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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by (Talk) to last version by Ace McWicked)
(Undo revision 625464 by Ex-Troll Cheerleader (Talk)Not vandalism)
Line 250: Line 250:
The UK's GCHQ [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&direction=prev&oldid=797443 uses its technology to locate Al-Qaeda & Taliban] for the Americans. Have you no national pride, TK? {{User:Lily/sig}} 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The UK's GCHQ [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&direction=prev&oldid=797443 uses its technology to locate Al-Qaeda & Taliban] for the Americans. Have you no national pride, TK? {{User:Lily/sig}} 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
:You mean "atheistic socialist technology"? {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
:You mean "atheistic socialist technology"? {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
anyone who uses words like "limey" or "yank" is automatically an asshole.
== Larron, I don't think it will work ==
== Larron, I don't think it will work ==

Revision as of 22:11, 27 July 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

Ed Science

Fun stuff on the main talk page in regards to the "Complaint about lack of liberal activity" section. "Uncle Ed" shows he doesn't understand anything about evolution at all but pretends to when he presents obvious inaccuracies as factsimg. Bizarre notions such as dinosaurs appearing 800 million years ago, and carbon dating used to date fossils that old. One would only say thing like this if they knew next to nothing about radiometric dating, evolution, paleontology, or biology in general but hopes the audience doesn't either. He also has some strange views on what he believes people think evolution means in general. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's bitter that he wasn't chosen by daddy moon to go get a million doctorates and disprove teh evilution. Doggone it, he's at least as smart as Jonathan Wells is. Never mind, Ed. Perving at teen movies is just as worthy an occupation as working at the discovery institute. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That long post by DerekE was almost as strange, in my opinion. He's a rather good parodist, isn't he? The length of the paragraph, the frequent links, the solid block of unorganized text jumping from subject to subject, the common quotation marks framing liberal strawman arguments... True art.-- JArneal 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question for the great Ed Poor/Tony Sideaway debate: if wp:Extraterrestrial life exists and is not crank science, are space aliens entitled to thier own facts? or are facts as we know them only the POV of the human species? Stephen Hawking hints at this [1] as he implies space aliens may feel a right to plunder the earthlings resources. nobsdon't bother me 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rob! You beat those commies at British Petroleum yet? Your question is moot; the bible doesn't mention 'extraterrestrial life' ergo there ain't any. Fact. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not suggesting such a thing as universal truth, are you? nobsdon't bother me 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
RobSmith AceX-102 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What on earth are you whittering on about Rob? π is π no matter what planet you're from, as is the age of the universe, and the rates of radioactive decay. When these unfortunately facts conflict with a fairy-story-book-based alternative reality in which CP resides, we are treated to the kind of twaddle Unka' Ed posted on that talkpage. How's the creepy soft porn going anyway Rob? RobSmith DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(I still find the name "Nobs" hilarious). X Stickman (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Stephen Hawking quote doesnt appear to have anything to do with 'facts', it just says that an alien race might feel free to plunder our resources - what has that got to do with POV, facts truth or whatever? Its just an extrapolation of the way human beings have acted towards other human beings historically.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
All replicators act that way historically. --Opcn (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So, would WP's article on extraterrestiral life, citing Stephen Hawking's musings, fall within RW's purpose of "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement and crank ideas?" (I notice RW dropped the "and people involved," probably trying to hold 501(c)3 status. If that's so, why do slanderous discussions continue on these pages about Ed, Ken or A Schlafly?) nobsdon't bother me 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Slander, eh? As is not-so-uncommonly stated by Conservapedians themselves, I would worry about what you and your "cohorts" are doing at your own website. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting updated on the Foundation, bylaws, and discussion surrounding the motivations of these activities. Seems you miss the point, why has the phrase, "and people involved" been edited out of RW's mission statements, yet the focus here remains more a forum designed to slander people than refute crank ideas? (Note: users thinking of running for Trustee need to begin thinking about monitoring thier behavior and examine the record of past conduct). nobsdon't bother me 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not welcome here if you're going to make the same kinds of sideways legal threats Terry made until he just came right out and said he was going to sue Trent. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And, in any case, he's wrong. RW, more or less by definition, cannot slander anyone, owing to the definition of slander being defamation through speech. The term you're groping for is "libel"-- or, more broadly, "defamation". I'd like to see you successfully prosecute a libel suit, though. (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
the focus here remains more a forum designed to slander people - Wow, how can a CP admin say that of someone else with a straight face? RobSmith -- AceX-102 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Rob: I know - I simply felt like, out of fairness, giving the same reply that may be and has been in the past given to users who have bring up more "technical" problems of legal nature on Conservapedia. Here's another possibility of a reply that may be given: See if you can learn out to spell "their". ~SuperHamster Talk 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What do imaginings about extraterrestrials have anything to do with universal constants such as radioactive decay rates? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Stalin. That's what. Vulpius (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RW mission statement and Rob

To address Rob: The change was made in 2008 for brevity and copy editing [2]. The word "people" can be assumed to still implicitly be apart of the mission statement and that is not changing.

Your concern about 501(c)(3) status is not black and white. I think there is an interesting legal question about whether or not material on a wiki run by a foundation can be used to void 501(c)(3) status. However, even if we are not interesting in being the test case non-profit does not equal 501(c)(3). We have multiple options, including not seeking tax exemption status and just paying corporate tax on our donations. Or seeking 501(c)(4) status. All of which is to say that our criticism and parody of individuals in the anti-science, anti-rational movements will not be phased or altered merely because of a legal restructuring of site management. tmtoulouse 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought RW was canadian --Opcn (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The server is in Canada because that is where I am living currently. However, I am a US citizen, with an intent to return to NM so that is where I will be incorporating. tmtoulouse 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of the tax exemption thing, I'd be amazed if there are ever enough donations to make a serious difference (assuming the corporate tax rate is fairly low). I assume though that there'll be the possibility of claiming back VAT on toys and stuff for the foundation, and hopefully that will outweigh having to pay tax on donations. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, no, we don't make enough to worry about exempt status. Exemption comes into play when examining other potential sources of support such as private, educational or outreach grants. One of the next steps is finding ways to make RW solvent without a constant need for me to funnel funds into it. tmtoulouse 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Hopefully with the foundation business there can be some kind of clear indicator as to how much cash the foundation has, and the costs of running it, which'll make it easier for us to know how much needs to go in there. The death of a rich relative might help, but not many of mine fit that bill (except for the dead part). Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

tmt, Thank you for the direct and timely response. I suppose my question is best described as one about transparency and disclosure. Do candidates for Trustee understand at this point in time the RW non-profit Foundation may never come into existence? nobsdon't bother me 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything may or may not happen. Perhaps my plane will crash on the way home, or I Jesus will appear to me on the road to the PRC asking why I persecute him and I will have a change of heart. However, there is a 95 percent chance that within the next 10 days the non-profit will be fully up and running. tmtoulouse 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"or I Jesus will appear to me on the road". It's nice to see the Christ come back to Earth to do something useful for a change. Sorry about the killing you thing. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Too bad he doesn't show up on film or I would get pictures. Or wait, is that vampires? I get them mixed up. tmtoulouse 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So, what is it? is it to be a non-profit or will the entity seek to be treated as a for-profit entity as you stated above? will revenue defer costs or is it a sham corporation never intended to produce profit and created solely to claim bogus deductions and protection from personal liability? do candidates running for office to manage this entity understand this is an undecided question? are liability issues being disclosed to candidates? etc. etc. nobsdon't bother me 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why a sham? "To solely to claim bogus deductions and protection from personal liability"...isn't that the textbook definition of a corporation? DickTurpis (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A for-profit entity must produce profit in two out of 5 years (for Schedule F filers, 2 out of 7). With losses (i.e. costs & deductions outsriping revenue) 3 years running, you then have to generate profit the remaining two years. What is the busines plan of the for-profit RW Foundation to produce profit? nobsdon't bother me 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mixing up non-profit/for-profit, and tax exempt/non-exempt. A non-profit can be a 501(c)(3), but there are many other avenues that a non-profit can take. The foundation will be non-profit, the only open question is what kind of relationship the foundation will have with the IRS. Three main options:

  • 501(c)(3)-The Foundation is tax exempt and donations are tax deductible. However, this might impose limitations on the things the wiki can say about individuals running for office. Emphasize might.
  • 501(c)(4)-The Foundation is tax exempt but donations are not tax deductible. The only limitation on political activities, speech and lobbying is that it can not be the primary activity of the foundation.
  • No tax exempt status-The Foundation pays corporate tax on donations, and donations are not tax deductible. There are no practical limitations on political activities, speech or lobbying.

No one is running for the trustee positions yet, and won't be for at least 4 months. There is a small incorporating board, consisting of me, user:Human and user:Armondikov who are overseeing the creation of the foundation, the transition from sole proprietorship, and the establishment of by laws and election procedures and protocols for the full board. tmtoulouse 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The No tax exempt status (or for-profit) status would be either a C corp or S corp (the idea of an LLC was discarded, I presume). This entails shareholders. If some Board members also were shareholders, there may be disclosure requirements, at least to non-shareholder board members. nobsdon't bother me 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's just not true. I don't know how to state this any clearer, a corporation can be non-profit without apply for tax exemption status. Non-profit is a state level designation that is completely separate from the IRS classification of exempt or non-exempt. tmtoulouse 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Can you provide a link to IRS or elsewhere giving more information? and I assume you're saying the corp files Form 1120 or 1120S. I've been vaguely familiar with tax law for nearly four decades and can't say I've heard of a non-profit S corp. nobsdon't bother me 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If we elected to not file for tax exemption we would file a form 990-PF [3]. Take note that the income level of RW isn't even high enough to require reporting at all. tmtoulouse 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Addendum, PF was the wrong designate, form 990, and 990-N would be what we file. It is hard to keep all the letters memorized. tmtoulouse 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, will review. 990's are a peculiar animal I've never read any IRS instructions or publications about. But I do know if you don't have an independent CPA prepare the return, you may recieve swift and strict scrutiny from the IRS. nobsdon't bother me 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*RANDOM TANGENT!* Woah, you're thinking about heading back to New Mexico? I'm totally thinking about heading back there as well myself, in Albuquerque (like there is really anywhere else, am I right?) Let me know if you could use any real-world help or what not if it comes back to NM. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep good old Albuquerque. For now I am never back for longer than a week or two, but I only have a year or so left up here in Canada. After that I have to decide what to do and most of my family, friends, general support network is back in NM. If I could find a good post-doc position back home I would likely take which would mean RW moving there as well. tmtoulouse 09:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, since a corporation has to have a mailing address in the state, at the very least I might be able to offer that. Keep me apprised, and I'll be able to assist in any meatspace activities required... should I move back. (Right now, I'm in Seattle, unemployed, and living in a dead-end relationship as a house"wife". My family is back in NM. Just about all of my good friends are here, but really, they can only offer so much help.) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we can all get together at Kelly's Brew Pub for a Corona. [4] nobsdon't bother me 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Corona? Really? They have microbrews there. Imperial stout is good, Amber is my favorite, though the IPA is nice as well. Stay the hell away from their lagers and pilsners. tmtoulouse 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Marble Brewery [5] the bestest in town. nobsdon't bother me 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happily willing to meet up for a brew anywhere in Albuquerque. However, note that I have always been clear and upfront that I am a completely broke poor person. So, either I'll just sit there and hang out, or someone else would have to pay for anything I get. (Better, if you have a job for me, I could then pay for my own stuff!) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just so happens robsjobs is an entrepenuerial enterprize in the works (a job search service for computer illiterates) looking for work. Fortunately, with the job market forecasted to not return until the year 2013, we have much lead time in the planning & development phase. nobsdon't bother me 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I can't work at Microsoft due to legal issues, and that's about 90% of the job offers I get here. Seriously, it sucks a ton to have to answer every other recruiter with "I think I'm a perfect match for this offer, but I cannot take any work from Microsoft." --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if you do move back to Albuquerque, there are things that have to be done in-person and at the moment that will just involve me storing them all up and trying to get them done during holiday vacations. If you are back and willing I am sure there is a few things you could speed along greatly. But in the mean time I think I have a plan that should work. tmtoulouse 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, permanently no firm decision yet, but I'll definitely be back in NM in mid-August for a visit. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saving Conservapædians from the fires of Hell


My attention has been drawn to your article on Natural Science. In one sectionimg, you cite an example of how predictions about a scientific theory can bolster that theory if those predictions prove true. Your example concerns EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION:

...it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of Tiktaalik in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

The astronomy bit just below it looks suspiciously heretical as well. Please remove the offending material lest some impressionable young mind mistakes your blog for an encyclopædia. — Unsigned, by: Brendiggg / talk / contribs

Guard Dog (historical)

There are assorted scattered references to Guard Dog, but no actual article. Can someone who was around at the time please write one? - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It really should be honored by an article. But for the meantime, have a look here. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I started a little article. Enjoy! larronsicut fur in nocte 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
one of the cabalThere is no cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves[6].
should have a copy of the prog lying around somewhere. --PsyGremlinParla! 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
well, it isn't hard to retro-engineer the program from its output:
  • it downloaded the cp:Special:RecentChanges page repeatedly (once a minute? every five minutes?)
  • a user who made to many entries in to short a time was flagged (or autobanned)
  • a user who blanked a page was flagged/autobanned
larronsicut fur in nocte 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Guard Dog discussion from earlier this year, for the record. Includes a few words on what it does, ie a bit of reverse engineering. I kept my copies of the program and the documentation it came with, fwiw, and I'd be happy to share if anybody thinks they have use for them. mb 07:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Eira, EddyP, David Gerard, Radioactive Afikomen, Psygremlin and Sid for the concerted effort ( though I don't understand RA's point I so hate how RW constantly links to "favorite" articles that are blatantly off-mission. Keep the link-whoring to talk pages and the funspace, please.) larronsicut fur in nocte 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait.. what did I do? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

dear mb, perhaps you can add some of the stuff to Conservapedia:Guard dog? larronsicut fur in nocte 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there is anything left for me to add. I first heard of Conservapedia about two months after the dog got taken behind the barn. I never saw it in action. I couldn't run it if I wanted to. All I really did was run strings(1) on a file on a drive. mb 17:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual out of the closet

There goes 3% of their edits. - π 06:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is JacobB not discussed? Are you not proud of yourselves? -- (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was going to post here eventually. I've been busy capturing several pages and edits of his. Mustn't let it all get lost from history from the wrath of deletion and oversights. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure Jacob is one of us. Well, he was a former user named User:Zelmerszoetrop. AceX-102 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be this guy User:Zoetrope but anyway, it proves what we knew all along. Jacob = obvious parodist. AceX-102 04:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I find it to be quite humorous how it takes them all so long to undo the damage Jacob has done. His damage is still present, even on the main page (which, for whatever reason, Andy didn't restore mainpageright, and instead just removed the template and re-did the layout organization). ~SuperHamster Talk 05:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth me uploading screenshots of Jacob's talk page and his archives to RationalWiki since they're being deleted as we speak, just for the sake of having them available? ~SuperHamster Talk 05:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what's the rumpus? Have a lot of his edits been oversighted? I see he blocked TK, what else did he do? Was there a Parthian? And yes, by all means save and upload what you can. DickTurpis (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd offer a summary of what he did here, but I already offered a small briefing on his article. He basically announced that he was leaving and that Conservapedia sucks on his userpage (along with throwing a few lines at TK), then proceeded to delete several pages and issue several blocks. Then Andy came and revoked all his rights, along with blocking him. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's awesome. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)--
I had hoped he would make a push to the right as his exit strategy. --Opcn (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What does the section title have to do with Jacob? Did he say something about being gay? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
He could have at least unblocked my account he blocked 6 months ago. Dick.Senator Harrison (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled onto Conservapedia right in the middle of the whole affair and happened to keep the "Recent Changes" page left open in a tab before they started the burn. I've got my own print-screen of the tab, comments and all, but by the time I thought about using RW's capture most of the goodies had already been removed. Looking at the file upload, I gather I need to make another 10 edits before I get upload pivs? Aslate (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's actually 20 edits to be able to upload images. Note that all his blocks and deletions can be viewed in his log; they may be hidden from the recent changes, but they're there. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For the love of god someone with some wikifu please wigo this --Opcn (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When Douglas Adams quits I really hope that he waits until 4 in the morning, screenshots himself for us, and does it by unblocking everyone he can.--Opcn (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh goody. Maybe now Terry and John will stop spreading scurrilous rumours about dear, sweet, innocent, angelic Kotomi. --PsyGremlinPrata! 05:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

{ud} I have to laugh at Karajerk's indignation as he deletes Jacob's user page. "You've really, REALLY, proved beyond all doubt what we've been saying about liberals all along." What point is that Koward? That my kissing Andy's ass and acting like a playground bully you get welcomed into the inner sanctum of CP, despite everybody yelling "PARODIST!" How does the saying go? "Fool me once..." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Karajou: All you did, JacobB, was to prove our point. You've really, REALLY, proved beyond all doubt what we've been saying about liberals all along I think you missed the point Karajou - what happened here was proving the point about TK and CP. JacobB was a known parodist but, being a little lickspittle, no one cared. AceX-102 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, Karajou, TK knew JacobB was a parodist and Jacob advertised the fact here, on RW. AceX-102 06:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote TK:

The latest news on Jacob is the RW Admin "<name withheld>" contacted me, and he is in possession of emails from me and Andy sent to JacobB. Nothing really confidential, or damaging, but still shows he was playing footsie for some reason. <name withheld> claims he was Rat user who has blanked his pages, and at one time offered to sell his blocking account. Who knows if this is true. So long as his edits and behavior at CP are good, I don't know if we should do anything.....

(TZB 1/3/2010 "JacobB - the next Sysop?") So despite all that, you still promoted him. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 06:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They were told Bugler was a parodist before hand, that let TK back in despite reservations, Andy is too pig-headed to listen to anyone else. Why aren't you blogging about this? - π 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Erg... because I've been awake for 36 hours and need a far more ordered brain before waxing lyrical on the whole shenanigan. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't you sleeping then? - π 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Because I've been a naughty happy shiny boy and sleep is out of the question for a few hours yet. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
the funniest thing about this was Ken's response. He didn't block Jacob nor restore any of the deleted items except for his Machismo essays. Again, this just shows the real concerns of the CP admins. None of them give a fuck. AceX-102 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
JacobB was the guy who made my life miserable on that site before I gave up on the whole thing. I admit I feel rather vindicated now this has all come out. :) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the math course is off? What a pity! So, we have to wait for cp:Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Mathematics Lectures... Was "JacobB" member of the current Conservapedia:Zeuglodon Blues? larronsicut fur in nocte 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Given their raging paranoia, I doubt any newcomers will be welcomed that far in again, after Philip and Tim came out as filthy liberals. Despite you-know-who leaking their private conversations left, right and centre, of course. By implication, the means that there's probably exactly the same members in TZB as in the even-more-soopah-seekrit cp-fab-five group. --PsyGremlinPraat! 07:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Mainpage is still fucked. Nice work Z. AceX-102 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No Andy is in the middle of "improving" it. Instead of sandboxing it he is doing it live, but it is late so he has gone to bed. He has left it looking like shit as he has removed the "better" stuff and left the mental diarrhea is Ken's contributions to the left hand side. - π 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just a great story to wake up to on a rainy Sunday morning. I look forward to hours of wasted time reading more paranoid gibberish from the pack of unevolved chimps over there. DogPMarmite Patrol 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated TZB archive please! EddyP (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh, Mainpageright is still nuked. Not sure whether to congratulate Jacob on trolling (by deleting it) or TK on trolling even harder (by not restoring it) there. And yes, I'd love to go through a new SDG/TZB archive! Even though it should be less fun than those since the "voices of reason" are gone by now, so it'd be a full echo chamber with little actual discussion. --Sid (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit to add: When I wrote the above, I hadn't thought of the database concerns addressed in the section below. --Sid (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC)As fun as it is to watch some of them scramble around with post hoc justifications (he proved their point about liberals? But didn't clearly prove everyone elses point about gullibility?) it is a bit sad that yet another one has turned out to be fake and they're again looking at this site as if it was "our" fault. It's starting to get quite tiresome. There is a sizeable (and increasing) part of RW that wants to have nothing more to do with Conservapedia other than to treat it as another source of "income", on par with WND or the Daily Mail or whatever. I have to urge anyone who considers themselves to be an RW user - as opposed to a CP parodist who also has an RW account - to cease any parody or vandalism (although I'm pretty sure very few, if any, people do it any more) and let them tear themselves apart. There are no points left to be made. We get it. Andy is not going to learn to be suspect of people who kiss his ass constantly. TK is not going to go anywhere. CP is just going to dry up and be a forgotten dreg of the internet pretty soon, it's already in its death thralls, enjoy it by all means, but I think distant observation and a quiet "we told you so" is better than the sad life of living behind proxies and fake names and personalities and the degree of piss-headed victimisation you need to have in order to fit in there. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put Ard. That's the most lucid post I've read in this thread. This is not to rubbish the work of parodists. Parodists are funny, but watching the genuine nutjobs stew in their own juices is much funnier.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but you ignore the fact that biggest parodist of all is still there. Hi, Terry Koeckritz. Wave.gif  Lily Inspirate me. 13:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but yeah, even the most dedicated parodist couldn't match the genuine insanity that Andy and Ken produce on a regular basis. So Jacob managed to sneak some misinformation into their math articles and probably the CBP as well, big deal. CP's credibility has already been thoroughly destroyed, and nobody will use it as a reference source for either (or any) topic anyway. The only effect all this hard work will have will be a minor inconvenience for Andy, whose poor judgement has been exposed once again, but he'll never learn and just go on to promote the next suck-up that comes along. Also, any parodist who wants to get that far will have to emulate the leading bigots and engage in some pretty dickish behaviour of his own. Bullying new editors who might be acting in good faith in order to score points on CP isn't right, even if they're naive for giving CP a try and would get into trouble with some other sysop sooner or later anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: what's going on with mainpageright? Why can't they simply undelete it? On another note, why did it suddenly become sane? The first 2 news stories were actually *gasp* news stories, not contrived attacks on liberals. What is going on? DickTurpis (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I gathered, the undeletion issue is tied to how MediaWiki handles this in terms of database operations. Deleting and undeleting very large (in terms of edit count) pages tends to grind the entire system to a screeching halt. Somebody here once deleted WIGO/TWIGO, and restoring it took a good while (and some backstage mojo by our big guns). Other notable cases from Wikipedia (a site that has more resources than RW or CP, which illustrates just how bad this problem is): "Don't delete the main page" and Ed Poor making the news for deleting VfD (complete with note of the database shock). At the moment, Wikipedia even has a special user right for this called "bigdelete" ("delete pages with over 5,000 revisions") which is reserved to Stewards only. On CP, Mainpageright has been edited several times each day for a long time, so... --Sid (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. Seems it would be worth it to them, though. I mean, it's not like there's enough going on over there that things coming to a halt for a while would disrupt anything other than Ken's tweaking of his Dawkins/Machismo essay. But it's their call. DickTurpis (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The mainpage being half blank is actually a great improvement. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, Andy and Ken noticed the appalling lack of mildly amusing idiocy on mainpageright and ameliorated the situation. Seriously, how can a company - let alone an oil company - be liberal? Röstigraben (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that in AndyLand, everything good is conservative, everything conservative is good, and everything that's not conservative is liberal. Now... would you call BP and its handling of its catastrophe "good"? No? Then you got your answer. ;) --Sid (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EZ edit button

What even happened over there? Their logs only show some articles and templates getting restored, but not whatever it is JacobB did. No deletions, no blocks, no parting shot, nothing. Does anyone have better screenshots, etc? Since I do see the restorations but not the deletions it's obvious Andy Schlafly manually oversighted the logs. I didn't know they could do that. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They're still there... Block Log and Delete Log --Sid (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB claims innocence

Emailed JacobB since I still had his email address from our correspondence and he claims that his account was hijacked. He stated he and TK discussed it at length on how this supposed miscarriage of justice occurred (IP hijacking he claims). He then stated there is little he can do until the investigation is over, but he has little to clear his name. The question being, is he being honest or just trying to play parodist still? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oof. It's of course possible that he victim to phishing or something and that somebody took over his account. I honestly doubt it, but it's technically possible. If the whole "I was TK's pawn" angle is true, it's of course also possible that Andy is finally starting to see the light (unlikely) and is now breathing down TK's neck (unlikely), forcing TK to engage in damage control by declaring the entire thing a hack attack. Or it's simply Jacob yanking CP's chain some more by making them ask themselves "...what if we were wrong...?". I dunno. But I'm fairly sure that Andy won't buy any hacker story unless TK personally vouches for it - and if he does, it'll say a lot about the big picture. --Sid (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see the weakness in your argument. "ask themselves '...what if we were wrong...?'". When exactly has Andy ever asked himself that question? --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If Jacob planned it well - e.g. used a different IP for the betrayal - then he could get unblocked. But I doubt that he would receive his rights back. — Unsigned, by: EddyP / talk / contribs
I ain't buying it. But I will say this, it is odd that no one one this site has come forward as JacobB. I really doubt a parodist that heavily into his role and so completely emersed in the CP universe couldn't at least have a passing association with RW, or be a regular reader. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect anyone to own up to being JacobB. People may do their own thing at CP, but it's not really done to go bragging about it here.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
More confessing than bragging, I'd think. Bugler fessed up pretty quickly as I recall. They usually have a story to tell, and I'd like to hear it. DickTurpis (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Some people don't want it known who they were, or still are on CP. The reasons go a bit deeper than just wanting bragging rights. JacobB may have been a parodist, or may not. His account could have been compromised. If so, it could have been hijacked by TK for his own nefarious purposes. Questions for Jacob: did you at any point in time during the past year, ever "share" a password to anything with TK, for the purpose of "testing" or "verifying" something? Did you ever get a suspicious email purportedly from CPWebmaster or Andy or another sysop at CP asking for account information? Did you verify it actually came from that person? Are CP passwords encrypted in the database in a way that someone with the abilities can extract them? TK is going to use this to push his own agenda. What he wants is what he's always wanted: more power. Bureaucrat status. The ability to make and de-sysop other admins. Access to the database. Flagged revisions that only he can approve. TK's been working a long time towards these goals. He's been moving slowly ever closer to Andy, increasing his trust and dependency on him. He's been cultivating the other admins friendship and trust, while working behind the scenes to discredit them. He's been creating "situations" to cast doubt on other admins. How soon Andy et al forget how he opened the first private CP sysop discussion group to the public after he was removed from CP, exposing the CP Sysops private information... yet they still trust him? Even after they became aware that he created several RW accounts, including E.Wig, and NightTrain, (and more) and made his own private insider groups and a board to plan how to take down CP. He's also passed along many messages and IM conversations from CP admins and their "private" sysop groups to RW members, and so much more that isn't generally known and can't be told at this time. Andy, you were clued in long ago to what TK is and what his plan is, and chose to ignore it. You could have removed him from a position of power and trust long ago. Now it is too late. So tell me, has anything strange been happening at CP? Has TK taken over corresponding with blocked users so that you never have to be "bothered" by them or even see emails from them? Are messages from your private Z.Blues and cp-fab-five sysop groups "somehow" still being leaked? Is editing strangely disabled at times and no one can figure out who is doing this? Does TK attempt to cast suspicion on other admins? Have you increased TK's "abilities" while decreasing other admin's yet the problems persist? Your wiki is almost dead. TK will soon drive the final nails in the coffin of what was once Conservapedia. All that will be left to say is, see now? it was TK. Told you so. Fred4T (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"and so much more that isn't generally known and can't be told at this time." Funneeze. (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy, Michelle, and Perfection

Checking on Andy before bed, he seems to be very excitedimg about the latest Tea Party stunt. The lop-sidedness of the page is dizzying, and I imagine TK is upset at the suspension of his blogroll.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see him ironically admittingimg that he created the ratio in Best Conservative Words: "We completed the perfect doubling by century". ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it TK, that redlink is definitely helping the presentationimg. - π 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I thnk it's funny that Andy just added that tea-bagger stuff to the main page rather than recreating a Mainpageright. It obviously showed his excitement. I bet Mrs. S ended up with a good annual rogering for that.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember what happened to WIGO:CP and TWIGO:CP? He can't restore it. (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There wouldn't be that many edits given that it has been deleted a few times. - π 09:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes there would. All the deleted edits still count when you try to restore. That's why they always restore by copy pasting, except this time they don't have a copy. (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I didn't mean restoring the deleted stuff, I meant just creating a new template to lodge his latest titillating news.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see TK has managed to upload a new MPR, but without Andy's 'Michelle' addition. C'mon TK make sure Andy's ring is polished.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken - where are these churches that don't believe in the Bible of which you speak?

"Creationist high school students are going to wear “Question evolution” t-shirts to their high schools and Bible believing churches are going to encourage them to do so."[7]

Ken, I demand you explain what that sentence means? DogPMarmite Patrol 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Churches that don't agree with Ken's narrow religious dogma = don't believe in the bible. I suspect he is saying Catholics and Episcopals are not Christians without actually vocalising it least Andy takes his soapbox away. - π 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it's just like aSK's "biblical worldview". Because if you don't believe that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and then designed every living being Himself, you're not "Bible believing". --Sid (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically it's Ken having problems with constructing a sentence in English, not that some churches don't believe in the bible.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically what Pir said. It's simple persecution, quite a recurring theme. It's the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality so any church of any description that doesn't enforce biblical literalism isn't a "real" church and is one of The Others, tantamount to being one of those pesky, immoral atheist types. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the parlance of a fundy A "bible believing church" is one that believes the bible to be the litteral word of God, especially if it is the KJV and only the KJV. --Opcn (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You surely meant the Conservapedia Bible, right? Because everybody knows the KJV also has its shortcomings which led to the need to translate it into Conservative English, leading to The Actual Word Of God Since God Lacked The Proper Words To Express His Message Back Then. ;) --Sid (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Uni Tarian. DickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Would it be possible for someone to create a pie chart showing CBP edits by user? It'd be interesting to see what proportion of edits were made by JacobB and DouglasA. EddyP (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:


Contributors to the Conservapedia Bible Project, i.e., to the pages cp:Mark 1-8 (Translated),cp:Mark 9-16 (Translated),cp:Matthew 1-9 (Translated),cp:Matthew 10-19 (Translated),cp:Matthew 20-28 (Translated),cp:Luke 1-8 (Translated),cp:Luke 9-16 (Translated),cp:Luke 17-24 (Translated),cp:John 1-7 (Translated),cp:John 8-13 (Translated),cp:John 15-21 (Translated),cp:Acts 1-9 (Translated),cp:Acts 10-19 (Translated),cp:Acts 20-28 (Translated),cp:Romans 1-8 (Translated),cp:Romans 9-16 (Translated),cp:1 Corinthians 1-8 (Translated),cp:1 Corinthians 9-16 (Translated),cp:Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Translated). With greetings from cp:User:JacobB to prof Douglas Moo...

larronsicut fur in nocte 11:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you remove single edit editors who's edits were immediately reverted and the revert? Also wasn't JacobB setting up the tables? That would account for the large number of bytes he put down. - π 11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • don't know
  • certainly
larronsicut fur in nocte 12:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
LArron, as always you're brilliant. If Andy ever publishes it, I wonder what he'll say about the contributors? At least 20% of the edits are parodists. More like 30% counting unsures.EddyP (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the trouble with parodists: a good one is better than a true believer. A True Believer might have doubts and reservations about some of the twaddle; a parodist knows it's all garbage and does the best (s)he can to promote it and drive it to its extremes.12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Surely if they have doubts they're not, by definition, a True Believer? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You left out ECC! --Opcn (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I left out quite a bit - I updated the pic to a more complete version larronsicut fur in nocte 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some 3 AM thoughts on kenservative Ed poor

  • (Given that the edit in question was by Ed, and not Ken)

3:04 now just found this so in Kendy-land all bad people are haz teh gay, and all evilutionists are haz teh nazi, so bad evilutionists like teh dawkinz and teh peezed are tah gay nazis so they should be butch, ultra-macho, but they aren't, so that is another failing on their part. Sorry for the lolcatz grammar, not looking forward to getting up in an hour and standing in the river all day with a net hoping for salmon to swim into it. -- You can has the Opcn (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? On what planet was homosexuality supported by the Nazi party?!?!? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll say it, "do Nazis have machismo?" Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Does the pope shit in the woods? --Opcn (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Did anybody notice that this edit about butch Nazi homosexuals wasn't made by Ken, but rather... by Uncle Ed? Heck, this is a homosexuality article Ken hasn't even touched. What bizarro world is this? --Sid (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there something on CP a while back about some high-ranking Nazis actually secretly being gay, or was that in some other, equally deluded part of the internet that I'm getting confused with CP? (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Answering myself here, but nope, it was a book by some dude named Scott Lively - The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if someone already has captured that, but I feel its necessary preserve it for the agesimg Ricardo Altamirano Talk 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Lively's book has been used as a reference in the Gay/Nazi articles, though those references are not really explicit. Right now, two references in cp:Homosexuals and the Holocaust and two references in cp:Homosexuality in Nazi Germany are basically that one book. They are a collection of praising reviews for the book, "The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party" (used in both CP articles - it's an article that defends and repeats the book's claims, explicitly using it as a source) and finally "Homosexuality and the Nazi Party" by Lively himself, which seems to be an excerpt or summary of the book. Ed has even been called out on using the book so often as a source. --Sid (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I really like how he compares himself to strider the ranger in that last edit. --Opcn (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember when Ed was trying to prove that it was possible for a Nazi to sodomise 100 boys per day. AceX-102 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid to ask how he proposed to test that hypothesis. Röstigraben (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Opcn, I don't even know what to think of that diff, except to gag a bit. What are the chances that CP is now the world's biggest clearinghouse for salacious information random lies about homosexuality? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Ed would know the difference between "swish" and "butch" homosexuals. And yes, while there were homosexuals in the Brown Shirts (Ernst Roehm for one), given what happened to them in the Night of the Long Knives, I'd hardly call it "supporting" homosexuality. Not to mention the pink triangle (or is that a myth). --PsyGremlinTal! 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Macho and butch Nazi homos sitting across the aisle from each other in the Bratwurstglockl. Stockings and negligees covered by pink vinyl raincoats on one side, assless leather chaps and leather vests on the other. Roehm and Hitler sipping cosmos. Good stuff. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Limey superiority over Yanks

The UK's GCHQ uses its technology to locate Al-Qaeda & Taliban for the Americans. Have you no national pride, TK?  Lily Inspirate me. 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean "atheistic socialist technology"? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

anyone who uses words like "limey" or "yank" is automatically an asshole.

Larron, I don't think it will work

This does very effectively show that he forced the fitimg but that doesn't really matter because he knows that he forced the fitimg he freely admits itimg What he doesn't understand is what is wrong with it --Opcn (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls excuse Opcn - I messed with your wp link. 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
(EC)It's been reverted now anyway (as any criticism of CP = 'trolling'), after being up for a mere 40 minutes. I hope someone reverts it back, as I'd love to see the Assfly bollocks himself in circles trying to defend his 'insight'. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The Fly himself has re-reverted! Maybe JacobB is having an effect. EddyP (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's just a try. It will take me a couple of days to answer to Aschlafly, I've to get to an unblocked computer while the public editing window is open at CP... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Point out to Andy how the "Conservapedia's Law" fails absolutely on the 50 and 25 year interval. It won't convince him, but I'd love to hear the rationalizations that would follow. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
WTF does this mean: "Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century." Am I reading correctly that he doesn't understand what selection bias is? ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that between KHamilton and JGHuston and CJHallock I raised just about every objection to the BNCW project that could be raised.--Opcn (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: 1. Andy crows that liberals cannot find fault with his findings. 2. A person (who MUST be liberal because he disagrees with Andy) posts a reasonable explanation of why Andy pulled his numbers out of his arse. 3. Said poster gets reverted and blocked for trolling. 4. Goto step 1. What a bunch of fucking numpties. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

omg squee

richard dawkins supporters are teh cute!!

Am I the only one who has a slightly different definition of "Essay"? --Maquissar (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(Moved to "Essay: Richard Dawkins' intellectually starving atheist supporters"img with the redirect deleted.) Yes, Ken's recent "essays" really make one wonder. Then again, it's a refreshing break from his usual, uber-verbose style that led to the unreadable trio of monster articles (Homosexuality, Evolution, Atheism). And HOLY CRAP THAT CAT IS THE CUTEST THING EVER! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! --Sid (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I CAN HAZ HOMEZCHOOLIN'? --Maquissar (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If kitteh beleevz in relijin, he pray for cheezburger, and get none. If kitteh is non-beleevr, kitteh gets cheezburger himself. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It qualifies for an essay in Andy's homeskool class. Vulpius (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"Your essay doesn't criticise Obama, minus 2. 48/50" DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Kitteh does not look ravenous, kitteh looks cute. Surely Ceiling Kitteh will provide for kitteh? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't bet on it - that looks suspiciously like Basement Cat. (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

KITTEH KITTEH KITTEH!!! YAY! I wanna be a Richard Dawkin's fan now. You know, except that half of what he says turns out to be antagonistic crap, but I could still pick out the good stuff. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia attempts satire


They could at least make fun of the evidence that is there, I mean I know it's hard to make it seem like the evidence for evolution isn't evidence at all but they could at least try.

Poor effort, 0/10. Raging (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how he "just completed" it twice, a few days apart. --Opcn (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What an astonishingly ignorant prick. Someone sock up and edit in a list of transitional fossils, some basics on DNA sequencing, and maybe the Lenski experiment for good measure. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Errm. We've got a fair-few articles that are just tumbleweed, including Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax and of God's existence, List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence, and list of scientifically controlled double blind_studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy to name but three. CS Miller (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The tumbleweeds also appear in several other articles in certain sections, such as the "Fair and honest things done by TK" section in Conservapedia:TK. That makes it all the better; it just shows how Ken has no sense of original creativity whatsoever. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The older tumbleweeds with cricket sound was a bit more amusing as well, and in our context, they're at least bound to some form of reality. The wording used in titles is a bit lest solid (or those articles are tagged as challenge articles for anyone to write). If evidence is somehow discovered, it would probably be listed here. On the other hand, the titles used on Conservapedia could cause things to backfire (e.g. saying the tumbleweed is atheist art - it is, since it represents time slipping away and nothing happening), and prohibits people from saying that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As they say, twice is tragedy and thrice is comedy...

So JacobB finally outs himself. What how many deep cover parodists does this make now? MexMax, Bugler... I know there have been more but I can't name them off the top of my head. - Tygrehart

See Conservapedia:Parodist. alt (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
These parodists revealing themselves have no effect at all on Andy, it seems. But can he really just ignore someone he made a sysop making such statements about him and the project? I don't see how he can make this mistake over and over again and never apologize for the damage that has been done to a project so many people have worked on. Is it just that he sees it as his project, so no-one but him should care? I know none of you are Andy, but I'm really at a loss as to what goes on in his mind whenever this happens.-- JArneal 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is we frequently mention which users are known parodists and RobS, TK and Ken all read RW but not one of them does a thing. And when Jacob came out Ken did nothing but restore his own stuff, he didn't even block Jacob. Say what you like about RW but it is obvious very few CP sysop care about the project outside of there pet projects. AceX-102 08:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


"Long-term suspected parodist." Haven't we always known this account to belong to a parodist? Or do we have to keep "suspected" in there, as evidence was never made public? SJ Debaser 23:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's little point in keeping it private now. I know BMcP says he's trying to get back in, but really if they let him back after all that, whatever proof anybody here has won't change their minds. So what was this evidence that people have had all along? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knew - even TK. AceX-102 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You need to like totally get with the programme! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The evidence consisted of some very good cross-wiki sleuthing and some unlikely coincidences. EddyP (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
An email circulated in November last year with what Eddy correctly describes as cross-wiki sleuthing, which basically linked a few accounts together. SJ Debaser 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gambling Time

We should start a pool on who comes out of the closet next. My money's on Jpatt. Fedhaji (Talk) 09:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Aschlafly - reading his edits he's got to be a parodist. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
DouglasA is the same vintage as JacobB and may even be the same person. After that it's DaniellePutito and TZoran, both even more obvious choices than DouglasA. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think TZoran overstepped the mark when he deleted larron's "diatribe" from the New Conservative Words talk page. So he may be a parodist, but then he may also be PCHS-NJROTC on WP who has been a staunch pro-CP editor tag-teaming with TK.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that PCHS guy was DMorris on CP, though maybe he's Tzoran too. My money's on Douglas next though. --MarkGall (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I see Tyler Zoran (he uses his full name in his sig) also has a Creationwiki acc. I dunno how active he is, cos I still get the "This Connection is Untrusted" message. So he might be the real deal, or going the extra mile to create bona fides. That said, I have 100 internets and a night with the llama of your choice, that Douglas will be next. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"may even be the same person" - I'm not at liberty to disclose details, but I have it on verrry good authority that Jacob is more than one person. The account has had different drivers, as it were, at different times. At least one other popular conservative sysop is an outright community sock. I would not bet a lot of money on TK not being involved in some casual sockuppery every now and then. mb 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
JacobB was a meat-puppet, yes. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If Jacob was an account used by different users wouldn't the varying ip addresses arouse suspicion? Let's not pretend they don't checkuser anyone and everyone over there. DickTurpis (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they checkuser everything that moves at least once every two weeks, but not all IPs are static and not all people spend their entire life in the same town using the same provider. Also, proxies. mb 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I remind you of my Parody Pool - which does what it says on the tin! Also, my next bet was JacobB (as evidenced in my pool ;) - not that I can claim that as any major success but eh. MaxAlex Swimming pool 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Problem Is...

That Andy is so completely wrapped up in his worldview that he is incapable of learning the lessons he should from parodists. A sane person would say, "hey, I've been repeatedly victimized by parodists. Perhaps I should re-think how I run this site." But Andy just considers it more evidence of liberal deceit and continues on till he gets fooled again. And again. And again. MDB (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance, clearly. He won't learn because that would require quite a major upheaval in the way he thinks; not a particularly likely memetic mutation, really. So in come the post hoc rationalisations that say he was right all along. People "coming out" isn't going to teach him, it's going to reinforce him. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 07:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

CP's favourite parole officer...

... has taken things into his experienced hands! *LOL* larronsicut fur in nocte 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation? Looks like the ruse is working. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the discussion group...EddyP (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oooooo! He restored his user page! Gee, Geoff, that does a lot, considering he's still blocked. DickTurpis (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Re. Fly on wall and ongoing investigation: Geo mostly means well - he's just somewhat impressionable and doesn't really fight back much when he's slapped around. Remember, when the Night of the Blunt Knives went down, it was he who came to the CP Column to justify the blocks, and he even said he'd look into the block reasons. But then TK slapped him around in the SDG, scolding him for even talking to RW people. The result? Geo returned to the CP Column, dishing out insults and leaving people hanging.
Re. Restoring: It seems he just doesn't realize he can look at the deleted revisions without restoring the entire thing. Or something. His second restore action restored fewer revisions than the first one, which strikes me as him working his way through the history. But who knows what he's really up to. --Sid (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Conservapedia now has fewer monthly contributors and fewer monthly article edits than they had before March 2007, i.e. before anybody outside of Andy's classroom had ever heard about them. They still have slightly more activity than back then if you count one-edit trollerers and main page blog posts. I'm tempted to change my mirror updates from weekly to daily because they're essentially free now. I'm also tempted to discontinue my mirror updates altogether because, really, who gives a fuck anymore. mb 09:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. I gave up my Google alert on Citizendium because their decline was so tedious and the only alerts were spammers reusing their text ... then they went all attacking zombie and are amusing now - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I recall saying that his encyclopedia was nearing completion, which would explain the low edits. In step with conservative values, they don't mess with perfection. (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

nuther parody?

I've started dissecting their Easter island article at Conservapedia:Easter Island (incomplete - there are still some howlers I haven't pointed out yet), then I thought I might be exposing another parodist, then I read some more of their site and decided I can't tell the difference between the parodists and the nutcases. Have they started getting attacks from the right wing press for bringing conservatism into disrepute? WSC (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a parody. Like much of Conservapedia it's a poorly written hotch-potch of facts and conjecture which will probably just sit and fester in perpetuity unless it attracts the attention of new parodists. It does nothing to enhance CP but it wouldn't matter much if it was deleted. I don't think it even merits an analysis here, but don't let me be the one who rains on your parade.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been a little criticism of CP on the fringes of the right wing press, to the extent Whirled Nutz Daily counts. Other than that you'll NEVER see Conservapedia mentioned in real conservative sources like the CS Monitor, American Spectator, National Review, or the Weekly Standard because to do so would be to normalize what apparently even the Tea Party people think is fringe nonsense. To the extent anyone on CP even talks substantively about politics (not their typical rants, but thoughtful argument that's not merely by assertion) it's a real anomaly. Most of what you see is fallacy upon fallacy, arguments by assertion predicated on open lies or just absolutely nutters assumptions, Andy's insane rambling about "conservative words" and his anti-science screeds, Ken's YEC silliness, etc. No stranger from any political affiliation could possibly look at that website and think "I'm home." And since CP's bizarre fringe focuses aren't what makes real conservatives tick, who sadly really are a dying if not dead breed in this country, no mainstream intellectuals or even a poseur like Hannity or Beck would bother with CP. Nobody but people on the web with nothing better to do like us, the momentarily curious like PZ Myer's readers in the Machismo Thread, and fringe-dwellers like creationists would. It's sad being in the same boat as a scumbag like Philip Rayment, but we are to the extent we give or gave two shits about CP. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at the history suggests that the article was a student's contribution. It certainly reads like it, due to the factual inaccuracies and the awkward writing. It hasn't been touched since March '08, when Joaquin Martinez added a wikilink; the last edit prior to that was in May '07. So no, it's not parody, just an artifact of a more innocent time in CP's history. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please prove JacobB was a "known parodist"

Obviously you all knew he was, so prove it. (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who are saying he is a known parodist I'd imagine are personally aware of things like him having offered the account to the person who could guess the username and when nobody wanted it taking the account back to start his campaign of being a raging asshole to CP users all and sundry. There's other stuff, but I could really care less about JacobB anymore after telling TK about his status resulted in TK supporting him for admin. If these are the people running CP, we don't need parodists, and we sure as shit don't need people causing trouble over there. The admin there are awful to each other and the site suffers for their bad judgment and pettiness. I would have left them to themselves, but whatever. JacobB did what he did after CP admin were made aware of the situation. I've got nothing else to share. Suffice it to say that if you know you know, and if you don't nobody here's going out of their way to prove anything to you. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We discussed it multiple times in the private Rationalwiki IRC channel and on our Google Groups group. It's invitation only, and there are no logs, however. If you weren't there, you wouldn't know. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
And text messages, Skype, carrier pigeons, and shortwave. Just sayin'.
You can find the proof here
Just take a look at the What Is Going On at CP page. One WIGO calls JacobB the "Resident Parodist", another "our favourite parodist". One says "A parodist helps the parodist" after Jacob unbans ReligiousRight. Take a look at Conservapedia:Timeline. The article calls him "suspected known parodist". All these were written before he confessed. If you search the archives of this Talk page you'll find numerous occasions of people calling him a parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One can't prove that someone is a parodist, or prove that he isn't—it's a state of mind, and it's meaningless as an objective evaluation. Unless one puts in obvious parody, which I don't think Jacob ever did. People at RW often use the word "parodist" to mean "someone who behaves weirdly, or not in a manner consistent with the goals of CP." Jacob certainly satisfied that criterion.

On another matter, that was raised above: I have watched the math articles, especially Jacob's math articles, about as closely as anyone. The suspicion raised several paragraphs above, that Jacob had put in a lot of mathematical parody that needs to be reverted, is just not correct. It's too bad that he wrecked everything, but what he wrote on math was sensible. (Astronomy is another matter! Right, BMcP?) In fact, I exchanged private email with Andy (yes, I do that occasionally!) on this very point, assuring him that Jacob's math edits were fine. Andy thanked me, and said that only those last few edits were removed. SamHB (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was also a bit surprised by the claim to have inserted nonsense in the math articles (and I too sent Andy a note asking that they be spared deletion!). By no means did I scrutinize every math edit Jacob made, but the ones I did read seemed to be entirely sane -- I'd like to think that if he were systemically inserting nonsense I would've noticed. Maybe there are lies here and there but on the whole he did good stuff. The calculus lectures look fairly well thought-out, if a bit half-assedly executed. Perhaps one of the account's handlers, who was not the math editor, posted the resignation assuming there was more math disinformation than there really was, and now someone else is trying to get it back. Who knows. --MarkGall (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear BoN. I've seen through your clever little plan. You're hoping that somebody is going to put their hand up and say "Me!", which will allow you arseholes at CP to bleat about how RW is trying to destroy you. However, because we can spot the new editors acting exactly the way Andy wants people to act (i.e. kiss his ass at every opportunity and act like a small-minded bully to everybody else) it's fairly easy to spot the parodists. However, given that all the sysops do do is kiss Andy's ass and act like a close-minded bully to everybody else, it's impossible for you lot to identify him, because he's blended in so well. Bugler, RodWeathers and Jacob are prime examples. But then again, looking at the actions I've described, so are TK, Karajerk, Ed Poor, TZoran... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 07:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You have a point there Psy. Compare how those upstarts, just by using ingratiating, bully-boy tactics, managed to worm their way into positions of authority and power (OK, so some blew it at the last) while the likes of Iduan, HelpJazz, Brianco were hounded out despite their good work because they really weren't unpleasant enough. Then sysops like DanH, CPAdmin1 and PJR all left because of TK's bully-boy tactics. At one time CP was active with people who knew a bit about running a proper wiki. Andy, however, with his own loopy worldview poisoned by WormTongue's backdoor communications, has imprisoned himself and his coterie on an island which nobody can get to, and from which they yell puerile insults at the world passing them by. P.S. I think our BoN questioner is really RobS.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The arguments in the Astronomy articles was to me, more of a dedication to the YEC Cosmology, mixed with arrogance that often comes with fundamentalism, rather then parody. Later, after I left, all the purging from the astronomy articles of distances greater then 6,000 light years away to me was plain sucking-up to Andy in hopes of receiving his blessings. Yeah, parodists do this also, but so do fundamentalists, as their ideology is so heavily based in authoritarianism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. He was a "known parodist" for no tangible reasons you can cite. Perfect. (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your point Rob? We've given you plenty of info that illustrated he was a parodist. There's even an email from Terry quoted above in which he says he knows JacobB wasn't quite kosher. If by proof you want us to name names, that ain't going to happen, because we don't know. However, you're the self-proclaimed director of counter intelligence - you find it out. Or is this just CP's way of whinging about "RW are lying, just because they call somebody a parodist and we're too stupid to see it." Remember this - we called Bugler a parodist and were right; we called RodWeathers a parodist and were right, we called Jabob - ditto. The only one that was never called was Jess, because she wasn't, but was hounded out because in CP-logic a good and bad editor can't come from the same country. Oh yes, and her and Jallen kept calling TK on his bullshit. Which is why he ran to Ed, who ran to Andy bitching that TK was being badmouthed. Aw! Poor widdle TK. Except that gave TK (who is a parodist) an excuse to use her name to leak the ZB stuff. That's why his name appears on top of all the mails. Would you like to see the e-mail from him, where he gave me the link to to the download site, so I could put it on my blog? Now then Rob, who are we going to call next - and what will you do about it? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
JacobB is seens as a parodist, as his behaviour parodies the typical behaviour of the worst bullies at Conservapedia:
  • he committed the most obvious acts of plagiarism
  • his use of the oversight tool is excessive and petty, thereby ridiculously orwellian: sysops aren't wrong
  • Andy should take a look at which administrator enables the night editing mode - and for how long. I wouldn't be surprised if JacobB were one of the main users of this feature...
That said
  • there isn't much wrong with his mathematical articles. He only runs into problem when he has to apply Andy's nuttier concepts (as avoiding the satanic imaginary numbers)
  • As long as we have cp:Center - and cp:Axiom of Choice, how can there be parody?
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Rob, please login before you post. We knew JacobB was a parodist as he was a communist plant sent from Obama's mosque and funded by British Petroleum. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's new play thing

I guess Ken's new Satire of Atheismimg page provides his easily distracted mind with a new pet project of irrelevance. This particular projects though may much more suited to his abilities, since it requires minimal work as the page is simply a collection of links that Ken no doubt collected over the years. It sure beats the much higher levels of dedication and work his previously ambitious but now all but abandoned projects would require. After all, who hears anything about the "Conservapedia Anti-abortion Project" anymore? How about that "Conservapedia Anti-socialism Project", which has since been removed from the mainpage? Even his Magnum Opus, the "Richard Dawkins Project" consists mostly of red links, with only the MA-CHEESE-MO "essay" receiving any substantial attention, and that is mostly to advertise his lack of wikifu skills through the haphazard placement of images. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Satire. You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, hey! That mother fucker stole our tumbleweed! This is an outrage. He should only reimplement our ideas with low quality gifs stolen from the interwebs. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
For real lols read the Satire on Evolution section, just poorly drawn cartoons, Ken being a crackpot on Flicker, and lame demotivational posters. Also I thought CP doesn't link to pages with Offensive Language, or does Ken not know where "Circle Jerk" comes from?
how is the Atheist Missionary cartoon a satire?--Opcn (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please guys, you are only encouraging the afflicted to make bigger a fool of himself. He obviously reads us and is probably wetting his pants with glee at the attention so spare a thought for his poor, aged mother who has to do his laundry.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Lord man... GET. HELP!! Scarlet A.pngd hominem 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue drawing attention to Ken's antics, he is the only reason that place is even interesting now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Story of the Adulteress

What does this obsession say about Andy's home life? St Augustines thoughts are enlightening:

Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin." [8] — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

St. Augustine was a badass muthafucka. He kinda hated actors, though, so I have mixed feelings... --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Given that outside the gospels the New Testament is not the word of Jesus but interpretations by followers, then if they also thought that it is Christian to forgive the sins of an adultress (not an adulterer mind you as they get away with it anyway) then the story is just as valid as anything else in the Bible no matter when it was added. Of course for conservative Biblical-literalists it is an aid to their own agenda to cast doubt on the liberal bits.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I will grant Andy one thing... he's one of the few Biblical fundamentalist who will openly say "there's parts of the Bible I don't care for and I'm going to ignore them." Most other fundamentalists just gloss over the parts they dislike; Andy, at least, openly declares he doesn't believe in them. MDB (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it and the bolded quoted bit sums it up perfectly. Andy has probably told his wife all about how the story is a fake. Or she cheated on him. Or both. (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
St. Augustine never said that. It's a liberal addition to his sayings. X Stickman (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost had a brain aneurysm.

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Almost had a brain aneurysm.13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem with perfection or how to count words....

Lately, I became a little bit involved in the science of counting conservative words. Remember? Aschlafly announced:


We completed the perfect doubling by century for Best New Conservative Terms by adding this term invented in 1914: "Founding Fathers."

The reason for this announcement is the little table

Century # New Conservative Terms Most Prolific Periods
1600s 20 period following publication of KJV
1700s 40 Great Awaken., Am. Revol., Const. Conv.
1800s 80 1820s - political transition and conflict
1900s 160 1940s - WWII and postwar transition
2000s 13 (preliminary)

Only problem: Taking the list of conservative words and actually counting them, yields the following

century 1600s 1700s 1800s 1900s 2000s
words 20 40 81 150 14

(here a sortable list, do your own recount :-)

This shows the inherent selection bias par excellence: Aschlafly stopped the search for conservative words the moment he thought to have reached his goal.

larronsicut fur in nocte 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mwahahaha I LOVE you, Larron. You are MADE OF AWESOME. mb 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back!

The Arsepiecefly has just unblocked the JacobB account, "based on an open-minded review of evidence and on the positive recommendation of senior Sysops". Let's rock! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I drive for a few minutes? I've never driven a privileged account before! EddyP (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I advice against the use of Assfly in the wigos - should be more neutral (or more funny :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait whats his login? I want to "play" with his account lol. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it's senior admins play-time at the moment! larronsicut fur in nocte 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not completely surprised by this. After all he stated he was innocent and someone hijacked his account. Of course we can't say if that is true entire since there is no real evidence either way. Either he is an innocent fundamentalist or a master parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
LMAO!!! Conservapedia is fucking hilarious. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No sign of any rights being restored. Maybe they will be, after a lengthy "investigation" - you know like the one Jinx went through. Still, full marks to him, for getting past Andy. Clearly the "senior admin" in question is TK, who recognises a kindred spirit. - Psy (tltli)
I guess that makes Andy a liberal? Röstigraben (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
GO JACOB!!! raise hell for RW --Thunderstruck (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There's gullibility, and then there's Andy Schlafly. How is it even possible to be that paranoid and that trusting at the same time? Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that he just doesn't want to show that he and his site are vulnerable to such shenanigans, in which he never learns from. As a result, he tries to convince himself that JacobB's account was really compromised, just like all the other things that he's convinced himself of. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Jacob's the one getting played here. True, he probably banned a few users who didn't deserve it (it's not like they would've survived TK very long anyway), and he may have made some other small-time mischief (but it's not like anyone will ever read most of those pages anyway). Really, the only actual damage I can remember him doing is chasing off BMcP. In return, CP got the entire Bible formatted for Wiki, a decent start on a calculus course, many hours of actual vandal-fighting, and other general improvements. And now he'll have to work even harder to get his rights back, with no room for screwing around. --MarkGall (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jake. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Proving once again that the andy definition of Open-mind involves a labotomy --Opcn (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable! The guy openly shouted parodist (a year ago or so I think - it'll be in the archives), we talked about non-stop about it with many RW members acknowledging Jacob was a parodist, TK knew and Rob "Counterintellegence Kara Duhe Creme Machine" Smith reads here and must have known but then, bam, back he goes. What is wrong with these people? AceX-102 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comedy and humour indeed

0 mental problems at Conservapedia. AceX-102 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Followed by blocking the guy, deleting his talk page, and then oversighting both actions (before Assfly unblocked). Ken is OBSESSED with that oversight feature (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Funnier still is Ken's deletion comment for the guy's userpage. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 21:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh, thanks. That comment certainly hit the spot. I'm starting to wonder if Ken edits at Uncyclopedia and at some point confused the URLs? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Andy makes it go bye bye.img AceX-102 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)