User talk:Newton/Archive6

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This user's talk page is 12% as popular as TK's, and rising.
Stop hand.png
This user has 8 blocks on Conservapedia.
This user may experience moments of lucidity,
but don't count on it.
Always Watching...
C'mon. one won't hurt ya!


Long term view for a conservative encyclopedia[edit]

There were just 45 million born again Christians in the world in 1980 (James RutZ's book Mega Shift, page 45). There are now over 700 million born again Christians in the world and they are growing at a rate of 8% a year and have been doing so for a long time. [3] Most of the growth has been happening in the non western world. If the living standards rise in the rest of the world and computer usage goes up, there may be a market for a multi-lingual project for born again Christians similar to how Wikipedia has a French, German, Spanish versions. But this might not be for a while it depends on how fast computer usage rates go up. Does anyone know what the computer usage rates are for non-western countries?

By the way, maybe about 10% of Conservapedia's web traffic might come from less developed countries so as some of those countries experience a growth in born again christians (which appears to be happening in some non-westernized countries) Conservapedia will get some of that english speaking traffic. I realize that many of those people don't speak english, however.

Newton 21:56, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You want to grab the niche? Then you need to really make CP the born again Christian's wiki. You have to really play up that aspect. Drop all this moderation talk and just go for the jugular of the secularist world. Take what you are doing right now Ken and double your effort, and triple the rhetoric. tmtoulouse oppress 22:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Trent, it is not surprising that a Christianity friendly and conservative encyclopedia would have articles that secularist would take umbrage at. They are quite contrary worldviews. However, with that being said, I don't think see Conservapedia creating a "What up at RW?" article that is constantly updated. I think if you want to create a Wiki where many are fixated with a contrary wiki it is not going to be successful. The well known atheist Michael Shermer stated in Scientific American that anti something movements inevitably fail. I cite: "Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack.” [4] I think that if RationalWiki continues to be fixated on Conservapedia and build its base of articles it will advertise CP and make it stronger. 22:32, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
"Anti something movements"? Gee uh like your Evolution article :). tmtoulouse oppress 22:35, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
If you are talking about a non-English Conservapedia, that would be veeeery hard to run by Andy: How would he check for liberal bias in his precious articles if he can't read them? There would have to be several, totally trusted sysops with solid language skills before Andy even considers another language.
And then you would face a different problem: How can you expect (for example) a German "Konservapedia" to stick to US-centric views like the current CP does? Heck, "conservative" in Germany is mighty liberal by US standards, methinks.
Are you thinking of a translation project or actually localized wikis? The difference is important. --Sid 22:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I still think Andy would be wisest to kick out Ken, RobS, and the rest and restart the project as a 100% homeschool project. By-homeschool-for-homeschool, so to speak. That's an original take that I haven't seen elsewhere, and if Andy was at all a competent teacher (I know, I know), he'd be able to do really interesting things with it. Maybe keep a couple of folks like Ed or whoever as "chaperones" to keep the kids on track, and maybe some guest editors with special expertise, but otherwise limit editing to the kids. That, I think, would be pretty cool. Not likely to happen, but potentially cool. --Kels 22:17, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
That certainly would be an interesting way for CP, but I figure it gets less publicity (and thus fewer opportunities for Andy to push his "Abortions cause breast cancer!" claims as mainstream), so it's not likely to happen. --Sid 22:22, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
You misunderstood I am sure Sid.........conservative imagines the world coming to edit CP in English after all its the only real language. If it was good enough for Jesus its good enough for the Chinese. tmtoulouse oppress 22:17, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Possible, it's past 4am here, so I might've misinterpreted his last comment there. --Sid 22:22, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Ken's right - we've gotten too anti-CP lately. That's a bad thing, and something to get away from, but it's so damn fun. But I don't think we'll make CP stronger, and I certainly don't think that it's fair to characterize CP as anything-friendly, even Christianity-friendly. There is nothing friendly about the hate being peddled at your site. I don't know when it became family-friendly to suggest that a group of people don't deserve to be treated like people, just because of their chosen life partners. And if there's one thing you're doing to Christianity, it sure as hell isn't something positive. Should Christianity hope to become relevant (ever again), it will need to cease being reactionary, and become a force for good - you know, that "love thy neighbor" stuff, and less of the old testament garbage. Where has that gone?-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I heard about Conservapedia from a liberal. I will tell you what he said about CP in a second. Newton 22:59, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
So Mr. Mises above is correct since this wiki spends much time talking about CP. Newton 23:00, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

<-- " I don't think see Conservapedia creating a "What up at RW?" article that is constantly updated." If I had my way, and I think if Trent had his, there would be no CP crap added to this site. Although, well, some is justified by our mission statements. As in, debunking cranks and religious fundamentalism. But our focus should be on influential or prominent figures and websites, not trivial entertainment (ha-ha-ho-ho) links like CP. humanbe in 03:01, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

One has to consider that a lot of the growth of born-again Christians in the developing world is, at best, inaccurate. You need to remember that a great many of the people who convert have done so after having gotten food, medical treatment, or whatever from missionaries. My thoughts are that the vast majority of those converts are lip-sevice born-agin Christians. They play the part very well when something that they desperately need is on the line, but don't think much about their religious enlightenment away from the missionaries. --Edgerunner76 09:56, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

What made you become a creationist?[edit]

You said that you used to be an "evolutionist." When and why did you change?-αmεσ (blackguard) 21:58, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I read creationist written material and found it compelling. If memory serves, after reading creation science books, I started to look at internet material. Newton 22:12, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
When was this? How old were you, and what did you know about evolution beforehand? And what material was it?-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I prefer not to say when. However, I will tell you that I have read the recommended books section books in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article. So if you have not read any creation science material that would be the place to start. Newton 22:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm just curious what makes someone turn away from science. Was there another factor? Are you a science major at SUNYB?-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
False dichotomy. I turned towards science. Science is not materialism or methodological naturalism. Newton 23:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
If it's science, then it won't be a problem for you to give us some experimental results, then. Come now, what scientific experiments (using scientific methodology, of course, otherwise it ain't science) support creationism? I keep asking you, and you keep dodging. --Kels 23:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what piqued your interest in questioning "evolutionarianism" for the first time?-αmεσ (blackguard) 23:16, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I thought the evolutionary worldview conflicted with the biblical worldview and so I asked for information regarding the origins controversy from the creation science view since I had never looked at creation science material before. I think this reasonable response when you are faced with opposing viewpoints. Newton 23:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

<-- "I have read the recommended books section books in Conservapedia's theory of evolution article". Of course you have, Kendoll - you frickin' wrote the section! Dumbass. humanbe in 03:03, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

20 Questions my turn: Does the rabbit chew its cud?[edit]

Tell me what you think ken. tmtoulouse oppress 22:14, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I am undecided on that matter. Newton 22:35, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I chew mine, and I'm not a rabbit. Does that help? I also chew apples, which fall on Newton's head, to no apparent avail... humanbe in 03:04, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Question Two: Evidence[edit]

You make a big deal about evidence above, so how 'bout it? What experimental evidence supports creationism? What actual experiments are conducted that support things being created the way they are, what material evidence supports things like kangaroos floating to Australia, and so forth? Note that blindly quoting stuff to make "evolutionists" look bad will be taken as admission that you have no case, so please avoid that nonsense. --Kels 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Kels, what non-evolutionary books have you read in regards to origins? Newton 22:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Gee, I read a thing called "Genesis" (and, ironically, provide customer support for their speakers as part of my living...) and it, er, didn't convince me. humanbe in 03:06, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
DING! WRONG ANSWER! You have supplied no evidence and a logical fallacy to boot, to say nothing of trying to change the subject. Try again. --Kels 22:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Way to dodge the question. Tool. PFoster 22:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

What non-creationist books have you read?-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:38, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I was educated in the public school and public university system. Evolution material was even brought into my Western Civilization class but I of course told him that it wasn't history. :) The history professor and I did not get into a heated debate about it and kept it very cordial. Other than that I will not tell you what evolutionary material I examined. I like to keep the opposition guessing. :) However, we do know that I have read Scientific American material as I quote it in the CP Charles Darwin article and I just quoted Michael Shermer from Scientific American in a previous post here. :) Newton 22:51, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
You only quote evolutionary literature when it's convenient for you. --transResident Transfanform!
I like to keep the opposition guessing.
Yeah, because to you, this isn't REALLY about trying to find 'scientific truth' or any similar such self-aggrandizing bull, it's just about making sure Your Team Wins. --Gulik 23:27, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Where's that evidence, Ken? For extra credit, how can you say that Hitler, Stalin, and any number of other huge, awful things were influenced by evolutionary theory, and on the other say it's not suitable for a history class? That's ridiculous, and it makes it very hard to take you seriously. --Kels 23:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Kels, I said man's supposed evolutionary past is not fitting for a western civ class although the effect of the evolutionary hypothesis upon history certainly is. The award winning historian David Hackett Fisher says historical investigations are probabilistic and the evolutionary hypothesis is so contrary to the evidence it is not plausible. CP's TOE article with its attendant cited material clearly shows this. Newton 23:23, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes it is. If it happened in the past, it's history. --Gulik 23:27, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, technically history is about stuff that's recorded. Otherwise it's prehistory. But prehistory is usually covered in history classes, so it would be a bit pedantic so not ridiculous to argue that it's better kept to science classes than history. Point to Ken, I suppose, although no points for failing (again) to provide those experiments and evidence. --Kels 23:31, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Mutations are certainly experimental evidence for creation science as the mutations show that macroevolution cannot happen. [5] Also, Swedish geneticist, Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[6] Newton 23:59, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Dude, it's rather obvious that we (you and I) are now from different species. Or at least I hope so. I surely hope we never get the chance to interbreed... humanbe in 03:09, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
That is rather non-sensical. If you truly believe evolution fails to describe life, then you need to come up with more plausible theory that has more evidence. Unfortunately, as the paragraph above shows, you have no actual knowledge of science.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 00:01, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Even more so, it doesn't seem to contain any actual evidence, but just carries on in the same manner as Ken's usual rantage. (1) Evolution is bad, mm'kay. (2) Copious quotes attacking the credibility of evolution supporters. (3) Repetition of canard that if we don't know every moment of the fossil record then there's room for magical events. (4) Conclusion that it must have been God after all. Again, it's "evolution is wrong" rather than "Creationism is right" with no actual experiments performed. It's all thought experiments, like the Flat Earth Society was famous for. Sorry Ken, but you fail. --Kels 00:08, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Please stop deleting your talk page.[edit]

Just because you got utterly pwned in multiple arguments at once is no reason for an intellectually honest person, such as you claim to be, to shut down the debate. --23:15, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

After 32KB the message at top says to archive due to browser issues.Newton 23:17, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Not to worry, we linked your archive to the main page. CЯacke® 23:52, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
Rkiving is fine, and good housekeeping. Just try not to kill ongoing discussions. Which you probably did, since I remember leaving a bunch of drunken snark here that totally pwned you, and it's gone bye bye a day later... Eh, not like I expect anything resembling intellectual honesty from you, anyway. humanbe in 03:13, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

How I found out about Conservapedia! Anti-Conservapedia messages do advertise Conservapedia![edit]

In a previous section I said that anti-movements fail and advertise their opponents. I cited Mr. Mises who was cited by Mr. Michael Shermer in Scientific American.

This is the first message I read about Conservapedia:

Guess what? Apparently wikipedia is far, far too liberal. So some courageous, patriotic Christians are going to create their own version of wikipedia, entitled conservapedia.

Why is wikipedia so liberal and godless? Here are some reasons they cite.

1. Wikipedia cites many dates using C.E. and not A.D. C.E. is anti-christian. 2. Wikipedia contains articles on trivia, such as movies, T.V. shows and the like. 3. Wikipedia doesn't contain an article about elementary proofs (Elementary proofs don't use complex numbers).

4. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most english speaking users are American. Conservapedia of course, is pro-American, so it doesn't use British spellings.

5.(Summing up several points) Christianity deserves more credit than wikipedia gives it. Those heathens!

6. (The usual ID rant) Articles and edits that include "facts

On his second post he wrote this:

The link to conservapedia, is simply

The specific link to their problems with Wikipedia is:

Wow, you wrote that all yourself? You should be embarrassed.
1. Who cares how dates are ref'd, my preference would be the oldest calendar, which I believe is Chinese.
2. Wow, an encyclopedia with "trivia". Tonight I read all about pro basketball, and Pedro Martinez. Yup, trivia. But well written, footnoted and informative.
3. Huh? Bet it does now, you dumb ass.
4. Most English speakers are not American. Dumbass.
5. Chrtistianity? Why? Oooh, nice book ya got there... to bad half of it was written by a freaked out homophobic idiot.
6. Wha...? Maybe you got edited badly, but, u,, that isn't even a sentence.
And, to wrap up, RW isn't an "anti" movement. It's a "pro" movement. Pro-science, pro-rational, pro-evidence, etc. Eh, too bored to rip you more excretory orifices, humanbe in 04:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Troll feeding[edit]

While it may be an enjoyable weekend activity, it is unfortunately a rhetorical exercise at best. The mindset of creationists is not capable of understanding science without being broken down and rebuilt.

For example, the focus on individuals is a very religious, not scientific idea. Scientists are not "Darwinists", "Galileists", "Capericists", "Einsteinians", "Bohrites" or anything else. They are "physicists" (study physics, no matter who writes about it), "biologists" (no matter whose name is attached to a particular theory).

Creationists seem to think that we, like they, are lulled into a blissful ignorance by charismatic leaders. If teaching and doing science were as easy as preaching, we'd by liviin' large on planet Mars.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 23:59, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Palm, I cite the following: "Yet according to Professor Stephen Jay Gould, there really is a genuinely religious dimension, of sorts, to this matter:"... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ..."2 Given that Gould made his observation back in 1978, it is worth noting that time has done nothing to moderate this view. As Michael White put it, in 2002: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."3 [7] I would point out that Dawkins and Gould certainly have or had their followers too. I cannot think of any creation scientist have had such sway over the creation science community. Granted some kind words were said about Dr. Morris when he passed away but nobody went to the extremes given above as cited in regards to the evolutionary community. Newton 00:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I think that quote's an uncommon. Which set did you get it from? --Gulik 01:55, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
You are missing the point, probably because you are consumed by that mindset. You make my point for me by citing individual scientists. If you were to study any field in science, you could do so without referring to a particular scientists name (except that for those of us interested in history of science, it's invaluable). The ideas are primary, not the people who speak them.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 00:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I've never seen such a blankly blind response to an assertion as Kendoll's to yours, Doc. It's not even literate. I have no idea what he is talking about. humanbe in 04:59, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Still, there is the small matter of the Kuhnian paradigm shifts. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
This user tries not to feed trolls, but does "play" sometimes.

Tsk, tsk. The quote may be FROM individual scientists, BUT they are ABOUT the scientific community as a whole. (Whether they are accurate or not is something else again.) And the scientific community acts on the basis of whatever the dominant members chose to believe at any given time - NOT, as this claim naively suggests, on the basis of absolute objectivity. (Pure pragmatism - you argue with your boss, you don't get promotion, choice projects, etc.) There's also the rather crucial point that absolute objectivity is a myth. In practise people, including scientists, usually make their decisions, judgements, etc. on the basis of "gut feelings." Rationality only comes in at the justification stage.

Just Rewards[edit]

Well, I'm gonna cut out, since it's late. But before I go, I want to give credit where it's due to Ken/Conservative/Newton/whatever the hell other names he goes by. For dodging questions, obfuscating, providing spurious "evidence" and outright lying above and beyond the call, this one's for you. --Kels 00:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)


Nice BANHaMMeR!!!!! (Clunk.) Mebbe he'll use it on CP, notice they copy most of our cool neologisms... humanbe in 05:01, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Ahahaha, what a wonderful and hilarious start into my day! XD --Sid 08:12, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

In all seriousness[edit]

Discussions like this help sharpen our minds, question ourselves, and generally serve a useful purpose--to a point.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 08:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

No errors in your evolution "article"?[edit]

I posted this bit of snark in WIGO. Ken, while it is true that no-one has pointed you to a "single" error in your article - in fact, we have pointed to numerous errors, not a single error - you cannot begin to suggest that just because you ignore, devalue, and block off all criticism, that your arguments are unassailable. That's circular: "My arguments are correct, therefore all criticism is unfounded bias. Therefore, there is no non-biased criticism of my arguments. It follows that my arguments are correct." What the hell? Finally, since your little essay isn't so much an encyclopedic recitation of facts, as an agglomeration of quotes (mutated, cut, pasted, and perverted from their original nature to serve your needs like some horrible zombie-quote) interspersed with opinion, the only error per se will naturally be in your quote-mines (which you refuse to recognize) and your opinions (which you do not allow to be countered). Quote errors have been pointed out to you numerous times. Erroneous conclusory statements have also been pointed out to you, day in day out, for nearly six months. To say that there is "no criticism" is the plainest, most bald-faced lie that I have ever seen.-αmεσ (blackguard) 15:39, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

As I recall, the man himself said, "You cannot lie about something that never happened." So to him, nothing at all he's said is in error, and instead all criticism is unsubstantiated. --Kels 16:27, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Please forgive me, once again, but reading the above, I have to vandalize this page AGAIN! This guy is totally irredeemable. As a Human, as a so-called "Scholar". He is, quite simply, a walking Bot.-----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 16:28, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

What value has fundamentalism?[edit]

As another question, I pose this to you: what value does fundamentalism have to humankind?-αmεσ (blackguard) 15:39, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Nice blankie? humanbe in 16:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Are we talking about science-oriented "fundamentalism, " religion-oriented fundamentalism?

Or in Richard Dawkins' case, both?

Ummmm..."science-oriented fundamentalism"??!?!?! PFoster 08:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


can't beat three feet?The AlienDon't tase me, Bro!!! 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Google grabbing GBS[edit]

"Gay bowel syndrome" is an outdated term from the 1980’s that appeared accidentally in the textbook, First Principles of Gastroenterology: The Basis of Disease and An Approach to Management,according to a CAG official. "It slipped into this [edition] purely by accident," said Dr. Eldon Shaffer, head of the Department of Medicine at the University of Calgary and the textbook’s co-author. "I didn’t even know it was still in there; I had to find it… It’s gone." Susantalk to me 23:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Only 6 more days until National Coming Out day![edit]

I can see you're busy at CP getting all the articles spruced up to scare 14yo's (like yourself) into suicide or a lifelong hatred of themselves. CЯacke® 19:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

How's that main conservative news service pickup going?[edit]

I'm not repeating the title.-αmεσ (blackguard) 17:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I am sure it will happen! Idiot Boy has just a few more tweeks to do to GBS, and another dozen or so other horrid disease articles to add, that at least three blogs say are only contracted and passed by Homosexuals! Thisis his important work, you know! Does anyone know if this turd has a job? I don't even see how he manages to attend classes....----ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 01:40, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Ken, I was excitedly waiting, reloading the CP main page, tuning in at 8 PM (time zone?). And it went away. Aw, shucks. Maybe you just suck, and nobody cares? humanUser talk:Human 04:29, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Hah! Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never "jam today". Susantalk to me 12:38, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you an important e-mail[edit]

I just sent you an important e-mail.-αmεσ (blackguard) 15:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I will be sending you a very important email in two minutes[edit]

I will be sending you a very important email in two minutes. humanUser talk:Human 16:25, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot[edit]

Your refs in that article are still a mess. Do you know how to do named refs? Do you care? VirileSterileyawn! 18:48, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, FYI, extremist means having no moderate views. You are an extremist by that definition. It matters not that you can cite stuff. VirileSterileyawn! 19:07, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Haven't people actually offered to help you with the refs several times? What's the matter, afraid they're gonna use the formatted refs to sneak in some very subtle liberal deceit? Uchiha 15:37, 5 November 2007 (EST)

You should really than Bronzefinger for finally fixing your article. It only took from July 10 to March 7... almost eight months. Sterilexx 20:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Just a note[edit]

I've seen your run-in with Jallen and PJR over to CP. I admire your wit and use of logic to defend your essays article from these subtle vandals, the worst kind of "friends", betrayers who say nasty things behind your back and make secret whispers to unnamed search engine employees.

CЯacke® 06:42, 9 November 2007 (EST)


If using british spelling is racist to americans, surely using american spelling is racist to non american english speakers? Of which there are more than a billion. Apart from anything, the damn language is called English. As in England. --Rak 04:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Prodding the dragon[edit]

Without indulging further in that oversexualized metaphor, and (as it turned out) empty promise, what exactly do you have planned for teh Trusworthy Encyclopedia? Return of the Turkel?-αmεσ (blackguard) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)


This page needs more GOAT

Regarding Conservapedia's atheism article: In due time, Conservapedia user "Robert Turkel" may return. It was far from an empty promise. However, in the meantime, I have a message for atheists. Before the Ides of March appear, there will be an interesting development in relation to Conservapedia's atheism article. In addition, it is probable that an organization well known for contending against atheism/materialism will be linking to Conservapedia.Newton 18:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
That is a familiar writing style. Bow before me! Buttsehks??? Phallus of Satan 18:46, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Uh okay. You just keep us informed....... tmtoulouse oppress 18:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Wait, did you just overindentedly threaten us with imminent destruction "before the Ides of March"!? -αmεσ (blackguard) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Sic semper tyrannis Pinto's5150 Talk 18:52, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Hi Conservative! Nice of you to drop by. Speaking of Google rankings, guess what the #6 (#5 until recently) result for a search for "Conservapedia" is? I guess we still have more to learn from Conservapedia's resident master of search engine optimization, though. UchihaKATON! 19:27, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Also: By the way, what did you think of Ed's recent article? Does it fit into your grand scheme? UchihaKATON! 19:29, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, did you and Rob have a good time together? You were on one of those "gay cruises", right? As "undercover research" for CP, natch. --Kels 19:32, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe they went on one of those special "get the ghey out" retreats. Phallus of Satan 20:20, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Isn't it a sleeping dinosaur? Sterilexx 08:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Ken Jr. are you still living with your mom and dad? I guess they must despair that you'll never get married. Once a guy hits his mid-forties he tends to get set in his "ways". Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:24, 14 February 2008 (EST)

How's that Atheism article?[edit]

So, Mr Demeyer, when I was in kindergarten, my mommy taught me the difference between positive attention and negative attention. For example, in kindergarten terms, the latter occurs when you beat up a kid and get sent to the principal's office, while the former occurs when you do well on a test, for example. Let's fast forward a couple decades. Positive attention is when you write something that people are interested in, and think is impressive - like a peer reviewed science article! But negative attention is when you write something, and people mock you for it. Do you follow? So tell me whether you think that you've gotten positive, or negative attention from your Google rank boosts. I'll wait.-αmεσ (blackguard) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (EST)

See Jesus Christ. AKjeldsen thinks it is teh funnie! humanUser talk:Human 22:55, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Ken, what do you think of this? It certainly is concise. --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 07:42, 20 February 2008 (EST)
AmesG, I certainly don't want to say anything bad about your momma. However, if your momma never told you the maxim mentioned in this video I think she should should have. The reason I say this is because you merely have a fraction of the data as can be seen here I will further add that two prominent Christian organizations link to the Conservapedia atheism article from their websites. Perhaps you should go on a "internet Easter egg hunt" and find them because I am afraid your current modus operandi will likely not reveal them.  :) Newton 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ides of March?[edit]

What's this about?-αmεσ (blackguard) 23:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Nazi sillyness[edit]

Then the Germans lost the war. That showed they are not any master race.Barbara Shack 03:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)

OMFG! Barbara can talk! -- pasnamuħ   04:13, 5 March 2008 (EST)
See, evolution really does work! Or did you think it was your God that killed all those Jews and then decided to punish the Nazis? Not quite as effective as a flood, but the repercussions are still being felt in the Near East.Rational Edevidence 14:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)


As the Ides of March nears, I can't help but notice that nothing's happened, except that your blog has slid ever closer to irrelevance and insanity. Was that the surprise? Will CP finally implode?-αmεσ (blackguard) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Have you seen my Homosexuality Compendium? It's grrrrrreat! NightFlareSpeak, mortal 18:00, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, it's just your intelligent design "article." How boring.-αmεσ (blackguard) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

See Essay:Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution I'm running a campaign against Lulz which humiliates fellow freethinkers. For the moment I'm making an exception in your case because of your crazy religious beliefs.Barbara Shack 05:53, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


That "Top o'the mornin'" crap will make you no friends in Oirland, my stage-Irish friend. Lose it. DogP 02:06, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Dogged, I just wanted to let you know that the Conservapedia atheism article is ranked quite high at Google Ireland as can be seen here: Newton 15:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Which has exactly what to do with Ireland's supposed (read:likely) dislike of Conservapedias use of stereotypically Irish rhetoric? Qcontinuum 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gentleman, I just came to remind you that you have an account here, so you don't have to make cryptic messages over at CP and look mentally deranged[edit]

Gentleman, I just came to remind you that you have an account here, so you don't have to make cryptic messages over at CP and look mentally deranged. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 23:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

In regards to gentlemen at another site and homosexuality, it has been shown conclusively that "other sites" are a euphemism for dangerous, degrading, and offensive to our Lord behaviors of a possibly deviant nature[edit]

In regards to gentlemen at another site and homosexuality, it has been shown conclusively that "other sites" are a euphemism for dangerous, degrading, and offensive to our Lord behaviors of a possibly deviant nature. humanUser talk:Human 21:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Ken, do you really think the fact that we hadn't replied to you meant we agreed? Sigh, I know you just said that to piss me off, so enough said.
As to the "look how much traffic I'm bringing!" thing... did you ever think that it's negative traffic? Remember the liberal blogswarm that occurred when the top 10 CP articles were all gay-related, a ton of people came to mock you, and a simple "who's linking what" analysis would reveal that. They come to laugh, not to love. Sad but true.-αmεσ (blackguard) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Quoting his own edit comment: "The other place drives traffic to CP." So yeah, he knows. But stats are stats. So if a clickbot gives an article a million views, then that article has a million views.
Also, Ken, we don't dedicate a WIGO to each of your ramblings, sorry. But I might whip one up about the New Guy pwning you into locking your talk page. --Sid 21:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I repeat, for the tone-deaf: In regards to gentlemen at another site and homosexuality, it has been shown conclusively that "other sites" are a euphemism for dangerous, degrading, and offensive to our Lord behaviors of a possibly deviant nature!! (one, eleven, !!! pwned!) humanUser talk:Human 22:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

The secret of comedy is timing, Ken. The last time, we were all over your announcements for the lulz, and they were honestly hilarious. But this time,'s been done. And frankly, a little pathetic. So we've gone from the class clown who thinks everyone likes him for himself and not his antics to making fun of the kids from the "special class". And that's just sad. --Kels 22:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

The secret of drama is coming, Ken. The first time, we were all over your pronouncements for the grotesquery, and they honestly grotesque. But last time, well, it's yet to be given a shit about. And frankly, hugely prosthetic. So we've gone from the village idiot who eats cold porridge to wondering about who changes your diapers. And that's just sad. humanUser talk:Human 23:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Memory hole-in-one[edit]

From USER:C's talk page:

==Conservapedia stats on the site that must not be named==

I have updated them according to the source you have so kindly provided. Contrary to "popular" belief, these edits will not be reverted or result in someone being blocked, so next time feel more than welcome to make the appropriate changes. StatsMsn 22:15, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

It's pity it took a public shaming for it to happen, but your notice regarding the change has been duly noted. Conservative 22:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
I see there is no footnote in regards to the aforementioned edit at that website. Not surprising. It appears the fallacy of exclusion is still alive and well in regards to liberalism. It appears as if you don't want your readers to see the most recent climb in Conservapedia's alexa rank. Get back to me when you have the guts to provide a footnote to Alexa regarding Conservapedia. I could carve out of a banana someone with more backbone than the irrational liberals at that website who are disturbed by the truth and are trying to bury their head in the proverbial sand. :) Conservative 22:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
What type of footnote would you desire? Please post the wording of one here, on my talk page, or feel free to add it into the article yourself. Also the reason these stats have no been added earlier is not because some people wish to hide the truth, but instead because the page has been largely forgotten by those who monitor Alexa (the last time the site stats appear to have had a major update was in January). Again, I extend a welcome to you to correct any information you perceive to be false or misleading. StatsMsn 22:43, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
StatsMsn, Just do it. I tire of your liberal insincerity. Provide a footnote/link to Alexa in regards to your edit using a link to an appropriate Alexa graph. Conservative 22:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
I am only here to help you and this site, trying to order me to do something and using phrases such as "liberal insincerity" is not assisting this process. Another user has posted a footnote, is this to your liking? If not I would be more than happy to change it, but you would need to provide me with a more appropriate wording, as I am not sure exactly what you're after. Again, please feel free to edit the page yourself, you will not be reverted without discussion, nor will you be blocked. StatsMsn 22:55, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
The site in question is a pathetic joke. Do what you will. I don't plan on looking at the website for a long while and perhaps never again. I don't know why I even bothered looking at the edit without the footnote and I don't plan on pulling teeth regarding getting an appropriate footnote/link. Conservative 23:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
If it's a pathetic joke you seem to spend quite a bit of time talking to it and complaining about its statistics. We are more than welcome to accommodate any changes you propose, you will not have to pull any teeth, merely post here what you believe the footnote should say and I will add it to the article. Otherwise, until next time you have a complaint, so long. StatsMsn 23:20, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Please don't delete my comments StatsMsn. If I want to taunt this clown, I will. ~ WorldEnterprise 23:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Red Telephone[edit]

Ken, we've catered to the needs of our Special Relationship and have opened a Red Telephone Hotline for you to use when you wish to speak with the Gentlemen At Another Website. We hope that neither Operation Illinois nor Operation Apologist will require it, but in case of dire emergency, at least both parties know it is there for us. The lines are open 24/7. Be well. DogP 16:37, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

A Possible Solution for This Increasingly Silly Red Telephone "Gentleman" Business, Conservative[edit]

Would you just give that up and post here instead if we promised not to post... mean things on your talk page? You'd get less awkward questions from other editors there. The only advantage of your current sytem is that you never have to read the replies in direct promixity to the message, and I think we could achieve just by refraining from responding to you on the page you would post on here.

If you ever log in at RationalWiki, you'll see this message, so tell us what you think. 16:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken, if you put your pronouncements on subpages of your user page here we can banter on their talk pages, which is much simpler than trying to "discuss" these things via TWIGO. Most of us can't, you know, discuss these matters of great importance on CP with you... humanUser talk:Human 17:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Your "challenge" to Austin Cline[edit]

If course Cline can't "effectively respond" to your ranting on Conservapedia--you'd just ban him if he did. --Gulik 23:47, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I doubt Cline's even ever heard of your article, Ken (unless you've emailed him to harass him about it recently). Why should he care, when nobody else does? I suppose if he did take the time to write out some sort of refutation (or even mention you), he'd likely also write up a post about it. Then, seeing as his blog is apparently more popular than yours, keen readers would spill on over through the link, and you'd have a fresh new influx of attention (read: mockery). Because all press is good press, amirite? Ken, your plans are paper thin and soggy as a wet tissue. UchihaKATON! 00:07, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


Ken, I left you a message here.-caius (orator) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Attention, Newton: Operation Clusterfuck will soon be IN EFFECT[edit]

So, you don't mind if I make a few edits to your user page, do you? If not, just chime in here and let me know. --Gulik 01:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Regarding your sysop position and in regards to Hitler as well[edit]

You are now a sysop, until I find the law review article I'm looking for (damn thing's keeping me up!). I give you five minutes to destroy RW.-caius (orator) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It took less time than I thought.-caius (orator) 02:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Credit where it's due, old man[edit]

Gish Gallop.png

You've definitely earned it.

Duanegish.jpg The Duane Gish Monthly Award
For significant contribution to quote mining and lying about your sockpuppet activity
 K e n  D o l l 

Duane dibley.png The Duane Dibley Award
For significant contributions in the field of lacking any social grace whatsoever.
 K e n  D o l l 

He has returned![edit]

Hi, Newton! Quick, put some pictures of HITLER up! That'll show us evil Darwin-worshippers the error or our ways! --Gulik 15:19, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Also, Operation Boatlight and Project Ruptured Kumquat will SOON BE IN EFFECT. You have been warned. --Gulik 15:23, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Demoting  K e n  D o l l [edit]

If I demote  K e n  D o l l  Newton do you think TK will ban him as being an admin of a site that wants to destroy CP like he did to HelpJazz? - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 17:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Dude, get with the program. I demoted him hours ago...TheoryOfPractice 18:26, 12 January 2009 (EST)
You're expecting consistency from TK? It is to laugh bitterly. --Gulik 18:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

You're a sysop!!![edit]

Hi, Newton. Welcome back. You are now a sysop on Rationalwiki. If you have any questions, please read our sysop's instruction manual. TheoryOfPractice 18:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

PJR and TK are back at CP, Newton graces us with his presence here... anyone seen HeartOfGold lately? Bzzzz! --Gulik 15:28, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You favorite article[edit]

Gentlemen, there are a few things which may soon occur that may cause your favorite CP article to be ranked in the Google top 10. The article already ranks in the top 10 at MSN and Yahoo. Please tell AmesG to tell a certain gentleman the good news. Newton 10:38, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't know that you actually copied and pasted from the Kenquote template. Bastard bastard Hoover! 10:41, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Gentlemen! I will give your precious raid, enabling me to destroy atheism on the internet. You should all be ruminating over Operation bank heist, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.

Gentleman Hastur!

I have found the cp:atheists paradise! Behold: [1]. Perhaps if atheists drank more Slim Fast and less beer the could be as fit and attractive as Christians! And maybe they would not lack machismo! your comments in regards to the death of atheism on the internet are slightly foolish. Regarding Bestiality and morality, you gloss over that If you could face this unpleasant reality in your article on your website about yourselves, I will be impressed. However, I do not expect to be impressed lest I allow you to disappoint me. In fact, by Adolph Hitler's birthday, it is likely Liberal Panty-waists will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)

Rest assured, Operation Eucharist Microwave Pecan is gathering steam!!! Waves of creationist material will soon hit the internet, and your boats dont look too sea-worthy! Sincerely,

KD Buffalo

My favourite CP article is cp:Linux. I look forward to it being in the top 10 at Google. I'd never be able to find it otherwise. Bondurant 10:48, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Some additional good news![edit]

Please tell AmesG to tell Dawkins that CP now ranks in the top 10 for the search Richard Dawkins at both Yahoo and MSN. I am going to put in some additional information into the Richard Dawkins article which you are going to be quite fond of.  :) Also, I am sure you would love it if a certain CP article beginnning with an E ranks in the top 10 for a certain search beginning with an E at a search engine beginning with a G. :) The public's confidence in liberal pseudoscience is diminishing and will likely continue to do so whether you choose to believe this will happen or not.[8] Newton 10:59, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

So many people laughing at you! The closet will be lively with partying tonight! Bastard bastard Hoover! 11:05, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Ames just called. He said Dawkins just shat his pants.
In other news:
Ding dong the witch is dead.jpg

Ding! dong! The witch is dead!

Huzzah! The wicked witch Conservapedia is dead!
The denizens of Munchkinland Rationalwiki will be partying tonight!

Bondurant 11:08, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
AmesG, remember as far as the CP article that begins with an E, there are a few things which may soon occur that may cause your favorite CP article to be ranked in the Google top 10. The article already ranks in the top 10 at MSN and Yahoo. AmesG, please be sure to tell tell a certain gentleman the good news. Newton 11:11, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Mr. Hoover, appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy and we both know that the ireligious are often quite irrational.[9] Newton 11:11, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
  • titter* Says the one who trumped up the fact that his Google rankings were first for a term he created. Bastard bastard Hoover! 11:52, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy? This from the man who has repetition about different 10 logical fallacies in each of his pet articles. Isn't there something in the bible about the speck in someone else's eye when you have a log in yours. - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 20:41, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Wassup, Ken, got fed up with us ignoring your "Gentlemen" shouts?. Careful TK don't ban you for being a member of a VANDAL SITE. Love as always ToastToastand marmite 12:36, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Ole! Ole! Ole! Welcome back to the rat-infested swamp of the atheist evilutionist internets, Ken! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 14 April 2009 (EDT)


it appears to me that this user talk page has been vacant since April 2009. As it is now 2011, i suggest we do something about it. -- my name is slugboy 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And what did you have in mind, exactly? Punky Your mental puke relief 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Look Ken, if you wanna debate here I am[edit]

All your tactics are plainly see through. If you had machismo you'd come here, now, and debate without all these little qualifiers. The fact you don't mean's you don't have the intellectual stones. Ace McAwesome 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ace, in order to debate me, you or your wiki community was requested to donate $20,000 to a Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability endorsed Christian relief organization of my choosing. All you had to do was find a trustworthy conservative Christian to handle the transaction for you and there are certainly no shortage of responsible and trustworthy pastors you could have chosen, but you failed to comply with my reasonable request. We all know that as a Christian I have would have handily won the debate and it would not have been due to my debating prowess, but due to the utter indefensibility of atheism and the abundant evidence for Christianity. Atheism has a glass jaw and its flabby midsection cannot take a punch as evidenced by Conservapedia's atheism and obesity article. :) Newton (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You think twenty thousand dollars is "reasonable" for a debate? I agree with Ace; you set intentionally unreasonable qualifiers so that you can avoid debate, simply because you lack the intellectual honesty & capability to debate properly. I'm sure you'd still find ways to quote-mine, misrepresent, & otherwise bear false witness, though. How does it feel, by the way, being scorned by even other far-right evangelicals? I hope you're proud of being a modern-day Pharisee, Ken.

Hey Newton[edit]

Good to see you. Why not stick around, maybe grace us with one of your essays on foreign affairs (which you then stay here to defend). --DamoHi 08:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AceMcWicked: Look in the mirror, stop your bellyaching and start believing in science[edit]

AceMcWicked, according to Bryn Mawr College, cigarette smoking causes brain impairment![2] If you truly believed in science, you wouldn't smoke!

AceMcWicked, I read your essay: What The Hell is Wrong With People? First, you complain about the unhealthy eating habits some obese grocery patrons, but at the same time you mention that you attempted to buy cigarettes at the grocery. According to medical science, cigarette smoking is hazardous to one's health.[10] If you truly believed in science, you wouldn't smoke! Isn't that right? Next time you want to point a nicotine stained finger at an obese grocery patron and the food items he/she is purchasing, look in personal health practices mirror!

Second, according Bryn Mawr College, cigarette smoking causes brain impairment! I cite: "Nicotine, one of the most frequently used addictive drugs, is only one of the more than 4,000 chemicals found in the smoke from tobacco products. Carbon monoxide another detrimental chemical reaches the brain and binds to the hemoglobin and thereby reduces the usual binder oxygen, which is necessary for cellular metabolism. Research is also beginning to show that there are other psychoactive ingredients in tobacco."[11]

Third, you complain about an obese grocery patron ahead of you in line not having his/her debit/credit card ready to make a purchase, but at the same time, you were not prepared to your buy cancer sticks by having proper identification showing your age! Here is a saying that every God fearing American Boy Scout learns: Be prepared!

Lastly, your silly slavish and obsessive adherence to Alan Guth's notions are unwarranted. Have there been repeatable experiments duplicating a big bang of a universe or Guth's inflation model or his notions on how the universe started? No! Mere sandcastles that will be washed away. I don't blame Mr. Rayment for his benign and patient dismissal of your obsessive defense of Guth's notions. I would have told you to move on far earlier. On the on the other hand, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has ample evidence to support it. Simon Greenleaf was one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law school and his was considered an expert on weighing evidence and wrote a classic work on the subject entitled Treatise on the Law of Evidence which was a standard law textbook in the 19th century in American law schools. Please read Greenleaf's Testimony on the evangelists. Jesus created the universe and God's creation was accomplished in 6 days! As Professor Simon Greenleaf would no doubt say if he were alive today, "Case closed"! Newton (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Jesus created the universe?" You're bonkers. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 20:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Did I miss" fourth?" PACODOGwoof, bitches 20:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Did someone hack Ken's account? This doesn't really sound like him. --Kels (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC) "Monty Python reference, ad hominem. Non-sequitur! Declaration of future victory. Loaded ad hominem. Ad hominem. Appeal to authority. Arbitrary prerequisite. Statement of fringe religious beliefs as fact! Appeals to authority and clichéd humor." (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
...Oh. If I'd remembered this was Ken, I probably wouldn't have bothered. (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ken, just as an aside as we're talking about "belief systems" here, the reason Karajou did not receive a reply here from a user about Evidence for Atheism on CP is because the user was blocked less than 3 hours later for that one edit being denounced as "Trolling / Liberal Trolling." So when you popped along 3 weeks later to gloat about it, calling the user "just another post and run atheist", this was because he was blocked by one of your administrators before he had a chance to reply. I'm sure this was a simple oversight on your behalf and you'll promptly be unblocking the user and sending him an apologising email asking for his response, as that's what fair and reasoned people do - listen to an opposing side's arguments before coming to an informed decision. SJ Debaser 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
What in the christing fuck is this all about? Ace of Spades 06:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He has to come here now that we are more popular than CP[edit]

I knew you would be back. Your such an attention whore mate! Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

you guise should be nicer to  K e n  D o l l . It's not easy living as a closet-case schizophrenic.--brxbrx-brxbrx 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
@brxbrx Not entirely sure I am happy with you calling Ken schizophrenic, I think we should keep our speculations on these rather serious and personal matters to ourselves. Schizophrenia is a very specific form of mental illness which, unfortunately, people throw around as an insult. I would prefer that you didn't. --DamoHi 07:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Trent, as I am sure you aware, obese atheists have no problem gaining attention. In many cases, they are the largest person in a room. :) Newton (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ken, as I am sure you aware, the 57 on Heinz ketchup bottles represents the number of varieties of pickles the company once had. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt, make fat jokes! Anyways, shouldn't you be masturbating to images of Chuck Norris' "svelte physique"?--brxbrx-brxbrx 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Of all of CP's echo chamber effects, this is certainly the most baffling one. --Sid (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Creationists are adept at ignoring the facts in order to press a more soothing alternate reality. Pretending fundies aren't fat and miserable and that less religious countries don't have higher standards of living is only troubling if you have unrealistic expectations of these congenital liars. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello Newton. I would like to suggest that you post copies of all your articles here at RW in order to take advantage of its considerable traffic. Just be sure to stick them in essay space and no one can delete it, though you might get more comments than you're used to. Maybe put cp:Evolution at Essay:Evolution is a Myth or something like that. -- (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to address you properly....[edit]

I never really got time to address your section entitled: AceMcWicked: Look in the mirror, stop your bellyaching and start believing in science but I have a fair bit of free time right now so I think I'll answer you. Despite you not having the machismo to reply, engage in debate or be able to offer an honest rebuttal I am probably wasting my time however I wish to educate others. For the record though if you do respond here you'll go up a notch in my book which'll put you at -5 on the Ace McWicked Machismo Scale.
So let me begin, making full use of the tq template...
First, you complain about the unhealthy eating habits some obese grocery patrons, but at the same time you mention that you attempted to buy cigarettes at the grocery. I don't complain, I make mention of it. There are no complaints about what they are eating. I am describing what I saw. As an occasional journalist and habitual writer it is setting the scene in a humourous fashion that earns me a paycheck.
According to medical science, cigarette smoking is hazardous to one's health.[9] If you truly believed in science, you wouldn't smoke! Isn't that right? I am in absolute agreement. Which is why I recently quit smoking. Smoking is very bad for you, I know this, every smoker knows this but it has no relevance to "believing in science or not". If you yourself believed in medical science you would know that editing a wiki for 30 hours straight is also bad for your health.
Next time you want to point a nicotine stained finger at an obese grocery patron and the food items he/she is purchasing, look in personal health practices mirror! Again you fail reading comprehension. I pointed no finger, merely described a scene. How is it you are certain the bible is inerrant when you fail to understand basic descriptive english?
Third, you complain about an obese grocery patron ahead of you in line not having his/her debit/credit card ready to make a purchase, but at the same time, you were not prepared to your buy cancer sticks by having proper identification showing your age! Here is a saying that every God fearing American Boy Scout learns: Be prepared! Ken fails again. This is the entire point of the essay. As a male over 30 sporting tattoos, facial hair, wearing an expensive tailored suit and popping out from the office briefly and in a hurry should I expect to need ID? The smoking age in NZ is 18 - I am nearly double that age. The point of the story is that someone was willingly abusing their position of authority to gain a victory over someone they felt they had power over. It had nothing to do with my preparedness, only their childishness. Ken - you are the clerk, everyone else is the customer...think about it.
Now, to the science of which you are woefully under read and intellectually challenged by. If you had read my debate with Philip properly you would not that nowhere did I state slavish and obsessive adherence to Alan Guth's notions. The debate wasn't about the validity of Guth's model it was a debate on what Guth meant and what his model actually is. I was in great pains to make clear I wasn't debating whether or not guth was right but what he was actually saying. This is the third time I have had to question your reading comprehension. Secondly you say Have there been repeatable experiments duplicating a big bang of a universe or Guth's inflation model or his notions on how the universe started? No!
No! Really? You must have missed the LHC, Fermilab, the recent installation of the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer-2 on the International Space Station, recent confirmation that Dark Energy is very real, the double slit experiment...and on and on and on. All these things are directly testing theories of Guths, Hawkings and others on the beginnings of the universe. Do not expect me to link, it is all there on a search engine starting with "G" for you to find.
So finally let me ask you: Have there been repeatable experiments duplicating a creation event of a universe or the creationst model or religious notions on how the universe started?
I don't expect you to venture from your intellectual bunny-hole but I know you'll read this. Perhaps you can pass it to the Obese Creationst NephilimFree? Ace of Spades 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, no fucking response. Figures. Youcowardlyfuck. Ace of Spades 04:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ace, as far as your dogged discussion with Mr. Rayment, thanks for the clarification, but I still think you have a slavish devotion to Guth's nonsense. Also, your liberal and atheist buddies at Wikipedia say dark energy is a "hypothetical form of energy". Dark energy, more liberal/atheist mumbo jumbo? :) NASA says concerning so called dark energy "More is unknown than is known", but I suspect they are way overconfident. [12] Maybe the liberals at NASA will have more humility in the future as it seems as if they will be facing multiple rounds of budget cuts due to Washington's profligate ways catching up with them.[13] On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For example, I cite:

Ace, sooner or later, you will acknowledge that Christian evidence trumps atheist speculation.

"For it is written, 'AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." - Romans 14:11 (NASB) Newton (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

dark energy is seen as real because nothing else explains astral drifts. Just like when scientists speculated on Neptune to explain the movement of known planets with regards to their equations. The difference between science and people like you is that scientists don't throw up their hands and say "[[goddidit|it was God!}}" every time they hit a mystery. olé!--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Purely by chance here's a good dissertation on dark matter. Pippa (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Ace of Spades 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Just read your latest essay. Needs more hitler and flying kitties.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi from Spain![edit]

You are hilarious, Ken. The funniest thing is that you give yourself the name of a scientist yet you guys at CP are amongst the most unscientific guys I've ever met. — Unsigned, by: RationalSpanish / talk / contribs

Merry fucking NY you weird fucker........damn straight.Whoot and all that shit.[edit]

AceAce For Mod! 09:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I do this edit?[edit]

I can't edit ANYTHING on CP, and I can't even CONTACT anyone there! Yes, I have a registered account, yes, I have made a quality edit, but no, I can't change CE to AD on pages like Koran, Palestine, Secular Study of Early Islam, 2300 Day Prophecy of Daniel 8, Romans 1, Mosaic (art), History of homosexuality, and "New Testament and homosexuality". These pages are the ones where, as far as I know, CE is not used to make a point. Thanks! Bootmii(Nomic) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mysogynist wanker[edit]


Copied from other talk page (Which is probably not Ken)[edit]

Hi Ken, nice to see you. Scream!! (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

== How are there two Newtons??? ==

This one and this one? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Through Jesus. If you miserable atheists converted back to a REAL religion instead of your pointless worshiping of Dawkins and Darwin, then you two would see much more. Nеwton (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This one's letter "e" is a non-ANSI character. (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes my uneducated atheist friend, the letter e, is a character.


Quick question. Why do you require a 20,000$ contribution to charity to debate you? It seems like an unnecessary, prohibitive qualifier only in place to prevent anyone from actually challenging you. Note, this is an actual question, not an insult. I'm genuinely curious as to why a debate would be worth 20,000$. It would likely change nothing at all, given the strong emotional investment all sides would necessarily have to a) pony up to a ridiculous amount like that and b) be, well, you, a Conservapedia admin and confirmed massive conservative.


Sock puppet.jpg This user is an announced sockpuppet of GiuocoPiano
Bongolian (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Sock puppet.jpg This user is an announced sockpuppet of Margon282
Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Sock puppet.jpg This user is an announced sockpuppet of DonB3357
Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)