on Bobby Turkel's talk page at Conservapedia. I'm sure he'd leave you an answer soon enough. PFoster 23:19, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Why show anyone's picture? It's wicked to mock the afflicted. SJG^sjg

Does that mean we have to stop adding to WIGO? --Kels 22:21, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

No what we're doing is allowing the mentally handicapped to mock themselves - cruel but fun. Rather like ... Oh what was it? ... Oh! That's it - "shooting fish in a barrel". Susan^{talk to me} 22:36, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I have a question "newton" you seem to get wet over the 450 page views a day for atheism and the 600-700 views from you evolution article. Yet you believe that RW is a total obscurity on the internet. Now I am not here to argue that we are not but we get 10,000-20,000 views a day on our site. If that is an obscure number of hits...what is 450? tmtoulouse ^persecute 23:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Bong hits are all that count. Ashfly hasn't set up the CP stats to limit reporting to genuine bong hits, like WP, he loves to count the meaningless "s" hits they get as well. human^{be in} 23:15, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Strobel's a true moron. Good for him for graduating from Yale Law (no NYU Law bitterness here, we'll catch them soon, only 3 rank-slots away), but it's a fact that knowledge is only good when used. Strobel doesn't use his, regardless of whether or not he has it to begin with. Have you actually read any of his books? Campus Crusade for Christ passed out his books to incoming freshman at Rice my first year. Setting aside that this is a true environmental disaster (almost everyone threw them away), I actually read the thing, and it was a tragedy of an abortion of a logical fiasco/clusterfrack. I urge anyone to read it who doesn't already agree with Lee's points, and still tell me that they're compelling :-P.

That said, does anyone else think that the name "Campus Crusade for Christ" is ridiculous?! My (atheist) girlfriend wants to start a group called "Campus Jihad for Allah" just to point out how insanely evil-sounding that name is. I've encouraged her to do so. I can't believe that anyone would join a group called "Crusade," except historical revisionists.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:21, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I've thought that as well. I guess in the U.S., at this point in history, the word "Crusade" has a different connotation in the popular imagination than "jihad" does--hence why there are high school sports teams called the Crusaders. I bet that in 500 years or so, it'll be more "acceptable" (in some areas anyway) to have sports teams named the Jihadists. It's absolutely an unfair double standard, but the reality is that most Americans who hear "Crusader" think of a gallant romanticized knight as opposed to a fanatical bloodthirsty sadist mercenary. Do athletic teams in Saudi Arabia have nicknames? If they don't, I wonder what names they would have if they had a sports-nickname obsession like America does.

More interestingly, since jihad can be interpreted as "struggle," as in struggle for faith, in theory similar to how Christians symbolically "crusade" for faith, you can make a pretty good case that universities had better allow a Campus Jihad organization if that's what students want to call it.--Bayes^update 23:57, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I just added a photo of Dr. Paul Vitz to the Conservapedia atheism article with some commentary under the photo of Dr. Vitz. Newton 23:51, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Well good for you! I'd add one or two myself, but, oh, 1) I'd get banned for frickin ever as soon as some tool ran my IP, and 2) gee, the article is locked against anyone but sops! Aren't you teh rulzor! human^{be in} 00:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I would expect allowing a Campus Jihad organization to be constitutionally compelled if it was organized, as a side note...-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:00, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I was going to ask your lawyerin' skillz, can organizations like that have any name they want? Constitutionally, could somebody start a Campus Kill All Jews Organization? Some (not me) might argue that having a Campus Jihad is equivalent to having a Campus Suicide Bombers or Campus Terrorists or some other thing.--Bayes^update 00:06, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Arguably context matters - so in a school might be different than in the general public. Express advocacy of illegal activity in the abstract is constitutionally protected, at least under the Supreme Court's fairly liberal 30-year old case. So it would depend on the message, but in the general public, I would expect that Suicide Bombers/Terrorists would not be protected (likely), but Jihad would. I'll let you know when we get to the school cases :-D-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:10, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and the Rhomas/Scalito block + Kennedy makes almost any liberal case "old law" :-/-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:21, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. Just wanted to make sure my new Campus Everyone-Not-In-This-Club-Is-A-Douche-And-Sucks-Butt organization can be greenlit.:)--Bayes^update 00:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Newton, I see you're up to your old tricks over at "Bias in Wikipedia" alleging that WP is "biased" because it fails to mention that a study shows atheists don't give as much to charity on average as certain Christians do. (I don't suppose we'll see any statistics over at CP about the average intelligence of atheists being higher. No, that sort of bias you're quite happy to support.) So how much did you give to charity last year. Being a Christian, statistically it must be tons. So how much? $5,000? 10,000? I'd love to hear. DickTurpis 00:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of shameless plugs, atheists tend to be just as giveyish as the people who believe in any random diety. Doctors, for instance...--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 00:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Shit, Ken, I don't plug my little website(s) here on RW, why do you feel the need to? human^{be in} 00:54, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Head in hands crying...--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 01:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I must say, your blog is actually rather interesting. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Sweet! More people are looking at the atheism page? Great. More laughs for them. xD But otherwise, Lee Strobel. Seriously, you should pick someone who's had their books refuted and made themselves look like an idiot. It really fits your image. - All Hail Tuna 04:27, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

So like, wowza, 4-500 people a frikkin day are reading this crap for the laughs. OK, what percentage of the Ameringlish-speekin population is that? Wow, colour me impressed. Ken, you're a dumbass. human^{be in} 01:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

stats

In the past month (by conservative's own records)[1]

September 22, 2007 at 11:30pm

Atheism 76,384 times.

August 22, 2007 at 6pm

Atheism 69,444 views

Difference = 6940

6940/31 = 224 (nearly)views per day

Not a lot (especially when you consider that a load of them are C's own in & outs). Susan^{talk to me} 00:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Please, why did you make me think of Newton doing the ole "rock and roll"? You almost ruined sex for me for life!!! The other 200 views, are, well, doesn't he know? People from all over the innertubes go to CP to get a good laugh! human^{be in} 00:07, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

What type of pathology makes Kenny care about what we think? Why bother coming over here to ask us which picture of some intellectual equivalent of enema byproducts he posts on his pet articles? Get a blog kenny...you can write whatever you want there, and still nobody cares, (at least in my experience) but at least you can call it your own.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 00:35, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah thats not true, your blog gets pretty good readership as those things go! tmtoulouse ^persecute 00:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Kenny loves us, and has nowhere to brag besides here... pathetic, paranoid creature... he should just leave CP and come join us make his own blog... human^{be in} 01:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

That's just it, isn't it... he's reaching out of his little cave and trying to touch humanity... I think in his own twisted way he is trying to make friends, get validation... it's like the classic cliché of the boy who pulls the braids of the girl he likes in class, because he doesn't know what else to do. There is something poignantly and putridly human in all this. tmtoulouse ^persecute 02:07, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken, we like you, strange as you are - heck, we're all strange too. Come join us, and forget about that CP silliness. Feel free to dip our pigtails in the inkwell! human^{be in} 02:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Join us....it is your destiny...DickTurpis 10:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken, we won't goad you if you don't goad us. But your actions above constitute goading :-P. And potentially goating. Mmmmm.... goat.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 02:15, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Nah, strike me from that "we" goading Ken is way to much fun for me, there is a reason that:

Is in my personal user space! But its all good natured fun! Ken you are my favorite Internet YEC pusher! tmtoulouse ^persecute 02:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I think he's creepy - not the pigtail puller, rather the guy who flashes in the park to get attention & admiration for his enormous (in his eyes only) dong. Susan^{talk to me} 02:21, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Entirely possible as well, and brings a whole new disturbing image I will get in my mind's eye everytime I see Ken posting on Schlafly's talk page "look what I have done, love me!" tmtoulouse ^persecute 02:24, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

For the past two days the atheism article has gotten about 400 views a day. I think that is more views than RationalWiki's atheism article has ever gotten. In total the RationalWiki article has gotten 749 views since its existence. Newton 19:15, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow (bows down), you definitely are the rulzorz!!! We are so pwned!!! Goatspeed! human^{be in} 19:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Ours is better written, though. Just think, Newton - if your Atheism article actually imparted some useful information, instead of being bogged down by a mess of irrelevant quotes and and a fundamentally illogical maybe organization, maybe you could get even more page views. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Again, let's let CP think that popularity (I.e. Page views) equals truth. Because by that logic we needn't even win on the merits of evolution... Its popularity alone among scientists compels its truth.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia's sleeping dragon editor about to be prodded!

Conservapedia's sleeping dragon editor about to be prodded! Stay tuned for details. :) Newton 20:02, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

This isn't about Turkel again, is it? I don't think my heart can handle another anti-climax. DickTurpis 20:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Hint: Keep an eye on the atheism article. Newton 20:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Why? To inflate its views? Susan^{talk to me} 20:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm sick of laughing at CP's atheism article. It's fallacious arguments are sooo old. --Hjimachong 20:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad to see that you learned to at least use only one of your sentences as a header. Still, it's your entire first (of two) sentence. Not a good thing. And hate to bring this up again, but have you read Lucky's rant in Waiting For Godot? That's exactly what I'm predicting Turkel to sound like. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT) And the idea of anyone "prodding" Turkel is slightly strange...

Its Richard Dawkins isn't it? tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, my eye is on the atheism aricle. wow. Dragon indeed. DickTurpis 21:57, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, gee, I was expecting some excitement! The last fifty edits are by one editor? That's not how wikis work. Or work well, at least. Gee gosh, maybe I should check back in... whenever? human^{be in} 23:44, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Told you - it's Conservative ducking in & out that's putting the views up. Susan^{talk to me} 00:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, that "prize" article is full of red links! Team RW Redlink Crewe to the rescue!!! Ken, you moron, if your article is full of red links, it says no one gives shit (a steaming turd) about your topic and the "wanted pages" it creates. Wow, steam... human^{be in} 00:09, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

By the way, if you unblock me, I'll write an article about UPI for ya. Wait, you can't? Surely communists work there, too? human^{be in} 00:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Newt - WTF, man - do dragons sleep late on Sundays or what? Make with the dragon edits. Where is the sleeping dragon? PROD IT HARDER!!!! PFoster 10:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for the prodding.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Twenty-four or so hours later, fifty more edits by the same guy. Ever since they unionized, it's hard to get a good day's work out of the dragons.PFoster 23:48, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Its amazing he still has enough left to spray all over the atheist article after prodding for so many hours. Zhakrin 23:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't you mean a sleeping dinosaur? They're the same thing, right? VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 13:02, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't take my name in vain. --Sleeping Dragon 14:04, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Religion and Justice Thing

What is your plan with that big main page post, Ken?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

A photo of a recent "most impressive debater to date"

The conservapedia article on atheism states the following:

"In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was Doug Jesseph.[81] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[82] In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"[83] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[84]"

Here is a photo of Jeffrey Jay Lowder's most impressive atheist debater to date Doug Jesseph:

I propose that Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels and past president of Internet Infidels, have Internet Infidels host a debate between Doug Jesseph and Stephen C. Meyer regarding the origin of life. :)

By the way, how did you like the most recent updates the atheism article at Conservapedia? Newton 23:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I think we'd evolution, over origin of life. But go set it up.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh Kenny-boy (may I call you "Kenny-boy"?), it's always so nice to hear from you. But I really am having a heck of a time trying to understand your compulsions. Above you stressed the word photo as if it were some amazing relic you had conjured up here that was so impressive you had to show it off to everyone. You'd think you'd gotten a hold of a photo of Nessie giving Sasquatch a hand-job, not a normal portrait of some guy no one really cares much about. Then you ask what we think of the newest edits to the Atheism article. We'll I haven't looked at the recent edits, but I looked at the edit history and the last 100 edits were all by you (with the exception of Ed adding a single link), so asking us is really a sort of pathetic fishing trip for compilments, is it not? Save the "look what I did"s for Andy; he at least seems impressed when Ed shows off.

As for your proposed debate, well, it sounds like a great time. Are you proposing that we somehow set it up? Maybe us atheists have a direct line to Jeff Lowder? The problem with debates like that is that when one person has to reply on logic and science, and one can invoke magic, the logic/science guy is at a bit of a disadvantage. It's like when I used to play Dungeons and Dragons when I was young (you wouldn't fully understand; I'm sure you never partook in such an unholy activity), any time something that couldn't be explained happened you could be sure you'd hear "oh, it's magic!" You couldn't really argue with that. DickTurpis 23:57, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Visual stimuli help him to better ejaculate his truth upon conservapedia. Zhakrin 00:14, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

LOOKIE at what I done!

3D version for AKj

Theory of evolution at CP, edits by user

By the way, how did you like the most recent updates the atheism article at Conservapedia? Newt, they're boring, predictable and poorly-written. Typical for CP. Typical for a wiki entry with one main contributor. Nobody cares, except as a source of amusement and a welcome distraction from real work.PFoster 11:29, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it remains rambling, uninteresting and poorly organized. Editor's advice: Delete and rewrite! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Agree. Write an article rather than trying to assemble a jig-saw puzzle of quotes that don't fit together, and don't actually prove anything.

I think its brilliant, the chaotic, rambling prose, disorganized structure, random non-sequiturs, and hack and slash blooding of logic is a beautiful thing to uphold. To say nothing to the amount of strife and discord it has caused everyone. Zhakrin 13:32, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

That's true, isn't it? Ken is by far the most accomplished vandal that site could ever have. Icewedge could learn from this guy. --Kels 13:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Here's a pie chart by editor of the atheism article. Guess who's light blue. One of these days I'm going to write a "Highjacked articles in CP" article. VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 13:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

That's a great pie chart. Would be better in 3D, though. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:04, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Interestingly though...User:C's articles tend to end up sounding remarkably like one of Dr D James Kennedy's sermons. Many and varied factoids, heavily laced with quotes, juxtaposed together in a mish-mash with the odd logical fallacy thrown in to keep people awake trying to figgure out what the hell was just said, (in Kennedy's case) or written (in User:C's). CЯacke® 14:09, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Doctor D James Kennedy? Ken sounds like a man with a PhD? Wow. He must sound ever so smart and intellectual! Remember, people with advanced degrees and people who get good grades are intellectuals. Like GW Bush is the second smartest president ever, because he has an MBA! Guys like Clinton are dumb because they might have dropped out of some degree program or something. A PhD isn't just a liberal meaningless accolade, you know, like the Nobel Prize or something. We might have to start calling our l'il guy Doctor Newton from now on. DickTurpis 15:08, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Please for to forgive mine unexplained opinion of DJK: A man operating at the outer fringes of average intelligence producing sermons that are as intellectually stimulating as a glass of xanax laced vodka. CЯacke® 17:54, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm wracking my brain here and for the life of me I can't figure out who the light blue represents. Is it Robert Turkel? DickTurpis 15:02, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

No wonder I'm less productive at work when RW is open. VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 15:46, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I thought I'd do the Theory of Evolution page for a comparison. Different color blue, same editor.VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 16:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Can you make it yellow? I want it to look like Pac-Man. DickTurpis 16:51, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Who has the second largest edit count? --Hjimachong 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Picky, aint we? Hoji--that'd be you! VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 18:00, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Editors to cp:Theory of Evolution, editors with >9 edits.

editor	edits
ColinR	10
CPAdmin1	10
AmesG	11
BenjaminS	11
PhilipB	11
CPWebmaster	13
Philip J. Rayment	15
Ymmotrojam	17
Ed Poor	22
Aschlafly	23
Palmd001	25
Hojimachong	68
Conservative	1070

A little unfair on Ken, I think. You can't really count the number of edits of someone who saves the page after every word. Doesn't he know how to edit off-line? Genghis Khant 18:24, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I take it you didn't like the Trofim Denisovich Lysenko edit or the theory of evolution applied to medicine edit today. Schlafly loves the material about tonsils and the theory of evolution article and it was Schlafly who gave me the idea via the talk page for TOE. :)

What team did Kenny get picked for?

You're probably used to it by now anyways. CЯacke® 21:07, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

The Dragon has been prodded!

Take a look at the Conservapedia atheism article and the Conservapedia talk page for user RobertTurkel :) Newton 22:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

And look, you even made him a shiny ass-kissing article! :) :) :) (And why is this on "Talk:Main Page"?) --Sid 22:20, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

When did he get out of rehab?CЯacke® 22:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

As much as Ken really, and I mean really likes to be prodded I think we should keep in mind:

.

He is just looking for attention because everyone completely ignored his proposal at CP. tmtoulouse ^persecute 22:31, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Must we block him? If CP is sidelining him, all the more reason to try to welcome him here... if he stops trying to prod us, along with his "dragon." Ken, do you see what I'm after?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Check the block reason, and act accordingly. tmtoulouse ^persecute 22:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow, look at him go. Mightn't you want to wait for results before you go off bragging? It could save you some potential embarrassment. DickTurpis 10:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Not to take the name of your big invisible dude in the sky in vain, but, Sweet Fuckin' Holy Jesus Christ Newt, why do keep doing this? "Check out the Atheism article! The Dragon has awoken!" No wait, it's just another four dozen changes by the same old guy. "This time I mean it, the Dragon is being prodded!" No, it's just Ken and Alleged Human Being TK acting like two kids in a sandbox and vying for Assfly's attention. Religious people are weird, I tell ya. PFoster 10:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Apparently Turkel goes by "J.P. Holding", as seen here. What kind of dude uses a fake name, because his original name is so discredited? Oooh.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 10:46, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Proposal not sidelined

Proposal not sidelined but the skeptical community is too chicken to come up with more than the amateurish attempt by Mr. Packham in regards to skeptical legal apologetics that deal with the resurrection of Christ. They are hiding in their bunnyholes. It is very humorous that the best the skeptics could come up with is about 20 pages of material where the author admitted he made an oversight in regards to the law! :) Newton 23:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh huh...do go on please.... tmtoulouse ^persecute 23:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Klatu verata niktu!--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 23:34, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

If you want us to take this seriously, come up with a serious argument that you advance yourself. Then I'll answer it accordingly. I don't want to deal with secondary & tertiary sources.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:54, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

So, when's Jesus due back, anyway? Last I checked, he was a good 1977 or so years late for his big return. --Gulik 01:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm still open to an explanation in your terms of the challenge. I don't want to deal with any sources aside from laws, though, if that's okay. I want us both to be making our own arguments, or paraphrases therein.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 01:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Did Randi give them his $1.0 million? CЯacke®

Well-known quote miner

Well-known quote miner and non-sequiturist writes what has to be the strangest, most incomprehensible header seen yet by this editor, with no explanation of what the hell it means in the words he wrote below. human^{be in} 01:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I think is has something to do with SCIENITIFICALLY PROVING that Jesus is Lord, by careful use of graphs and a spectrometer. --Gulik 01:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Woooooooooooooooo, you said spectrometer! I see dead people! human^{be in} 02:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Jebus LOVES you

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!

Credentials

I asked this of you back in March but you never answered, what actual scientific training have you in order to evaluate the validity of scientific claims and publications? Perhaps you can answer this time.--TimS 15:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't hold your breath Tim. You won't get a straight answer from a deceitful lawyer. Genghis Khant 15:28, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Is Ken a lawyer?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 15:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Err, I thought he was. Now you've got me confused with your devious cross-examination. Genghis Khant 15:46, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh, Ken is a facilities manager for Buffalo University in New York. Zhakrin ^Kallisti 15:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Last time I asked him he danced around the question.--TimS 15:33, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

He'll continue to. He won't give you a straight answer or honest argument, and never has. Why expect him to change now? --Kels 15:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

To be honest I do not expect him to answer, but by asking and his refusal to answer puts doubt in his work. Often people like Conservative, when called out on what makes them able to make such claims, are questioned at this level they tend to lose all credibility. After all, his continuation to pose as an authority (due to his avoidance of listing his credentials by default causes one to postulate that he is an authority, however by questioning and receiving no response allows one to postulate that he is talking out his ass.) on certain subjects would fall under deceit, would it not?--TimS 15:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for that:)... Perhaps what I pointed out above should be used in order to liberate the people... questioning the credentials of the people who are making the claims on the topics. Conservative uses a lot of skimming when he cites websites for his articles. Most of these sites are by amateurs or people outside of their field of study. Perhaps the shedding of light on these references may help people make an informed choice. We should start a "SAVE User:BethanyS!!!" fund.--TimS 15:51, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Save BethanyS? I thought that's what the Warren Jeffs' trial was about? Zhakrin ^Kallisti 16:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Wha?!?!

Ken, are you completely raving mad? What the hell do Lysenko's theories have at all to do with evolution? Don't answer, because the right answer is NOTHING. He was a crazy pseudoscientist whose ideas caught the interest of a crazy dictator, and you're a naive, dumb person if you think a bad picture and a moronic caption helps at all with your arguements. so HA!--Offeep 17:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

It looks like we could use a new pie chart for Newton's edits in another article he has commandeered of late to the detriment of the project as a whole and such

It looks like we could use a new pie chart for Newton's edits in another article he has commandeered of late to the detriment of the project as a whole and such. See here. DickTurpis 00:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Hijacked articles. VirileSterile^um 11:26, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Recent addition to the atheism article at Conservapedia

Sid, did you like my most recent additions to the Conservpedia article (Voltaire, Alexander Pope, etc. ). Newton 19:09, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

It appears as if JP Holding is mildly lukewarm about Conservapedia's atheism article

It appears as if the Christian apologist and author JP Holding likes Conservapedia's atheism article. Please see Here. Newton 18:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw. I also see that you only come here to troll. --_transResident Transfan^form!

Oh wow, Ken! You must have needed to change your underwear after you saw that! --Kels 18:05, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

"Reader recommends an item here on atheism." <-- Oh yeah, he's absolutely ecstatic about your work! Also, I would kinda think that being recommended by Turkel/Holding doesn't exactly boost my credibility... but whatever floats your boat, I guess... --Sid 18:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Newt, do you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend? 'Cause if that little one-sentence mention on that obscure website is enough to make you happy, you need to get out more often. 18:48, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Sid, JP Holding also recommends Conservapedia's homosexuality and Conservapedia's theory of evolution articles at his website.[2][3] Newton 18:51, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

My understanding was that JP Holding was Ken's boyfriend......I didn't think Ken was they type to get involved with prodding just any random person. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:16, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I moved this here after tmt deleted it from mainpage talk, where it simply does not belong. Now, if we had an article on CP's atheism article, it's talk page would be an ok home, too. Otherwise, since it is only of personal interest, please keep your apples in your own backyard, Mr. Fig Kendoll Newton. Goatspeed!!! human^{be in} 19:12, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Anyone See the recently added quotes on atheism section in Conservapedia's atheism article? Newton 19:17, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

No. tmtoulouse ^persecute 19:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

No. Why would I possibly care? human^{be in} 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

No. It's so poorly constructed I'd probably never be able to find new lies material even if I did care. --Kels 19:53, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Small correction: Under Well Known Proponents of Atheism Nietzsche is 19th century, not 20th. Also, it seems a bit of an oversimplification to label Hume an atheist, but I guess there's a lengthy discussion buried there. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:37, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

You are a hyperintellectual eurosocialist. Cool.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 19:42, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

What is really scary is this idiot Ken actually seems to believe Holding is something to boast about. :S And did anyone else notice the initials in Kenny's links? --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 19:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Let's see...obscure crank, working on a widely ridiculed, poorly put together, fringe website, only really known because he trolls other sites with already-refuted garbage as if it's gold...
My God, he really is Ken's boyfriend! --Kels 19:51, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

WHAT REALLY SCARES ME IS THAT WE GIVE HIM WHAT HE CRAVES - ATTENTION!!

Don'feed the fucking troll Susan^{talk to me} 19:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Can we make up our mind as to whether he's Robert Turkel or J.P.Holding? Let's choose a name, and stick with it. And Newton, I suggest you return to (grammar) school, as your reading comprehension level gives the impression that you dropped out in third grade. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Turkel legally changed his name to Holding which was his birth name if I am not mistaken. Fixed Hume mistake and another mistake that someone did and thanks for input. Newton 23:26, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Which one of you pitches, and which one catches? --Kels 23:29, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

ROFLMFAO!--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 23:41, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Early start to the weekend...

Goat party under the bridge!!! Yum... human^{be in} 20:06, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm Curious

Hey, Newton, I'm curious about how you intend to respond to this. Dude seems like he's got a case about the nature of a wiki and how you treat that article of yours.

Atheism is a "sacred cow" of many liberals that they hate seeing tipped over. That is why the article is locked. I don't believe there are that many locked articles at Conservapedia but I could be wrong. Newton

Mostly, just a few "sacred cows", and other articles you folks are scared to face the truth on. Wouldn't it suck for you bible-thumpers if US atheism (acknowledged) rates approached those of France? Better keep them scared to even say it! By the way, what you "typed" doesn;t actually make a damn bit of sense. Do you know that? human^{be in} 23:18, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I suspect that most of the world's atheists may be in China although I may very well be wrong. Christianity is growing fast in China though. A former Time Magazine Bureau chief expects China to become 1/3 Christian in a generation. Newton 23:29, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh, Kendoll, christianity not only sucks, it is stupid. I mean, well Jesus seems like a cool dude and all, but since about 350 CE, the religion based on him is just a murderous, incomprehensible mistake. Let me unquote: love one another as you you love your brother. Wow, how did that get lost? human^{be in} 00:14, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

C, you didn't answer the original question. Saying that it's a liberal "sacred cow" (you appear to be equating liberalism to atheism) is no reason to dismiss valid criticism, which you strengthen through your denial. If somebody comes on and says "Jeez, I bet Ken'll block me", and you then block them, you proved their point while coddling your inner narcissist. --Hjimachong 01:08, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, you're cool, what I don't understand is how you have survived/persisted at CP for so long. I suppose we should, as always, admire you for your skilz... human^{be in} 01:16, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I think I was so helpful to Andy in the beginning (you know, little things like this)... along with the fact that I've never really broken a CP rule. --Hjimachong 01:22, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Poor Andy. Not to diminish the skills of your explanation. Just, poor, poor Andy. And then (mid March/07) the house fell in on itself, and, yes, you broke no rules. Then 3 or 4 psycho escapees from Wp joined up, and the rest is just ugly. Anyway, glad we have you here, as well as there. human^{be in} 01:35, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

From what I have been reading at CP, Hojimachong survives by choosing his battles wisely, arguing on point with a command of the facts, without throwing or responding to insults. I swear, I so agree with you, Human....how in the hell does he do it! This Kenney is a really smug ass____. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 01:37, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I dunno how he does it. Some sort of genius no one else has figured out?! And, well, Kendoll is a freak. What I wonder about is the history - back in M/07, several people joined Cp who had wiki skills - some freaks who had been banned from WP, and some internetweirdoes with nothing better to do. And somehow, Hoji managed to get in there, as neither of the above, and, above all, survive. To this day. Probably because of what you say, but how does one choose battles wisely in and insane asylum? I saw One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and it had no such answers... human^{be in} 02:02, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I've seen it several times myself. So, you've felt the searing of the electrodes for chosing the wrong argument too, eh? :P I am reading and absorbing at CP, and I am going to try to follow his lead. I don't anticipate his success, but I am sure going to try, because I do like challenges. Some say once I set a goal, I never stop until I get people to accept me, if not my POV. I think perhaps they finally grow soft seeing me fall on my face so many times, and take pity on me. Maybe that will work at that nut house. We'll see! ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 02:10, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

A Message to Conservative

I’m sorry that I had the vanity, stupidity and over zealousness to post this comment here at RationalWiki. But you give me far too much credit assume I’ve had anything to do with, or would even be capable of, “stirring up trouble” between sysops at Conservapedia. I may be a deceitful liberal, but when I’m honest, I really am honest. And honestly, all of my edits to CP have been in good faith.

Personally, I believe that, in every person one meets, they can find at least a few admirable qualities, and in this way be sure to treat others with respect and consideration. I really did respect your attempts to improve sources and clarity. I really did respect TK’s willingness to forgive and forget (particularly over the aforementioned post). I hold no resentment against you either, but I do fear that I fail to understand you.

"Jeez, I bet Ken'll block me". I don’t think you will. I think you’re better then that. Am I right? I hope so. And I also hope you’ll choose to abide by Conservapedia’s “How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia” rule #15. Because I’d like to think that, all in all, you’re a pretty nice guy.

But I’m having a little trouble reconciling that image with the views implied by your atheism article. Do you really think I or my beliefs are… morally depraved, ignorant, tenuous, denialist and downright immoral? Reading the article, I was continually unable to shake this feeling of accusation. Nevertheless, I never once complained. I took a purely objective stance, and most emphatically did not make atheism a “sacred cow”. It never even entered the matter. And still, you would not listen to my most sincere and reasonable suggestions. What are you so desperate to protect, anyway?

In any case, I’ll be absent from Conservapedia for the next week, so you’ll hear little more from me there. I’ve made it perfectly clear that my suggestions were intended purely for the benefit of the site, but if you prefer to lock up both your articles and any possibility of cooperative contribution… Well, there’s not really anything I can do to change that, is there?

Believe what you will – after all, I am a deceitful liberal.

Do as you will – after all, it is your article and under your authority.

I wanted to believe that a friendly attitude and the readiness to negotiate and compromise could resolve all differences. And maybe I’m wrong. But even atheists have to have faith sometimes.

Feebas factor 12:22, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh Oh.... RUN! --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 16:18, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I stand by the material I posted at Conservapedia in the atheism article. Secondly, I don't believe all your edits at Conservapedia were in good faith. In short, the overzealousness defense doesn't ring true to me. Newton

I am Gulik's Sock's utter lack of surprise. After all, when your starting position is that everyone who disagrees with you is at best a Nazi and more likely a biological puppet controlled DIRECTLY BY SATAN HIMSELF, I suppose "innocent before guilty" is a bit much for us to hope for. --SockOfGulik 17:55, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's fair, Ken. I don't think any of your edits at CP are in good faith. --Kels 18:12, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

... Feebas factor 14:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

slavery and racism

Who was the key figure in fighting racism in the United States? An evolutionist or was it the Reverend Martin Luther King? Second, here is what the African American author Thomas Sowell wrote: "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen." I challenge you to show me that the evolutionary community were the key players in ending slavery and not the "religious right". By the way, you might wish to do a study on the gentleman William Wilberforce. Newton 17:33, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Good for them; apparently not all of the religious rights' contributions to society have been negative. However, resting on one's laurels would be strongly disfavored. Moving forward in history, who are the leading forces behind ending racism? Conservative luminaries like... Strom Thurmond & Jesse Helms? Hmmm. King was a religious man, but by no means a conservative [sic]. And who were the prime forces behind securing equal rights for women (which Andy, for some reason, doesn't believe in)? Were those conservative men, and the religious right, or were those liberal men & women, impeded more often than not by the religious right? See, I've forgotten.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 17:42, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

King was a religious man, but by no means a liberal. Amesg, you might want to read up a bit on King--by the time he was shot, he was pretty much a Christian Communist.

I challenge you to show me that the evolutionary community were the key players in ending slavery and not the "religious right". Newton, there were just as many people misquoting the Bible to "prove" that slavery was a-ok in the eyes of the Lord as there were misquoting it to "prove" that slavery was BadWrong.

--SockOfGulik 17:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Gulik. I actually made a mistake, I meant to say "by no means a conservative." Ooops. Thx for the catch!-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

equal rights for women (which Andy, for some reason, doesn't believe in)? Phyllois Schlafly, Andrew's mother, was a professional anti-feminist back in the 1970's. That might have something to do with it. --SockOfGulik 20:40, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the feminist thing goes farther back than that. There was a strong wave of feminism in early Christianity: the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" urged women to take part in a revolutionary brand of Christianity, and contribute as positively to the faith as men. Ditto parts of Galatians. Yet Paul, seeing that this wasn't where the faith should be going if it hoped to catch on, ditched the Galatians message in Corinthians, and the latter church condemned as apocryphal Thecla, thus making religion an anti-feminist force for the next 1900+ years.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 17:47, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, slavery was for a long time justified on religious grounds. There may have religious abolitionists, but there just as many religious slave-owners, who believed that this was the punishment for the black race mandated by Ham's curse, etcetera, etcetera. And as a general rule, slaveowners were always conservative, and slavery apologists were always conservative, and abolitionists were always liberal in the sense that they were progressive. Further, any religious support for abolition may have been religious, but not the religious right. The religious right is a modern American phenomenon, where evangelism meets right-wing politics in a particularly unhealthy church/stategasm resulting from a lack of cross-cutting sociopolitical cleavages. Evangelical abolitionists would have been called, under this nomenclature & socio-analysis, members of the religious left. So the religious right is still stuck at "zero."-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 18:01, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

You may find http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1co14v33.htm a useful bit on Paul's stance on women. Some biblical scholars consider the anti-feminist message something that someone added to it later (not in the original letter). --Shagie 18:32, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I doubt he will. After all, once you start believing ONE part of the Bible was written by Sinful, Fallible Humans rather than by direct transcription by God Almighty, where do you stop? (Aside from the bit with Jesus and the Adultress, since Aschalfly is 95.673% certain that was added by a time-travelling Bill Clinton) --SockOfGulik 20:37, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

For those intrested in the early Christian church and the debate over what made up the Bible, http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ and http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502/ are a very interesting pair of books to read. This also talks about feminism in the early church and how it was squashed along with some of the anti-Jewish rhetoric that appeared along with the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches. The Lost Scriptures book goes more into the insertions into the various books, the gosepels and when they were written by and what agenda each group had in presenting that gospel. --Shagie 21:20, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

"I challenge you to show me that the evolutionary community were the key players in ending slavery" Since you mostly seem to speaking of the US, my head is kind of spinning. Origin of Species, published 1859. US Civil War, resulting in the legal end of slavery, fought 1861-65. What "evolutionary community" are you speaking of? human^{be in} 21:34, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

There you go Human! Pulling that same old bullshit about facts! Kenney can give you links to several huge blogs, errr, I mean sites, that show you are not correct! You guys must be arguing with this dip because you just cannot beleive anyone is so totally stupid. You need to face the fact he is. - --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 22:11, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I notice nobody cited a evolutionist who was a key abolitionist in history. How telling. Newton 23:58, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

There were no evolutionists until slavery was essentially a nonissue, or being fought over.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Um, you're a moron, Ken. See the dates above, and my question... WOW, do you need more Mountain Dew? human^{be in} 01:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Mountain Dew? How in the world did DanH get into this? ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 02:45, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I notice nobody cited a evolutionist who was a key abolitionist in history. How telling. Hm..... maybe Charles Darwin himself? (If Newton actually reads more than two sentences of that page before fleeing for fear of Liberal Cooties, I will be quite astounded.) --Gulik 04:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

An evolutionist or was it the Reverend Martin Luther King? Bullshit Alert, stage 2: Anyone got any evidence one way or another whether MLK was a Creationist? --Gulik 07:18, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Aww, c'mon, you mentioned Darwin before me? ;) "Early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, FitzRoy defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together." - All Hail Tuna 12:32, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

This user has resigned from RationalWiki and has no further interest in RationalWiki [pretends to] feel censored [to gain sympathy and attention]

Tmtoulouse moved this post: http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=prev&oldid=63327 It was in the Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP? page as it had some relevancy there. I see this as form of egregious censorship. Tmtoulouse likes to hide relevant posts and I believe it was in this instance because he knows that nobody will likely come up with a key abolitionist who was a evolutionist. I don't believe that Tmoulouse could also name a prominent evolutionary organization that called for abolition. Tmtoulouse also moved my post regarding atheists and charitable giving. I have no interest in looking at the RationalWiki website again unless perhaps AmesG works out a reasonable solution to Tmtoulouse's censoring ways and notifies me about it. Newton 00:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You're an idiot, and downright dishonest. " I don't believe that Tmoulouse could also name a prominent evolutionary organization that called for abolition." Let's see... "On The Origin Of Species" was published in 1859. The Civil War, ending slavery, was 1861-1865. How many "evolutionary organizations" could be founded in that time? How many of those would have had the time to focus on something outside of their main goal? Hmm... yeah, naming a group like that would be pretty hard. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:36, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Aw, you're leaving? Get stuffed, douchebag. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. See you as one of my many socks on CP. Stile4aly 01:06, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken, I didn't censor it. I moved it from that page to your user:talk page, because it wasn't about anything that was going on at CP, and it pertained mostly to a personal challenge stated by you. Not censorship. Put it back there if it's that important to you.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

To detox any potential allegations, a link has been placed from the What's Going On talk page.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:52, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Maybe Ken should have his own namespace: AllAboutKen. -- --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 00:59, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

LOL, NT. Ken is a retard (shit, no offense the mentally disabled!) See the above section for a "reality" check. And, wow, Kendoll, I don't see you being censored, just dumbass comments being moved? human^{be in} 01:36, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Isn't ironic that Kenney gets more attention here, more intellectual challenge, than at CP? I would submit that if you take away the occasional (okay, take away lots of acerbic comments) Ken is getting more dialog and insightful questions than he ever does at CP. Even accounting for the differences in political philosophy, whoever it was at CP who was the deciding "factor" in booting those of you who actually were editors at CP once (Assfly, TK or Karajou are my bets) must feel a deep sense of regret. I feel almost certain they do. ---ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 02:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Proving once again, that you CP goons can dish it out by the truckload, but can't spoon it in. Buncha whiny crybaby millihitlers.... --Gulik 04:25, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

If this really is a case of censoring, you need to talk to Poor Eddie over on CP. He has a certain habit of moving discussions that are going on that have some relevance to the page (ie: something on the main page news items in the talk main page - not just arbitrary comments) off to a debate page and then banning the participants who are disagreeing with him. Now that's 'quality' censorship. What was done here was moving something off a page it didn't belong on. In no way did it stifle the conversation that was going on. --Shagie 04:44, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh I haven't even been on RW in a couple days.....but my tentacles of oppression and tyranny no longer require an active internet connection, nay I can censor Ken through the air! Has anyone else every seen Japanese tentacle porn? Thats some fucked up shit. tmtoulouse ^persecute 11:22, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I dunno but...

...someone should archive this crap? human^{be in} 02:53, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, not while it's still steaming, but soon. Page get large. RKive to CP HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. OK, rkive here on rw. human^{be in} 05:20, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken's box

Ken I have seen you around the Internet in a dozen different forums. Anyone can search for "Ken Demeyer" and evolution and see your history. Your an old school troll. I used to debate with you over on the EvC Forum years ago. Your rabbit chewing cud thread is still a giggle inducing classic! Do you remember what happened to you at EvC? And has happened to you all over the Internet? You get relegated to a small portion of the site. EvC created a special "boot camp" forum for the likes of you and John Davidson and cut off your access to the rest of the site. You should be very used to this by now. Your a YEC troll with obvious signs of serious mental disorders. Your tendency to fall into single minded obsessiveness, terrible organizational abilities, rambling and incoherent prose, a propensity for megalomania, and a serious persecution complex all reek of some major problems. I don't think you are schizophrenic, though its possible, maybe bi-polar with delusions.....or even a really hardcore case of obsessive compulsive disorder.

Of course there is another diagnosis that I think is most probable. I think its a personality disorder. I believe you have borderline personality disorder to a tee. Which is why it's impossible for you to get along with anyone. Everywhere you go you just piss people off--even CP. Schlafly tolerates you because he thinks he can use you for his project but he does not like you no one at CP likes you. You have the same MO on every website you have ever frequented Ken. You have been kicked off of every single one, whether pro-evolution or pro-creation. I know your persecution complex makes you think its the worlds fault and not your fault. That you're being shut down because of your message not your style. But thats not true, the truth is you're a typical nasty borderline with all the usual crap that comes with it. Your type is the hardest to work with, the hardest to get along with............should RW do what every other site that has been stuck with you has had to do? Ban you or lock you up in your own playground? Probably we will have to, there is no way to win with a borderline. But for now you have more freedom here than you do at any of your other soap boxes. All we ask is that your keep shit on-topic if you post your bullshit on a talk page that has nothing to do with what you are talking about it will be moved to your talk page. I would encourage you to keep it on your talk page anyway, RW is small enough that it's not hard to find things anywhere. You do not have to post on the main page talk just to make sure you get seen. I know your endogenous ego requires you to post things as conspicuously as possible, because well you deserve it because you are God's gift to this world. The rest of us don't feel that way..................I know that there is no way to deal with a borderline but RW has its rules and guidelines and so you are safe for now. Nothing I can say will make you act differently, there is not even any drugs that they can give you....you wouldn't take them anyway because you are perfect right?

I hope for the sake of RW that you really do stay away, but I don't put much stalk in it. You have an "audience" here and Ken Demeyer likes to perform.

tmtoulouse ^persecute 11:54, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Dance, Ken, dance! --82.44.64.173

I think he is already dancing as fast as he can.......----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 12:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

a propensity for megalomania, and a serious persecution complex all reek of some major problems. I don't think you are schizophrenic, though its possible, maybe bi-polar with delusions.....or even a really hardcore case of obsessive compulsive disorder. Play nice, kids. Shred the arguments, not the arguer. --Gulik 17:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT) (Trying to take the moral high ground for once.)