Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 20:30, 22 September 2010 by EddyP (talk | contribs) (Hurrah!: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (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

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Time to die?

Given the plethora of comments in the above section regarding Conservapedia being boring, is it about time to remove it from the front page, or at least drop its priority down a notch? Perhaps begin the process of merging WIGO:CP with the not-quite-yet defunct WIGO:ASK and opening the WIGO for a wider range of topics. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep WIGOCP - it probably still brings us a lot of traffic. Agree with moving off the mainpage, however. Most of CP's traffic comes via here, and if we cut that avenue off at main page level, then the site will stagnate even further. I think RW has grown to the point were we can stand on our own two feet, without the ever more wobbly crutch of CP. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If we got rid of it how would we know that Ed Poor turns his IRL trivial frustrations into magical encyclopedia articles like CP:Command locations, which will be an encyclopedic guide to, "like, finding the print preview in Excel." --Leotardo (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say don't kill all of it just yet, but a gradual phase-out is fine by me. Tetronian you're clueless 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not time yet, but it is time to start planning. Also, don't forget that Andy is a huge attention whore, so don't expect him to go down without a fight. We could see some of the best insights yet in the death throes. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be silly. The day you stop featuring CP is the day this site begins its own long, slow death. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, as evidenced by the editing statistics, this site's vitality is by no means dependent upon Conservapedia's existence and nuttery. Maybe when it first started, but not now. --Leotardo (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly some people who are only here for the Conservalulz but I would guess that most people that have been here for a long time stay for the community and would divert their focus to other topics.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The main page needs a redesign anyway, ever since we removed AOTW the right side looks short. Cue HCM. -- Nx / talk 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Defense submits Exhibit A, a page entitled "What is going on at CP?", where votes frequently go into three figures. Defense submits Exhibit B, a page entitles "What is going on in the world?", where votes rarely make it into two figures. Defense rests. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A disinterested bystander writes: You seriously think you'll get much traffic when Conservapedia folds? Most of the articles on the site are as badly written as much of Cp and rather a lot of the more vociferous editors could do with reading the links at (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We already do get a lot of traffic that's not CP related. -- Nx / talk 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
True, but we seen what happens when we cut off the CP feed. A lot of our regulars, and our new users, find RW via CP. Sure, some are just here for the WIGO and think RW is all about CP, but some settle in and become valued mainspace contributors. I say leave it alone for now, and if someone wants to start yet another boycott, I will once again honor my promise to Kels to oppose it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
At least drop its priority in the order the WIGOs are presented. That would be my first suggestion. Although WIGO:CP's votes go high, those aren't in line with the edit counts and the remaining three have been steadily climbing on average, from just a couple when they were introduced to +/- 15-20 quite often. Still an order of magnitude below the top rated CP comments, but not far off the more mundane CP comments. Someone with a bit more time and with willingness to do a proper analysis might be able to find out, but I'm pretty sure CP related activity here is now a minority pastime. Scarlet A.pngpostate 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Eventually (and perhaps soon) CP will either die or stop being funny to watch - why pre-empt that by killing of the CP parts of RW first, rather than letting them die along with CP itself? If it's true that RW can't survive without WIGOCP, then I'd rather the death of CP itself be blamed for that, than administrators here be blamed for it. ONE / TALK 09:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Per LArron's statistics below and 1's comment above I don't think we should remove WIGOCP from the main page right now, but I do think RW could definitely survive without it, this it what it would look like. --Onion Hi! :) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no :-)

article views Aug 1, 2010 - Sep 15, 2010
Main Page 102273
Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? 85817
Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP? 73757
Poe's Law 39791
RationalWiki:Saloon bar 23178
RationalWiki:What is going on in the world? 19279
RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere? 16933
RationalWiki:Smileys 15525
RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere? 15236
Lenski affair 10975
MediaWiki:Common.css 8825
Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia 8032
MediaWiki:Monobook.css 6687
Banana fallacy 5750
Project Blue Beam 5652
Conservapedia:Conservapedian mathematics 4576
Andrew Schlafly 4538
Citizendium 4381
RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK? 3998
RationalWiki:Contents 3574
RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard/notices 3428
RationalWiki:Copyrights 3388
Category:Articles needing expansion 3379
Vaccine hysteria 3345
Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity 3244
article views Jul 15, 2010 - Sep 15, 2010
Main Page 581047
Homosexuality in Nazi Germany 260263
Mammary glands 135627
Homosexual fantasies 115601
Counterexamples to Relativity 114898
Gay 60473
Ex-homosexuals 46818
Barack Hussein Obama 44927
Gay bowel syndrome 44383
Gay bathhouses 41080
Gay disease 40667
Gay pride 40661
Gay Christian Movement Watch 40594
Gay Bomb 40405
Atheism 39236
Evolution 39069
Homosexuality 35682
Theory of relativity 28849
Jesus Christ 27488
MediaWiki:Common.css 24497
Liberal 23428
Ted Haggard 21700
MediaWiki:Conserv.css 21624
Gay heroism 18803
Gay cupid 18720

larronsicut fur in nocte 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this with Conservapedia and homosexuality? Is there a gay click bot? larronsicut fur in nocte 08:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, CP is clickbot central. Another explanation this that Ken is discovering teh buttseks in various men's loos destroying teh buttseks on the innertubes. I'm more worried about the 15,000 people viewing our smilies page. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's because it is loaded every time someone who has activated one of the smiley gadgets edits a page. -- Nx / talk 08:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn I just loaded it one more time for nothing, thanks Nx. - π 08:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice work LArron! How does one obtain such figures automatically? For instance if you wanted to watch how much traffic CP:Counterexamples to Relativity was getting after it was mention at New Scientist? Is it possible to strip those figures out easily so you can see it was getting X amount of views per day/hour/whatever before it was mentioned, then Y per whatever afterwards? Do you do this through a script looking at the HTML, or something straight from MediaWiki? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I check CP's database every couple of weeks: it's to much effort to do so on a daily basis: I don't know of a way to get past numbers of views, I can get only the current ones... Of course, for a couple of pages, article could be monitored - using queries like
and Ken does so for his pet articles (though I doubt that he automatized the process in any way...)
larronsicut fur in nocte 05:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have a plethora of CP page view data. Originally (from about Aug 2007) I just logged the top 100 pages but later (Jan 2008) logged the top 5000. So I have pretty good idea which pages have been click botted. As the total page view count mounts up any click botting has to be done on an increasingly greater scale to have any real impact so I will probably stop at the end of the year. I've always meant to do an article on CP's page views to show how they've been manipulated. Clickbots have undoubtedly played a part but I have some circumstantial evidence that in the early days Ken may have even manually refreshed his own pages in an attempt to up the stats. As for the gay thing, at one point in 2007, 9 of the top 10 most viewed pages at CP were homosexual-related and this created a short-lived stir in the blogosphere. I can only assume that some people are still trying to resucitate that meme. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative Movies.

I sure hope this is a parody. Its been there for two months, and Andy has edited the page since then. Mr. Swift (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Starship Troopers the book actually purposes very conservative like ideas. The men and women are separated, and are put into limited career choices, due to physical differences. (Men are space marines, and women are pilots. There is no alternative.) The movie dumped a lot of the ideas and notions originally in the book to make a more pop-culture movie. The 1950s cultural stereotypes, etc being fairly inaccessible to our modern culture. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Best.Scene.Ever - Doogie Howser as Leather 'I wanna be in the SS' Boy. Of course the film is conservative - remember the scene at the end, where they're torturing the captive Big Brain? --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure enough, that lying piece of shit Terry Koeckritz removesimg the film but got all upset because KevinO was already blocked, so he reblocked him to make the point. Good to see you're so attached to us, TeamKiller. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki - proofreading Conservapedia since 2007. --PsyGremlin講話 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how there are films on the list that haven't even been made/released yet. I wonder how many of those films they have actually seen.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Christ that guy is such a slovenly "senior administrator" that when he goes in to correct stuff we observe he can't be arsed to spend a single second considering whether there's other glaring problems. Hint: there are. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why are there two Felllowship of The Ring - with different years? And U571 that's definitely conservative, it distorts history to make the USA look better.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Because there are two of them. There's the recent one done by Peter Jackson, then there was a really kind of BADLY done one in 1978, which used that funky animation of real-life thing that was popular in the 70s. Of course, actually looking at the list, it has one for 2001, and one for 2003. The second one should be titled: "The Return of the King", as that's the movie for 2003, and where good triumphed over evil. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Return of the King is already on the list. Do you think it should be on there twice rather than Fellowship? I sort of think it's so much more conservative than the first one that it only needs to be listed once, and Terrykins agrees. So there. Nutty Rouxnever mind 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
*Opens up the page, hit's CTRL-F, then types in "Return of the King"... notes 0 matches.* Hm... are you sure about that? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
FFS are you pedantic. I guess the part about me being objectively wrong and Terrykins agreeing with someone he's threatened to turn in to the ethics board for associating with RationialWiki wasn't a big enough clue that I was making fun. I'll quit trying. Nutty Rouxnever mind 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It's #63 on the current list - somebody just made a copypaste mistake (the link is correct, but the label is still Fellowship). --Sid (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I already stated that it "shouild be titled: 'The Return of the King' ..." A typo is still a mistake, right? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I most certainly am fucking crazy pedantic. I've already openly announced that I am a pedantic bitch. I didn't get the whole ethics board for associating with RW thing though... that reference is lost on me. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to believe that this was parody if Andy didn't add entries like this. That man is the personification of Poe's Law. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, this entry from Uncle Ed. I had that one tagged as a parody ("Middle Eastern Arabic speakers" - I guess Middle Eastern Urdu speakers are off the hook) until I saw the author. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As a fellow member of the Pedantic Party - Ed writes "Teaches conservative values ... and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers". I think he meant politically incorrect facts which means something rather different to what he actually wrote.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New Conservapedians

Andy seems to have lost interest in getting new members for his project: over the last 48 hours, account creation was enabled only for two short periods of time (Sep 18, 2010 21:30 - Sep 19, 2010 1:30 and Sep 19, 2010 5:30 - Sep 10, 2010 6:00). A couple of individuals created a new account during these times:

  1. 05:53, 19 September 2010 KevinSch (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  2. 05:47, 19 September 2010 BritdaveW (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  3. 00:45, 19 September 2010 NotManyUsers (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  4. 22:43, 18 September 2010 IPleaseu (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  5. 22:36, 18 September 2010 Reasonandlogic (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  6. 22:11, 18 September 2010 KenPrescott (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  7. 21:59, 18 September 2010 Peace3 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

and all but one were quickly blocked by Karajou and TK...

  1. 06:00, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked KevinSch (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye.)
  2. 05:59, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BritdaveW (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye.)
  3. 00:47, 19 September 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked NotManyUsers (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name: but many, many page views)
  4. 00:38, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Peace3 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  5. 22:45, 18 September 2010 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked Reasonandlogic (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Sock of blocked user)
  6. 22:44, 18 September 2010 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked IPleaseu (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Sock of blocked user)

So, who of you is cp:User:KenPrescott? larronsicut fur in nocte 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now, if I admitted to it, I'd get blocked. SJ Debaser 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not if you give them your Facebook, Wikipedia and 4chan IDs and Ed poor your bra size. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
...and then he still blocks you if it doesn't end in "A". mb 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Jpratt hits back at 'NotManyUsers' with "but many, many page views" - Conservapedia: the clickbots' favourite site! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha implicitly taking credit for a big enough site to draw that many viewers is precious. PZ Myers generates more original content than all of CP does on any given day. The site is growing vapidly! Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Creepy Uncle Ed has always been creatively stupid but Mr. X-Ray is just plain dense.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CP Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) : 41

RW Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days): 169

larronsicut fur in nocte 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They've got 41 active vandals? I'm amazed there's that many. --Gulik (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I think actual editing numbers are Andy, Ken, Ed, TK, Rob, JPatt, TZoran and that new Indian bloke. TerryH has been quiet lately. Does this mean we're unofficially 20 times bigger than CP? Officially, I guess it's 4x. And considering Terry keeps saying we're all socks of the 10 original founders, we must be busy little beavers. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nightmode-2010-09-18.png larronsicut fur in nocte 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a VERY interesting graph. Mostly because there is no unshaded green area, meaning that at least this weekend, there was no time when users were able to sign on and edit. Or in other words, when users signed on, they found themselves instantly locked out of even editing their own user page to say hello. I can see it now:
User: "Hey, there's a typo/glaring mistake/complete lie on CP! Let's fix it!"
CP: "Only registered users may edit!"
User: "Huh, fine then." *registers* "Now let's fix it!"
CP: "Only registered users with additional rights may edit!"
User: "...uh..."
CP: "Nobody knows when users without those rights may edit again. Maybe in five minutes, maybe in five hours..."
User: "Yeah, nevermind. I'll just-"
User: "...yeah, sure, whatever."
Yep, that's how you make a community grow! --Sid (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I wish we knew the date Andy handed the keys to registration/night editing over to TK. Would be wonderful to see a before and after scenario. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if we look at the data over the past six months we can try and guess? When TK opens the SDG again we can check to see who was closest. EddyP (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the logs 30th of November 2008. However he may have only worked out what they do and how to use them recently. - π 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sep 20 Sep 22
CP Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) : 41 34
RW Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days): 169 164

Less than 40? Terry Koeckritz is starving them! Only in the week that never was, the number of active users was lower! larronsicut fur in nocte 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, account creation is open and so far CP is 0 for 2, including Andy blocking somebody for "possibly" being a sock. Paranoia, gotta love it. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Sexism I know tht Andy has high expections for his male students, but I never knew he was this sexist. Hoo-boy.RascalJack (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

blabant? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
expections? -- (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That's your idea of blatant sexism from Schlafly, is it? Quoting Scalia? This is the guy who wrote that "hissy fits" are "typically female in nature." You might not want to dig too deep here, the depths of Andy's misogyny could give you an aneurysm. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I can't believe Scalia as a Supreme Court Justice would distort fact that far. Especially legal fact. One can certainly say, "Reading the US Constitution, I see no prohibition of sex discrimination. However, the US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, against my objections, that such a prohibition does exists." I hate people who throw out inconvenient US legal history to support their own legal interpretation... worse when the guy is sitting in a position where correcting his vote will require either a constitutional amendment, or a new lawsuit, which will fail all the way up to the Supreme Court, before it even has a chance of being ruled in favor of. Like people talking about activist judges... hey, activist judges brought you ALL OF THE TORTS YOU CAN SUE FOR IN COURT... we just later actually wrote them down. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You've missed something here. Look at the source, and even Scalia says: "Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."" - (my emphasis) so even the champion of right-wing judicial thought is left of ASchlafly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy probably thinks that boys are the ones who are discriminated against because they've got 9 rules while the girls only have 7. At least they're allowed to swear. --Kels (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Pfff... I should have known I was missing something, because I only read the CP version of the quote, not the real thing. Fucking quote miners making me look bad. Scalia looks significantly more sane in your version of events. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Purposely mispeling words for the lulz of it-and also to reflect on Andy's spelling skills. And going even deeper in CP history, well, looking at the entry on feminism, I guess he's one of those people that think women should be slaves to men.RascalJack (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy.img --Sid (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
"Offer to purchase tickets or meals for girls, and develop a work ethic to provide money for that" Dude, I milk that shit for everything it's worth! lol. Nah, honestly, it's fucked up... but women still are the "gatekeeper to sex", because there is far more demand than there is supply. Thusly, men will spend more to obtain some of the limited supply. But this sort of a rule just leads to lazy self-absorbed girls... like me. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what Andy's reaction would be if it were pointed out to him that the concept of 'chivalry' actually stems from how it was held that knights from Arabic countries should behave in the 5th or 6th century, as such actions and behaviour was seen as key in Islamic life? (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
He would simply claim that it's liberal deceit... you're forgetting that ASchlafy can readily throw out pretty much any evidence that he doesn't like. That there is good reason to believe such evidence is just a bigger indicator of the conspiracy to hide it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That "andy" template is borkish. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"", we know how atheists love to censor everything from classroom prayer to criticism of evolution. I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and if you were a true agnostic you would have 50% Bible edits and 50% non-Bible edits, so regardless, I'm so confident that you're being taken in by so many atheistic lies that you are most certainly obese. Like all atheists, you deny that conservative talk radio helps resist Hollywood values. Believe what you like, but we're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not. You can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--aschlafly 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how it is borked, but I welcome fixing of it... it's just hella easier to type {{andy}} rather than type out "Andy Schlafly" or "ASchlafly", or "Schlaflfy ... bleh, see what I mean? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was leaving behind a carriage return and a space, putting the rest of your text in a box
like this
But I edited it to put the noinclude right up against the last character and it seems to have worked. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"This is so pathetic"

Quoth Andyimg on 19 September 2010. If only it hadn't been saidimg two days ago by Terry Koeckritz. Yet more proof that even CP sysops don't read the main page. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Andy's version is pettier. Tetronian you're clueless 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Was about to say the same. Andy even felt the need to mock Wackowski's name. Really, his gloating and taunting has gone out of control these days/weeks. --Sid (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC) --Sid (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You know, we could do an up-to-date parody of the CP main page (up-to-date - I know there's already a dated parody version somewhere). In this case the story could be:
This is so pathetic A candidate elected by the so-called "serious" "Grand Old Party" recently said that unemployment benefits are "unconstitutional in many ways". We rational thinkers cannot understand how people so ignorant of our brave country's constitution can get so close to major political office.
SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just update the old one? - π 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I thought it was supposed to highlight "typical" CP stories rather than current ones. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A little local perspective for you

Lisa Actually has a good chance of winning even as a write in. Lisa was only ever a weak republican to begin with, and had the conservatives not fetishized rino hunts they would be grateful she didn't just pull an Arlen Specter and go Dem. She is in fact their best hope of beating McAdams. Miller is nuts, (and by nuts I mean principled) and, had anyone known anything about his policy before hand, he would have never won the primary. The primary was handed to him by virtue of the amazing wedge issue on underage abortion (parental signed permission slip or court order required) that fell in his court with Lisa being prolife, but even with the Tea party and no one realizing how disastrous he would be for the Alaskan economy (Alaska is actually doing pretty well economically, even with BP eating shit [BP is huge in Alaska] we've been doing alright) and the fact that he looks like a goon (greased hair and a leather jacket) he only managed to barely squeak past. If Lisa pulls a Lieberman It'll be proof that she who the state wants, and if Lisa splits the vote and hands it to McAdams that too will be alright from her perspective because I'll bet that she would vote for him before she voted for a man who called her a whore (did I mention that he's a bit of a goon?)

All that having been said I don't think Miller would be a terrible guy. Unlike the tea party he actually has plans for dealing with the problem. He knows that voting out the opposition isn't going to magically fix all of our problems and that he can't miraculously rest on the Laffer curve in order to pay for everything by slashing revenues. He is well educated with a law degree from Yale and a masters in economics and a gulf war one (the popular gulf war) vet. From what I've seen of him I'm sure he would kick Andy right in the ass. What I can't figure out is what Miller and Palin have in common outside of an (R) by their names and pro-life stances.

--Opcn (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, Dodgy Roger?

Good to see that Roger can still pop up again and remind us that he's as batshit insane as Andy.img I'm sure Galileo would have something to say about the Church "promoting" science. Not to mention this is the same church that said washing off God's dirt was a sin. True, they might have built universities like Oxford and Cambridge[citation needed] but for centuries those only taught church doctrine. The Dark Ages were dark for a very good reason. Even da Vinci wrote in mirror style, to hide his ideas from the Church. Do we have an article on this anywhere? --PsyGremlin講話 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn - the first thing that pops into my mind when someone puts together "Catholic" and "history" together is, in fact, the dark ages. Of course, that can only be because the public school that I am attending is brainwashing me with their nasty, liberal views - in fact, we're learning about the dark ages right now. Popping those buboes ain't a good idea, nor is whipping oneself on the back going to prevent any disease. ~SuperHamster Talk 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just had a look at his blogs. My god, the stupid is strong in that one. First, in Dark Buzz he carries on about how Galileo was wrong, and as for Singular Values. To quote "I think that the Mohammedans were responsible for the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Christian Europeans had to take these measures, or they would have been overrun by Mohammedan invaders." Epic European history fail there, Roger. Sheesh, I'm starting to think Andy might be the clever one. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I used to subscribe to Singular Values for a laugh, and had fun with posting comments (like these) every now and then, but eventually the crazy drove me away. If you only read CP, it's easy to think of Roger as the sensible one, because he usually talks sense about relativity, black holes, and so on. In fact, in almost all areas he's just as stupid and ill-informed as Andy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I like how the only tick boxes you have to rate his articles are "funny," "interesting," and "cool." Ever the modest one is our Roger. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"Insipid," "smarmy," "revolting," "flaccid." Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to butt in here. I'm surprised that people who normally have no problem with shades of gray can be so lacking in nuance when it comes to this issue. There have been times when religious and academic leaders have been at odds, and they have not. Taking one modern conflict (Fundamentalist Protestants in the USA versus Everybody) and extrapolating it backwards for all time shows a dire need for some perspective.
Christians killed the Academy, that is true, and it's a pretty big blot on Christian history. But to blame them for the Dark Ages?? The Dark Ages were a large-scale political and economic collapse in which the Roman civic order was replaced by a warrior aristocracy who cared not at all for urban life or learning. During that era the monasteries were the only ones who preserved learning and literacy, including the Classics.
Even Galileo, the great science-religion morality play of our time, was much more complex than it's presented today. Many of the religious leaders involved were squarely on the side of keeping an open scientific debate. When a few zealous Dominicans raised hell about Galileo's heliocentrism, the Church brass made him promise to present it as a hypothesis rather than an out-and-out proven fact. Which it was, at that point. It always takes years of research and debate for radical new models to be accepted; so it was for the Big Bang Theory (first posed, of course, by a Catholic priest) and so it was with heliocentrism.
Now, I of course believe that religious leaders shouldn't be allowed to do even that, but the fact is that Galileo certainly wasn't trampled under the Church's holy boots for saying something that contradicted the literal words of the Bible. No Christian thinker then (and no thinking Christian today) takes all that cosmology literally; St. Augustine himself argued for a sort of primitive evolution.
Galileo got stomped eventually, of course. His personal friend, the Pope, turned against him, and it had everything to do with power politics and nothing to do with biblical literalism. Galileo's patron was the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Grand Duke's patron was the King of Spain, and the King was the Pope's big rival. The Dominicans' earlier objections provided a convenient excuse. Again, it's definitely a Bad Thing for religious leaders to play politics like that, but the story does not support the "Teh Ev0l Christians Hate teh Science" trope.
Have religious leaders opposed science? Yes. Have they supported it and enlivened it? Yes. Have political, economic, military, and all other leaders done various things in the past to both advance and hinder scientific progress? Yes, yes, yes. History is complicated. One-dimensional narratives - whether YEC or not - very rarely give you the full story. Bluefish (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at that list that Psygremlin pointed out at the top. Roger has, as one of his 'General Denials' that 'NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World'. However, he also lists, as a 'Specific truth that history books deny or distort' that, 'Rhode Island was the only state to separate church and state, and as a result it became the biggest importer of slaves.' Leaving aside the fact that even his own source for that fails to give evidence of a causal link between the separation of Church and state and slavery, nor does it actually even claim such a link exists, Rhode Island, going by more reputable sources, was part of the slave trade, and a big one - as part of the triangular trade that Roger has already said didn't exist. So, if there was no triangular trade, Rhode Island could not have been a big part of the slave trade. (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For some of Dodge Rodge's best insanity, the debate on the Trail of Tearsimg where Rodge doesn't like the forced starvation march of Native Americans being called "immoral." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's some classic Roger weirdness. "I don't think that it is true that depictions of Mohammed are prohibited, or that anyone is offended by such depictions." All in the context of a Muslin fella coming on to explain the prohibition. To a man, Roger is a quintessential cockgobbler, the kind of guy who would have gotten his ass kicked twice daily if his mother had the courage to send him to any public school I attended. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm having fun with him over there at the moment. As for the Church promoting science, he's pointed me to wp:Science in the Middle Ages, instead of quoting examples, which doesn't seem to have much mention of the Church. Still, at least it wasn't a CP link. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, he's cringeworthy. This will be about as satisfying as trying to have a discussion with Rayment, unless your goal is just to make a record of what a boob Roger is. But good luck with whatever you're doing. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm compensating. Tonight is supposed to be punishment night, but my Dominatrix has the night off. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently listening to a lecture series about the History of Science, and it talks about the end of the schools started by the Greeks about 500CE (Could have dates fouled up). Strangely enough, it was the Catholic Church that wanted to supress them, and even stranger, the Dark Ages start around the same time. Coincidence? Hmm. Jimaginator (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a section on one of Arthur C. Clarke's books (I'm almost certain it's him but I can't remember which) which states that the biggest disaster for global civilization was that Charles Martel won the battle of Tours. It suggests that if the Muslims had won, the centuries of Catholic oppression wouldn't have happened and we'd have skipped the Dark Ages, meaning we'd be centuries ahead of where we are now. Can anybody suggest which book it might be in? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Was it The Fountains of Paradise? Broccoli (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. I can't find my copy at the moment :/ –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was indeed from The Fountains of Paradise:
Almost all the Alternative History computer simulations suggested that the Battle of Tours (A.D. 732) was one of the crucial disasters of mankind. Had Charles Martel been defeated, Islam might have resolved the internal differences that were tearing it apart and gone on to conquer Europe. Thus centuries of Christian barbarism might have been avoided, the Industrial Revolution would have started almost a thousand years earlier, and by now we would have reached the nearer stars instead of merely the farther planets….
I'm wondering if that passage inspired this demotivational poster. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That's exactly the bit I remembered. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can't help think it's at least partly true. And I love that poster. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The whole idea seems fallacious to me. It seems to be that the dark ages - whatever their cause - delayed scientific advancement. Is this really a problem, a missed opportunity? Only in two respects - one being that millions of people lived out miserable lives that could have been avoided if the modern age occurred earlier, and the other being that we have a responsibility to the existence of our species to advance as quickly as possible so as to protect ourselves from certain threats (such as a major earth impact).
But equally, if we had advanced to the modern age a thousand years earlier, the planet might now look like a barren wasteland, either ruined by the environmental destruction and climatic intervention we see today, or ruined by a war in a nuclear age that played out with very very different politics.
And finally, I'm pretty certain that if the dark ages didn't occur, I simply would never have existed to enjoy my jetpack and weekend holidays to saturn. ONE / TALK 09:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fired anchor

I can sort of see the point to Andy's borked news story. But surely news organisations have a political bias, and for a front man to go against that, would be insubordination? Especially as WJLA does appear to be a liberal station. That said, Andy's outrage at somebody being fired for being "too conservative" is ironic coming from the man who's driven away everybody except his goons for being "too liberal." --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that it's right to be on the right. Being liberal is an outrageous slight. --Opcn (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that Andy has a point. First, Conservapedia has made hay out of the whole JournoList BS, and in their non-quote-mined part of their CP:JournoList article, they write, "It appears to some that journalists put liberalism before journalistic integrity, further weakening any credibility they may have had with the American people." At the University of Indiana's School of Journalism, they parse it this way in an unrelated, though relevant, case:
Journalists are, by profession, civic and political activists. They bring matters of importance to public attention and frame the public debate. The question is not whether journalists should be allowed to participate in public political activity, but whether or not they should be allowed to exert influence in public arenas beyond the one they already control. Because of the potential for exploitation, the answer has to be "no."[....] Journalists cannot drop professional affiliation when it is convenient for them or for their cause. People who wish to work on behalf of a particular cause should work in public relations or advocacy groups, not for the news media. Journalists should confine their public voices to their own professional arena.
But the guy was fired for yelling at his boss--who knows what was said--but he could just as rightly been fired for what he did. --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Scrolling up here and at the SB, it strikes me that perhaps pibot's settings could be sped up a bit, half (or more) of both pages is almost always dead threads. What do ye think? Actually they both seem to be set to 48 hours. Wow, we pile "stuff" up fast here! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think 48hrs is enough, after all, there's 2 old threads - Time to die and New Conservapedians, that sprang back into life today. Then again, considering fuck-all is happening at CP, we sure do have lots to say about it. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked both SB and here before saving, and was shocked that both were only 2 days. I can't see shortening that, hence the about-turn in my comment. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the reason nobody's been saying much about CP. What is going on at CP? Nothing! The old glory days of Lenski must have been great... Fawlty (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a wonderful time, when brave and noble users (some of them real!) roamed the lands battling the conservative ogres. A time of homeskollars, a time of parodists, a time of legitimate users, a time....before TK. EddyP (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Lenski! Ah now I remember the FBI - those were the days! 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
PJR and I discussing whether inserting content into a wiki constituted vandalism, TK trying to bin the discussion because everybody involved basically said that Andy was talking out of his arse, and then TK getting shafted dans derrière and being forced to watch as the page was restored so the discussion could continue, fully in public. Good ol' days.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Linkies please, Stunted! That's sounds like it's worth a read! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
With Capture tags - now that TK rules unopposed, those links will be disappeared the moment they appear here. --Sid (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Have to laugh at TwistedKnickers. "Oh Noes! Librulls are calling O'Donnell a witch! The horror!"img But imagine if she'd been a Dem... And in other TK news, why is he referring to the Dems as the Liberal Party?img Doesn't he realise that by capitalising it, he's referring to a totally different party? Oh wait, what am I saying, it's Tk... --PsyGremlin Поговорите! 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(Fixed your sig) Didn't you know? "The Democratic Party in the United States is now often referred to as "The Liberal Party"."img It pays off to be able to rewrite reality on the fly. :) --Sid (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
FFS. That guy must be so lonely stomping around an empty house when the party he really wants to be at is over here. Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Shame, poor TK - he's sent all his little friends home and now he's got nobody to play with. I guess all he's got left is to doodle on the walls, until mummy comes home and spanks him. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No new WIGOs in three and a half days?

I only look at WIGO CP every couple of days, but when I checked this morning it was the same as the last time I looked. Has the place really become that stagnant we can't even get a slightly amusing joke out of it? - π 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it, I'll try to find something to WIGO. Unfortunately it just seems to be Ken's
million-edits-per-ramble and Terry Koeckritz's trolling... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, sorry. Nothing's going on. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Eira found something, I do enjoy it when CPers try their hand at foreign politics. - π 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I once felt tempted to WIGO something, but even that was just TK trolling in some way. It's really just Ken's obsessions (I presume - I still filter), TK's blatant trolling, and Andy orgasming about the Tea Party. Plus a few minor gems. --Sid (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Fuck it, I've WIGOed a Terry Koeckritz. At least it shows the modus operani of CP. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I improved it and then voted it down. Pst... TK's a troll. Is boring! Sí! Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time I think to WIGO it just seems like the same ol' shit. Like this dumbassery about the Fort Bliss shooting where TK says Obama should be doing more to protect citizens because some insane guy shot two at an army base. Like *everything* comes down to Obama. And if the army can't protect itself against a lone gunman, how is Obama going to...ah, never mind, not worth the keystrokes nor a WIGO. --Leotardo (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Obama, he could save a basket of drowning puppies by swimming to them in a raging river and they would still spin it as a negative on the CP mainpage. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The corollary to this of course, is Saint Ronnie delivering a speech from an Austrian basement, whilst punching a kitten in the face. And it would still be the greatest conservative insight evah! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've wondered what would happen if Obama held a surprise news conference and said, "I have had a personal religious awakening, and I am now one hundred percent opposed to any and all abortions, and will devote the remainder of my time in office to seeing the Roe v. Wade is overturned, and that a Federal ban on abortion enacted." While I suspect the likely CP response would be to claim he was doing it for political reasons, I wouldn't be really surprised if Andy declared himself to be pro-choice. MDB (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on...the obvious is that he'd be "Pro-Life In Name Only". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A PLINO? --Leotardo (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed "Gimme back Lohan" Poor

Lovely.img AceX-102 02:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't she a bit old for him? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
lol@human --Leotardo (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do I keep thinking of this? --Shagie (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Because you're at least two Friedberg/Seltzer films behind in your pop-culture reference points. (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what Andy would make of Ed lusting after a bimbo who is the very embodiment of cp:Hollywood values? If he chose Anna Paquin, at least I could credit him with some taste. --PsyGremlin講話 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Paquin pre-True Blood is a good choice, but I bet Dakota Fanning ala I Am Sam moves him more. --Leotardo (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Willminator's delusions.

Not WIGO worthy, but Willminator'simg delusions are fun to read. "You can be anonymous if you wish, but please state the news / newspaper organization or network you work for and whether you are a news anchor, a reporter, or a journalist." This assumes various things:

  • Registration is turned on.
  • The users are allowed to create an "anonymous" username.
  • There are hordes of media folks just itching to log on to CP and express heir faith. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 06:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I was about to mock him for failing at creating a sub-page in his user space, but now I see that it was moved there by Senior Administrator TK. And focusing on the page itself, it gets worse than just your three assumptions: Even if reporters are reading Conservapedia (*snerk*), what are the odds that they will find their way to some nobody's user page? --Sid (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It just reminds me of the fantasy that all too many Christians have that they are somehow oppressed or persecuted against, and have to hold their beliefs in secret from the evil secularists who control everything, you know, in a nation where you have to proclaim loudly your fidelity to Christianity to get elected to any office. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Christianity is a de facto requirement, but I don't believe a creationist will ever be elected prez from now on. Baby steps. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably not, but a Presidential candidate (cough cough Sarah Palin) can be a raging creationist. That's scary enough. Tetronian you're clueless 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


For your entertainment:

XXXXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> to

Q: Is there anyone in the media (including Fox News) who takes an uncompromising Biblical stance in a 6 literal day, recent creation?

A: No, even Fox journos have the odd gray cell between their ears

News organization: RationalWiki

Position: Anchor

Faith: The ultimate ludicrousness of Conservapedia

== Willminator's delusions. ==

Not WIGO worthy, but Willminator's delusions are fun to read. "You can be anonymous if you wish, but please state the news / newspaper organization or network you work for and whether you are a news anchor, a reporter, or a journalist." This assumes various things:

  • Registration is turned on.
  • The users are allowed to create an "anonymous" username.
  • There are hordes of media folks just itching to log on to CP and express their faith.

William L <> to XXXXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

First all, how did you find my email address? I erased it yesterday from the article. Did you check the history or something? Anyway, I know that there are some who work in the media like Mike Huckabee, Ben Stein, and Melanie Phillips who don't believe in evolution, but I don't know if there's anyone who goes a step further than that. By the way, my question wasn't directed to atheist and / or evolutionist news anchors like you, but I'm glad you emailed me anyway. However, you forgot to tell me the name of the news organization you're anchor of (ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, RN, ESPN, etc.) Are you an anchor for local or national news? Where and when can I watch you?
Take care...

Edit: I see now that you're a troll and a time-waster. I'm going to report you to Conservapedia and about the new Rationalwiki article you've created.

By the way, if you'r an atheist, what proof and evidence can atheism give that proves atheism is 100% accurate and correct?

16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

$20 of internet says the first time through "Will" wrote "I'm going to report you to the FBI", but then decided to tone it down. The Shock quote is a dead giveaway. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a sad day indeed when the sysops are so crazy, the parodists have to resort to antics like this to get noticed. I mean, quoting Ken? C'mon! --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what the background vetting that got Williminator's foot in the door looked like. Considering the tremendous unlikelihood that a legitimate editor could turn up at CP with the urge to express ideas like this, I'm guessing it involved a lot of winks and nudges. Cheers William L! I look forward to watching your skills increase and your work proceed unabated. Godspeed! Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the silly git on about. He's getting as bad as Terry at remembering lies. "how did you find my email address? I erased it yesterday from the article." Well, sonny boy, looking at the most recent edit to your crapimg it would appear as if you added your e-mail address. So it wasn't that hard to find. Twat. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"I'm going to report you to Conservapedia..." Oh NOES! What will you do now! LOLOLOLOL --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello troll and anchor of nothing. Just to let you know, liberalism is a death cult that you should get out of. You support the abortion / death of unborn innocent children. You want global warming to kill us all because you lie about its evidence of which there's 0 evidence. In order for evolution to work, one animal must evolve a little better than the rest. What must happen to the rest of them to make this thing work? They got to die or else the new and improved gene is swamped back to the gene code and becomes once again like any ordinary gene. The question is so simple but profound. Did man bring death into the world like the Bible says or did death bring man into the world like evolution says? You support population control. You want for this country to have a weak natural defense. You want terrorists to kill American people by not supporting the Iraq / Afghanistan wars. The greatest atrocities and genocides ever done in history were and are even still done by liberals. Hey, you even want this country to die. I can go on and on forever. No wonder polls show that liberals are more likely to commit suicide than conservatives. It's time for you to turn your life around. Get out of that death cult you are in. Convert to conservatism and Christianity. Leave the dogma of liberalism / atheism. I'll pray for you so that God can change your heart, and so that He can become the love of your life. You'll always be on our mind. Conservapedia will work to change you. We are here to help people struggling in the shackles liberalism. However, I'll still have to report your trolling and time wasting on me to Conservapedia for a start. That's my message for you today and Conservapedia approves this message. God bless you.

P:S: Are you male of female? I ask because of your name.


NO! please don't report me to Conservapædia. Please, anything but that! What makes you think that I care about the United States of America?
If there's 0[sic] evidence of Global Warming then how is it going to kill us?
Whether you like it or not evolution is fact - nature red in tooth and claw!

Death has been in the world since the first predator cell ate the first prey cell

The Bible is a story book written by primitive men to try to explain what they didn't understand and by ruling classes to subjugate the rest.

If the West hadn't started it there would probably be no need for Iraq/Afghanistan (there's more on that but I can't be bothered to write to the brainwashed)

Genocides! Ghenghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin - LIBERALS?????

quote: "Conservapædia will work to change you. " NEWS: Co]nservapædia isn't working for anything! (Except for the humour of watching the inmates in the asylum)


Jayne (The clue's in the name)

18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

NO! please don't report me to Conservapædia. Please, anything but that! (The clue's in the name) 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

There's also this, which I think is hysterical. Tetronian you're clueless 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, dear Jesus! The boy writes worse than Ken and JPatt together. Don't they teach paragraphs in home school? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A love letterimg from a decrepit old man to an old crone. 9Nothign wrong with old crones - Granny Weatherwax is an old crone, and she rocks. As does Susan, of course.) --PsyGremlin말하십시오 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jayne, you should know that "Terry Koeckritz"" is a sad single man in his 60's from (surprise!) the south of the USA living in his mother's basement. He wastes his time blocking people with one hand while shakily masturbating with the other. He has a deep, personal interest in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and loves to complain that people are being horrid to him. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, the link to the Jayne thing above is gone on CP, but I like how the pillars of no name-calling nor gossip shone through in TK's edit. --Leotardo (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jayne Cobb might take violent exception to you saying it's a girl's name. Tracey Smith would probably complain meekly. CS Miller (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And as for Marion Morrison... well, say no more! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. --PsyGremlinFale! 20:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Or Shirley Crabtree, but that was a fairly common boy's name where he grew up. CS Miller (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming, as would appear to be the case, that Willie isn't Wiki savvy, he's probably wondering how TK knows about "Jayne". This way lies paranoia! 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

More hee!img 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I've sent him a link to Conservapedia:TK. He might read it and take note. (Hi Terry, How's it hangin'? Takes one old crone to know another. And: leave my pussy out of it!) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
ooh! "contact them and let me know please."; "I need help with that section"; "please tell me the states that had joined with Arizona". He is such a dead man - nobody dares make demandsimg on Terry's valuable time! --PsyGremlinHable! 06:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure that Terry is short for Terrence and not Teresa?  Lily Inspirate me. 07:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken fail

One thing I miss with the greasemonkey app, is Ken's insanity. Such as his contacting UK Xiansimg about his Dawkins gibberish. Good luck with that Ken - TK's blocked most of the UK already. Also, using a pub sign and a drum to advertise his work? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I read that as "Goat of Arms"! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this means he's back to spamming forums? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt he ever stopped. Though I guess this diff simply translates to "I sent mails to bloggers, begging them to link to my newest pet article(s) in exchange for articles that are full of praise." Just keep an eye on what mainspace articles he creates/edits (aside from the usual suspects), and you'll know exactly who replied. --Sid (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, that is how "True Freethinker" and ShockOfGod have their articles or videos constantly hyped, even though they are nobodies in the blogosphere or Youtube. Heck Shock has his own category on CP thanks to Ken. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it funny - it's one of my favorite things about him, how he thinks his sitting at a computer quote-mining is really changing the world. It's what every 14 year old who edits Wikipedia thinks. But whereas Wikipedia gets serious consideration on blogs and in the media, nobody in the media nor on blogs writes about Conservapedia except with ridicule. They go ignored by Conservative sites, or are also ridiculed by them (Eric Erickson was prescient in 2007: " is destined to fail miserably to expand outside the clutches of a few conservative cultists.) So I think it's a very endearing quality that Ken thinks he's so influential given that, generally, in order to sea change humanity you have to be taken seriously. --Leotardo (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Good find. That comment mirrors almost exactly the situation on CP now - nothing left but Andy and the Fab Five. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Only from RedState did I learn about DailyKos's dKosopedia, which is even more moribund that CP! RW became what dKosopedia hoped to be. --Leotardo (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't bother to hit random page at all yet, but that article on CDSs on the main page is pretty well done. It would fit in well here, if it was on-mission. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I definitely wouldn't say that RationalWiki became what dKosopedia wanted to be. While both RW and dKos have articles that may share the same ideology, dKosopedia is far more focused on being an actual encyclopedia, unlike RationalWiki, where much of the work effort is directed into socializing in some sort of fashion, whether it be analyzing others, poking fun at them, or talking about pot brownies, all of which not only appear on talk pages, but even in the articles themselves. The reason I think RationalWiki is at all successful is because its goal is not to be an encyclopedia, but rather, it serves as a social place to analyse and criticize others, and that it allows for people to openly communicate. It's what makes the place interesting, fun, and worth coming to - if RW's goal was to be a legitimate source of information in the sense that people would chose RationalWiki as a source of info over Wikipedia, it'd be treated as the same piece of shit that Conservapedia is. Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and dKosopedia are trying to drive down the same street in terms of what type of source they are - RationalWiki, on the other hand, is in a different lane. It isn't trying to be the same type of source that Wikipedia is, unlike CP and dKos, who would love to replace Wikipedia's fame. That's why they're failing.
And pah, the statement that all the fourteen year olds that edit Wikipedia think that they are changing the world in some noticeable way on an individual level is simply silly in the extreme. They're not all loonies. What makes their age suddenly make the view of themselves editing Wikipedia suddenly so different than that of a 60 year old? ~SuperHamster Talk 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Whenever I remove a superfluous comma from WP and then insert it where needed on RW, I feel like I have changed the world twice over. Ole! Ole! Ole! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
lol. That was a good post, hamster, but I think you took what I wrote a little too literally. It's not obvious, but I was more talking about a vibrant community working on a project than content similarity, though I probably meant that too without studying the articles of dKos (at all). But that was a good analysis. As for the kids on Wikipedia, as a long-time editor of that site, I find the sense of grandiosity and self-importance to be far higher in the younger people than in the older, though there are exceptions - again, I wouldn't take my generalization too literally. --Leotardo (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Out from under the bridge

I think it's time. We should unmask ourselves. We can't just keep sitting around on CP wanking each other off. DouglasA, TZoran, DerekE, Willminator, JacobB, and even all the smaller parts we play. Let's do it all at once. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should pick someone who's not involved to which each CP parodist copies a confession email to TZB recipients from the email account and IP address associated with CP. A few weeks later those emails and any replies are posted. Blammo. Then we purge CP from the mainspace and stop talking about parodists. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
s'Funny that. I know the impartial, non-RW affiliated place to publish them. (ok, I lied about the impartial. and the affiliation.) --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, they should go here - I'd sure upvote that WIGO. Tetronian you're clueless 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a shit if members of this site sock and troll on CP, but this is not the place to brag about it. It's idiocy like that that makes people point at us and claim "SEE? RATIONALWIKI ORGANIZED IT! IT WAS A RATIONALWIKI ATTACK ON US!". If you want to masturbate in public about how you sucked Andy's cock, please do it elsewhere. --Sid (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, interesting take. But really, why would anyone--joking or not--even care at this point about doing anything to 'show up' CP on CP? They look ridiculous on their own, that talking about doing parody or vandalism is like talking about punching Sarah Palin's Down's Syndrome baby in the face. --Leotardo (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sid, but I am curious to see who here really is a parodist. That's one of the reasons why I can't wait for CP to shut down. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that JacobB is in fact two or three people... AceDrumcode 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Desperate times...

... call for desperate measures, especially where Rob is concerned.

So desperate is he that he uploads pictures of how poor people live, while complaining that Obama is responsible for 10%img on the US's poor. Of course, Rob was clever, he linked directly to the WP pictures, so you couldn't see the evidence.

So what is Rob using to prove how poor the US is? Would you believe a Manila shanty town and a homeless dwelling in another Spanish-speaking country. ]

Journalistic integrity at its very best, Rob. --PsyGremlinFale! 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative checklist for government: 1. Stay out of our lives. 2. But fix the economy. 3. Don't spend any money doing so. And they wonder why we refer to people like Rob as highly unintelligent. DickTurpis (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I resent that comment. I have never referred to Rob as "highly unintelligent" - "Fucking stupid" - now you're talking. 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I had a fort a lot like that emergente one when I was a kid. Well, I didn't own it, we were using materials from local construction or destruction. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link for Rob (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse him with facts, he's a man on a mission! To paraphrase Goldwater, "lying in the name of insanity is utterly required". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Rob has almost completely taken over MPL. Ken must be most jealous.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
At least is does give CP some semblance of credibility to newcomers. Until they start to read it, of course. But at least the first thing they're going to see isn't flying kitties and cheetahs screwing atheism on the internet. Actually, MPL is now longer than MPR, which is saying something. And borked news appears to be spilling onto MPL now. Must be hard to find things to do, when you've no editors to block. --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The broken Bicycle

I don't get it?img How is this a conservative parable? AceDrumcode 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I can explain - it's actually more of an allegory than a parable. You see, all the pedestrians are the poor folk who like to get subprime mortgages. The bicycle messenger is a hard working businessman, who gives out loans. Now, one day, one of the poor folk couldn't pay back their mortgage, and thus tripped the bicycle messenger. The businessman is still ok and rich, but his business has been ruined. So all the other poor folk have to contribute money to get his business up and running again. --Composure1 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That is pure brilliance! Tetronian you're clueless 03:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, it was of course This super hero what saved the day.Oldusgitus (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It should have ended with "And then I made the liberal cyclist pay for my shoe repairs." AceDrumcode 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Round these parts it'd more likely have been that the messenger approached the lights at red and cycled across the footpath, causing mayhem and much fist shaking before flicking the finger and going on his (or commonly her) way. 03:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
"The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair." Schlafly lies. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
True, if it was that frail, it shouldn't have been in use on the road anyhow. 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Pah, around these parts, bicyclists have no rights. I was ridin' down the street one day, and a man who was driving in the opposite lane wanted to turn into the perpendicular street that I was next to. He proceeded to almost hit me, honk, give me the "I'm watching you" sign, and yell "Watch where you're going!" And if I did get hit, it could very possibly be my fault; the cops in my town have nothing better to do. My friend was walking around downtown the other day, and a cop came up to him, asked him what he was doing, and then asked if he had any money on him - because to enjoy the downtown area of our city, complete with a small park, one must always be shopping. Dictator.gif Oh...and my city ain't run by liberals, that's for sure. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad, around my parts if a cop (especially a Metro cop) asks if you have money, it's because he's expecting you to give it to him. --PsyGremlinHable! 07:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Restore Steven Baldwin. --Opcn (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that a common Americanism to use the term "bicyclist" as opposed to the less clunky "cyclist"?  Lily Inspirate me. 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Given Schlafly's raging hard-on for the superior "conciseness" of American English, someone ought to burn a sock and point that out to him. When Terry Koeckritz's not online, of course. ONE / TALK 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a second. He bumps somebody's foot, falls off and totals his bike? What the fuck was it made of - balsa wood? --PsyGremlinFale! 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he was just going really really, really fast. ONE / TALK 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Approaching an intersection? Oh wait! That makes it the perfect Andy parable - blunder forward as fast as possible, ignoring obstacles in your path. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"And that pedestrian's name, was Albert Einstein." Good find Ace! Conservative parables is my favorite CP article, and this is again a brilliant addition. It's not really a parable, it doesn't make any sense if you put any thought into it, it just has this vague sense that maybe justice has been served. --GTac (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Justice? By making everybody pay, except the guy who caused the accident? Oh wait... he's talking about Enron. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely this is socialism, wherein everyone helps the man buy some more balsawood for a new bike rather than the guy who broke it? EddyP (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. It's saying that conservatives are willing to donate to people who are not the cause of their own misfortune. It also implies that they are willing to pay for those willing to get back to work, but I don't think Andy intended that. -Lardashe
What Andy doesn't realize is that the cyclist was me. For years my sole source of income has been getting in bicycle "accidents" with this trick breakaway cycle which comes apart in several places when I throw a lever. I can usually con at least 6 or 7 people out of $20 each when people feel guilty about my "destroyed" bicycle. I can usually do at least 3 or 4 accidents a day, and have yet to be called out on it. It's amazing how few people are suspicious of a bicycle that gets totaled merely by falling over at a decent speed. I guess Americans just don't use them much these days. Anyway, good parable. DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a pretty good grift. Let me know if you should need a wing man. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't really sound conservative to me at all, except everyone giving their money were being charitable. That's assuming all the people were conservative and not atheists or something. Also, how does one run over and crash by hitting someone's foot, when the handlebars would pretty much dictate a collision? In any case, if it were bad enough to wreck a bike, the person's foot would also be mangled. But, as good conservative folk, they would leave the person there on the sidewalk all crippled and moaning in pain (not to mention the cyclist would have flown quite a distance, seeing as how his bike is destroyed so he'd have broken limbs). Leaves you asking more questions after reading it than before. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy got some of the details wrong. For instance, running over a foot will almost certainly entail the pedal hitting the guy's leg, potentially doing significant harm. That's a lawsuit right there so it's best to smash into something swerving to avoid an unobservant pedestrian (of which there are plenty). That also makes you seem like more of a hero for doing yourself harm in an effort to avoid harming others. Women are particularly good in this role, as it makes your swerve seem somehow chivalrous, and plays on people's sexism as people are more likely to blame the woman for not knowing how to cross a street without causing an accident. Pay dirt. DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Conservapedia. Another day, another fail. And in other news, it would appear as if "Professor" Schlafly had forgotten all about his "Course on the Unborn Child"img And still no sign of the AmGovt course, after it's "week's break." --PsyGremlinParla! 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe for minor lulz, we can revise the parable (if you can even call it that) to reflect Conservapedia's actual version of it. For example, the pedestrian was obviously a homeless liberal atheist homosexual bent on causing chaos, the donators prayed in a circle and money magically fell from the sky to help Andy buy a new bike the poor cyclist down on his luck. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn, Psy, I'd forgotten all about Andy's horrifically misguided class on the unborn! Well, we all knew that was going to go the way of Critical Thinking in Math, but I am wondering what the deal with American Government is. I still suspect it's happening in the classroom and not online, but I'm not sure. Anyone care to ask Andy? DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The only good think about that piece on nonsensical shite is that it presents an excellent opportunity to use the rather splendid phrase "Christ on a bike". So, Jesus H Christ on a bike, what the fuck is that shit? It's bollocks on so many levels. All have been pointed out, but how on earth does hitting someone's foot result in a totally unharmed cyclist, but a bike that is smashed beyond repair? The Assfly isn't even trying any more. Top work above the the Enron & bail-out comparisons though. PS. Only the truly deranged use the phrase "bicyclist". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair (!?) to Andy, I would presume that riding over someone's foot wouldn't actually cause the damage but would make the rider lose control and then run into something which caused the damage, although unless the cyclist was going dangerously fast it would have to be a pretty cheap bike to do any damage. The worst I can imagine is a bent front wheel unless the bike then plunged off an enormous cliff or was driven over by a truck. The story is so preposterous that it shows that Andy probably hasn't ridden a bike since he had one with three or four wheels, which is probably why he refers to the rider as a bicyclist. Of course if you ride a bike you'd know that it's almost impossible to ride over someone's foot unless they had stuck their leg out at a ridiculous angle. Bikes have handlebars and you would hit someone's body at the same time as you could run over the foot and end up with quite a different incident. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I ride a road bike daily, someone would need to wear a huge fuckall boot in order to make you loose control. I occasionally get forced to run a curb by a stupid fucking pedestrian and unless I go at an angle greater than 60 deg my wheel goes right up and I have plenty of control. Even at about ten miles an hour getting rejected from the curb just mean I pull a foot out from the basket on the pedal and put it on the curb to avoid eating shit. Really unless this guy is hauling ass I can't imagine his bike going out further than his body. Now had the pedestrian kicked out his back tire... --Opcn (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
He might have been one of those hipster assholes riding a fixed gear with cleats. This story is a pleasure to have read - it's reassuring to know that the proles will immediately kick in $20 each to get the messenger back on track so he doesn't inconvenience the lawyers and corporate bigwigs he serves. Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The idea of totaling a fixed gear bike beyond repair is even more fun. Basically, the guy bent the frame, which, in all likelihood, didn't happen. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Challenge to Rob

Hey Rob! Come on over and sit down. I'd like to bend your ear a bit. You see you wrote cp:Obamaville, which opens up with "An Obamaville is a tent city created by homeless people" and then you promptly go on to talk about everything else from Coolidge, to Obamunism, to god knows what else.

But you never mention "Obamaville" again??!! What's up with that? Don't you think an article should have some sort of relation to its heading?

Anyway, here's the challenge: Publish photos taken from actual Obamavilles that are actually springing up all over America. And don't try and cheat and upload Manilla slums again. Come on Rob, you're Minister of Propaganda, as well as Director of Counter Surveillance (which leaves you open to a horrible Godwin, by the way), I'm sure it's well within your means to provide the evidence. Even if writing a story that has anything to do with its title isn't. --PsyGremlin講話 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at that article I see that Obama is both a socialist and a fascist now. I believe that CP's other stories claim that he's also a Muslim. Which makes him a socialist, fascist Muslim. But I could have sworn that was a suggestion that he was an atheist as well. Perhaps I should read more CP to understand.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here you go,img Bob, from CP's main page to your eyes. --PsyGremlin講話 14:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, he's everything isn't he! Can you find one where he's a communist?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hell, bend over and I'll fan you! :) Nothing specific, but in the Obama article, there is a reference to "Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes calls Obama a 'radical communist'," as well as Rob's screed on "The influence of Maoist thought." --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I come to the CP experts for advice! I'm just trying to think of what other epithets they could slur him with.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, let your commie agitprop run wild on your vandal site, but don't involve me in it. Sure, Obama's economic policies have been a boon to America. Stalin tried the same thing and murdered 100 million people, and now you deny the existence of Manilla slums created by the same socialistic policies. Obamunism has already plunged millions of people into poverty and will enslave millions more, supported by the Marxist garbage you constantly spout. RobSmith (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah PsyGremlin, don't involve Rob in your commie agitprop. Rob has better things to spend his time doing, such as pinning coloured strings on his bedroom wall between screenshots of CP userpages, and gently rocking in the corner. ONE / TALK 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I hadn't realised somebody had created a NRob quote generator. Nice one. Mind you, you also need to include a section that involves a quote from somebody else that is deliberately clipped so that it appears to say the opposite of what the quoter wanted to say. It's the only way to capture Nob-rot's true levels of deceit.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I speet on your agitprop! My lord and Master decreed no such thing exists!. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob is crazy, but he's probably not as viciously stupid as we like to think. He's just using some pretty absurd propaganda. I'm sure Rob brushed off and ignored Bushvilles just fine. Just those crazy leftists and their propaganda. Well, guess what, Rob? Never mind, you probably wouldn't get it because you're so god damn viciously stupid...wait... fuck it. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Conservative Gentleman at Andy's blog

In regards to your rant, which I skimmed, it's clear that you are 95% in support of girls baking cookies and being raped by their husbands, as advocated by Saint Phyliss herself. Don't worry, some more suckling at Andy's teat and you'll get to 100%.

As for the why? Well, it's because you make it so fucking easy, that's why. As evidenced by your little hissy fit (been taking lessons from Terry, I see).

"don't even try to mess with me because you'll regret it ok." Red flag, bull - need I say more?

love and kisses. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

He's unbelievable:

Incidentally, I note your interest on CP in immigration. Where does it say: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", I wonder*. Hypocrisy, thy name is republican.


Jayne (still not my real name)


Ad hominems and strawmen are all you can do against me now??? BTW, I have a lot of other interests too and there are a bunch of places in NYC.

16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Actually, it seem to be in NJ. CS Miller (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The state boundary is looped around the statue It's an exclave of NY in NJ. 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
From your WP link:"The historical developments which led to this construction created the rare situation of an exclave of one state, New York, being situated in another, New Jersey." 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Nope, it's New York, as evidenced by this wonderful comment by Andypants: The Statute (sic) of Liberty, located entirely within the territorial waters of New Jersey, but on an island that is part of New York.img Wait??? I'm quoting Andy to make a point??? Oh dear Jesus! Kill me now! --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The WP article also says Liberty Island is located completely within the boundaries of Jersey City, New Jersey, but its built portions and docks fall under the jurisdiction of the City of New York, of which they wholly are part, which is basically the same (depending on what you mean by built portions, is that the statue and its plinth?). Ok, I mis-read the WP article when I skimmed it. Mea Culpa. CS Miller (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I recall being told in public school (in NJ) that Liberty Island was in NJ. Typical liberal public school teacher lying to me. Tetronian you're clueless 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I smell Poe. Either way, Terry's going to fuck him over now, because he's engaging with the cyber terrorists. /sarcasm Maybe we should call the FBI, because he totally like wandalised our wiki. /sarcasm off --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't think poe so. He's got several months of reasonable (by CP standards) contribs back to May. 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Where's this stuff coming from? Where's the weird threat at the top of the thread? Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
User talk:‎‎ deleted this page. 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Dear Andru MacStupid: The 'Statute' of Liberty is something you have never read - The United States Constitution. Cheers. Jimaginator (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Law terms = vandalism?

CPalmerimg hasn't been paying attention. 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Guess who does as he's told! 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Good thing CP is practically overflowing with good-faith editors...

...otherwise, banning someone for five years just because he is "possibly a sock of a blocked user" would be really, really stupid... --Sid (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid compared to what? Didn't all their intellect taken by god in his "intelligent design" process? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page weirdness

Maybe someone can explain this to me: An editor leaves a comment on the talk page for Greatest Conservative Songs, explaining why "Happiness is a Warm Gun" isn't a conservative song. Andy deletes the comment. The editor leaves another comment on the talk page, and Andy deletes it again...and then proceeds to remove "Happiness is a Warm Gun" from the list. While I've certainly seen strange and petty behavior from Lord Schlafly, this case doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Baffled me too, No idea what that was all about. 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He probably just doesn't like the Beatles. I seriously doubt that any music that Andy doesn't like will be on the list. Tetronian you're clueless 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the greatest conservative songs, I found it funny that "Gimme back my bullets" made the list. It's a song about bullets on the billboard charts, not real bullets. The song has nothing to do with gun rights or ownership. Just a little funny. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Andy seems to think it's possible for a song to be conservative despite the songwriter's actual intent. The actual meaning is secondary to Andy's interpretation. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Reminds of the '50 greatest conservative songs of all time' where they put Bodies by the Pistols at number 8. Anyone who knows anything about John Lydon and the Pistols and more particularly about the very sad (but true) story behind the song knows it is anything but conservative.20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage is becoming totally bloggified

Not that it's a big surprise, but Mainpageleft and Mainpageright are becoming indistinguishable from each other, despite Mainleft still saying "Today's Featured Articles". Those "featured articles" include CP stats, a bit about pro-life school events, and then news items about Lisa Murkowski and DADT. It's good to see them confront that with so few contributors, and time-wasting essays and tom-foolery, that they can only make Mainpage a cheap, poorly-written imitation of the Drudge Report. Other "Featured articles" are a message to Richard Dawkins (who must find it amusing how obsessed Ken is with him, a tacit recognition that he's effective or why bother), bible verses and their link farm that rarely changes. The one article of the week is Obamaville, an article that has not one example of an Obamaville nor any evidence the term is in usage anywhere but on CP. lol. --Leotardo (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I love that MPR gets filled with utter shit so quickly these days that they had to designate space at the top of MPL to give more 'important' news stories a little longer air-time. It started with just one top story and yesterday it hit three stories. Before long it'll just be another MPR, replete with the same old garbage and Obama pictures, perhaps with a featured article tacked on the bottom. ONE / TALK 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ken should create a Mainpagemiddle and make it his baby. Go on Ken, you know CP needs a Mainpagemiddle. Think of all the new content you could plug, right there on the main page! ONE / TALK 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This has really been one of my pet criticisms of how CP is run. There is no control or consensus over what goes on the MainPage. It's just a free for all where any one of the Fab Few throws in his pet interests. At the start Justine tried to impose some sense on the Popular Articles section and for a while we had a committee deliberating over the featured article (or whatever it was called) but even then Joaquin would often over-ride the others with his latest scrap-book page. Dean kept some control over the archiving MPR but basically nobody cares once their own puff has moved down a couple of notches. That's why the MainPage is often so ridiculously long on either/both sides. It's basically Andy's own fault for not setting any sort of standards for the housekeeping side which Ed Poor so belittles. CP was always destined to fail once it decied that it would organise things differently from WP because nobody really knew what was expected, so it all turned into a horrible mess. Andy didn't like a hierarchical category structure as he thought it would confuse his home-schoolers and article titles were originally set as camel-case which made it more difficult to wiki-link. Essays, debates and lecture courses were mingled with mainspace articles rather than having their own namespaces and there are still the redundant usergroups from the team contests. Finally anyone who wanted to actually create encyclopedic articles has either been banned or forced out so it's no wonder that we now have spaghetti-blogging. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


WillS just got night editing, which it looks like he wasn't likely all that desperate to do since last editing on May 23, or 2 days after signing up. Homeskuller, right? Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Wait. Andy's just granted WillS editing rights. This is somebody who made a bunch of edits between 21-23 May, and nothing since. Meritocracy in action! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


It's party time, as someone who hasn't edited in four months gets edit rights. Congratulations! Now you can edit my blog every hour of the day! Please come back! EddyP (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)