Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear)
(How long before........)
Line 380: Line 380:
::::::::::::To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. [[Special:Contributions/|]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. [[Special:Contributions/|]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, just a couple days ago when I projected from Coleman to Hopper, Suspected Replicant was all over me deleting the comment and yelling at me on my talk page. Oh well, c'est la vie. (PS, CP never mentioned Hopper's passing, as far as I could tell) {{User:Human/sig|}} 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
== If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear ==
== If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear ==

Revision as of 20:34, 2 June 2010

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Ken, machismo, again...

A few hours after Ken bans someone for adding "Do socialists have machismo" to the new socialism project, he writes a redlink for the exact same article as part of the "Does X have machismoimg series....P-Foster (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just weird. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I’m just an effeminate quiche-eating limp-wristed Nancy-boy, but I was under the impression that “machismo” wasn’t necessarily a positive characteristic. In fact, I thought that it sort of connotated sexism and violence. But, like I said, perhaps I’m not the most accurate source, what with the quiche-eating or whatever. The electrocutioner (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You say that as if it was a bad thing. Gmb (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken does realize John Wayne was an actor, right? --Kels (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
And might have been... (gasp) homosexual? Or is that just ugly rainbow propaganda? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Really, John Wayne Marion was gay? Acei9 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. It might just be a pride fantasy. Searching the WP article for "homo" yields a "no" beep at the second "o". Also a three year affair with Marlene Dietrich would seem to indicate a preference for the Ladies. Wives and chilluns don't count, they are common among prominent homosexuals, but hobbies, well, they speak large. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Also he wore a hairpiece. And it was a a very machistic hairpiece. Speaking of machismo, watching that utube of one of Ken's lovers reading bits of the RD/machismo article made me fall off my chair. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hollywood values, in any case, if the string of mistresses has anything to say about it. --Kels (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, just out of curiosity: I am not a native anglophone, so I'm looking for feedback from native speakers: is it linguistically correct to argue whether someone HAS machismo or not? Normally, this is a form that I find associated with diseases ("He has AIDS", "She has herpes") but not with other adjectives (e.g., "Andy's brother is gay" and not "Andy's brother has gayness", "Conservapedia is sexist" rather than "Conservapedia has sexism" and so on.) So, is my non-anglophone ear correct in considering this a very awkward form to put it? --Maquissar (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess someone has machismo in the same way someone has charisma. Personality trait is something you can have. If you were using the adjective form you would say is, e,g. so-and-so is charismatic (so-and-so is machismoic?). - π 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Usually macho is used as the adjective. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As Machismo is a spanish word, I guess you'd need to use the spanish adjective, which is "machista", or the noun, "macho" (literally, "male"). Perhaps you are right, some personality traits can be "had" (although you wouldn't say that someone HAS generosity, or kindliness, or evilness)... --Maquissar (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll also note that in Spanish machismo means 'sexism' or 'male chauvinism', which makes Ken's diatribes about Hispanic women not seeing much machismo in Dawkins funny. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one imagining  K e n  D o l l  dancing around his bedroom, singing Sinita's So Macho in to a hairbrush? Don't worry Ken, one day the right hunk of a guy will put an end to your longing. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Machismo is the ism of macho. Macho means manliness. Machismo is male chauvinism like has been said. So they're pretty different concepts. I'm sure Dawkins is happy that years of cultivating a lack of male chauvinism finally paid off with the Latino ladies noticing all his hard work. As for Asian ladies and Dawkin's lack of yin, I have to think that word also has some special ad hoc meaning to which we haven't been made privy by  K e n  D o l l . I laugh out loud every time Kenny boy hammers home just how incurious, self righteous, and stubborn he is with shit like this. Beautiful. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I find it somewhat inconceivable that  K e n  D o l l  is going nuts over machismo when the Wikipedia says (of Machismo) "[it] may be seen as the product of runaway evolution". Co-inkydinks? I think not. MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@ConcernedResident: as soon as I pictured  K e n  D o l l  singing into a hairbrush, for some reason I jumped to him tucking it back and dancing in a mirror - "Would you do me? I'd do me. I'd do me so hard." Maybe it's just that  K e n  D o l l  gives off that level of creepy, or maybe I'm just weird. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with the weird thing. I suspect that mental image is enough to scare a man straight, or make the animal kingdom seem like a good place to look for love. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't it be both?--Opcn (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Say what you will about Ken, but he's consistently managed to crack me up in the last few days. Röstigraben (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Just a thought, can we move this page to "Conservapedia:What is going on?" I was thinking "at CP" at the end sounds a bit redundant. rational homohey 01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We could, but we won't. It is a legacy thing. Once something has been a certain way for a long time, it gets left that way. - π 03:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do I smell vodka...and wheat grass? Acei9 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Pi: They fixed the Y2K problem, although it isn't done until the damages almost kick in.
So if someone can describe the damages other than 6 bytes of title on the page and the talkpage (not counting the extra bytes that shows up due to the redirect) I would gladly support the idea. ThiehWho is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 11:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Page header formatting in Common.css (though it's not necessary to keep that there), autowigo gadget, Pibot/WIGObot (whichever does the archiving), a bunch of double redirects. That's off the top of my head. -- Nx / talk 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the edit notices. -- Nx / talk 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And Capturebot, of course. -- Nx / talk 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that this page is three years old this Thursday. That is like 100 in internet years. Changing it now is like pissing on the history of this wiki. - π 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, what strain would moving such a massive page put on the database? Is it a matter of individually changing tens of thousands of edits to point to different pages, or is it simpler than that? Harmonic cubic Hoover! 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the only thing that needs updating is the category links table and use watchlists. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)And being pedantic, the title of the page is just "What is going on at CP?". That's semi-orthogonal to the fact that the page also resides in the Conservapedia namespace, IMHO. alt (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Have I pointed out that this pages older than the accounts commenting on it? - π 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"It's been like that for a long time" is never a terribly compelling reason by itself for not changing something, though. alt (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What everyone really means is "we like it this way, now bugger off!" Tetronian you're clueless 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What Alt said is the real answer. The time argument does have some strength, too, since this isn't some backwater article on the site that someone just noticed might be misnamed. We've all been looking at it for 3 years with nary a peep about the namespace/article name repetition. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Wouldn't moving this page also have the potential to break my Wiki by creating an enormous workload for the server? Conservative Punk (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not worse than when Human edits his sig. See my reply above. -- Nx / talk 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's why I don't edit my sig... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest RobS Wigo

No disrespect to the poster, nothing wrong with the Wigo. But I get the feeling Rob is just trolling us. He is lying swine no doubt but I can't take him seriously. Acei9 10:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. I heard the same sentiment elsewhere on the interwebs. Every stick is a good one to beat Obama with. — Pietrow 10:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh, he is so obviously full of shit. Acei9 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, he is full of shit, but the interesting thing to me (the creator of the WIGO) was that the article he linked to carried the headline only that Obama was skipping out on Arlington, amid controversy. Then it says only in the next paragraph he was going to a different cemetery, and finally at the end says that GHW Bush never went at all to Arlington, and Reagan once opted to spend a weekend at the ranch instead. Junggai (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob is not trolling. TK is trolling. Robbie just has an IQ in the single digits.--WJThomas (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be useful, or at least interesting, too, just fyi.--WJThomas (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bbbbbuttt it doesn't matter, the damage is done. I keep an ear close to the ground. This headline originated days ago when I overheard several vets -- across the partisan divide -- complain about Obama's decision not to honor the vets. Nevermind the fact Memorial Day is not the day to honor vets, rather fallen vets. Vets have thier own holiday in November. I didn't correct them, I just observed the boiling sentiment toward a Commander in Chief even among vets who are Democrats that voted for Obama. Soooo, you guys just pretend your sophisticated and know the truth, etc. This is the real world, Obama and Company, and you idiots just don't have clue about political realities. nobsdon't bother me 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's just that we idiots know how to read the sources you provide for your claims, which just so happen to contradict the narrative you're inventing. (See Paul Krugman, "The Oil Spill is Obama's Fault.") Junggai (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Even Snopes has taken this one on. I imagine it's a fairly common one. X Stickman (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So because some actual veterans believe the right-wing nonsense about Obama not honouring them, repeating the lie is justified. Got it. Röstigraben (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's things like this that convince me that Rob would be far more happy as a Soviet-style propagandist than a "historian". --Kels (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
'Obama's decision not to honor the vets' - errr...talk about spin. He is honoring them, just not at Arlington. He is, at least, making a speech and visiting a national cemetery - though several other presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush) have chosen not to on occasion. C'est la vie. Worm(t | c) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Rob has the reading skills of a 7 year old, and can't handle complex sentences with more than, say, 6 words. DickTurpis (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys again are missing the point. I heard Democrat Veterans on Friday discussing with Conservative Republican Veterans how Obama decided to show a lack of respect toward Veterans by not laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, etc etc; much discussion ensued about how Vietnam Vets, Vietnam Era Vets, and now Iraqi & Afghan Vets don't get the respect they deserve for the sacrifices they make. And it was exemplified by the Commander in Chief's behaviour, etc etc. And Democratic Veterans were among the first to complain. The fact they didn't understand Memorial Day is not their Day, but rather Dead Veterans Day, you can blame the public schools. Most amazing is, that Obama & advisers, and you guys too, think somehow facts support your case; whereas the reality is veterans who vote are highly offended by your attitudes. And many of these voted for Obama. nobsdon't bother me 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The facts do support our case. If veterans are offended about Obama's imaginary behaviour, that just means they've come to believe the lies they're being told, it doesn't magically turn these lies into facts. Röstigraben (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So you hear that vets are upset he's not attending Arlington - OK, we'll take that anecdote as true. Have you heard if vets in Chicago are upset he's attending at their national cemetery? And do you think that Presidents should spread the love around and not be so Beltway-centric? DogPMarmite Patrol 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a fig leaf, everyone understand. So he interrupted a weekend of basketball & barbecue for a photo op to cover his ass. [3] The people "dying" in the Gulf (James Carville and Jerrold Nadler's word) see it, too. nobsdon't bother me 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Rob, you've been quoted in the media. For some reason they have your name down as "Colin" however. http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-skipping-memorial-day-ceremony,17524/ DickTurpis (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob - could you please answer the questions I asked instead of just repeating your position. We're not going to learn anything if you just keep banging the same nail over and over. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Be reasonable. How is Rob answering questions going to smear Obama? Priorities, man! --Kels (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Come election day, it's the little things that add up. The impressions given. As Obama & the Democrat's poll numbers slide in coming months, think back to this here.
wp:Peggy Noonan nails it (Peggy Noonan, remember? she's the one who actually ended the Cold War by saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall." You will recall, Reagan was just a stooge, idiot, and mouthpiece reading the 3x5 cards in front of him that Peggy Noonan wrote). She says,
[Obama] is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They’re in one reality, he’s in another. [4] nobsdon't bother me 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob - here's a new item that brings a little balance to the story. "I don't think him being at one of the largest veterans cemeteries in the country is an issue", as one vet puts it, although the disagreement is clear. The other thing is that what many seem to be complaining about is that he should be 'observing protocol', but there is no protocol for this event, instead simply habit. It's another Fox News storm in a teacup, IMHO, and yet another example of the fact that US Presidents can do no right, political affiliation be damned. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that a candidate would have the gall to say "Obama skipped praising the troops at Arlington National Cemetery" (which, by the way, was very Reagan-esque) - and then be criticized for neglecting to mention that he went to Chicago to honor the troops there?--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A candidate doesn't have to say it -- how many millions of veterans (and active duty personal) have already made up their minds? Just scroll down to day 39 -41 here cause the people affected by Obama's approval of BP's rig are watching, too. nobsdon't bother me 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
They seem to have a big issue with the President eating, whether in swanky style or at a jes' folks diner. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to criticize Obama for it, then have the standards to criticize Reagan for it too. Go make an edit to Reagan's Conservapedia article and talk about how he disgraced the troops four out of the eight years he was in office by skipping the Arlington National Cemetery memorial (once only so he could be on his ranch!) - see the snopes links above for my cite--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That link made absolutely no sense. Are you trying to say that Obama should go to Louisiana to have another look at the oil spill instead of visiting a veteran's cemetary? Röstigraben (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Rob, I know it's against your nature, but try to link to something halfway intelligent to make your point, not some website that seems to argue that Obama should personally stop the oil leak and not do anything else until he accomplishes this. DickTurpis (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, so many people are misunderstanding the issue thanks to some intentional misrepresentation by the media, and this is therefore Obama's fault? The logic of that just blew me away. X Stickman (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC) No, I'm saying Obama should continue his festive holiday weekend in Chicago while residents & businesses in the Gulf are destroyed because of his ineptitude and service personal remain in harms way in Afghanistan only to look forward to being spit upon by Obama-types when they come home. nobsdon't bother me 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so you're saying that Obama should Aquaman his way down to the sea floor and superstrength the oil spill closed, perhaps calling in some of his fish friends to help him apologise to all the local wildlife while he's at it? He's the president. He doesn't personally oversee the cleanup operation, the same way he doesn't personally conduct battles in the middle east on horseback. X Stickman (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What's with those ludicrous photos?! Total nonsense - "Obama goes to gym and is basketball fit" is hardly news, every POTUS jogs, bikes or gyms it. If they don't, they're criticised for being lazy and fat (cf Clinton). Again, Rob, can you answer the question I asked you, or are you going to continue with your usual Straw Man activities? DogPMarmite Patrol 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Look what Noonan says,
Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration, everything it didn’t like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, ... The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent....What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations....The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration...nobsdon't bother me 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you share this view, then you, as a conservative who knows that the government can never be competent in providing disaster relief, should be the last person to accuse Obama of failure. Really, Rob, you've got a knack for providing citations that contradict you. Röstigraben (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's amusing watching pro-oil drilling, anti-federal government types try to spin this. Suddenly oil is bad, and the government needs to get more involved in business. Do conservatives stand for anything, or flip-flop on every issue as soon as its convenient? Tell me, robby-boy, what would a good president do? I assume it goes without saying that he'd go to Arlington each and every memorial day, like all true patriotic presidents do (the only example, apparently, is Bill Clinton) but what would St. Ronnie do about the gulf spill. "Fix it" I assume? DickTurpis (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Obama is little more than a trash-talker; Obama took money from big oil polluters & bailout recipients. After taking money, Obama approved rigs without the proper permits required by law. People died. Whole industries--and the jobs that go with them-- were destroyed. The Gulf of Mexico will be uninhabitable for any form of life -plant or animal- for the rest of my lifetime. And this is only an initial assessment of FACTS that cannot be hidden. nobsdon't bother me 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, you're an impossibly bad debater as you simply flop about choosing a new topic to argue every time. Are you upset that Obama is not attending Arlington, or is it because he hasn't fixed the oil spill? Focus on one point please. And, again, do you think it is appropriate for a President to visit other national vet cemetaries? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my response got lost in EC. Now, at least Clinton had enough sense to never miss Arlington. Reagan's loyalty to Vets, or the United States for that matter, was never in question. I knew Reagan, Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. nobsdon't bother me 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I bet you didn't spend nearly as much time on top of Nancy Reagan as TK did, though. --Kels (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice of you to admit there is a double standard for Democrats and Republicans. Anyway, lets see what else Noonan says, since she's obviously the most brilliant person ever: "If you’re drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does." True. Whose job is it to have a plan for this eventuality, the company's or the federal governments? If it's BP, shut the fuck up about saying this is Obama's fault. If it's the government, then why didn't we have a plan before Obama? We've been drilling offshore for decades, if there's an oversight here you can't blame it all on the guys whose been in office just over a year. But you're right, of course, as you always are, it's all Obama's fault, because if they had done an environmental impact study that platform never would have exploded, right? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Q.Whose job is it to have a plan?
A. Per The Washington Post, [5] "The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely. The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009.
Obama admitted as much at last weeks press conference: "Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." [6]
11 people are now dead the Gulf permanently disfigured. nobsdon't bother me 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. I'm sick of trying to talk to a fucking retard who can't get his pea-sized brain to focus on a topic for more than 5 nanoseconds. Are you really, honestly this stupid or is it some childish act? DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Do you think that US politics is too Beltway-centric, and that it might be a good idea to honor the entire nation and visit other national vet cemeteries on Memorial Day? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What I think might not matter (for example, living Veterans being upset about a perceived slight on day that is not even intended to honor living veterans) but perceptions are everything. And Veterans, on a bi-partisan basis, feel disrespected and dishonoured by their Commander in Chief -- in wartime. nobsdon't bother me 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the article I linked to above, it seems that's not the case - there are plenty of veterans who have no problem with it. And I'm pretty sure the relatives of deceased veterans of lIlinois are pretty happy about being acknowledged for once. Perhaps it's time for the US President to begin visiting each of the National Vet Cemeteries around the country on Memorial Day? If that were to be national policy or habit, that could well be perceived as a Good Thing, no? DogPMarmite Patrol 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"What I think might not matter" Got it in one! --Kels (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a big enough deal both FOX & CNN carry stories on it. [7][8] Impressions are everything, and damage like this is hard to undo. Lame excuses only make it tiresome & worse. This was a bigtime fuckup. Obamazombies would do best to forget it, not talk about it, and not try to justify it. 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan" Thank god for that. DickTurpis (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Obama is also responsible for the rainstorm that cut short his speechifying at that Illinois cemetery - he probably got the NOAA to organize it so he could ditch and get some cocktails with Michelle instead. Either that or he's a girly pantywaist who doesn't like to get wet. Stay tuned for this news from the TeaBaggers. DogPMarmite Patrol 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since "Banwatch" is dead

Anyone want to take odds on how much longer cp:User:EMorris is going to be around for? I imagine he'll be TKOed within 12 edits. DickTurpis (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Open source conservatism

Not worth a WIGO, but this stuff reminded me of the awesome success of the "America Speaking Out" website. I guess in five years or so, Andy will be talking about "twitter conservatives" to show off how he's still keeping up with the latest trends. Röstigraben (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone should tell him that open source == communism -- Nx / talk 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Although Bill Gates is a dirty atheist and helps poor people, so... Harmonic cubic Hoover! 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are retching, over and over again. I'd add Eric S. Raymond, but considering what a nutcase he's turned into, I have no idea how he'd respond. MDB (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Did Andy 'Nobody is Conservative Unless They Agree with my Insane Ideas, Godspeed' Schlafly just say Conservative values are "decentralized"? The man doesn't ever stop to think does he. YorickDoing public school work
The line about OSCs "rejecting controls on discourse" is even better. Almost sounds like Andy's been reading Foucault and Lukes lately. Röstigraben (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Stallman would be annoyed by the suggestion that he would be into open source and would patiently spend the next half an hour talking our ear off about the importance of free software and how that merely sometimes coincides with "open source" etc zzzzzzzzzzz. So his name should probably be taken out of the WIGO. ESR came up with the application of the term "open source" to software, but wouldn't be much on Andy's theocratic tendencies - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I really liked the line about "rejecting controls on discourse" too, from a man with more control on the discourse in his sphere of influence than mainland china, it was very lol inducing, I'd like to see it woven into the wigo by someone more crafty than I. --Opcn (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A reminder for Conservapedians: Al Gore fucked up by misusing the term "open source"... in 1999. He learned the lesson, as incredible as it may seem. How embarrassing it is for conservatives to commit the exact same mistake over 10 years later? Oh, and how does the US administration actually use "open source" today? By actually using and contributing to open source projects. Certainly not trying to fish sympathy with random buzzwords. No. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget that it's the NSA who developed most of SELinux. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


I see Ken has linked to a video about the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. You know Ken, getting good at something by doing it for 10,000 hours is commendable, but not all at once! --Kels (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris would have lasted at least 15 seconds cause he's Christian? Come on now, he HAS to be a parodist. No one can be THAT moronic. I'm kind of relieved, actually. --Maquissar (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kels, Ken drooledimg back at you! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That article on the Olympics is funny. You read the article, which was written a week before the Olympics finished, crapping on about how Canada doesn't own the medal table, but when you click the link Canada is on top after the final medal count. - π 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Pathetic, Ken. The best you can do to insult someone is make fun of their country? That's just lame. Tetronian you're clueless 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Come now, Canadians are perfectly happy to be insulted by Americans. We know the truth, and seeing them flail is amusing. (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not only were we on top of the medal standings, we set a record for a single country getting gold at the Winter Olympics, which is no mean feat given that we'd never won gold at a Winter Olympics held on home soil until then. --Kels (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do I feel that Kels just knocked me over with her cojones? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happened to all those drooling 'Oh Canada' Mainpageright shoutouts we used to get when one of Ken's pet articles was on the firts page of an obscure Google Canada search term?  Lily Inspirate me. 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Reason

I really hope "Lacks Machismo"img becomes a drop-down block reason. Acei9 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ole!img Ole!img P-Foster (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I see  K e n  D o l l  is only editing CP for our amusement now. Does that mean that Ken is a clown? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We have now reached the point were all the major contributors are editing purely for us to pay attention to them. It really is all over for Andy's project isn't it? - π 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest it's time for another week's, or month's, boycott. Let's see what happens. - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a boycott will make any difference anymore. Acei9 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Boycott's are usually very boring, but so is what is going on at the moment. I would say yes, but I have to concede to Ace that there is nothing left to boycott. - π 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There have been numerous times in the last few years when we've speculated that Andy's project is close to an end, but it always continues to blunder on. I think as long as the Conservapedia Gang remain editing intermittently, Andy will continue to keep the site running.
Given Ken's increased... uh... enthusiasm in recent days, has anyone before exercised the possibility that he may be the best, most devoted parodist ever? Or have I in my endless n00biness stumbled upon a secret bigger than that of the Arc of the Covenant? SJ Debaser 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a history longer than that of CP. Acei9 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a long history of trolling rationalist and liberal friendly theology message boards. He like CP because he controls the discussion their and can use it as a platform for taunting this rationalist and liberal friendly theology site. - π 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)The site will keep running as long as Andy pays the bills, the question is whether they have finally reached the point were they have smothered the life out of it and are now editing in a way that is little more than trolling us by proxy meaning we are more important to them than their own project. - π 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was about to say. He's the Ruy Lopez who sockpuppeted furiously at Wikipedia for years; the present Ken has definitely gone off the deep end in coherence and mental acuity. All the RWers who say he must be mentally ill now? He is. He used to be an obsessive troll, but he's way worse now. - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say they need a week or two of having not even us look at them. Do you think anyone there is a server log obsessive? - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken is keeping an eye on usimg however he should note that we are talking about the amount of active editors and NOT views. As far as editing goes - CP is dead. Acei9 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Again another edit for us. Stop proving my point Ken. - π 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the "certainly maybe". Way to take a stand there. (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is part of Ken's greater attempt never to be wrong, by never saying anything. He makes vague prediction about something that might happen in the future. A lot like that trend forecaster he is in love with. If you read his "articles" they are quotes strung together with a topic sentence that contains the word regards too many times. He is right in that there is no factual in accuracies in his articles, as I am sure those are true quotations. However he manages to string them together into something that emerges overall so misguide that it not even wrong. - π 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A message to Ken

I know this won't make it through your skull but no one is editing CP. You might think your "Anti-..." projects are "gaining traction" but how many people do you have working on them? How many edits per day? And, if Andy stopped paying for it, how long do you think CP would last? Acei9 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave him alone Ace, he's having fun. All the best Ken! SJ Debaser 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you notice that Andy replied to someone else and just ignored Ken. - π 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Man, how would Ken react if something happened to Andy (or his finances) and he turned out the lights? His whole world would come crashing down! --Kels (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Of late (well, the last week) Ken has actually been the main focus of WIGO CP, mainly because of his retarded machismo/Dawkins so-called "projects," if they can so be called. SJ Debaser 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a wee dig at Trent.."Canadians didn't do so well at the Winter Olympics!img Hence conservapedia is great!" Acei9 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Trent: 5 published paper. Ken: 1 shitty essay about Richard Dawkin's machismo on a wiki-blog. Which one is the underachiever? - π 00:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Plus for the one millionth time Ken, Trent is not Canadian. - π 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I am, but I'm rather proud to not have machismo. (I'm also not into sports) --Kels (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the shout-out was to Kels. Either way, it's funny. Hi Ken! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense in any case, since Canada set the world record for gold medals, a metric most countries other than the US uses for success. --Kels (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would still wager a bet that you have more machismo and are better at sport than Ken. - π 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have massive amounts of machismo. And, Ken, it takes more machismo to face the world on its own terms without a magic man in the sky to fall back on and make you feel warm inside. Acei9 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus it is dying

I open recent changes and the first few edits:

  • (Block log); 19:26 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aeryn (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (broken arrow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GGhASxRCMw&ha)
  • (diff) (hist) . . Valencia‎; 19:26 . . (+575) . . BishoiH (Talk | contribs) (expanded)
  • (Block log); 19:25 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked ChrisG90 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled, e-mail blocked) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (Block log); 19:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Goldhawk (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (e-mail blocked) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (Block log); 19:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: Shaw Communications, Calgary, Canada. )
  • (User creation log); 19:20 . . Aeryn (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (User creation log); 19:17 . . ChrisG90 (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (diff) (hist) . . User:Conservative‎; 19:05 . . (-9) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Comedy and Humor: )
  • (diff) (hist) . . User:Conservative‎; 18:59 . . (+8) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Comedy and Humor: )
  • (User creation log); 18:58 . . Goldhawk (Talk | contribs) New user account

Why don't they just turn user creation off permanently if they are just going to block everyone as they sign up? - π 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, Andy's ego. Turning off account creation means admitting that he can't beat Wikipedia at their own game. We and everyone else with three brain cells or more knows he can't, but he'll never admit it. --Kels (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken's shoutingimg at usimg fromimg Andy's talk pageimg. Hi Ken, hope you're well. Personally I don't want Conservapedia to die, I enjoy reading the stuff you guys post on it. All the best, SJ Debaser 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but Ken thinks Conservapedia is him alone, and the others (including Andy) are mere assistants. --Kels (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New editor, block him, block him, block him! - π 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at that insolence TK, taking the Lord's name in vain. You should block him for breaking the Second Commandment. - π 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy won't need to pull the plug any time soon. Remember the shitty host Siteground rightfully derided as useless in rationalWiki:History? And Siteground is actually a pissweak reseller of Singlehop? Guess who Conservapedia is hosted with. $10/month, or $2.00 special this weekend!! - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If CP is still on SG, they aren't paying $10/month, more like $100. For the same reason we had to move: any site there that generates any reasonable traffic gets their rates jacked up. Andy either bit the bullet (most likely) or moved to another host. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
CP is definitely on SG - go to its IP in a browser. And SG appears, from traceroute, to be a mere reseller of Singlehop. Huh, this implies we should boycott them for a month to save Andy some cash ... - David Gerard (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Or another clickbot campaign to run up his bill. ;) I have never thought they achieved much. Except waste the participants bandwidth as well in the process, that is why I have never participated, I don't think it is worth the cost to me. - π 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
So he's paying $100-plus US per month. No to boycott, they never did anything. I promised Kels to always say that, since she was right. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Love how Ken's even sticking vids in his blocks now (see first entry in pi's screed above) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
At this point CP is his playground. I'm just itching for DouglasA or JacobB or even TK to tell him to knock it off. Tetronian you're clueless 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken likes his new word

17:48, 31 May 2010 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Yourmother (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)

Nick Heer 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly hope his mother lacks machismo. Tetronian you're clueless 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Ken would be happy if all women were a bit more macho, if you know what I mean. --Kels (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do Italian men grow mustaches? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Without moustaches they'd be unable to speak Italian. Family Guy: Speaking Italian --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Christ

The Cliché police,img a subsection of Obama's personal guard are gonna come take Terry Koeckritz away. PS, does he really think being a social outcast, who is automatically considered an amoral, drug fueled sex maniac is easier than trusting the invisible man in the sky fix all your problems? SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't they also believe that there's such overwhelming evidence for Christianity that it takes a deliberate effort not to believe? Barikada (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Easier to not believe? No, believing is easy, what is very difficult is having to come to terms that what is believed may indeed not be true and letting that comforting belief go, no matter how much evidence stands against it. Trust me I know firsthand of that difficulty and the lingering doubts, it be so much easier to simply believe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that every time Terry Koeckritz mentions Jesus Christ, or Christian themes in general, it sounds so awkward and fake? Way more than his usual stuff, too. --Kels (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably because he does it purely for brownie points rather then from sincere theology. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Kenservative have the Machismo to post this debate a top main page left?

A certain Gentlemen would like to know if  K e n  D o l l  will be making any attempt to publicize this upcoming debate in regards to everything. It is being competed in by one former friend of conservapedia who may or may not wear obscenely large head phones and it is being co-moderated by another who may or may not ride a motorcycle in a state Starting with the Letter "C" in regards to wear palmtrees grow. --Opcn (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Machismo. Acei9 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I predict that this "debate" will be awful. There is no proposal to defend, just "Creationism". It will very quickly descend into insults and purile name calling. Especially since the moderator is Shock of God. --DamoHi 09:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that DonExodus would agree to this little freak show. Any idea why he agreed to this? --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No doubt he was concerned that a certain Gentleman on a certain website beginning with C would question the level of his machismo should he refuse. --DamoHi 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The debate is doomed to fail because the topic is too broad. Nephy insisted the debate be about the existence of God, creation (that is the creation of the universe and everything within), and evolution. I see nothing productive coming from this "debate" but I do expect the fundies to claim victory no matter what. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from NephilimFree's pro-creation, evolution-is-bullshit stance, he has always come across to me as a genuinely polite man in the face of all the crap he receives. I messaged him once wishing him well when he said he was having a shit time of things and even though I'd recently made a video taking the piss out of him he responded kindly, albeit in a highly extended preachy manner with about 4 pages worth of Bible quotes and "proof" of God's existence. That said, he will be no exception to the endless line of creationists who declare victory after debates. SJ Debaser 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Any good will I had towards Nephy ended when he announced he would automatically delete the comments of and ban any "evolutionist" or "atheist" (really any secular commenter) from commenting on his videos, claiming they are not even worth his time. Mind you this was before his sudden desire to debate. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
When you are that wrong, you eventually have to stop being polite. --Opcn (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now the entire event is front page Conservapedia news[1]img complete with MA-CHEESE-MO references and delusions of grandeur that the "debate" will somehow be important in the annals of history (or the Internet).

So I was reading a book and I came across this, who does it remind you of?

_____ has been called a paranoiac; at all events, his view of the world is highly personal. Even where he is discussing theoretical matters like 'the state',[...], etc., he seldom persues any logic inherent in the subject matter. He makes the most extraordinary allegations without so much as an attempt to prove them. Often there is no visible connection between one paragraph and the next. the logic is purely psychological; _____ is fighting his persecuters, magnifying his person, creating a dream-world in which he can be an important figure . In more concrete passages he is combating political adversaries in his own movement, but even here the continuity is mystifying, because he never tells us whom he is arguing against, but sets up every political expedient as a universal principle.
Emphasis, Elipsis, and "_____" were mine for effect. It would be unfair and fallacious to compare Andy to this person, but wow that sounds like Andy to me. Lest you think the passage is referring to someone too recent I'm fairly sure it was written in the 1920's. --Opcn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need a Hitafly picture here? --DamoHi 10:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Damn, I wasn't covert enough, well that's 2:30 in the AM for you I guess.--Opcn (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You gave it away when you said (1) it was written in the 20's and (2) that it would be unfair to compare Andy to this person. --DamoHi 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, that's probably a pretty good description of most irrational ideologues. I actually thought it was supposed to remind us of Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And there I was thinking it was Ken. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How do we do a Hitservative? Do we have Hitler on one half and gay Hitler on the other? --Opcn (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy is like the reincarnation of flat earther Wilbur Glenn Voliva. By karma, the guy got stuck with being Phyllis' spawn. Someone really needs to write a book about Conservapedia (if it hasn't been done already). After reading this I think I've got the perfect subtitle: Live-Blogging A Descent Into Madness. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be Schitler, since Andy comes first in it...? Antler? Schladolf? Andolf? Something like that? Barikada (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Who the fuck would buy a book about conservapedia? Maybe a book about how irresponsible extremists play fast and loose with the truth could touch on conservapedia, but like time cube no one is watching so no one cares, conservapedia is miles from Gladwells "tipping point", shit he was on Colbert and still languishes in obscurity. --Opcn (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alive, Rob

The number of active editors at Conservapedia reaches a new height - not seen since March 2010 This sentence is just for you, Rob: it's true, but it's not right!

Conservapedia RationalWiki
active editors last 90 days
active editors
editors May 2010: commoners vs. sysops
number of edits vs. account creation
active editors last 90 days
active editors
editors May 2010: commoners vs. sysops
number of edits vs. account creation

Indeed, there was a greater - and more diverse - number of editors commenting in May 2010 than in April 2010: the overall interest in Conservapedia seems to be rising again, though the influx of Colbert's fans is missing. Nevertheless, the previous month was the May with the least comments and the smallest number of individual editors in the history of Conservapedia:

2010 2009 2008 2007
edits 7896 9286 13706 33664
editors 417 495 824 939

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting tidbit: it's the first month in which RJJensen didn't make a single edit (since he joint in Sep 2008)! larronsicut fur in nocte 10:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It must be the result of RationalWiki trolls organizing vandal attacks against Conservapedia on Wikipedia.[9] -- Nx / talk 10:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the upswing is a result of the continuing transition into Machismapedia. ¡Olé!-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be mostly vandals. While the 28-day active stat has increased greatly, the 7-day active stat hasn't changed much, sugggesting that users are editing once and then no more (probably blocked). EddyP (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked Active Editors Blocked Active Editors

Only half of them get blocked. At the moment there are many editors making just one or two drive-by comments ... larronsicut fur in nocte 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For RW, most regulars are sysops. Could you please do a "commoners and sysops vs. bureaucrats" chart? - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Two things. One, where is Ken on those charts? He had to have made WAY more edits than anyone else and yet I don't see his name anywhere. And two, I think the reason why there are more editors is because account creation has been enabled more often. For the last few months, account creation has been disabled for the majority of the time. That is all. Keegscee (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted! I apologize -  K e n  D o l l  was left out because of a connection failure: Though he often deletes his own entries, he's still one of the top contributors. I'll correct the pics. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Larron beat me to publishing again, thieving bastard, but since we're the sciencey wiki we're all in favor of documented reproducibility, right? My software agrees Conservapedia has shown signs of rebounding this last month: more article edits, more edits in general, more users, more new users, drastically more new users who did not end up koeckritzed in spite of making edits, more of everything basically. It's been their strongest month since January in terms of edits and since December in terms of people making them. mb 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, TK disappoints me a little when I look at the range blocks... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This might get good.

Moar trolling on WP.

While the section seems pretty mundane and nothing from the usual on the CP talk page there, TK's dived in. Just one of those feelings. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, I think that TK's right reallyOMG smileysm2.svg. They're entitled to use whatever criteria for editorship they want - even if that means no editors. 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He's right, but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Someone comments that he was banned for a username, one of us tells him to register with his first name and last initial, and Rob goes apeshit over coordination of vandal attacks. Of course, reading comprehension is not one of Robs strong suits. DickTurpis (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that he's wrong in one point: Wikipedia is the logical standard by which anyone should judge wiki policies elsewhere - you don't have to follow wikipedia's lead, but you will always measured against it - it's the biggest player around. larronsicut fur in nocte 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia's policies and modes are geared to what their project is - making an encyclopedia. While some policies would be good ideas almost anywhere, others are not transferable. Also, Wikipedia is not the "first wiki" by a long shot (arguing with someone at the collapsed WP talk box here). It's just the biggest, and, I suppose the only one many people are familiar with. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a mistake to get conflate technology with it's use. We may use the same technology, but we should no more feel bound by WP conventions than an engineer should be expected to adopt the writing conventions used by authors of fiction, justbecsuse they both use the same text editor to do their work. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And more to the point, while it's true that CP can use whatever standard they like to block users, their blocking is often counter to their own stated policies, which themselves are generally only enforced against those they want to block for other (or no) reasons. And, of course, Terry is always wrong, in general.--WJThomas (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Them blocking users for reasons out side of or counter to their policies is exactly as bad as sock puppeting to get around the blocks. To the extent that they have the right to do with their site what they please I have the right to do with my computer what I please. --Opcn (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, "ArgueCat" is, I believe, a qualitatively different sort of name than "Child Molester". (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell even if someone's name is "Child Molester" that's not reasonable grounds to ban them from any job. Reasonable grounds to give their parents a "worst parenting ever" award, though. X Stickman (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But what good parent doesn't want their kids to carry on the family business? --Kels (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy is so ashamed of Ken

After Ken wrote on Andy talk page that he will charge more to Richard Dawkins in order to debate with him, Andy decided to blank the whole page. New slate! --Tlaloc (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the machismo that will be had on that brave new page (actual bravery not included)! --Kels (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm amazed Ken's still a syop, given his lack of machismo. Suppose he'd probably top himself if he was removed. Webbtje (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Conservative is just pathetic. His writing is painful to read. Dwain (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And he does'nt understand. He already spammed Andy new talk page. I wonder for how long Andy will tolerate him.--Tlaloc (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he'll tolerate him indefinitely so long as  K e n  D o l l  doesn't disagree with Pope Andy. The Ed Poor Rule confirms that Andy has great tolerance for incompetence just so long as the bearer of a blunt intellect agrees with Andy's view of how things work. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How long before........

....those sick idiots at CP post something to the effect that 12 people wouldn't have died in Cumbria if everybody had guns and had shot back? Mick McT (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is bad, bad, bad shit. We aren't used to this kind of shit here in the UK. Hopefully even Assfly et al won't try to politicise it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, he sooo will. All Brits are atheist, gunless morons (except for guys like the mass killer who had largely defensive weapons of gun).--Brendiggg (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
People dying can always be slanted to an agenda. I just hope they don't snicker when they write it up. This is no laughing matter. Jimaginator (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You guys can dream. The facts are, Britain is dominated by atheists and people don't have guns to defend themselves from them. The shooting is a logical outcome of that scenario. That's legitimately how Andy sees this. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is just horrible. I'm hoping (in vain, as Andy has proved time and time again that he has no sense of when to shut the fuck up and show a bit of respect) that Andy just leaves this. But as NU points out, he won't. SJ Debaser 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't turn out this guy is an atheist or we'll all hear a tremendous 'boing!' sound coming from the direction of New Jersey as Andy gets the biggest boner of his life. DickTurpis (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If he is Christian (and he probably isn't), he's likely to be Anglican which is atheism in a devious cloak.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Even if he was a true Christian, the pressures and influences of atheism obviously got to him. Death is the wage of living in an atheistic society for Christians and atheists alike. " is something I'd expect. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Lurker here. I like you guys, but by pre-emptively suggesting that Andy might use this tragedy to further his own ideology, aren't you at least fractionally guilty of the same thing? (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not the same thing, but I could see how some people believe it is. Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This "ooh, let's see what Andy says about this" attitude is in very bad taste. If you don't like it when CP use real life tragedies to make political cheap shots, then don't do the exact same fucking thing. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Andy's fucking insane" is not a political cheap shot. Get off your high horse. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fox News readers are already on it. EddyP (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You weren't kidding! wow... P.S. the Fox News comment system is the biggest joke... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Goddammit, I hate those types of Americans. Fuckin' gun-toting, redneck, America-is-the-best-country-in-the-world cunts. SJ Debaser 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
They're smart cookies though - after a commenter points out that last year there were 14 gun murders in the UK compared to 9500-odd in the US, a reply points out that "HEY djmiles why not have some intellicutal honesty, the population of the USA might be at least thousand times that of Britian." Superb. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually with BoN and Weasel a bit on this, we are slightly guilty in that pre-empting the Assfly on this we are guilty of the same bad taste, but in our defence we have seen this so many times from him - if we didn't expect him to abuse a tragedy we wouldn't mention it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that some people think it's in bad taste, but taste is in the mouth of the beholder, unless you want to go Assfly and claim that this is objectively bad taste. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no bad taste in anticipating bad taste.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have been in the SB anyway, since CP hasn't commented on it yet? X Stickman (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That will have to be debated. But in the mean time, Andy is awake and arguing that speculation about who will get the Gore's house in the divorce is not idle talk about personal affairs of others. By the time we figure it out, it'll be on the main page. Has drudge/breitbart/wnd not picked it up yet? You'd think CP would be all over this... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction" - by the same argument, it's hard to see what would be so wrong with old Schlaffers using the killings as Bioglide for expressing his stupid opinions on the UK, but the impression I get from the above discussion is that it would be pretty awful of him to do just that. Obviously the suggestion itself isn't out of this world, given his sickening 'for those keeping the score' postings everytime someone in the entertainment industry dies, but if Andy does indeed invoke this tragedy to bolster an opinion, I don't see how you can say you aren't guilty of the same thing and to that extent as bad as him (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you rephrase? I'm guilty of _____ ? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, just a couple days ago when I projected from Coleman to Hopper, Suspected Replicant was all over me deleting the comment and yelling at me on my talk page. Oh well, c'est la vie. (PS, CP never mentioned Hopper's passing, as far as I could tell) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear

Things like this say a lot about Karajou, I think. I imagine this hearkens back to his days on the deck as a lowly ensign, dreaming that one day he could bark the orders. What's funnier is that he knows it's meaningless, yet he still wants to issue orders. What a small man he must be. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand that with every user blocked, Karajou gets bigger and bigger 'till he bursts and has to start all over again. EddyP (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And yet, he didnt block that really really obvious new parodist that he replied to there. (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Andy impersonator? I thought that was funny too. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he's an old friend from around here. EddyP (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
ReligiousRight's been given his last rites. Heh... clever. Also, I like how the whole, "First name, last initial" rule didn't apply to that gentleman. SJ Debaser 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Annnnd unbanned.[2]img Apparently he is just crazy enough to fit right in, at least enough to endear himself to JacobB. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's more than likely he just has a tiny dick. SJ Debaser 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Note Ed's denouncing of plagiarism hereimg, and the reply (which points to RW!) here. - Cuckoo (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Ed. --Sid (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)