RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $720Goal: $3500

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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Ken on aSK and CP)
(Ken on aSK and CP)
Line 293: Line 293:
:::When I was about 11 or 12 I pointed out to a priest that everyone should be happy at funerals as that person is now in heaven. He told me that I had wisdom beyond my years. Ergo, ken is more immature now then I was at 12. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
:::When I was about 11 or 12 I pointed out to a priest that everyone should be happy at funerals as that person is now in heaven. He told me that I had wisdom beyond my years. Ergo, ken is more immature now then I was at 12. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps someone should ask at aSK or CP about it (and subsequently question Ken's faith).  I suppose by Ken's inability to grasp this logic, he is not qualified to write from a Christian point of view (is this ad hominem?).  {{User:k61824/Sig|}} 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps someone should ask at aSK or CP about it (and subsequently question Ken's faith).  I suppose by Ken's inability to grasp this logic, he is not qualified to write from a Christian point of view (is this ad hominem?).  {{User:k61824/Sig|}} 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for explaining, K/T.  Still, I think making the argument you make using a ''specific'' person that someone who loved them just lost makes me a little uncomfortable.  "She's in a better place now" is usually how it's said, by means of comforting, not mocking in a painful time. {{User:Human/sig|}} 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
== Whats this about then? ==
== Whats this about then? ==

Revision as of 05:00, 27 July 2009

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] 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

Is it time for a vote?

While things seem a bit quiet over at CP is it time for a vote on biggest idiot, abuse of sysop power, etc? I can't remember when we had the last one but it feels like yonks. StarFish (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for a vote, Ed Poor is still the biggest idiot, and TK is the ultimate abuser of any sort of power. Now go give them their medals. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking but then maybe Ed is resting on his laurels just a bit. I mean he used to post regularly with often creepy, always bonkers updates on 17 year old episode of Star Trek or whatever. Great stuff. But since winning the biggest idiot award I think it's gone to his head and he just isn't putting the effort in like he used to. StarFish (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice point and you maked me laff, twice or even thrice. Oh, and I think the ST eps were more like 37 42 years old. What is this world coming to? ħumanUser talk:Human 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The last votes were November last year, so it is getting on a bit and Nx has given as a new vote system. The last lot were the Conservapedia Day awards, we just need a hook to get started. Besides I think Jpatt is now the clear biggest idiot. - π 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is Ken automatically disqualified to give everyone else a chance? EddyP (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Ken looked a shoe in last time but he came third. I think we should disqualify Ed, instead he should be given a life time achievement award and enshrined in the Professional Idiots Hall of Fame. - π 11:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you can be so assertive about biggest... Ed Poor, JPatt and Rob are very close in the race. Also, we should acknowledge Rob for having the biggest balls at CP, being the only one who will directly face criticism and defend himself. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't around for much of Ed Poor, so I have to go with Jpatt or RobSmith. Probably Rob though, Jpatt is just completely insane. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ed "attention span of a cockroach" Poor is now just a shadow of his former self. He used to throw his weight around, laying waste the maths and science articles in particular, while boasting of his great expertise. See Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics for more info on his rampage in 2008. Now he just harasses teenagers, liveblogs old Star Trek episodes, and is generally weird. I doubt that he would merit any prizes now. BTW, I wonder how his writing course went? Gauss (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Andy himself is easily the biggest idiot this time around. He's totally oblivious. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals

I used to use "Hitler liked puppies, therefore anyone who likes puppies must be a Nazi!" as an example of a ridiculous argument, thinking no one could be that asinine.

RobS has proved me so very very wrong by implying that Obama wants to protect animals, Hitler and Himmler wanted to protect animals, therefore.... MDB (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Um.....so cruelty to animals is a good thing? --PitchBlackMind (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I nearly wore out my left mouse button upvoting this. Good catch. Fedhaji (talk)
So, lets see.... if you believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, God wanted to protect animals, too, therefore God is a Nazi! QED. I mean, sweet merciful crap, theft was (presumably) against the law in Nazi Germany, too -- if Obama comes out in favor of prosecuting thieves, will that be more "evidence" that he's a Nazi? MDB (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the Religious Right against the whole stomping on animals thing in the 70's and how that was related to the Satanic Panic? Just saying. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
They used to say that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Ergo, good timetables=Fascist. Honestly, what the fuck is with these people anyway? Jimaginator (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Jesus breathed oxygen, and so did Hitler, ergo Hitler was Jesus! Man, this stuff works for EVERYTHING! Thank you and your logic, Schlafly Doo and the Conservapedia Gang! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that RobS goes for the Ivan the Terrible theory of life, which is that it is fun to throw puppies out of high windows in the Kremlin. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't "prove" that Jesus breathed oxygen (Since Jesus can be classified as a mythological character, You have to first prove that Jesus has organs that functions as human organs, but there is no autopsy/CT Scan/Xrays/Other things available for validation). You can, however, proved that Andy Schlafly/TK/Jpatt/RobSmith/Karajou/ K e n  D o l l /other CP Sysops breathed in oxygen. ThiehWho is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
TK breathes in pure hate. Vulpius (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hitler wore pants, therefore... --Gulik (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Bush family fortune was derived from "doing business with the Nazis." You will recall this story was floated for two decades (of course, the ADL gave the Bush family a clean bill of health on these rumors about 6 months before Jr. left office). Let's follow the logic on this one...David Duke shops at K-Mart, therefore K-Mart does business with Nazis. RobS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This makes sense of your Obama/Hitler comparison how?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
RobS, what are you on about? Firstly, given what you just said it's hard to believe that you actually think that "Hitler liked puppies, so did Obama, therefore Obama is a Nazi" is a good argument. So I'm guessing your using it in a "dirty liberals said it about Bush, so therefore we can say it about Obama" kind of way. Secondly, whether the Bush family made millions by cooperating with a regime bent on and capable of conquest with a genocidal agenda is different from whether KMart will made a buck out of some idiot with all the influence of a smoked haddock (and that's an influence on the contents of my stomach). Thirdly, saying that making money from such a regime is morally heinous is different from saying that making money from that regime means you subscribe to their political ideology. But I digress. Both your arguments are stupid and wrong. Bil08 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, you didn't honestly expect RobS to construct a sound argument, did you? That he almost managed to string together two consecutive sentences that had something to do with one another is quite an achievement. Baby steps. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this began with a search of PETA's site for Michelle Obama's pledge to be "furr free," and I accidentally came across what appears t o be a personal pledge Obama delivered to the head of PETA. Seems curious enough, with two wars, the global economic meltdown, etc. etc., that both Michelle * Barack would have time to indulge the head of PETA. Then, in reading Obama's comment, "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," that simply did not quite stand up to scrutiny because it is well known that Himmler spoke of being kind to animals. So particularly how Obama would have time with two wars, global economic meltdown, etc. etc., for a personal pledge to the head of PETA seemed curious. And it also appears from Obama's statement that doesn't have clue what he is talking about.
It appears in WP's quest to salvage its credibility & expertise they began with the Animal Rights article. RobS (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, because he certainly wouldn't have time to give a quote about animal rights with all this chaos. It must have taken all of an hour or so to "indulge the head of PETA", I'm surprised the unemployment rate didn't rise to 15% and our troops didn't lose the war in that time. As for his quote not standing up to scrutiny, how a person treats animals isn't a bad way to judge how they treat others.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hitler found time to both give his views on Animal Rights, and to disastrously (for him) micro-manage a world war.Adolf Sockfucker (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell, George Bush managed to find the time to take a rather European amount of vacation time, even though he had all the same stuff going on (well, to be fair he was causing the economic meltdown rather than fixing it, so I could see how he'd have more free time). --Kels (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And from the speed and height of the WIGO's vote, I'd say that you can tell what RW thinks. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the Obama's are on to something. If Obama were to adopt Hitler's anti-vivisection policy and require the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to eat only vegetables, that could reduce Defense spending and possibly lower the deficit. This probably wouldn't work unless Agricultural subsidies likewise were eliminated. Foodstamps could be restricted to only agricultural products, and that would be in keeping with Michelle's "fur free" pledge to reduce senseless animal slaughter. But the whole idea probably still needs more wathcing and research. RobS (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you have it. Proof positive that no matter what Obama does, no matter how innocuous it is, there's no way he'll catch a break from the paranoid ideologues in the "Conservative" movement. Seriously, the man effectively said "be nice to puppies and other critters", and this is cause for "more wathcing (sic) and research"? Truly incredible. --Kels (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Kels my friend, you still miss the point. He said "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other." Obama evidentally never heard of Heinrich Himmler. That's freightning. RobS (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, seriously. He wasn't stating an immutable law of nature. Humans can, indeed, defy such expectations at times. Himmler was one of those cases. It takes a special sort of paranoid ideologue, prepared to criticize Obama for what he eats for lunch (oh wait, even some ridiculous shit like that happened, didn't it?) to automatically call Himmler to mind in response to a "be nice to animals" comment. --Kels (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Not to sound preachie, but this is exactly where Judeo-Christian beleivers have it over godless rational athiests. Psalm 8:4-6 says, "What is man, that thou art mindful... Thou hast put everything in subjection under his feet... [2] So the natural order of things is thus:


Once you remove God out of the picture the order becomes:

man = animal

Hence if you can kill an animal, you can kill a man. There is no final judgement. This is precisely Nazi propaganda aimed at young people to indoctrinate them into a killing system and ease their consciences and moral qualms they may have harbored from a religious upbringing. You guys should be a little less confrontational sometimes and see CP may be on the same page with some of your objectives. RobS (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, that's a lie and you know it. Removing the Big Sky Daddy does not say killing men is just fine. You should know better than that, although if you're willing to call Obama a Nazi for saying not to kick puppies, you're obviously not smart enough to. --Kels (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? So there is no final judgement, one can kill at will, and God won't send them to hell cause he doesn't exist and there is no one to answer to. So what are we left with, Marx who thought people would willingly become slaves and eat garbage in the gulag out of a sense of civic duty? Good luck with that one. As to Obama, time was I thought he was a Christian, but now I have my doubts. He most assuradly is a Marxist. RobS (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, would an X-ray show if you have an honest bone in your body? Because your words suggest you don't. I've said it before, the inside of your head is a strange and frightening place. Fortunately, reality doesn't mirror it. --Kels (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You can do better. Can't address the points under discussion, so trash the man. Don't make embarass you with that. Thanks. RobS (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt that I'm the one who has much embarrassment to worry about. Just a hunch. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a little more ad hominem: Rob, when you reach your heaven, be sure to Look up Mr McCarthy. You and he seem to be on the same wavelength. Oh, yes Get a spellchecker. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it sure is fun having you around, Rob. Back up a few, you said god > man > animals, then you erred. If we remove gods from the picture, we no longer care what the bible says, so the rest of your "argument" falls apart at the seams. Obama a Marxist? You are so funny when you try. Like I said, it's great having you around. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, you're not even consistent. You start with God > Man > Animals and "remove God out of the picture" and go to Man=Animal. That's just wrong, it doesn't make sense. What you should end up with is Man > Animals - which is a whole other debate Worm (t | c) 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals" That's a slashfic waiting to happen, innit? --Kels (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's the killer?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're using a somewhat different definition of slashfic than I am. Although I guess you could have a "killer" in the metaphorical sense... --Kels (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Eeek! I read it as slashflic, which I wrongly assumed was a misspelling of slash-flick. I didn't know you were referring to a RobS/Obama/Hitler/farm animal orgy.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Psst... Rob.... Stop gettting your talking points from whatever radio signals are being beams from your ass to your head. Marx wrote nothing about Gulags. I don't know if you know this, but Karl Marx died in 1883 (no really, look it up). The Russian Revolution and the first Communist State didn't even begin until 1917.... Nice try though my friend. While I'm here, you seem to think that all morality comes soley from God and the bible.... Maybe you should look into the writings of Kant and the categorical imperative.... It's very good and has nothing to do with faith or religion in any way..... Have a nice night. SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable... But as for RobS's so called point, he goes from claiming that Obama wanting to defend animals makes him a Nazi, than argues that there's some grand design to indoctrinate young people into thinking killing is okay. That's not even internally consistent. This just depicts how intellectually bankrupt the American conservative movement has become. They have reached the point where "lets treat animals nicely" is considered Nazi indoctrination. Wow. Is there any-fucking-thing B. Hussein!!!!!11one!!ZOMG Hes a Socialist Atheist Muslim!!!!! Obama could do that you would not attack him for? Anything at all? I swear to God in his high heaven, if Barack Obama today walked into the White House press room, held an impromptu news conference, and declared that he had a personal awakening and was going to devote the rest of his Presidency to seeking a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion, the American right would instantly become pro-choice. MDB (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion... RobS, I think it's possible to feel that a certain level of animal cruelty is unacceptable without going all the way down the vegan, animals-are-people-too line of thought. For example, we have laws for those who breed dogs that talk about the minimum cage size, that the dogs must have access to food and water, that their cages must be kept clean, and so on. Many women won't wear fur because they don't see the sense in killing an animal for fashion purposes, yet they'll still eat chicken or beef. Also, it always astounds me to hear the argument that, without religion threatening them with consequences, people will do bad things. The atheists I know are morally good people because it's the right thing to do, and their heart leads them in that direction, *even* when no one's looking. Do religious people not have that inner moral compass? --Too tired to log in (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they don't wear fur because they fear being a victim of animal rights terrorists. And the commie connection of animal rights terrorists is also being brought into focus. [3] RobS (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they don't wear fur because they fear being a victim of animal rights terrorists. Nope. I suppose there have been a few incidents of animal rights people assaulting fur-wearing women, but I haven't heard of one in ages, and even back then it was pretty darn rare. But those few incidents got people thinking, and lots of people decided that they'd prefer not to kill animals just so they could be fashionable. So now real fur is out of style, and faux fur is in. Fur is also darned expensive, and hard to care for, so it's not hard to decide to go without. Michelle is making a quite sensible choice to forgo fur. I think most folks are pretty sensible, and feel that animals should be reasonably well cared for, without going overboard. You've really only got to watch a few episodes of "Animal Cops" or "Pet Rescue" to be glad there are SPCA-type organizations out there, and to see how important the laws against animal cruelty are. (FWIW, I read once that there were laws against animal cruelty before there were laws against child abuse. Interesting, huh?) Whether or not some extreme animal rights activists are communists really doesn't make a difference when the average woman is deciding how she feels about animal cruelty. The arguments for the less extreme stuff work pretty well on their own. --Too tired to log in (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what's really cool? If you take every instance of Rob saying "commie" or "red" or something similar, and replace it with "boogeyman", it makes the exact same amount of sense! --Kels (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also coming late to the discussion, I second Too Tired. Robby boy, it is possible to be an atheist and a good human being. Like 2tired said, there is such a thing as an inner sense of morality even if a God is absent from ones life. As for your Obama-Hitler comparison... excuse my English, but it's pretty fucking pathetic. The same logic as saying you can use the same server for a PS3 and an Xbox 360 - the wishful dreams of a madman. SJ Debaser 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, the christian god provides that inner moral compass you feel. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a flashback to when Philip was pulling the same dishonest stunt of claiming that fear of God's punishment is the only thing standing in the way of a global orgy of rape, torture and murder, which atheism will inevitably lead to (I'm lookin' at you, PZ Myers!). Basically I mentioned the idea that religion didn't come first, but that morality is a natural part of the formation of social structures and goes right back to the very first co-operation between humans. Societies and cultures develop morals based on these basic building blocks, and society thrives. Then religion comes along, adopts the morals that everyone is following already and takes credit for making it up in the first place. Inherently dishonest, I know, but that's how it goes. However, complex societies have a way of getting away from its roots, especially when those roots are actively denied (i.e., we're better than animals!). So you get cases where leaders with power see themselves as so separate that they're above even basic requirements of humanity, something that seems to come from a religious template (god-emperor, Pope is infallible, etc.) and you get dictators, holocausts and the like. But that doesn't invalidate anything but their own mistakes. So to recap, morality is there naturally, religion lies and claims it made up morality when all it did is co-opt it, and the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, etc. are no more an inevitable by-product of disbelief than growing wings is. --Kels (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Kels: "goes back to the very first co-operation between humans" - I think you understate here. While AFAIK humans do have a particularly good ability to co-operate which has proven to be very important, there are plenty of other animals that have been able to live and work together without slaughtering each other at the first opportunity. Anyway, this debate always frustrates me as a philosophy fan because it denies the existence of secular ethics (Immanuel who? Ariswhatle?) while ignoring the Euphythro, a minor Platonic dialogue that decisively refuted "God as a source of morality" a good 2500 years ago (and there's not that much in philosophy that anyone's kept decisively refuted for more than a hundred years or so.) Bil08 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, loads of animals do it and there's recent evidence that there is some form of actual moral code among animals. But we are actually talking human morality here so it seemed simpler just to focus on the human version. No sense cluttering it up too much when all we're dealing with is Rob, who probably won't understand much of it anyway. --Kels (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I had now idea this really was such a deeply emotional subject among some leftists. Let's return to PETA's question then, Does Obama bring hope to animals? Would the Pet Psychic be able let us know? This isn't being fecesious, it's a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations. Even President Obama himself evidentally felt so in responding to PETA's questions. RobS (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Does Obama bring hope to animals? Who knows? What kind of hope are you thinking of? What kinds of extremes do you fear? The guy was campaigning, and PETA is on the left. Of course he wanted their vote. Did he promise anything specific? Anything you feel is going too far? Is there a link somewhere to his remarks, so we can see what he said? --Too tired to log in (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, I know this bears no relevance to the current debate, but what do you think of TK's destruction of CP's longest article, Pan-Arabism? EddyP (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"...it's a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations." No. No, it isn't. I'm sure an idiot would think it was, though. --Kels (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"This isn't being fecesious" - seriously Rob get a spellchecker. Your spelling is really shitty. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's only left wing pseudo intellectuals who bother with such things. When Rob spells it that way - that's the way it's spelled. So put that in your communist pipe and puff it. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusing Development

I tried to look into the consequences of conservapedia's treatment of new editors:

Active editors at CP sorted by time of membership
Active editors at RW sorted by time of membership

The most amusing part: last month, when I took the numbers of active editors (editors who commented at least once over the last seven days) RationalWiki had ~140 active editors, while there were ~170 at conservapedia. Today, the conservapedia's statistic's page states a number of 92 active editors, while there are 130 at rationalwiki (see here).

At the moment, the chance to survive for a new editor at conservapedia are slim to none...

larronsicut fur in nocte 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean we grow larger than CP now? This is profound. Nice Job again, LArron. K61824Monitoring virgin birth experiment 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
how many such active editors on CP survived whatever arbitrary period or number of unreverted edits? IIRC the last few weeks on CP have seen an unusual number of caca dodo usernames that didn't last very long. We don't have that problem. Umm hehe, yeah. I didn't see the graphs because I was editing on a handheld. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Active users down to 89... this could become a running tally. The blog is shrinking rapidly. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Too Whipped To Work Up A Proper WIGO

Has anyone happened to notice that Andy is a half-wit? Here he goes on about how The President is some kinda traitorous foreigner because he said "this country" in reference to the USofA instead of saying "our country". He's mentioned this before, that a real American would always say "our" and not "this". Never mind that it's a perfectly normal phrase, and that a search for "this country" on CP brings up endless examples of said formulation used by every politician and conservative hero that's ever been, from Washington and Lincoln to Reagan and Limbaugh, and Andy himself uses the phrase regularly in his lectures and other rants.--WJThomas (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the same as republicans having bigger flag lapels. Nationalism bullshit like that really pisses me off. BTW, Andy never has a flag lapel in any of the pictures he puts up of himself. Think he loves American as much as he says he does?--Tabris (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a trap. Saying "our" is problematic because it may be misinterpreted as "inclusive we" that people will bash him about including illegal immigrants into the "our" notation. Saying "my" simply will be misinterpreted as "This country is all mine, so f*** off!". K61824"6+18=24" 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to Andy either way, he just needed to relieve his priapism for bashing Obama. If Obama had said "our country", Andy probably would've been all "What does he mean by our country?!! Is this perhaps a vague reference to the Muslim shadow government that has truly installed him into power???????"--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the Gettysburg Address Lincoln referred to the US as "that nation", by Andy's logic he must be even more foreign. - π 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
All can be understood by assuming Andy = Aspberger's + conservative RC upbringing. (No offense to any RW aspies out there!)--Too tired to log in (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obscene usernames

I would like to think that the lastest barrage of obscenity at CP isn't anyone from this dark side of town. Its getting a little over the top. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, now if it stops if definitely was "us"? I thought it was mostly a response to our pointing out Andy's (and others') foray into blacklisting strings, probably instigated at anonymous, not here. Could have been "us", of course. Who knows? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the impression Ebaum's World does most of the childish vandalism to CP. I have never dived into their forums to find out. - π 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jersey politicians

I couldn't remember if those guys who got busted in Jersey were dems or GOP, so I checked conservapedia. Since there's nothing about it on the main page, I'm guessing they were republicans. Czolgolz (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're actually almost all Democrats (one Republican); you can't be corrupt unless you're in power, and the Dems have controlled Jersey for quite a while now. [4]. But mostly I just want to quote lyrics to you: "Czolgosz, Angry man, Said, "I will do what A poor man can. Yes, and there's nowhere More fitting than In the Temple Of Music By the Tower Of Light Between the Fountain Of Abundance And the Court of Lilies At the great Pan-American Exposition In Buffalo, In Buffalo." - Poor Excuse (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I chose to live in NJ because that is where our Lord and Saviour resides too. The scandal is all over the news. In my opinion, CP is in a bind about this because, yes, it's mostly Dems, but there is also 1 GOP, and a bunch of rabbis. How can CP cover this? Unless they can find that the only innocents are the people they want to be innocent, it's going to be a big problem. My prediction is that it will never make their news. Jimaginator (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken and composites

Say, for the sake of argument, that Ken was actually honest over there at aSK (I know, but just for the sake of argument) and he's actually too incompetent to create those idiotic Hitwin and Obapolean composites. So I was thinking, where are you most likely to find 'shoops that retarded? Why, Little Green Racists, of course! They're all retarded children...I mean, staunch Conservatives over there, and they love that kind of shit. Dunno if that's actually where they came from, I'm not masochistic enough to wade into that sewer to find out, but they do come off as soulmates to the luntics over at CP, don't they? Ken would feel right at home. --Kels (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't get past the shitty tone on LGF to discern much more than that the blogger is angry and put-upon, or something. The one worthwhile thing I found there is a link to a Daily Show segment dealing with persistent birthers that briefly features Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., JD, DDM, LRB, the crackpot attorney/dentist/real estate agent pursing several birther lawsuits in federal court. Stewart's lambasting of her is precious. She is a wild and crazy guy. If you don't recall, she or someone impersonating her briefly popped up on Conservapedia and was welcome with a vanity page by Jpratt and a Terry Koeckritz lovemistrust-fest. I surmise from the lack of traffic on her talkpage that DrOrlyTaitzEsq didn't respond to TK's overture, and yet wasn't blocked, for surely TK himself recognizes that any reasonable person not worth pissing off would be offended by his open mistrust. Plus he's a giant coward whose tactics only work when he's harassing the anonymous and (he hopes) powerless. Taitz gets quoted in WorldNutDaily alot more than TK does, as far as I can tell. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ken certainly did not create the Hitwin image. In fact, I'm quite sure it appeared on RW before CP. No he got it from somewhere else. Let's face it, Ken is far too stupid to create anything like that. I think the only reason he isn't the overall winner of CP's biggest idiot is because he's too obvious and it's just too easy. That and the fact that's it's pretty clear he has at least some sort of mental disability. DickTurpis (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, we know Ken can't create new wiki pages without first creating a red link to them, a year or so ago he couldn't figure out how to block people (hint! click the "block" link!), and we know he doesn't know how to rename the images he steals to sensible, non-random strings. Given that, it's a pretty safe bet he doesn't know how to work any image manipulation software. I'd say it'd be a minor miracle if he could work an ATM. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Ken did create the one where Darwin sits on Hitlers shoulder and the red type reads "We love Evolutionary racism". That was definiatly all Ken. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember that image! Back when I still cared about CP, I was looking at the evolution article daily to see if he was including a scientific viewpoint (I was new, and didn't know much better) that I showed was missing in the article. When I saw that image, I sent an email begging him to change it back to Hitwin. It was THAT BAD. -- JArneal 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Is it just me or the video they link in that newsbite with the Obapolean composites has the narrator sounding awfully like the guy from Zeitgeist the movie? K61824TK = Terry Koeckritz 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen the Darwin on Hitler's shoulders pic elsewhere but Ken probably just added the red text. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Browsing that Little Green Footballs site I came across this posting which alleges that a photoshopped picture of Obama as a witch-doctor with a bone through his nose, was being circulated on a Tea Party mailing list by Dr. David McKalip, a member of the AAPS. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that's very interesting. So to use RobS' line of reasoning above, by allowing him to remain a member of AAPS, they must endorse his racism. And just what wiki owner has a close association with AAPS, and may very well have met the man? Why, that means Andy is closely associated with known racists! Rob, you gotta get on this, who knows what other skeletons this "Andy Schlafly" monster is hiding! "This isn't being fecesious, it's a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations." --Kels (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. "Perhpas this area needs more study." --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly this new evidence throws edits such as this into a new light. Surely these are "powers" often ascribed to witch doctors, are they not? But the question on everyone's minds is, WHY IS ROB SMITH REMAINING SILENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE?? --Kels (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worth WIGO-tweaking, but...

You'll notice that while Obama's exit from the honeymoon phase of approval ratings is front-page newsworthy, no one over at CP is going to acknowledge that Sarah Palin now has unfavorable ratings over 50%, and that her approval is dropping even among 'true believer' Republican Evangelicals. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What they have mentioned about her is that the allegations against her are part of the "Democrat smear machine", and they've put "independent" inside scare quotes when discussing the independent investigator, implying that the investigation is in the pocket of teh evol democrat socialists... except that the whole investigation was launched by the Republican controlled legislature. I guess Alaska is just swarming with teh evol librul RINOs who fail to sufficiently bask in the glow of Sarah's wholesome goodness. Bluefish (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

in passing

While looking at something completely different I noticed that CP's longest page at 297kb was chiefly written by cp:User:MasteRing who was blocked as a sock of Human. Just sayin'. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

With 909 cites, it must be liberal! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Already burned — unbelievable. 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
TK continues to rape the site. That long pages page is intesting; lots of strange pages like History of Poland. EddyP (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at them, they're mostly the creation of monomaniacs (and Ken, who's just a maniac). This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Scheisse! Must use <capture></capture>. (reminder to self) This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So was the block log oversighted, too? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it still in your temporary files Toast? FallenOak en passant 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice chain-yanking there, by the way. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) On an unrelated note while I was checking longest page, why is there still people not blocked for posting on the "yes" section on this debateimg and the "yes" section on this debateimg? Waiting TK's Banhammer in 3... 2... 1... K61824"6+18=24" 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd contribute to the debate, but the Conservapedia SS already seized my papers and sent my IP to cyber-Auschwitz. Then again, i'm surprised it took them this long to ban me. Their xenophobia has weak points, I suspect. Kinda bummed I didn't get a parthian in, though. EDIT! Yes, I know I invoked Godwin. So sue me. -- CodyH (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well as it's already cropped up in the previous section you can have an exeat. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, it's found my new favourite quote: "You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can." Just wondering if it's possible to miss the point by a wider margin? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is! --Kels (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz

Didn't we try not feeding the fellow a few weeks ago in the hope he'd fizzle out and die, kinda like the last series of the A-Team? SJ Debaser 10:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour (even though I am also guilty of poking the troll (maybe lancing the boil is a better analogy, given what comes out of him) - it's a bit playing with a loose tooth - you shouldn't but it feels good), he's only feeding on us noticing him and if we ignore him, it'll probably drive to even greater lengths of insanity over there to get noticed. I hereby propose that all future TK WIGO and TWIGO items are <!---'d out. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell no- most of his stuff is just hate trolling, but some of it is genuinely funny, so why should we deprive ourselves of the lulz? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't find much of anything he does genuinely funny. Maybe if Rob or Ken did it, or even the Koward, but in TK's case there's this overriding sense that it's utterly fake and he's just trying too damn hard to get a reaction. That sort of just sucks the funny out of it. --Kels (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
After having silently observed him for several weeks after he blocked my account under completely dishonest circumstances and cowardly failed to respond to my inquiries, I can only say that I agree. His pattern seems to be to read this website for a reaction, dial up his hateful skulduggery on Conservapedia, and refer back here to continue the cycle. Nothing he contributes is substantively interesting. Therefore, all you can look for from him is the same disingenuous button-pushing he's very good at. After only 2 weeks of giving him my intermittent attention (and I'm basically a shut-in) I find him far less interesting than Minesweeper and celebrity blogs. Conservapederast (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what's really odd? I find the fact that you're an effective shut-in far more interesting than anything TK's done (I used to be a Personal Support Worker specializing in homecare). --Kels (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
TK is a little prick with a little prick. Face it, if it wasn't for him CP would be a very dull place to poke fun at. Therefore, yes, do keep poking the rabid dog with a stick. It's fun to see it foaming at the mouth (note the animal cruelty sentence, this means I am a good person and not a Nazi according to CP). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way round. He doesn't react because we poke him; he reacts so that we will poke him. EddyP (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not his actions that are amusing, it's the lack of any control being exerted by anyone else that's amusing. TK is now the de-facto head of Conservapedia and it's fun to watch him driving it into the ground. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Crundy, you've got it backwards. TK makes the place more dull to poke fun at, since he dominates with his clearly intentional trash. What's fun about that? Having idiots like Andy, Ken, Koward, Weird Ed and Rob "The Commies are coming!" Smith who actually mean what they say are fun to make fun of. TK tends to overshadow them, thereby reducing the actual fun. --Kels (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. TK is just playing to the crowd (us), whereas the others are fricking serious. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Did anyone catch TK's latest piece of internet stalking? Ace McWickedNecron99 23:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess he won't care if I have my skip tracer find a bunch of personal shit out about him so I can post it on my userpage. I love that he's such an inconsistent liar he sometimes says his name isn't Terrence F. Koeckritz. He'll get his in spades. If he wants to call me off he can contact me by email from my userpage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like a photo of him. Something compromising. Ace McWickedNecron99 00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We'd all like a photo of him to puke at. But, please, go light, or at least "careful" on the "stalking". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You cant much more stalkerish than thisimg. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh, me and Trent don't care much, but that doesn't make Terry Koeckritz any less of a loser who is desperately trying to wipe his own internet history by "slamming" others. PS, hey, Terry Kroackjizm, thanks for the link! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
PPS, you lameass, why didn't you link to this page? Don't want to accidentally do me any favors? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thing I don't get is, like putting our names into his edit comments, how exactly is this supposed to actually hurt any of us? Nobody who enters our names in Google are even gonna get that as a hit, and nobody who takes a look at the page would take it seriously for all of two seconds. It'd be more a case of "who's this mental deficient, and why should I care". Nice to see him promote a comic that's been dead for about a year and a half, and a hosting site that I haven't been to in two years, though. --Kels (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He is indeed a pretty sad man. Thing is, he's actively acknowledging our existence over there by having that stuff on his userpage, he just uses "vandal site" instead of "RationalWiki". Why does the Conservapedia Secret Police not tear down his page at 3AM and banhammer him?! (Answer: because he's Andy's lapdog.) SJ Debaser 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a point I've made elsewhere... nobody does more to keep mentioning RW or things like PJR's valid list of complaints than TK (especially now that Ken has stopped his "gentlemen" - probably on TK's orders, which leaves him the only person allowed to keep mentioning us). (Ok, Jpratt too, but that's more a case of moron monkey see, monkey do). He constantly reminds editors that RW exists and even long after the hissy fit over PJR's allegations (like 2 months later) he deletes the ASoK article, citing PJR's "lies" and sending more CP editors out there to find out what he's talking about. It's a clever scheme, and one that even the paranoid like Karajerk and RedRob haven't seen through yet. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(UD) Ok, I'm starting the process of gathering information to send to my skip tracer so he can dig into TK's background. If TK wants to escalate things that's his prerogative. He can't both complain that Terry Koeckritz isn't his real name and that we've put up too much personal information about him. Please privately forward me any information you have about TK - email addresses, location information from emails and IM sessions, IP addresses, telephone numbers, etc. I will keep the results of my investigation private for the time being, but will be happy to forward TK's personal information to parties specifically named on his userpage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


yay... never a dull moment as Andy begins tweaking his economics lectures for our pleasure. heh heh - not much chance of this rubbish getting memory holed. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was considering sending him a shiny new Adam Smith £20 note. That's probably his porn. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
One would wonder why people attempting to take this course wouldn't copy the model answers by now... oh wait, one can get on average 98% without looking at the lecture to begin with... K61824Insomnia? Masturbate till you pass out 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope this guyimg isn't counting on Andy's lecture to finish high school early. Unless he's planning a career asking "D'y'all want fries with that?" --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
First, it seems there are very few legitimate users on that website, so I'd assume right out of the box that he's a faker. Second, if he's trying to finish early, he's already doing OK. In my previous life as an educator I found that students capable of graduating early were usually good self-starters and capable of accurately discerning the value of a great many things on their own. I wouldn't assume this student would be flipping burgers just because he might be looking at Mr. Schlafly's laughably poor materials. Conservapederast (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree - it was a dig at the value of Andy's "teaching" material, rather than the qualities of the student. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to have my liquor delivered because it's going to be over 105 today in the desert and my car has no air conditioning. I haven't been able to get properly intoxicated back into my familiar state and missed your point. I am ashamed to be sober this late in the day. Conservapederast (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
PsyGremlin, That user just created the account todayimg. Are we so eager to let TK know about this and drop the banhammer? perhaps I said too much. ThiehEd Poor types in Chinese? 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, K/T, the user is probably one of Andy's paying homskollars. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just saying, isn't that more reason to get the idiots there to ban him, so we can watch Andy having to actually manage for once. Come on Jpratt, you can do it. I found a New Mexico proxy... it's me! It's me! --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Shall we attempt to find the list of users who are classified as "paying honskollars" (I suppose there may have been orders that make the other sysops not paying as much attention to these people). K61824Ask me for relationship advice 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Easiest way to drop the hammer would be for someone to own up here. Hi guys! It's actually me. I'm yanking ya! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Orders to Ignore

??? Huh? Web (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Happily, so far it seems I didn't need to say that. EddyP (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Seven kittens died for your sins... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Page views

Andy: "99.6 million page views!!!"img
Joaquin: "uh, Andy...."img
Ace McWickedNecron99 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

99.6 million is apparently a "more conservative" estimate, according to the Dear Leader.--Johann (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I find his recent addition of 200k all the more amusing because I added ~1/4 of them. He thinks he's somehow accounted for the July 4 push, but has no idea how many views are legitimate. PubliusTalk 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps he's saving the announcement of 100M to link it to an auspicious occasion--probably the beginning of the (home)school year ("Just in time for another year of edumacation! The worlds bestest online reference hits 100 million pageviews!!! The Truth Shall Set You Free!"). That way, he can turn it into a "win". My second guess for the notable occasion would be Mommy's birthday (8/15). --WJThomas (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When is he being replaced by a script? K61824Practicing involuntary celibacy 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy...

... but thisimg made me smile. Banned and burnt of course, but nice to see something other than the mindless Ebaumsworld and 4chan vandalism. --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there a way to activate the "capturebot" manually, that is, outside of the WIGO page? I tried putting <capture> ... </capture> around a URL, and it put up the "img" thing, but it's still a redlink. Sometimes one needs to run a capture instantly, because things get incinerated fast, and one doesn't yet know whether it will be WIGO-worthy. Gauss (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found it pretty fast - like the one I did above. Saved the page, refreshed and it was there. If it's something you're worried might get teakayed quickly, use alt-prntscreen or the Firefox screengrab extension first just in case. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You can also follow Capturebot's instructions for adding your own sandbox to his path - I've done this for exactly the purpose you're talking about with success. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You'd be better using a program like Fireshot rather than wait for a bot to get round to it - things vanish fast these days. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"FireShot is not available for Linux." screengrab is though This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken on aSK and CP

After  K e n  D o l l  eliminated the claim that Nils Heribert Nilsson was director of the Swedish Botanical Institute on CP, he elaborates his line of reasoning at aSK:

I did some digging on the internet and I saw what a person apparently fluent in Swedish said about this issue so I have temporarily or perhaps permanently removed the Swedish Botanical Institute statement. I would also be interested in finding out if Nils Heribert-Nilsson was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences as a Swedish speaking person has apparently asserted. I do have contacts overseas and perhaps I will be able to clarify the biography of Nils Heribert-Nilsson further. I certainly believe in cognitive flexibility and I believe pride is a sin, so unlike many evolutionists, I have no problem fixing errors when I make them as far as errant or probably errant statements. :) Ruylopez 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my answer, all he did was to read the new article on wikipedia... But now he tries to avoid further discussion and is opting out for moral reasons:

I just found out about the RW member perhaps making a mean spirited and tasteless remark about being glad Dean's wife died on his userpage and I have seen other mean spirited and tasteless behavior as well by RW members. I also don't think RW is doing enough to police its members and offers tepid responses or no responses to these inappropriate actions of its members. I am no longer interested in having any dialogue with RW members and I won't be reading any CP WIGO posts at RW. Feel free to enjoy your mobocracy, but I am not interested in your activities. Ruylopez 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found out? That sounds fishy! Hasn't he complained over this earlier? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken's a dishonest little shit and always has been. He's doing this now because he's cornered on the Nilssen thing and wants to get out of it. So he uses some trumped-up crap from TK (was the guy who said he was glad about Dean's wife actually from here?) as an excuse. Saves him from having to deal with any questions about his big stack o' lies. --Kels (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken's obviously not following what's happening in the ZDG. But then all the others ignore his posts anyway. As for the sick post about Dean's wife then it has not been established who the tosser is. Certainly nobody at RW has admitted to being the poster and if they did then I can imagine a wave of revulsion from most other editors. The problem is that mud sticks almost as much as the truth that Terry Koeckritz is a plagiarist and a liar. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken better hope the atheists are right, or he'll have some 'splainin' to do on Judgement Day:
Jeebus: Oh good and faithful servant, how did you bring glory to my name while in life?
Ken: I lied like a fuckin' bastard in your name, O Lord!
Jeebus: You go to hell.
--Kels (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as usual, Ken is a fucking liar. --Kels (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if the religion promised people to spend the eternity in Heaven and said person is religious, shouldn't we be glad that said person will be spending time in Heaven when he/she died (assuming if you don't die you can't spend time in Heaven, except one of those blessed figures that bodily ascend to heaven)? Or is Ken trying to discourage people from becoming religious? I am confused. K61824ZOYG I edit like Ken! 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am, too. What did you just say? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking down into a derivation (substitute "Religion" with the actual religion of Ken and Dean, Presumably sufficiently similar):
  1. Assumption: Religion asserts that going to heaven after death is a good thing
  2. Assumption: Religion asserts that if one belongs to their religion, he/she goes to heaven after death
  3. Observation: Dean's wife died (Assumption: we don't have sufficient information on causes of death, so we assume it is within the rules).
  4. Conclusion from 2 and 3: Religion asserts that Dean's wife goes to heaven.
  5. Conclusion from 1 and 4: Death of Dean's wife is implicitly a good thing (from Dean's wife's own perspective)
  6. Inference: We should congratulate Dean for his wife being in heaven (from their view point?)
  7. Ken somehow believes the act of us being happy for Dean's wife in heaven is a bad thing.
  8. Conclusion: Ken somehow believes the chain of logic from 1-6 is invalid somewhere, but he doesn't seem to want to spend time pointing out what exactly is wrong.
Hope that helps (should this chain of logic go into one of the articles?). ThiehInsomnia? Masturbate till you pass out 04:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
When I was about 11 or 12 I pointed out to a priest that everyone should be happy at funerals as that person is now in heaven. He told me that I had wisdom beyond my years. Ergo, ken is more immature now then I was at 12. - π 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should ask at aSK or CP about it (and subsequently question Ken's faith). I suppose by Ken's inability to grasp this logic, he is not qualified to write from a Christian point of view (is this ad hominem?). ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, K/T. Still, I think making the argument you make using a specific person that someone who loved them just lost makes me a little uncomfortable. "She's in a better place now" is usually how it's said, by means of comforting, not mocking in a painful time. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whats this about then?

[1]img so he removed the personal details but whats the edit summary about? Ace McWickedNecron99 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TK's been drinkin' again. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He removed the comment about Dean's wife as well. Didn't TK once claim to be 404 blocked from here?EddyP (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He was. I did it for about 2 hours one day, that was what, 2 years ago? He is not blocked now. tmtoulouse 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd is all, perhaps Andy asked him to take it down and now he just makes up some weerd edit summary in order to deflect attention. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That was wise of you, TK. I will put my investigation of you on hold. As for the 404ing, if you want to contact me you can use a proxy to access my userpage and email me, though Trent is here calling you a liar. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously he thinks he's 404 blocked, which means, he probably can't log in. He was once e-mail blocked; maybe that didn't wear off? Or maybe RW cookie-blocked him, or something like that?
Also, glad you're putting your "investigation" on hold, Nutty. Honestly, no matter what he's done that's a super-privacy invasion that you were planning, the kind that Karajou would be proud of.-Excelsior (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a 403 block? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The most like person to have made that comment about Dean's wife would be TK anyway. Matt oblong (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deceit, thy name is Ace! EddyP (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If he was really 404 blocked then he wouldn't have shouted out to Ace. All in all it's just another "poor little picked upon me" episode. And I think Toast is right it's 403 block but a 404 not found error, Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
actually: "403 Forbidden: The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead." This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, TK, I have no idea about this block you mention. Secondly I am at work and because of your past history there is absolutely no way I am going to email from my work thereby giving away personal information to someone such as yourself. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I've figured it out. He's using edit comments as shout-outs on unrelated topics. (TK: Why don't you just log in here under your Nighttrain account, and tell us directly? Or create the "gentleman" pages that Ken is so successful with?) He has added a couple more of these shout-outs, as comments on completely trivial edits—one of them was just a change in border color on a box.

Putting them together, the message appears to be

  • 404 blocked, cannot reply, typical of liberals only wanting their side heard, but invite conservatives to respond just to make themselves look fair. drown in your own mud.
  • If Ace really wanted to know, he would AIM me. But he knows I am 404 blocked. Deceit: thy name is liberal or Ace, either way, bad music.
  • Ace, since you aren't blocked, simply use the contact info top of this page. Of course I think you are all show, no go...but always room for me to be wrong.
  • as usual TMT is wrong, rather just throwing out red herrings
  • people like you" Hmmm....I think ignorant people said that about Blacks, still do...nice to see bigotry and ignorance dont discriminate on the basis of left or right! Do go on!
  • clear evidence" from T? Added by T, as if TMT never lies? He has become a pide-piper, lol satisfies his ego, I am sure.

I have no idea what those mean. Any idea, Ace? Perhaps our cryptographers can look into it. Gauss (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what he is on about. I dont care either, why would have anything to do with such an openly deceitful, hot-headed, power mad freak like TK? Ace McWickedNecron99 22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My guess is he has confused Nutty with Ace. tmtoulouse 22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Nutty and I are very alike. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ace is my brother in power mad, hot-headed, open deceit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
And dont forget freakyness. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It was Ace who started this thread. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm: For weeks, the tasteless entry is to be found at TK's user page. Then, Ken/Ruylopez mentioned it at aSK - and within two hours, it is gone from TK's page. But perhaps, I shouldn't wear my tinfoil reasoning hat. larronsicut fur in nocte 22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Another shout out. Here's a shout out TK, no one gives a fuck about people like yourself. Please continue and if you're lucky I'll email you from an anon email address after work. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So there we go, clear evidence he is not 404 or 403 blocked from the site. tmtoulouse 22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes TK "people like you" meaning - lying, bullying assholes who make themselves feel big by abusing others. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
wassa matter TK? Got no new editors to bully today? Ace McWickedNecron99 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised he hasn't bullied PhyllisS at all today. (aka.. Kettles) (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
True to form, when TK stomps his little feet and doesn't get his way he goes on to bully and block others like an impotent jerk. And it is amusing TK for you to suggest in an edit summary that I am bigoted when it was you that added "mulit-culturalism" as a block reason. Hahahahahaha. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Typical of a liberal like you to deny you're biased. So blinded by your own deceit that you can't even admit you're totally and completely bigoted against Australians. Sad sad sad. 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, is TK finally in? I wonder why he doesn't have an account yet. -- CodyH (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)