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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Winning a Debate)
(Winning a Debate)
Line 179: Line 179:
:The trouble is: He means it! His idiocy is coming close to Ed's Moonyness in the biggest idiot debate! {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 04:26, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:The trouble is: He means it! His idiocy is coming close to Ed's Moonyness in the biggest idiot debate! {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 04:26, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::No Susan, YOU'RE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!. Conservative is not an idiot he is just stupid. Ed's the idiot, Andy's a fool, Karajerk is a dumb grunt, TerryH is a pompous prick, Crockoshite is deranged, PJR is deluded, Learn Together is a bully, Joaquin is demented, Bugler is a fascist bastard and I can't quite fathom what Deborah is. (Did I miss anyone?)  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]][[User:Genghis Khant|<font color=Blue>Genghis</font>]]<small>{{User:Genghis Khant/sigtalk}}</small>  06:59, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::No Susan, YOU'RE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!. Conservative is not an idiot he is just stupid. Ed's the idiot, Andy's a fool, Karajerk is a dumb grunt, TerryH is a pompous prick, Crockoshite is deranged, PJR is deluded, Learn Together is a bully, Joaquin is demented, Bugler is a fascist bastard and I can't quite fathom what Deborah is. (Did I miss anyone?)  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]][[User:Genghis Khant|<font color=Blue>Genghis</font>]]<small>{{User:Genghis Khant/sigtalk}}</small>  06:59, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::What exactly is the difference between being just stupid and being an idiot? I think stupidity is what I was going for with the initial question. [[User:DickTurpis|DickTurpis]] 08:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::What is College Republican? [[User:NightFlare|NightFlare]]<sup>[[User talk: NightFlare|Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.]]</sup> 07:10, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::What is College Republican? [[User:NightFlare|NightFlare]]<sup>[[User talk: NightFlare|Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.]]</sup> 07:10, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::A mute [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=CollegeRepublican&page= obviously]. [[User:3.14159|3.14159]] 07:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::A mute [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=CollegeRepublican&page= obviously]. [[User:3.14159|3.14159]] 07:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:24, 21 June 2008

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

To prevent going over the same conversation over and over again if you think one CP Sysop is a bigger idiot than the rest of the idiots leave a comment at:

Debate:Who is the biggest idiot at CP?

Lenski sweepstake winner!

I think we can safely declare User:Arcan to be the winner of the sweepstakes. Congratulations, have a goat. That was so sadly, grimly predictable. For extra credit, do you reckon Assfly just can't see how rude and incompetent he is, or is he just a self-serving liar? -- 11:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Gotta hand it to Schlafly - even if Lenski obliges his idiotic request for low-level data, he can move on to calling the paper itself into question based on the short-than-average review time. What's conveniently left out, of course, is that it's the quality of the review, and not the time it took, that gives it credibility. --SpinyNorman 12:23, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
There are several reasons peer-review can take different lengths of time between submission and publication. First of all it depends on how fast the reviewers work, they are not full-time workers so their own schedules might delay the review. Secondly there may be points that needed clarification, illustrations or tables might need to be amended or the papers themselves copy-edited, this might involve some to-ing and fro-ing which can introduce delays. Thirdly, the publication itself has deadlines so a paper that just misses the deadline can be delayed by a month waiting for the next issue. Fourthly the editor may decide to delay publication in the interests of balancing the content. Finally, if as an editor you have something as important as Lenski's paper sitting on your desk then you probably want to get it out as soon as possible and not let it wait it's turn with all the other papers that are ready for publication. Andy is totally clueless about scientific publishing. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:41, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Off topic here, but I was reading some old Peanuts comics strips today (so much pure genius in the older ones), and I came across something that reminded me so much of Andy:

Charlie Brown [at Lucy's Psychiatric help booth]: Before we begin, I'd like to ask you something...What are your credentials?
Lucy (aka Andy): I know everything.
Charlie Brown: Those are good credentials!

That really does seem to be Andy's attitude.

Someone really needs to tell him "Andy, the internet is laughing at you." DickTurpis 13:50, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Someone tried - and look where it got him. GNUSMAS : TALK 14:25, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, the internet does have a well known liberal bias. That's wchy with the help of Ed, Andy is starting Conservanet, using the ultra-reliable transport of prayer. Buy your USB Jesus figurine and the driver will be revealed to your computer by almighty god. -- 14:10, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Since you brought up the "comics that remind you of Andy" issue: This "Ozy and Millie" strip almost looks like a prophecy. --Sid 14:28, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Excellent find, Sid. Think we could get permission to reproduce it on Andy's article? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:42, 20 June 2008 (EDT) (edit: I wrote and asked permission)
Wow, following it regularly, it's amazing that Dana's art changed that much over the years. But there it is. --Kels 00:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
The real irony is that Andy's going off about being "close minded" and yet he's the one who can't listen to a well-reasoned scientific argument and change his mind. No, he's got to assume that the data's not been published, which is tangential to the real point that E. coli evolved to eat citrate and didn't the second time, arguably a case of microevolution which doesn't bother most modern-IDers. Sterilesnore! 14:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
And it's funny, too, to make the ID argument for them - E coli could already metabolize it, it just couldn't get it across the cell wall. Arguably, the transport mechanism got broken at some point in the past, and this mutation just fixes the damage. In other words, no new information that the Designer didn't put there "in the beginning". ħumanUser talk:Human 14:41, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Yaaay! Now I've got three pointzes and a goat! Just to let everyone know, I will take very good care of it. Woohoo! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:03, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Congratulations! By the way, Andy has veered into his "in a court of law" argument"[1]. We really should document why he thinks science is analogous to legal proceeding - he's been making this argument "forever". ħumanUser talk:Human 15:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't understand why Andy deleted Rutm's comment here... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:02, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
There's only so many times you can respond to perfectly reasonable arguments with stupid misdirections without beginning to appear ridiculous even to yourself. "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true...", "I'm 95% certain of your..." Andy doesn't argue, so can't be beaten. All you need to is wait until he hits the hot button topics to piss off all the saner sysops as with Fox, DanH, etc. and all he'll have left is an echo chamber of insanity. -- 16:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

General Comments

CP is looking really quite mental again at the moment. I love it when they do that in time for the weekend. Who says they aren't considerate? RedDog 11:48, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

This morning I have either gotten out of bed on the wrong side, or I have turned a corner in my obsession with CP. Andy's disgraceful beahviour over 'The Lenski Affair' has this morning gone too far and I actually feel sick to my stomach. Having been heavily involved in the Hollywood breast cancer debate - where Andy's data was of course non-existant, I'm thrilled to see Murray bring that up, despite the fact that Andy will of course ignore it. But overall I would have to say that some switch appears to have been thrown, and I now feel dirty about even spending any time around his ludicrous site, as he's now actually out there God-bothering and slandering decent scientists, who have to put up with this shit. The mans stupidity makes me feel ill, and it's clear that 'taking the debate to him' hasn't had any effect - his head is as stuck in the sand as it was a year ago. Haven't we achieved anything? It seems not. I don't know if I have any energy left to go on. DogP 12:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I kind of agree there is no point debating him. But he is in his own little web based reality with all the rope he wants with which he hangs himself daily for our amusement. When he makes him self look so amazingly stupid parody becomes impossible - and debate unnecersary. At least I hope... By the way I e-mailed Lenski pointing out who Andy is and what he represents using the hatchet job he has done on Dawkins as an example. He may already be aware but I just thought it would be polite to let him know. RedDog 12:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
But the aim, DogP, was never to have any effect on Aschlafly. With his upbringing, that is beyond the scope of a small site like this. The aim, as far as I'm aware, was to have an effect on the seriousness with which Conservapedia is regarded. A case in point is the 'The Lenski Affair'. Along with other sites and blogs, RW has drawn attention to the unreasonableness, ignorance, disrespect and fear that has been so evident. Even many within CP, normally such staunch supporters, seem to be having a difficult time with this as evidenced by the paucity of numbers (5?) who signed up to his second letter.
IMVHO, this affair has done yet more damage to CP and possibly further afield. Other Creationists have been much wiser in the handling of it, either by being snarky or by contesting the significance of Lenski's conclusions - not by contesting the data itself. This "crusade" has made Aschlafly and by extension CP look quite ridiculous. I really feel for PJR, probably the most knowledgeable Creationist there, who explicitly warned Aschlafly not to do exactly what he ended up doing. Aschlalfy should be able to recognise good counsel when he sees it. Ajkgordon 12:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
DP, I confess to having had similar thoughts and feelings and I guess DanH has to. Andy has driven away many useful editors over the last few months, i.e. Iduan, HelpJazz, Azi. Even his pet homeskollar sysops Sharon, Deborah and Bethany seem to have given up on him. In fact many sysops now only act as thugs, beating up passing proles. Other than contributions from sysop wannabees Deborah and Burglar there is little new content apart from Ken's pathetic excrement. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy makes me feel queasy too. I think it started when I realized he will take any little thing used to challenge him in any way and piss all over that thing repeatedly until it becomes a sort of a sodden slogan for him to wave around. I remember precisely when I realized he had this sort of sick echoholia-incontinence , but I won't name that moment here as he obviously reads this site with great interest and I'm afraid he start up again. He is a lowbrow tool and pathological liar. I feel badly for Lenski as the latest target of his stream of urine thinly disguised as debate. I feel sickened by the editors who contribute to the site and help him with his smear campaign. What sort of person do you have to be to be a toady to such a little shit as Andy? Jesus, the humanity . . . 13:31, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I think that some people have genuinely tried to dilute the wackiness at CP and have edited sincerely to that end. Fox would be a good example and PJR too. I tried in a very limited way but without success. You see, there are children at stake here. If it was just Aschlafly, a Petty Officer (rtd) and a Moonie, no-one would bother them. Ajkgordon 13:37, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


It'll be interesting to look back a year or two from now and see if June 2008 marked the turning point where CP when from a laughable, biased but growing platform for uber-conservative expression, to a shrinking collection of right-wingnuts spouting material so offensive even mainstream conservatives disassociate themselves from it. Using PJR as my barometer, there's now pushback from the fundie-but-fair crowd regading Lenski, the nonsense in the Obama article about his name and being a Christian, and the way sysops like JoaquinM ignore the collaborative process and plow their pet content over anything contributed by others. I wondered if CP would get hijacked from it's homeschool-driven roots to the point where newbies will be too frustrated to contribute, and even the true believers will be too embarrassed to continue to associate themselves with content that is more suited to the "God hates fags" crowd. After the developments this week, I'm starting to thing we're there and just don't realize it yet. --SpinyNorman 13:48, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

We should try and keep tabs on who is actually contributing over there in terms of articles, not yammering on the talk pages and see if it falls off or some kind of pattern emerges. So far I've got Bert and his beloved KAL007, Conservative with whatever he's up to, Bugler, Deborah still on the redirect binge, Jessica quietly rebuilding the Empire of the Sun, Learn Together... and that's just about it. --PsygremlinWhut? 14:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd exclude Deborah and anyone else who's just gaming their stats by creating stubs and redirects. If you look at actual, significant content creation, it's a very short list. --SpinyNorman 14:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Per DogP's comment, I thought it best to relate the story of how I got here. CP is disgusting and infuriating, but its less inflammatory articles are also insidious. This is why we "fight." It may not have an effect on the people there (though I do believe it does affect, however slightly, some of the less indoctrinated), but it does have, and already has had, an effect on those who might possibly be fooled into thinking CP has any shred of credibility. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:10, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Damn you, Sid!

I was just about to WIGO Ken's viral marketing whackiness! --Edgerunner76...and a hotplate! 13:02, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry about that, I just happened to be around... :P If you got better snark, feel free to replace my more generic comment, though.
Also, I can't help but wonder what made Ken think that viral marketing for an encyclopedia is a great idea. Or let me rephrase that: What made him think that viral marketing for Conservapedia is a good idea? Outside of a narrow group of YEC gun-nuts, nobody seems to take CP seriously. Making more people aware of its presence is not going to improve that. On the contrary, it will simply make more people aware of the idiocy. ...not that I mind ;) --Sid 13:31, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah any Conservapedian viral marketing campaign that succeeds is going to bring a wave of vandals and parodists to the site. Unfortunately for lulz, Ken has slim chance of succeeding doing something like that on purpose -- accidentally, though, that's another matter. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 13:38, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
This and this are examples of viral marketing. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

New parodist on the block

Surely Foxtrot is taking the piss with his Zermelo-Fraenkel redirects. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:42, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

I dunno if that counts as parody... looking at his edits overall (just at the contrib list, not gonna go in-depth), it appears he's just being thorough. Just my gut feeling, though. --Sid 18:13, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


Oh go ahead then. It's only a baby troll
So do you enjoy your libel and slander you vandal slime? TerryH 01:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes we do thanks for asking. I personally like slipping in minor comments that go unnoticed happy snark hunting. 3.14159 01:22, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Care to expand on that comment TH? 01:29, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't suppose there's any chance this is the real TerryH? Can't be. I think these are the hours he's selling crack to 6th graders. Oops. More libel. Just put it on my account. DickTurpis 01:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Morning Terry. Good to see you're full of Christian cheer again. Care to mention who you're directing you bile against this time, or worried that it might by libellous. On that subject, you might want to tell your Fuhrer to steady on a bit when it comes to Lenski and Obama... the words "thin ice" and "libel" come to mind. Of course, that assumes that anybody except his circlejerk of goons cares about what rubbish he spouts. Now you have a nice day, y'hear. --PsygremlinWhut? 01:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Hell of a "long term sock" if it isn't him. tmtoulouse provoke 01:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd also like to know who the racist, moronic bastard is accusing of libel and slander (doesn't one of those refer to spoken language? I'm guessing the slackjawed asshole just doesn't know the difference). Of course, I'm not fully convinced this is the real Terry "fuckwit" H, but still. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 01:38, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
With one edit it's a bit early to say (but at least we are able to release all our raw data on that statistic, and that's what's important), that's why I'm thinking not, until we know more. DickTurpis 01:45, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Anybody have a sock that wants to ask on CP (preferably on Andy's talkpage) why TerryH is posting here. I'd get my sock to do it, but Deborah is busy (mis)redirecting at the moment. --PsygremlinWhut? 01:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd have Bugler do it but I'm not ready to out him yet. DickTurpis 01:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
The important question is if not TerryH than who? There are really only three option someone from CP in which case when TerryH finds out he is going to be more pissed than when he imagined he was called a liar and ban them. Someone from here in which case they are bored trolling their own site which is stupid. Or the final alternative which is someone who has studied the CP phenomenum as much as we have which implies they are or were once a member of RW or CP and so either they go back into the first two cases or they are pissed off at us. I say we feed the troll and see what happens. 3.14159 02:00, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I am reaching back into my memory but I swear that TerryH admitted to signing up two accounts on here in the SDG. tmtoulouse provoke 02:05, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I searched briefly, but didn't find anything except that ymmotrayam doesn't know what identity theft is. Didn't know TerryH and Temlakos were the same person, so he's the very real Terry. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
TerryH has more than two accounts on Myspace he uses them to meet Fiveteen girls. Oh shit! Their I go with the libel agian. 3.14159 02:07, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Sir, you just called me a vandal slime with regard to libel and slander.

You had better do one of three things:

  1. Provide a citation for your allegation that I am commiting libel and slander and negligence and unlawful restraining. If you try to do this make sure it doesn't contradict anything I think.
  2. Retract your last comment and apologize with candy and flowers.
  3. Prepare to face banhammering for hate crimes against the mob.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I have set watch on this one. (It may even be the only one on the watchlist!) NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:08, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

He's not going to reply. That's why they created their own site... they can't hack it in a forum of free dialog.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:17, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Poopie boogers! TerryH, is that you?! Long time no see, bro. Now go fucj yourself Ouch, that's not polite, is it? Hey, best way to prove you are you, is to predict something you will edit on CP (or better yet, something we ask you to type = 1337HX), and do it. Love and peace out. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey Tom didn't know you joined us. Loved your work on CP, big fan. Sorry to hear about you block. In the mean time pull up a goat and watch the show. 3.14159 02:22, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. Can you explain the goat thing to me? Is it just a mu-style nonsensical thing, or was there some joke long ago that is now an in-joke?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:26, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
It's a long ago joke turned in-joke, I am only still comming to terms with it. Conservapedia does not allow editing of their goat article anymore. ::Shudder::. Now noone is allowed to upload pictures to CP anymore. 3.14159 02:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Now that I know you're the real thing, want to elaborate on your comment? Before you go on, let me remind you what falsely accusing somebody of libel and slander is. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:34, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

How do we know he is the real thing? 3.14159 02:39, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
SDG. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:45, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Cheers. 3.14159 02:46, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
I've never been one for mindless vandalism. Sarcastic comments etc of course but not mindless vandalism. But if I'm going to be accused of it then I think just this once I'll break my own rule. Prepare for really pointless, mindless, 'slimey' vandalism. I'm going to see if I can get reported to the FBI. Can't wait. RedDog 03:55, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
If my memory serves me correctly, TerryH said that he had created his two accounts here to prevent anyone impersonating him and that he had used an "unbreakable" password so if anyone posted here it would it would either be him or Trent after violating the password register. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 04:35, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Really not my kind of thing at all but given the above accusation it had to be done. RedDog 06:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservative demonstrates Danth's law

(See our article of the year Danth's Law)

Why can't I vote twenty-twelveteen times? Surely my Pis are good for something. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

PS, What's "George Aiken"? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
George Aiken wanted to declare victory during Vietnam and leave without actually winning. 3.14159 02:35, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Persons who put links in section headers deserve to be Splurfled. SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
What are you trying to say Susan? 3.14159 02:58, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
You can't right click on it to open a new tab if you've set right click to edit! SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:04, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay I'll fix it! 3.14159 03:09, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
You and your posh "divs" what's wrong with big & small? Don't alter your habits on my account. SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

This video is not available in your country.

That is what shows up in red when I try to see one of the links (this one) on one of Conservative's subpages... what is it? Is Chavez doing nasty things again? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 04:04, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Extra points if you figure out what the links have to do with atheism. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 04:08, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, the vids he linked to are:
  • Billy Joel - Honesty
  • Bad Boys Whatcha Gonna Do
  • Perry Mason opening
  • Perry Mason Opening Theme/Intro #2
  • Matlock
  • The Beatles - The Fool On The Hill
  • classic Columbo
Either he's gone completely crazy and thinks these are part of some great atheist conspiracy, has gone completely senile and forgotten where he's posting his all time favourites or has gone completely stupid and thinks we're going to fall for some ridiculous prank he's trying to pull. 04:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe It's just a sign I spend too long on these pages (perhaps my wife is right) but I think he's trying to send us a coded message. Can't quite work it out as Perry Mason and Matlock aren't familiar to me. It seems a bit weak though. RedDog 04:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunatly I think I know were he is going with this one. Give me a second to turn my sense of humor down about 129 notches. Honesty, atheist are not honest. Whatcha gonna do, I think this is related to that stupid picture of the policeman picture about tracking down the evidence of evolution, this also would explain Perry Manson, Matlock and Columbo. Fool on the hill, evolutionist are fools.
Honestly this crap of his he thinks its paradoy, he actually thinks it is making a point with satrie. 3.14159 04:51, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Did Youtube get hit with another lawsuit? I can't seem to find The Simpsons/Family Guy/American Dad clips about creationism. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 05:07, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh no 3.13159 I think you're right! It's kind of the first thing I thought of but discounted it because it doesn't really work. The man has issues. RedDog 05:45, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
He's gone mentaler RedDog 05:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Did one of us make this? 3.14159 06:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

How old is Conservative? His debating skills, and his "jokes", have the hallmark of a 13 year old. 3.14159 06:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm affraid our obsessive friend is trapped in an adult's body. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 06:57, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
3.14159 that's exactly what I was going to post. I was actually going to say 14 but then I've always been generous that way. RedDog 07:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Our wikistalking skills reveal that he is about 46 years old (and possibly still living with his parents). Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:03, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
46? If you told me he was 17 and his development had been arrested in someway (listening to ICP or something) I would have believd you but this is too much. 3.14159 07:05, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Winning a Debate

It's no wonder that Conservapedia claims that Christians always win a debate when apparently this constitues winning a debate. Someone please mail that man a turd in a box. I send all mine to Andy. RedDog 04:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The trouble is: He means it! His idiocy is coming close to Ed's Moonyness in the biggest idiot debate! SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:26, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
No Susan, YOU'RE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!. Conservative is not an idiot he is just stupid. Ed's the idiot, Andy's a fool, Karajerk is a dumb grunt, TerryH is a pompous prick, Crockoshite is deranged, PJR is deluded, Learn Together is a bully, Joaquin is demented, Bugler is a fascist bastard and I can't quite fathom what Deborah is. (Did I miss anyone?) Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 06:59, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
What exactly is the difference between being just stupid and being an idiot? I think stupidity is what I was going for with the initial question. DickTurpis 08:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
What is College Republican? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 07:10, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
A mute obviously. 3.14159 07:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
CR is smart enough to keep away from the whole steaming pile. I would guess that his only edits were at the behest of Andy in return for some favour from his dad. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:46, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
"Dad, can I get to second base with my girlfriend? Pleeeeeease?"
"Well, you're an adult now. But you must make one edit to Conservapedia each time for each booby you touch."
"Thanks, Dad!"
DickTurpis 08:15, 21 June 2008 (EDT)