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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 597963 by Neveruse (Talk) Archiving is appropriate, please let it go)
(Undo revision 597966 by Kels (Talk) archiving is your personal preference, please let it go, you dumb bitch)
Line 217: Line 217:
 
:::Forget ''smacking'' Ken - Andy doesn't have the machismo to ''debate'' Ken!  Ken, time to skewer (not literally, you understand) some sacred cows!  Olé!  Olé!  Olé!  [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']][[User_Talk:Doggedpersistence|<sup><font color="#993300">''Marmite Patrol''</font></sup>]] 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Forget ''smacking'' Ken - Andy doesn't have the machismo to ''debate'' Ken!  Ken, time to skewer (not literally, you understand) some sacred cows!  Olé!  Olé!  Olé!  [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']][[User_Talk:Doggedpersistence|<sup><font color="#993300">''Marmite Patrol''</font></sup>]] 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  
 +
== How long before........ ==
  
 +
....those sick idiots at CP post something to the effect that 12 people wouldn't have died in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10214661.stm Cumbria] if everybody had guns and had shot back? [[User:Mick McT|Mick McT]] ([[User talk:Mick McT|talk]]) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:This is bad, bad, bad shit.  We aren't used to this kind of shit here in the UK.  Hopefully even Assfly et al won't try to politicise it. {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Oh, he sooo will. All Brits are atheist, gunless morons (except for guys like the mass killer who had largely defensive weapons of gun).--[[User:Brendiggg|Brendiggg]] ([[User talk:Brendiggg|talk]]) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::People dying can always be slanted to an agenda. I just hope they don't snicker when they write it up. This is no laughing matter. [[User:Jimaginator|Jimaginator]] ([[User talk:Jimaginator|talk]]) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::You guys can dream. The facts are, Britain is dominated by atheists and people don't have guns to defend themselves from them. The shooting is a logical outcome of that scenario. That's legitimately how Andy sees this. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::This is just horrible. I'm hoping (in vain, as Andy has proved time and time again that he has no sense of when to shut the fuck up and show a bit of respect) that Andy just leaves this. But as NU points out, he won't. {{User:SuperJosh/Sig|}} 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::I hope it doesn't turn out this guy is an atheist or we'll all hear a tremendous 'boing!' sound coming from the direction of New Jersey as Andy gets the biggest boner of his life. [[User:DickTurpis|DickTurpis]] ([[User talk:DickTurpis|talk]]) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::If he is Christian (and he probably isn't), he's likely to be Anglican which is atheism in a devious cloak.--[[User:Brendiggg|Brendiggg]] ([[User talk:Brendiggg|talk]]) 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::"Even if he was a true Christian, the pressures and influences of atheism obviously got to him. Death is the wage of living in an atheistic society for Christians and atheists alike. " is something I'd expect. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::: Lurker here. I like you guys, but by pre-emptively suggesting that Andy might use this tragedy to further his own ideology, aren't you at least fractionally guilty of the same thing? [[Special:Contributions/86.147.60.191|86.147.60.191]] ([[User talk:86.147.60.191|talk]]) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::It's not the same thing, but I could see how some people believe it is. Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
This "ooh, let's see what Andy says about ''this''" attitude is in very bad taste.  If you don't like it when CP use real life tragedies to make political cheap shots, then ''don't do the exact same fucking thing.''  {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:"Andy's fucking insane" is not a political cheap shot. Get off your high horse. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Fox News readers are already on it. [[User:EddyP|EddyP]] ([[User talk:EddyP|talk]]) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::You weren't kidding! wow... P.S. the Fox News comment system is the biggest joke... <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::Goddammit, I hate those types of Americans. Fuckin' gun-toting, redneck, America-is-the-best-country-in-the-world cunts. {{User:SuperJosh/Sig|}} 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::They're smart cookies though - after a commenter points out that last year there were 14 gun murders in the UK compared to 9500-odd in the US, a reply points out that "''HEY djmiles why not have some intellicutal honesty, '''the population of the USA might be at least thousand times that of Britian'''.''" Superb. {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::I'm actually with BoN and Weasel a bit on this, we are slightly guilty in that pre-empting the Assfly on this we are guilty of the same bad taste, but in our defence we have seen this so many times from him - if we didn't expect him to abuse a tragedy we wouldn't mention it. {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::I acknowledge that some people think it's in bad taste, but taste is in the mouth of the beholder, unless you want to go Assfly and claim that this is objectively bad taste. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::There is no bad taste in anticipating bad taste.--[[User:Brendiggg|Brendiggg]] ([[User talk:Brendiggg|talk]]) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::Shouldn't this have been in the SB anyway, since CP hasn't commented on it yet? [[User:X Stickman|X Stickman]] ([[User talk:X Stickman|talk]]) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::That will have to be debated. But in the mean time, Andy [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=87913&diff=784234&oldid=784233 is awake] and arguing that speculation about who will get the Gore's house in the divorce is not idle talk about personal affairs of others. By the time we figure it out, it'll be on the main page. Has drudge/breitbart/wnd not picked it up yet? You'd think CP would be all over this... <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::"Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction" - by the same argument, it's hard to see what would be so wrong with old Schlaffers using the killings as Bioglide for expressing his stupid opinions on the UK, but the impression I get from the above discussion is that it would be pretty awful of him to do just that. Obviously the suggestion itself isn't out of this world, given his sickening 'for those keeping the score' postings everytime someone in the entertainment industry dies, but if Andy does indeed invoke this tragedy to bolster an opinion, I don't see how you can say you aren't guilty of the same thing and to that extent as bad as him [[Special:Contributions/86.147.60.191|86.147.60.191]] ([[User talk:86.147.60.191|talk]]) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::Could you rephrase? I'm guilty of _____ ? <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. [[Special:Contributions/86.147.60.191|86.147.60.191]] ([[User talk:86.147.60.191|talk]]) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Amusingly enough, just a couple days ago when I projected from Coleman to Hopper, Suspected Replicant was all over me deleting the comment and yelling at me on my talk page. Oh well, c'est la vie. (PS, CP never mentioned Hopper's passing, as far as I could tell) {{User:Human/sig|}} 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
: I've been trying to stay away but just noticed this post now so apologies to Human for not giving Mick McT and the other supporters of this bullshit the kicking they deserve before now.
 +
: People, trying to make a joke along the lines of "I bet teh Assfly will maek joak abowt tis! And it wil be teh funnie!!!!!!1!" is NOT cool. It is simply crap. There are plenty of cases where Andy DOES do this, and at one point it would have been worth highlighting them. Now, since so many daft twats here keep jumping the gun and posting what they ''think'' he will say, the entire point is lost.
 +
: Andy says enough stupid things without people having to put words in his mouth. –[[User:SuspectedReplicant|SuspectedReplicant]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small">[[User_Talk:SuspectedReplicant|retire me]]</span> 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
I think you're all missing the real point here. How long before CP and Assfly jump on the *next* shooting/bombing/etc.???! Oh the humanity. I'm already building up the bile and am prepared to be fully outraged. [[User:MaxAlex|MaxAlex]] <sup>[[User talk:MaxAlex|Swimming]] [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:MaxAlex#Parody_Pool pool]</sup> 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:The last few spree killings, someone here has posted a "what will that evil bastard Andy say about this one" comment, only for CP to say... nothing at all. This really does paint RW in a bad light, and I agree with the comments that it makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Every one of the haters reminds me of Assfly saying that the beauty of foliage is quantifiable. You don't like our speculation. We get it. Don't participate. You're not "right" about this. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::Who on earth are you to say that I should not express my opinion, or that my opinion is not "right"? [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::The bitching is kind of pointless, and of course your opinion isn't right, unless you've bought the Andyism that the correctness of things like this are quantifiable. What a little bitch. "Who are you to say my opinion isn't right!?" Me and every other god damn person on this earth. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::I'm just voicing my opinion about our own behaviour. Or are we only allowed here to post our opinions about what Conservapedia says (or in this particular case, ''hasn't'' said)? Do I have to go over to Rationalwikiwiki before I can comment on things that are said here?
 +
 +
:::::People have been brutally murdered, families and communities torn apart. And the out of Rationalwiki and Conservapedia, the only one to have tried to make some kind of political point about it is.... That's right, folks, Rationalwiki. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::I'm just pointing out that you don't like your opinions being criticized either. It's a personal matter as to what is right or wrong. If you don't understand that, you don't belong here. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::You telling me my opinion is "wrong" is different to you saying that you disagree with my opinion. The first implies that my opinion is not even valid. And why did you say I was a "hater?" [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::It's so wrong for you to be making points over this tragedy. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::I'm glad you agree. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::A high horse is also a slippery slope. Your criticism is essentially hypocritical. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::If that is what you think, then you don't understand the meaning of the word. You seem to be saying that if someone uses a tragedy to make a political point, then ''anybody'' who complains about it is guilty of hypocrisy. So we should just shut up. Is that what you are saying? [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::Precisely! You can't enter into a conversation like this without fueling the fire you so desperately want put out. People died, man. Do you really want to keep up this awful conversation over that? It makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::I disagree. There is a world of difference to one person using a tragedy to make a point, and another person saying, "hey, you shouldn't be doing that" [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::::So if Andy had used the tragedy to make a point, you'd be fine with our comments. Interesting. I would have figured you'd still be up there. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::::Well - duh! - haven't I been saying all along that it's wrong to use a tragedy like this to make a political point? You get a gold star. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::::::Okay, so it's somehow objectively "wrong" for me to make a point (which I didn't realize I was doing, but I guess I'll take it that you think I've made a point, let alone a "political point" lol) about a tragedy. It's perfectly okay for you to make a political point about my point about a tragedy, because you fail to realize that your political point is still, in essence, about the tragedy, you self-loathing half-wit. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::::::{{DFTT}} Can we please let this section die? --&nbsp;[[User:Nx|<span style="color:teal">'''''Nx'''''</span>]]&nbsp;/&nbsp;[[User talk:Nx|''talk'']] 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::::::::Only if you can bear not to comment in it. <nowiki>{{DFTT}}</nowiki> is nothing but troll food and you know it, troll. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
All this leads to the question: Why ''isn't'' Andy using this as an example? It's been reported in conservative land. It happened in atheist Britain. British people don't carry guns. The weapon of gun is largely defensive. Andy using this is as logical as 2+2=4. Someone must have gotten to him about how using murders to push political points makes him look, but who could that possibly be? <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear ==
 
== If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear ==

Revision as of 19:02, 3 June 2010

What is going on?

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

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

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

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

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

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Ken, machismo, again...

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

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

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

@ConcernedResident: as soon as I pictured Ken singing into a hairbrush, for some reason I jumped to him tucking it back and dancing in a mirror - "Would you do me? I'd do me. I'd do me so hard." Maybe it's just that Ken gives off that level of creepy, or maybe I'm just weird. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with the weird thing. I suspect that mental image is enough to scare a man straight, or make the animal kingdom seem like a good place to look for love. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't it be both?--Opcn (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Say what you will about Ken, but he's consistently managed to crack me up in the last few days. Röstigraben (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, CP still lacks an actual machismo article.68.147.139.21 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Open source conservatism

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

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

Block Reason

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

Ole!img Ole!img P-Foster (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I see Ken is only editing CP for our amusement now. Does that mean that Ken is a clown? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We have now reached the point were all the major contributors are editing purely for us to pay attention to them. It really is all over for Andy's project isn't it? - π 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest it's time for another week's, or month's, boycott. Let's see what happens. - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a boycott will make any difference anymore. Acei9 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Boycott's are usually very boring, but so is what is going on at the moment. I would say yes, but I have to concede to Ace that there is nothing left to boycott. - π 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There have been numerous times in the last few years when we've speculated that Andy's project is close to an end, but it always continues to blunder on. I think as long as the Conservapedia Gang remain editing intermittently, Andy will continue to keep the site running.
Given Ken's increased... uh... enthusiasm in recent days, has anyone before exercised the possibility that he may be the best, most devoted parodist ever? Or have I in my endless n00biness stumbled upon a secret bigger than that of the Arc of the Covenant? SJ Debaser 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a history longer than that of CP. Acei9 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a long history of trolling rationalist and liberal friendly theology message boards. He like CP because he controls the discussion their and can use it as a platform for taunting this rationalist and liberal friendly theology site. - π 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)The site will keep running as long as Andy pays the bills, the question is whether they have finally reached the point were they have smothered the life out of it and are now editing in a way that is little more than trolling us by proxy meaning we are more important to them than their own project. - π 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was about to say. He's the Ruy Lopez who sockpuppeted furiously at Wikipedia for years; the present Ken has definitely gone off the deep end in coherence and mental acuity. All the RWers who say he must be mentally ill now? He is. He used to be an obsessive troll, but he's way worse now. - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say they need a week or two of having not even us look at them. Do you think anyone there is a server log obsessive? - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken is keeping an eye on usimg however he should note that we are talking about the amount of active editors and NOT views. As far as editing goes - CP is dead. Acei9 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Again another edit for us. Stop proving my point Ken. - π 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the "certainly maybe". Way to take a stand there. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is part of Ken's greater attempt never to be wrong, by never saying anything. He makes vague prediction about something that might happen in the future. A lot like that trend forecaster he is in love with. If you read his "articles" they are quotes strung together with a topic sentence that contains the word regards too many times. He is right in that there is no factual in accuracies in his articles, as I am sure those are true quotations. However he manages to string them together into something that emerges overall so misguide that it not even wrong. - π 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A message to Ken

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

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

Dear Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitfly.jpg

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

It's alive, Rob

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

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

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

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

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

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

It must be the result of RationalWiki trolls organizing vandal attacks against Conservapedia on Wikipedia.[3] -- Nx / talk 10:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the upswing is a result of the continuing transition into Machismapedia. ¡Olé!-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be mostly vandals. While the 28-day active stat has increased greatly, the 7-day active stat hasn't changed much, sugggesting that users are editing once and then no more (probably blocked). EddyP (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked Active Editors Blocked Active Editors
DiEb-CP-ActiveEditorsUnblocked-90-days.png
Api-active-editors-blocked-Conservapedia-20100601-short.png

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

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

This might get good.

Moar trolling on WP.

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

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

Also, "ArgueCat" is, I believe, a qualitatively different sort of name than "Child Molester". 69.246.210.209 (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell even if someone's name is "Child Molester" that's not reasonable grounds to ban them from any job. Reasonable grounds to give their parents a "worst parenting ever" award, though. X Stickman (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But what good parent doesn't want their kids to carry on the family business? --Kels (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It might get into trouble if you get into the schoolkid teaching trade ("Mom, my teacher is Child Molester" vs "Mom, my teacher is a child molester" vs "Mom, My teacher's name is Child Molester"). Quick, someone apply a social security number with that name and test the theory out. K61824Ask me for relationship advice 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy is so ashamed of Ken

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

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

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

I'm guessing that he'll tolerate him indefinitely so long as Ken doesn't disagree with Pope Andy. The Ed Poor Rule confirms that Andy has great tolerance for incompetence just so long as the bearer of a blunt intellect agrees with Andy's view of how things work. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion: Andy does not have the machismo to smack Ken. K61824CP≠Child Porn? 02:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Forget smacking Ken - Andy doesn't have the machismo to debate Ken! Ken, time to skewer (not literally, you understand) some sacred cows! Olé! Olé! Olé! DogPMarmite Patrol 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How long before........

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

This is bad, bad, bad shit. We aren't used to this kind of shit here in the UK. Hopefully even Assfly et al won't try to politicise it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, he sooo will. All Brits are atheist, gunless morons (except for guys like the mass killer who had largely defensive weapons of gun).--Brendiggg (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
People dying can always be slanted to an agenda. I just hope they don't snicker when they write it up. This is no laughing matter. Jimaginator (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You guys can dream. The facts are, Britain is dominated by atheists and people don't have guns to defend themselves from them. The shooting is a logical outcome of that scenario. That's legitimately how Andy sees this. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is just horrible. I'm hoping (in vain, as Andy has proved time and time again that he has no sense of when to shut the fuck up and show a bit of respect) that Andy just leaves this. But as NU points out, he won't. SJ Debaser 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't turn out this guy is an atheist or we'll all hear a tremendous 'boing!' sound coming from the direction of New Jersey as Andy gets the biggest boner of his life. DickTurpis (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If he is Christian (and he probably isn't), he's likely to be Anglican which is atheism in a devious cloak.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Even if he was a true Christian, the pressures and influences of atheism obviously got to him. Death is the wage of living in an atheistic society for Christians and atheists alike. " is something I'd expect. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Lurker here. I like you guys, but by pre-emptively suggesting that Andy might use this tragedy to further his own ideology, aren't you at least fractionally guilty of the same thing? 86.147.60.191 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not the same thing, but I could see how some people believe it is. Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

"Andy's fucking insane" is not a political cheap shot. Get off your high horse. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fox News readers are already on it. EddyP (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You weren't kidding! wow... P.S. the Fox News comment system is the biggest joke... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Goddammit, I hate those types of Americans. Fuckin' gun-toting, redneck, America-is-the-best-country-in-the-world cunts. SJ Debaser 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
They're smart cookies though - after a commenter points out that last year there were 14 gun murders in the UK compared to 9500-odd in the US, a reply points out that "HEY djmiles why not have some intellicutal honesty, the population of the USA might be at least thousand times that of Britian." Superb. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually with BoN and Weasel a bit on this, we are slightly guilty in that pre-empting the Assfly on this we are guilty of the same bad taste, but in our defence we have seen this so many times from him - if we didn't expect him to abuse a tragedy we wouldn't mention it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that some people think it's in bad taste, but taste is in the mouth of the beholder, unless you want to go Assfly and claim that this is objectively bad taste. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no bad taste in anticipating bad taste.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have been in the SB anyway, since CP hasn't commented on it yet? X Stickman (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That will have to be debated. But in the mean time, Andy is awake and arguing that speculation about who will get the Gore's house in the divorce is not idle talk about personal affairs of others. By the time we figure it out, it'll be on the main page. Has drudge/breitbart/wnd not picked it up yet? You'd think CP would be all over this... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction" - by the same argument, it's hard to see what would be so wrong with old Schlaffers using the killings as Bioglide for expressing his stupid opinions on the UK, but the impression I get from the above discussion is that it would be pretty awful of him to do just that. Obviously the suggestion itself isn't out of this world, given his sickening 'for those keeping the score' postings everytime someone in the entertainment industry dies, but if Andy does indeed invoke this tragedy to bolster an opinion, I don't see how you can say you aren't guilty of the same thing and to that extent as bad as him 86.147.60.191 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you rephrase? I'm guilty of _____ ? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. 86.147.60.191 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I've been trying to stay away but just noticed this post now so apologies to Human for not giving Mick McT and the other supporters of this bullshit the kicking they deserve before now.
People, trying to make a joke along the lines of "I bet teh Assfly will maek joak abowt tis! And it wil be teh funnie!!!!!!1!" is NOT cool. It is simply crap. There are plenty of cases where Andy DOES do this, and at one point it would have been worth highlighting them. Now, since so many daft twats here keep jumping the gun and posting what they think he will say, the entire point is lost.
Andy says enough stupid things without people having to put words in his mouth. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're all missing the real point here. How long before CP and Assfly jump on the *next* shooting/bombing/etc.???! Oh the humanity. I'm already building up the bile and am prepared to be fully outraged. MaxAlex Swimming pool 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The last few spree killings, someone here has posted a "what will that evil bastard Andy say about this one" comment, only for CP to say... nothing at all. This really does paint RW in a bad light, and I agree with the comments that it makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. Bondurant (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Every one of the haters reminds me of Assfly saying that the beauty of foliage is quantifiable. You don't like our speculation. We get it. Don't participate. You're not "right" about this. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth are you to say that I should not express my opinion, or that my opinion is not "right"? Bondurant (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The bitching is kind of pointless, and of course your opinion isn't right, unless you've bought the Andyism that the correctness of things like this are quantifiable. What a little bitch. "Who are you to say my opinion isn't right!?" Me and every other god damn person on this earth. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just voicing my opinion about our own behaviour. Or are we only allowed here to post our opinions about what Conservapedia says (or in this particular case, hasn't said)? Do I have to go over to Rationalwikiwiki before I can comment on things that are said here?
People have been brutally murdered, families and communities torn apart. And the out of Rationalwiki and Conservapedia, the only one to have tried to make some kind of political point about it is.... That's right, folks, Rationalwiki. Bondurant (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that you don't like your opinions being criticized either. It's a personal matter as to what is right or wrong. If you don't understand that, you don't belong here. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You telling me my opinion is "wrong" is different to you saying that you disagree with my opinion. The first implies that my opinion is not even valid. And why did you say I was a "hater?" Bondurant (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's so wrong for you to be making points over this tragedy. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. Bondurant (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A high horse is also a slippery slope. Your criticism is essentially hypocritical. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If that is what you think, then you don't understand the meaning of the word. You seem to be saying that if someone uses a tragedy to make a political point, then anybody who complains about it is guilty of hypocrisy. So we should just shut up. Is that what you are saying? Bondurant (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely! You can't enter into a conversation like this without fueling the fire you so desperately want put out. People died, man. Do you really want to keep up this awful conversation over that? It makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a world of difference to one person using a tragedy to make a point, and another person saying, "hey, you shouldn't be doing that" Bondurant (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So if Andy had used the tragedy to make a point, you'd be fine with our comments. Interesting. I would have figured you'd still be up there. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well - duh! - haven't I been saying all along that it's wrong to use a tragedy like this to make a political point? You get a gold star. Bondurant (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it's somehow objectively "wrong" for me to make a point (which I didn't realize I was doing, but I guess I'll take it that you think I've made a point, let alone a "political point" lol) about a tragedy. It's perfectly okay for you to make a political point about my point about a tragedy, because you fail to realize that your political point is still, in essence, about the tragedy, you self-loathing half-wit. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Troll Can we please let this section die? -- Nx / talk 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Only if you can bear not to comment in it. {{DFTT}} is nothing but troll food and you know it, troll. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All this leads to the question: Why isn't Andy using this as an example? It's been reported in conservative land. It happened in atheist Britain. British people don't carry guns. The weapon of gun is largely defensive. Andy using this is as logical as 2+2=4. Someone must have gotten to him about how using murders to push political points makes him look, but who could that possibly be? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear

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

Clearly you don't understand that with every user blocked, Karajou gets bigger and bigger 'till he bursts and has to start all over again. EddyP (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And yet, he didnt block that really really obvious new parodist that he replied to there.131.107.0.101 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Andy impersonator? I thought that was funny too. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he's an old friend from around here. EddyP (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
ReligiousRight's been given his last rites. Heh... clever. Also, I like how the whole, "First name, last initial" rule didn't apply to that gentleman. SJ Debaser 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Annnnd unbanned.[2]img Apparently he is just crazy enough to fit right in, at least enough to endear himself to JacobB. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's more than likely he just has a tiny dick. SJ Debaser 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This led me to read the CP borken news column. Almost every item has grammatical errors. There are duplicate entries (OMG immigrant crime spree in Washington!) and three snide jabs at the Gores. Now I must go throw up and take a shower. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

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

Thanks for the laugh, Ed. --Sid (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's also interesting that user #188 didn't mention Wikipedia... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ed, you may be a senior editor at Conservapedia but we are not bullied by your credentials! Please either contribute substantially or go back to writing your obviously original gossip stubs. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's big thing for next week

I'm watching 'Genius of Britain,' it's really good. Richard Dawkins was explaining the Enigma machine, and put the message, "Heil Hitler" through it. He said, "Heil Hitler." aloud. I bet money that Conservapedia will cut that clip and have it on the front page within the week..... — Unsigned, by: Overlord / talk / contribs

This should just go on Conservapedia talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP? So I'll copy it there and delete this forum. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - copied this all from the soon-to-be-deleted forum with the same name as the header.

Andy's SCNJ Saga

When should we expect a decision on that? ThiehWho is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare=Giant Meteor!

Only in Andy's blinkered view could this be a viable argument: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/obamacare-giant-meteor-scheduled-to-strike-in-2014-95439854.html — Unsigned, by: Franklin / talk / contribs

Fuck me, the guy is insane. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought his insanity is beyond what words can express. Guess there is still hope. K61824Practicing involuntary celibacy 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you guy's talking about? It seems Andy's only point is that the knowledge of something happening in the future can affect something today. Is this really that far fetched? Sure you can argue that what he says will happen won't happen but this seems rather tame for Andy. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 01:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Netharian's right. Andy isn't comparing the magnitude of the effects to each other, just pointing out that knowledge of a future event - like a meteor or healthcare overhaul - can cause panic today - like among those in the asteroid's path, or those who invest in HMOs. Now if he'd said "I'd rather be hit with an asteroid than have healthcare overhaul," well, then we could make fun of him. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is still there, because it is not exactly a valid comparison. what attitude a normal human being havs for what he/she plans to do before the meteor hits is drastically different than the attitude a patient or a doctor may have on what they plan to do before the healthcare act has an effect. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder by what measure he thinks the MA healthcare bill has failed. Everything I've read has been that it's been surprisingly sucessful and popular. -Lardashe

Is it time?

With at least two people actively campaigning (Ken "Machismo" DeMyer and Rob "Obama's to Blame" Smith) is it time for another biggest idiot at CP contest? Ed's been too quiet recently, I don't think he's running. For once the field looks pretty open. DickTurpis (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Obvious winner is Ken, there's not contest. Wait for more stupidity. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
See, that's what I thought with the initial contest! Hell, I practically designed it as a coronation for him, but then he places a distant third behind Ed and Assfly. No, it ain't over until the obese lesbian sings. There are no pre-ordained winners. DickTurpis (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Diana Damrau is not a lesbian. Trust me. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought we officially retired Ed from the running, naming him CP's biggest idiot emeritus? The idea was that his idiocy was so great he deserved continued recognition, but that the young upstarts should be allowed a shot at the title now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Term limits, eh? Sounds like a good, logical, conservative idea to me. DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we do the whole round of awards again? It's been what, at least six months? Or are they supposed to be annual? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Problem is we have so little to choose from now. Rob is here more than CP, TK is just an ass, Ed Poor never shows his face....literally its Jpatt, Andy and Ken. Hell even JacobB is a parodist and/or ass. Acei9 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
True that. Do any of the homskollars edit there any more, by the way? Is Andy even doing his child abuse for hire routine any more? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How about my idea of extending the awards to cover the entire clogosphere? There are many other idiots out there, and they deserve recognition! MARCVS ANTONIVS 09:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats a good idea dude, posted to the forums. Acei9 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious banter

What's thisimg about? Seems rather ominous... are Jacob's days numbered? ONE / TALK 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusing how TK uses the equivalent of our "Hi Jinx" template. All I could do was try to come up with anagrams for chocolate malt. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A TK vs JacobB/DouglasA battle would be quite epic. Alternatively, it could be a plot to get rid of Jinx once and for all. TK has already tried and failed once. EddyP (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I see TK's use of a Jinx hi Jinx! as a put down to ensure Jinx knows his place in the packing order, a little smirk over sysop status or lack of it. Pettiness personified. Bob Soles (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel sorry for Jinx, he tries so hard to prove his loyalty to Andyism, he so desperately wants in their elite little clubhouse but they just won't let him in. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All that would happen if TK got into a bit of argy-bargy with Douggie and Jakes, is that he'd run to the soopah-soopah seekrit chat room where he gets put in a cage and given a forced enema he hangs out with Andy, Ed, Karajou and maybe Rob - the other sysops aren't worthy. There he'd gripe and snivel like the cur he is, until Andy de-sysopped them. He might need Ed to help stick the knife in. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Jacob and Douglas could probably quite easily make a 'look at my bible translation work' appeal. And other than Ed, I think the rest of the sysops would be glad to be rid of TK. And maybe Jacob or Doug are in the the Zeuglodon (I want more sauces dammit!) EddyP (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but you forget that Terry and Ed are senior sysops and what they say goes. I have a classic soopah seekrit example of Andy agreeing to defrock somebody, then asking, "What reason should I give?" As for the CBP, Andy's ADD has already kicked in and he's forgotten all about the CBP. Especially as it didn't bring the conservative whores hoards swarming to CP's front door.--PsyGremlinSnakk! 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ShockofGod

Jesus. ShockofGod has made an, David Lyncesque, arthouse film. His own video about a posting about a video the he made himself about machismo which he had previously commented on replete with subliminal, stobe effect. Creepy. Acei9 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Everytime that guy says "ma-cheese-mo" my skin crawls. It's like nails on a chalkboard. SJ Debaser 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Christ on an Easter stick, that video was utterly incompetent. Basically he reads Ken's borken news post three times. And, dude, ever proof your work before uploading? Changing the refresh rate so it doesn't conflict with your crappy cam might help. Mah-cheese-homo indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why bother filming your computer screen in the first place? He could've just done a voice-over to a screencap... --Sid (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Because that way you wouldn't get the oh-so-necessary pointing-at-the-sentences-with-a-pen editorial technique. SJ Debaser 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise there'd be no flickering screen strobe to wear down your resistance. Acei9 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A screencap would still, um, be on his computer screen. What I like is how much he lurves and kisses Ken. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't bring myself to watch this retard for more than about a minute. (He doesn't get on the highway at the end of this one, does he?) I do love how this is turning into another one of those "ShockofGod makes a video, CP mentions the video in their news section, SoG makes a video about his mention on CP, CP mentions the video mentioning CP, SoG makes a video showing CP mentioning his video about CP" mobius strips. I hope this one goes a good dozen cycles. DickTurpis (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In layman terms, it is a Circle Jerk. I wonder if that makes them feel they have more MA-CHEESE-MO? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They're just making it TASTEE FOR THE LAYDEEZ!!! --Kels (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Does Matt Berry do the voice of the volcano? DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
MY EYES! THEY HAVE LOST THEIR MACHEEEEESMO! MARCVS ANTONIVS 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have rather the OP link be a Rick Roll. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)