None so blind...

Oh yes, Happy Holidays, Merry New Year, Yippie Yule and all that jazz. Now on with the show.

As with all things conservative, Andrew Schlafly - and by default, his right-wing hate-blog Conservapedia - doesn't just toe the party line, he adheres to it with an intensity that often borders on the insane. Actually, more often than not, he veers over the "insane" line, straight into "dangerous wingnut" territory. One such example - ignoring such things as the horror of the Bible replacing "with child" with "pregnant" and "pledged to" with "engaged to" - is the ongoing debate about global warming and climate change.

Firstly, the fact that it's become such a politicised debate is a crying shame and one for which I sincerely hope world leaders (and the morons cheering them on) will be held accountable one day. There's a very simple solution to all this: let's say you impose all the emission restrictions and global warming is false. You're still benefiting from having a cleaner environment.

Of course, Andy and his ilk believe that the Rapture is coming any day now, so they can rape and pillage all they like. After all, God set man to have dominion over everything, so it's theirs to fuck up as they see fit. Seems God forgot to mention "responsibility" when he set things up. Thus they will squeal like the rodents they are when it comes to the whole debate about climate change. In this regard, Schlafly is not alone in latching onto the phrase "Global warming" - indeed he clings on with a tenacity that would make a bull terrier blush - happily ignoring the more inclusive term "Climate change."

Of course, at the root of it is the simple fact that Schlafly - and by implication, his goons, who are to a man too craven to contradict him - doesn't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather." So as a public service, because I know Schlafly and his henchmen read this blog, here's a simple definition of the two. I'm sorry, it doesn't have pictures, so one of you will have to explain this to Ken Demyer please.

• Climate: The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region, as observed and measured over a number of years.


• Weather: What's happening outside your window at this moment in time.

Now, climate can affect weather, but weather cannot affect climate. And yes, colder weather can be as a result of warmer temperatures elsewhere. However, I don't expect your minuscule intellects to grasp that subtle point, so I'll carry on.

Here's a list of Schlafly (and his hand-picked thugs) mocking the apparent contradictions to global warming, whilst proudly displaying their monumental collective ignorance. Any rational human being, would read the news articles and start thinking "What's with all this strange weather?" but not Schlafly et al. Oh no, for them it's all a sign that global warming is just another liberal plot - you know, like healthcare, black holes, the Theory of Relativity and, of course, the Bible.

Warning: All weather-related news headlines are printed as is from CP's. I take no responsibility for any self inflicted injuries, due to an overload of stupidity.

• Blizzard hits New Jersey, and the acting Governor declares a state of emergency. Global warming???


• "Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina declared states of emergency" as a massive snowstorm sweeps across States that are normally warmer.


• "Bethlehem shines as Europe freezes."


• Atlanta will see its "first white Christmas since the Chester Arthur administration" in 1882. Global warming???


• Global warming? Many Europeans have been unable to get home for Christmas due to cold, severe weather. "Bitterly cold temperatures brought problems in Scandinavia" and "Britain's aviation regulator said it had written to several airlines about the 'unacceptable' failure to properly feed and accommodate stranded passengers."


• The lamestream media is not reporting the deadly cold temperatures in the United States, but the press in other nations is not so distorted: "Tuesday Was Coldest Day In Costa Rica In The Last 15 Years," and it is not even winter yet!


• A massive snowstorm causes the Minnesota Vikings' stadium dome to collapse.  The NFL was a big supporter of global warming losers in the midterm elections.


• "The first full week of December was the coldest on record for the period from Dec. 3 through Dec. 10" in North Carolina.  How much harm will be caused by liberals falsely pretending that there is global warming?


• The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over .... As western Europe shivers to a halt and our energy bills soar through the roof, the time has come when we should all start to get seriously angry with our politicians for being carried away by all this claptrap."


• The global warming hoax is deadly, misleading government into being unprepared for a devastating dumping of 32 inches of snow on Buffalo, stranding motorists in the cold for as long as 24 hours.


• As an unusually early snowfall covers Britain this weekend, new liberal claptrap emerges: pollution is slowing global warming! By the way, global temperatures are only a meagre 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.


• Global warming??? Nearly a foot of snow "causes 400 crashes in Minn; 2 die in Wis."


• Remember all that talk from liberals about how the Earth is experiencing a rapid warming? The last twelve-months have been the coldest temperatures recorded over the past 12-years.


• Get this from the liberal Science News: "Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter."  Translation: it's getting cooler, so claim that is due to global warming too!

Actually I'll end off on that last one, because nothing illustrates more clearly what an imbecile this Harvard and Princeton educated engineer and lawyer is. This prize moron will still be bleating "La-la-la I can't hear you! There's no global warming!" as the glaciers are coming through his front door.

When is Parody not Parody?

The easy answer is "When it carries Andrew Schlafly's stamp of approval." Or any of the Fab Five (or is it Super Six) administrators of the encyclopaedia right-wing hate-blog that is Conservapedia. The most infamous example of this was the so-called "hit list" - a list of U.S. States with Democratic Senators, but Republican Governors. The implication appeared to be that should these Senators meet with an *ahem* untimely end, the Republican Governors would appoint Republican Senators.

Now this page remained on Conservapedia for some time and even achieved credibility by being edited by TWO Conservapedia administrators. It was only after Wonkette highlighted this page and the resulting internet shit-storm that broke out, that the article was deleted for containing "Inappropriate content." The irony is that the administrator who deleted the article, DeanS, was also one of those who edited - and thus validated - this "inappropriate content."

Of course, the more you read Conservapedia, the harder it becomes to distinguish parody from facts. I mean, once you've been past Andy's (and his minions') "Relativity is a liberal plot," "Obama's birth name is Barry Soetoro," "Atheists don't win the World Cup and don't build hospitals," "Belief in black holes could stop people reading the Bible," "The Bible is too liberal, let me make my own;" you're basically ready to accept the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus as the real deal.

So, it's really not hard to create parody on Conservapedia. The sign of a true master, however, is having your parody endorsed by Andrew Schlafly. Second place would be having one of the other sysops approve it. This excludes Terry Koeckritz, however, as allowing parody to stand is all part of his nefarious plot to undermine CP from within.

There're a couple more examples I'd like to highlight.

The first is Conservapedia's article on "Liberal obsession." This cleverly worded article not only played on Andy's trend of creating "Liberal {insert noun} " articles, but also managed to highlight many of the absurd Conservapedia stances, by pretending to list them as items liberals obsess about. Examples include:

• Obsession over celebrities or Hollywood (as evidenced by Andy's fixation with "Hollywood values" and young starlets' breast cancer woes)


• Obsession on censorship of school prayer (this is Andy's standard fall back line when losing an argument)


• Obsessing over Global Warming


• Obsession over the homosexual agenda

And so the list goes. I guess the logic here is that if it looks like Andy and sounds as crazy as Andy, it must be Andy.

Which brings me neatly to my second point. Now, as with most things, Andy has next to no knowledge of football (For the benefit of the uncivilised, I'm talking soccer) At some point during the year, Andy became dimly aware that something called the World Cup was taking place. Once he'd made sure he wasn't getting confused with the World Series, he went on to pontificate that atheistic England could only draw with the USA, because God was on their side. Then he went on to say that Ghana beat the USA, thanks to the power of prayer. So it seems God changed sides - fickle bloke, this God fella. Needless to say, Andy's World Cup commentary - as with most things Andy - went downhill from there.

Now I told you that story, to tell you this one. CP does have a "Soccer" article. There's a few things you need to note about this. Firstly, courtesy of über-troll, Terry Koeckritz, is that soccer is a"'socialist" sport. Thereafter, a user by the name of Danq added an entire section entitled "Soccer and socialism" in July 2010. It's interesting to note that as of 17 December 2010, Danq hasn't been blocked and may even be a sock of Terry Koeckritz (just sayin'!). Now I'm deliberately leaving the text until last, so you can see just what Andrew Schlafly has put his seal of approval on.

On the 16th December, somebody removed Danq's content from the soccer article. Not long after, Schalfly reverted that user, with no comment in the edit summary. Shortly after that, Terry Kockritz blocked the editor for "Removal of valid content." However, that action can be ignored, coming from the biggest troll on Conservapedia.

So, you might be asking yourself, by now, just what has Andrew Schlafly pout his seal of approval on this time? Well, here it is and hopefully you'll realise after reading that as long as people like Schlafly are on CP, you don't need parodists.

The nature and rules of soccer very much resemble socialism in many ways:

• The "no hands" rule can be compared to socialist tax policies.


• The "off-sides" rule prohibits using certain aggressive ("unfair") tactics in the game.


• The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming.


• Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries.


• The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual.


• The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award.


• In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game.


• Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals.


• Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer.


• Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.

 

 

A Tale of Two Faces

We all know that Conservapedia in general, and Andrew Schlafly in particular, foams at the mouth at the mere mention of the word "Obama" and will go to any lengths to run him down. These guys don't just stop at the "allegedly born in Hawaii" crap; for some time they also reported that Obama's birth name was Barry Soetoro. At least now it's been "upgraded" to "aka Barry Soetoro."

Likewise, no source is too bad, when it comes to digging the dirt on the guy who used to boss Andy around at the Harvard Law Review - something which clearly riled Andy's Aryan sensibilities. World Nut Daily, 2-bit blogs,  and even Pravda (yes, THAT Pravda!) have been roped in to assist with the ongoing smear campaign.

The tribe has spoken...

So, without further ado, I present the alleged "Hot or Not" user-profile of a somebody who may, or may not, be a current Conservapedia administrator. Of course, just like with every other bit of evidence that has come to the fore - such as his 1990 Yahoo profile - it could all be an elaborate scam, set up to discredit him years before he became a Conservapedia administrator.

Then again, that could be possible. Looking at the 1984 injunction taken out against him, it would appear as if this individual has always been a thouroughly abrasive arsehole, even when he didn't have the internet as a source for his entertainment.

To Wikileaks... or not to WikiLeaks

In the spirit of the whole WikiLeaks thing, WCMTU has a copy of somebody's "Hot or Not" profile in their grubby little paws. Now it would be a bit of a dick move to publish it generally, but at least it will clear up, for once and for all, any lingering doubts that some people might still harbour.

But I think this is a special case. We're talking about a senior member of a right-wing hate blog, renowned for it's vicious anti-gay hate speech.  In the spirit of decency, such hypocrisy - hiding your true self behind a fake mask of piousness - should not go unpunished.

So, to publish, or to not publish? That is the question. Answers below please.

To Wikileaks... or not to WikiLeaks

In the spirit of the whole WikiLeaks thing, WCMTU has a copy of somebody's "Hot or Not" profile in their grubby little paws. Now it would be a bit of a dick move to publish it generally, but at least it will clear up, for once and for all, any lingering doubts that some people might still harbour.

But I think this is a special case. We're talking about a senior member of a right-wing hate blog, renowned for it's vicious anti-gay hate speech.  In the spirit of decency, such hypocrisy - hiding your true self behind a fake mask of piousness - should not go unpunished.

So, to publish, or to not publish? That is the question. Answers below please.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

As reported on RationalWiki:

"Impotent Rage Department: With no proles left to abuse on CP, TK stokes an old grudge against the only sysop in recent history to stand up to his cretinism and bullying by replacing his signature for hers on the "welcome" message she left for some random user more than 21 months ago."

I've documented more than enough evidence of just what a woman-hater Terry Koeckritz is, especially when having to deal with them on Conservapedia. Of course, it's also fairly common knowledge that Terry's aversion goes beyond the usual misogyny as displayed by Andrew Schalfly and Ed Poor, but this is not the place to talk about his little peccadilloes.

No, it's safe to say that given Terry's interactions with former sysop Jallen and long-time editor HSMom, it's clear that he's incapable of keeping a civil tongue about him, nor can he swallow his contempt for these breeders. However, there was one fair maiden for whom Terry reserved his most precious bile - JessicaT.

Conservapedia - 4 Years On

The internet is a powerful source of information and thanks to Andy Schlafly it has become an educational tool.

So Andrew Schlafly's little project has just turned 4 - which is something like 80 human years. Well, given the advanced state of senility the site finds itself in, it must be something close to that. Sadly, the event passed almost unnoticed on Conservapedia, although their "friends" over at RationalWiki, did put up a pretty "Happy Birthday" banner for them. Not much difference from previous years really, although we did have the awards for most "news" articles back in 2008... when there was still editors to award prizes to. RationalWiki couldn't even be bothered to award the traditional (and we believe much-coveted) "Biggest Idiot at Conservapedia" award - citing general apathy and the realisation that the same idiots would win the same awards for the same reason for yet another year.

Fortunately, loyal minion Jpatt, took it upon himself to pen a small tribute to Conservapedia, in honour of their birthday. Of course, as with most things Conservapedia, it's what the article doesn't say that's revealing, so I thought I'd take a few minutes out of my busy day to have a look at his tribute and add a few comments of my own.

It's Not Parody... Promise!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Well that "didn't last long last" didn't last long

Ah, I see abnormal service has resumed at everybody's favourite right-wing blog. Once again, the shutters have come down, the wagons are corralled, and the senile residents peer out from behind their metaphorical curtains and the liberal world passing them by.

Ah well, at least this will allow the inhabitants of the assylum the opportunity to feed of each other's insanity (not to mention subtle prodding by parodists - or is that trolls? - such as Terry Koeckritz), without the annoyance of having good-faith editors to bully.

Well, that didn't last long.

Just three days after shutting down open registration, I see Andy's removed the e-mail link from the Main Page and open registration has been restored. Of course, when you take into account that registration is only open for about an hour a day and you realise that we use the word "open" in it's broadest possible context. Still, it's in good company, seeing as how Conservapedia uses words like "honestly', "facts" and "trustworthy" in their broadest possible context.

And the shutters come down

So it's finally happened. No, Conservapedia hasn't closed shop, but probably the next best thing to it.

Now it's been noticed that for the past few weeks "account creation" has been switched off for almost the entire day, and when it is on, it's usually during the times that Conservapedia is in "night mode" - those late night US hours, when only those with editing rights can contribute.

Utterly Repulsive

At this moment, I can't think of any other words with which to describe the new lows to which the Brothers Schlafly have sunk. Then again, given the fact that they were squeezed from between the thighs of Mad Cow Phyllis Schlafly and maybe it's possible they were doomed to being misogynistic morons from the word go.

Now, Roger does occasionally come across as the voice of reason, especially when arguing with Andy about the merits of Relativity. However, be under no delusion that Roger isn't as deranged as his whack-job brother. You need only take a stroll through his blogs, Dark Buzz and Singular Values, to see that this man's worldview is as twisted - if not more so - than Andrew's. He seems to save his special crazy for the latter blog, where he proclaims "Mohammedans" were responsible for the Crusades, the Church promoted science during the Dark Ages, and women are more gullible when it comes to climate change.

Andrew Schlafly and Charity... what charity?

I guess it goes without saying that the Powers that Be at the ultra right-wing blog Conservapedia (I think we can finally dispense with the illusion that it is, in any shape or form, an encyclopaedia) have some very strange ideas about everyday events. One of these would be "chivalry" - which in Andrew Schlafly's world involves setting different tests for girls and boys, because it's not fair for the fairer sex to have to compete equally with boys.

Another is charity.

Now, CP's entry for "Charity" defines it, amongst other things, as "a Christian virtue" before going on to say that "the United States is “a land of charity." It also has some strange "see also" links - Altruism, Greed and Capitalism.

Conservapedia - putting the "mental" into "fundamentalist" since 2006.

No, there's no big news story (will there ever be another one?) - I just felt like saying that.

Update

Well, it looks as if I have constant readers from another sphere.

Following on from my post yesterday, it would appear as if all the links I mentioned in the letter, have mysteriously been oversighted.

Now I wonder who could have done that? Who is so worried that people might see him for the lying skunk that he is?

Ah well, in other news - good morning, Terry Koeckritz.

Update: Ah, thank goodness for capture bot, coming to save the day, from Terry's frantic attempt to cover his tracks.

Prophesy Ignored?

As I mentioned in my post below, Conservapedia is already dead in the water, if not floundering at the gunwales. However, it wasn't always so. At the beginning of 2009, it was a vibrant and happening, albeit it odd, little community. There were regularly over 100 different active editors a week, there were conversations and friendly chats going between talk-pages and the sysops were even inclined to enter into a debate - until they started losing said debate, of course.

Roll forward almost two years, and the little community is looking very run down. The long-time residents have effectively put barricades across the roads, allowing none in, except those who sneak past the defences, and are speedily shot, before they can smash any more windows. The vibrant little community has shrunk to a few old-timers (barely more than 40 editors as week - and 90% of those are blocked with in 1 edit), who no longer talk, but peer out at the world from behind their curtains, shotgun close at hand.

Slow Days Indeed

Dear Constant Reader

My apologies for not having anything new to add lately, but to put it frankly, Conservapedia is about as interesting as watching paint dry at the moment. The editor base has basically shrunk to the remaining sysops, night editing and new user registration are rarely activated - even less so now that it would appear Andrew Schlafly has handed over joint control of those functions to Terry Koeckritz. An act which is probably the wiki equivalent of shooting yourself in both feet, prior to running a marathon.

No new content is being created and even Andy's usual special brand of crazy has been toned down lately. All he seems to be doing these days is masturabating over how well the Tea Party candidates are splitting the GOP vote. Even Terry Koeckritz, left without any editors to block, has taken to actually writing... well, drivel actually, such as the little-known fact that the Democratic Party "is now often referred to as "The Liberal Party.''' A startling fact, that would even have appeared to have escaped even Google's all-seeing eye. Still, what else would we expect from Terry?

Still, have no fear. I'll be keeping an eye on the death-throes of CP and as you all know, Conservapedia is only dead when Andy and his hand picked goons - Terry Koeckritz, Brian Macdonald, Ed Poor, John Patti and Terry Hurbut finally realise that nobody is listening to their ranting and switch off the lights. What on earth will Ken Demyer do then?

it's actually a guy i met on irc, turns out he lives close to me, so we hooked up

Schrödinger's Wine

Wow. Just wow.

Every now and again Conservapedia, usually in the form of Andrew Schlafly, dishes up something so stupid and so monumentally insane, that I actually struggle to find words to comment on it.

Such is this example, from Conservapedia's wacky article on "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge‎," in which Andy ventures forth to prove that the Bible knew all about quantum mechanics. It's so stupid, I can't even comment. I'll just leave Andy to speak for himself:

The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. Intuitively one would expect the conversion to occur before anyone tasted the drink. But under quantum mechanics, it is not until observation that matter acquires a definite state. John 2:9 describes this precisely as required by quantum mechanics, and the KJV misses this subtle issue of timing in the conversion.

LIfe Without Ken

One of the questions that frequently gets asked is "Just how long can Conservapedia survive?" The simple answer to that is as long as Andrew Schlafly has some of his mother's money to spend and some bile to spew on the world. And given that Andy hates everything from professors to Hollywood, via abortion, the "liberal" Bible and President Obama, that's a lot of bile.

So, a more relevant question could be "Just how viable is Conservapedia as n ongoing project?" Remember, this is supposed to be the site that will prove to be bigger than, and the eventual downfall of, Wikipedia. Bearing this in mind, one would expect CP to be a hive of activity and at first glance, that would appear to be the case.

Curiouser and curiouser

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Curiouser and curiouser

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Terry Hurlbut & DiggPatriots

I've already mentioned that Terry Hurlbut, aka Conservapedia sysop TerryH, aka username Temlakos, was one of those fine, upstanding citizens involved with the DiggPatriots. You know, those model, moral Americans who saw it as their divine duty to censor as many Digg article comments as possible, that they didn't like. Or that didn't conform to their twisted worldview. They did this by using multiple accounts to vote down articles they didn't like, and even have progressive/liberal contributors banned.

Now, Terry has been notably silent about his involvement, especially once it was brought up in the comments following another of his crackpot articles. Still, no doubt behind the scenes, they're still high-fiving each other and probably have the balls to grumble about being outed.

More fun with Terry Koeckritz

Hello, boys and girls, and welcome to Conservapedia Playtime, where we have more fun with Dick and Jane.  Yes, we're dealing with the biggest Dick of all today, children and I'm sure we'll have a gay old time watching this Dick prance around...

Urgh... no... enough of the children imagery. We're moving into bad touch territory there. But more on Ed Poor another time.

I mentioned in a previous post below that Conservapedia administrator, dear old mincing Terry Koeckritz just hates having his actions questioned in public (and - we are led to believe - there are some actions he really doesn't want made public). Even if that "public" is a private mailing list, comprised of about six of his peers. Terry prefers to operate in the murky reaches of private e-mails (most of which he bcc's to Andrew Schlafly anyway) because there he can be his true obnoxious self and any subsequent accusations boil down to a "he said - he said" argument.

Spreading the Word

Ok, ok, shameless self-promotion time, but seeing as Wordpress have to all this effort, I think it's only fair to use it.

What am I on about, you ask? Well, they've added a whole bunch of "share this" choices, which you'll find at the end of each article. So, if you like what I've been rabitting on about, please take a few seconds to click a button and send it forth into the ethernet.

Watching Terry Koeckritz in Action

I have to admit, watching Terry Koeckritz in full flow is truly a thing of beauty. He really is a master of deflecting any criticism of himself, and manages to make it look as if the person questioning him is a) picking on TK, who is the victim here and b) is somehow flouting the rules and making themselves more important than Andrew Schlafly - something the administrators are seemingly scared of doing. This is, of course, information, that Terry will willingly pass on to Andy, in an attempt to discredit yet another Conservapedia administrator.

Looking at the discussion below, it also becomes very clear just why Terry insists on private exchanges, because that way not only will nobody else see just what a low-down, lying piece of shit he is, but he can also bcc edited highlights to Andy. And believe me, if you've ever received an e-mail from this lying sack of shit, Andy has been bcc'd too.

Homosexual Obsession? Part 1

Whilst Ken Demyer is on a one-crazy-man mission to make Conservapedia look even more ridiculous, I thought I'd take this opportunity to have a wander around another of Ken's (and possibly other CP sysops')  abiding interests: Homosexuality. And where better to begin than with CP's article on "Homosexuality obsession."

Ed Poor - Sanctimonious, Disingenuous, Dishonest Idiot

(Yes, I know I called him a Sanctimonious, Disingenuous, Dishonest Asswipe before, but Terry Koeckritz was getting all Harpic about it and was threatening handbags at dawn, so I toned it down a little.)

And those are his good qualities. Although, as you will see, Ed couldn't have done it without the help of his *ahem* fairy godmother, Terry Koeckritz.

There's always one thing you can guarantee when Ed Poor gets into stride - he will do something that will make Conservapedia look even more inane, bizarre or just plain stupid. If he isn't adding articles on "sex with animals," or "adult child sex, " or the now legendary "Two meters," he'll be doing his best to show just what an arse-wipe he is.

Fields Medal Update

Well, the news just in is that a woman didn't win the Fields Medal, which will no doubt have Andrew Schalfly crowing that "conservative values" triumphed in the end.

Oh, but the "communist-trained" Vietnamese guy did... except for the fact that he lives in France, is a naturalised French citizen, did his under-grad studies at Ecole Normale Supérieure and obtained his PhD from Universite Paris-Sud.

Then again, if you're Andrew Schlafly, everybody else is either a commie liberal, or is suspected of being a commie liberal.

Misogyny, Racism & Insanity in One Easy Step

Andrew Schlafly really needs to think before he speaks. These days all he seems to do is dig himself deeper in a hole. Ever since he went batshit insane over his former boss at the Harvard Law Review becoming President of the US, he seems to be on a mission to make himself look more and more ridiculous. The really fun bit, is watching his fellow administrators - a more craven bunch of cowards you will never meet - standing back and letting Andy's rant build impetus and become more crazy as each day passes.

Not content with the Lenski affair, or another letter (sadly ignored) to Prof Moo; the Conservative Bible Project; Best of the Public and God knows what else, Andy has now shifted his vision to mathematics. Now this is a somewhat dodgy area of expertise on CP, given people like Ed "if I don't understand it, I delete it" Poor and Andrew "the Axiom of Choice is a liberal plot" Schlafly. To save time, have a look at this indepth analysis of Conservapedia Mathematics.

Proof We Can't Make This Up

Sometimes Conservapedia is just so wonderfully funny and broken that there is absolutely no need for me to make something up about them. Erm... not that I do anyway, of course! Today's exhibit could well have been the result of a slip of the finger. However, given the general stupidity on Conservapedia, I somehow doubt it.

Given that the article stood, as above, from 10 October 2008, to 9 August 2010, it's fairly safe to assume that nobody saw anything wrong with it.

Thankfully, somebody has stepped in to correct it. Now in typical, Conservapedia style, it reads, "Muslin is a type of cotton fabric." Certainly a lot more concise than Wikipedia's article.

A Picture Paints a 1000 Words

Or so they say. In that case, allow me to let the picture below answer the questions "Is Ken Demyer seriously deranged?";  "Is this the kind of writing an encyclopaedia purporting to be "trustworthy" wants its readers to see?" and "Why aren't we surprised that the other administrators haven't stepped in to do anything about it?

Dear Readers, I give you, for your viewing pleasure the "The transitional animal the flying kitty? (sic)" (Click the picture for a link to the full-sized horror.)

Terry Hurlbut - Busted!!

(h/t to EddyP)
Oh, happy day!

Readers of Conservapedia might be familiar with one of Andrew Schlafly's rally calls, 'We don't censor the truth here." Of course, that means, along with "Open your mind," that you had better not challenge whatever bullshit theory he's putting forward today. Of course, it's also one of his criticisms of Wikipedia. They censor edits on Intelligent Design and other creationist claptrap, not to mention that classroom prayer is censored. So, despite the actual goings-on on CP, you'd be of the opinion that they're pretty anti censorship. Just running a search on "censor" pulls up a pretty comprehensive list.

Of course, they get around deleting everything they disagree with by claiming it's "lies," "deceit," or "liberal claptrap" - a personal favourite of Andrew Schlafly's.

Now, a story broke on 5th August, about a conservative cabal on media site Digg, who actively engaged in censoring Digg'd articles that they did not like. They called themselves Digg Patriots (or DP... which has an entirely different snigger-worthy connotation to the more *ahem* open-minded) To quote from AlterNet:

A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site Digg.com have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year.

As one of their members was caught saying:

The more liberal stories that were buried the better chance conservative stories have to get to the front page. I’ll continue to bury their submissions until they change their ways and become conservatives.”
-phoenixtx (aka vrayz)

Now you might be asking yourself what this has to do with Conservapedia. You know, that bastion of free speech and arch-enemy of censorship. Well, the article goes on to list the names of the Digg members involved. And there, right down the bottom, we come across the name Temlakos.

Who is none other than Terry Hurlbut (try saying that name without smiling) otherwise known as Conservapedia administrator TerryH. So it would appear as if one on Andy's hand-picked henchmen is in fact, a duplicitous cur, who - despite being a member of a site that deplores censorship (excuse me whist I laugh like a hyena for 5 minutes) - actively engages in censorship.

Then again, did we expect anything else from the merry crew of the "Trustworthy" encyclopaedia?

How to be a Coward

Regular readers of my humble prose might have picked up on a kind of common thread when discussing Conservapedia's group of administrators. Admittedly, there's probably several themes, amongst them stupidity and bullying, but first and foremost they are, to a man, a craven bunch of chicken-livered yes-men who live to lick the shit off Andrew Schlafly's shoes. They know all too well that Conservapedia is the only place where they have any kind of influence, and can pass themselves off as even vaguely knowledgeable - as evidenced by Brian Macdonald/Karajou's frequent 2-day 'I'm leaving and never coming back" stunts - and thus they will do anything to make sure they stay in Andy's good books. All this means is that Andy has a compliant echo-chamber, which serves to reinforce his own special brand of crazy. Another example is where he demanded to know if an editor, who had made the mistake of calling an entry "un-encyclopaedic" possessed a degree in "Encyclopaedia Science," failing which he was not qualified to make such assessment.

Now, I mentioned Brian Macdonald for a reason. This administrator, who is a weird mix of Popeye, Capt. Haddock and Charles Manson, is easily one of the most bullying of administrators. On more than one occasion, he has demanded that editors drive to their library, take out the book they are using as a reference and read the debated passage to him. I kid you not. (If you don't believe me, lookup TZB 670/9f2ce177201fc389.html "Historical matters and Kool-Aid")

Yes, Brian Macdonald is a man who brooks no trouble, has anger-management issues and a hair-trigger temper.

And a yellow streak a mile wide.

That's quite an assertion to make I hear you ask (hopefully?). Well, let's have a look at one example where Brian rolls over and lets his Lord and Master fuck him publicly up the ass. Metaphorically of course. Brain's retired from the navy so that sort of thing probably doesn't happen anymore.

Now I'm sure I don't need to remind you about just how horrible Conservapedia's "article" on Pres. Obama is. Nevermind the fact that Andy bears a personal grudge against his former boss on the Harvard Law Review, it now sports such rubbish as the Presidents's birth name being Barry Soetoro. Nevermind the fact that his mum only met Mr Soetoro 6 years later.

Still undaunted, Karajou decided to take it upon himself to make the article look more encyclopaedic. He wasn't going to actually remove any of the garbage contained in the article, just put things in a better order. For example, one would expect a biography to come before all the alleged scandals.

He also did spring a surprise on anybody. He made his intentions very clear in a message to the Zeuglodon Blues administrators' group, entitled "Obama article changes". In it he says,

So far, I did a re-arranging of half the article, and the other half I'll work on today. This does not involve a reduction of anything in the article itself with the exception of the introductory paragraph,
which I feel should be much shorter in addition to getting right to the point on his socialism.

The new layout is as follows:

Intro
Early Life and Education
Chicago Life (includes early activism, politics, etc)
Illinois state political life and voting record
Personal beliefs (includes religion, socialism, etc)
United States Senate
Presidential run (this includes the birth certificate controversy)
Presidency

I'm going to set this article from the standpoint that he was actually born in Hawaii, as the lawsuit stems from a Democrat who has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits anyway. Conservative talk show host Phil Valentine has come up with the more likely theory that the reason Obama wanted the birth certificate hushed was that he was born as a "caucasian" or "mixed race", rather than as "African-American".

He then adds a second post, saying,

Ok, it is finished and posted.

One of the criticisms leveled against us is articles like what I have just corrected, and not so much in facts posted, but in how the article was previously laid out. State senate stuff added to the US senate topic, the same abortion info presented several different times when only once was enough, etc etc etc.

We do have to take a critical look at many of our articles and ensure that they are presented properly.

Now, nothing wrong with that would think. The only problem is that Andy has so many crazy toes that everybody steps on one at least once. This time was Brian's turn. Andy leaps in and reverts all Brian's work, with the edit comment of "restoring traditional placement; any massive rearrangement that dumbs down the entry needs more discussion before considering it."

Wow. So one of Andy's handy administrators was "dumbing down" an article. It should also be mentioned that besides his TZB posts, Brian also mentioned his changes on the talk-page. But Andy clearly couldn't be bothered to even skim through these posts, prefering to publically slap Brian down.

So, how would the angry one respond? Would he tell Andy that he had asked for discussion? Would he revert Andy's changes? Would he leave and never come back? What would Brian do?

The answer is: Nothing. Nothing at all.

Because he was too shit-scared of offending Andy and possibly harming the only position where he can wield some measure of authority.

And that is why Brian Macdonald, like his fellow administrators, is a craven, gutless coward.

Now you know...

...why Conservapedia is shunned by American conservatives and seen as a joke by the rest of the known world.

If the "Trustworthy" encyclopaedia allows its administrators post stuff like this below to its Main Page, one has to start questioning just how serious this project is. Now, ordinarily I would expect something like this to be added by a parodist. Which, let's face it, makes up virtually all of Conservapedia's editing base, except the administrators... and even some of them are suspect.

Hmmm. "The transitional animal the flying kitty?" That's not even good English. But then again, what else would you expect from CP's Master of Disaster, Ken Demyer aka Conservative. If you can stomach it, read the full article here, but be warned - you're likely to hurt your head as it collides with your desk.

I suppose that there are a few things to be said in Ken's defence. Firstly he did subsequently remove it (probably after a severe dressing down in the Zeuglodon Blues chat area), and it would appear as if he's suffering some sort of breakdown. Evidence for this is contained in an ever-increasing series of posts, starting with the whole 'Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?" rubbish, then onto what Hispanic and Asian ladies say about Dawkins, then onto a wildly wrong definition of Poe's Law. From this, he went on to create so-called parodies of evolution, once again clearly showing he has only a passing knowledge of what "parody" means. Then again, given that Andy doesn't consider parody to be comedy, we're not surprised.

All these, combined with several marathon 12- and 13-hour non-stop editing sessions, and a raging paranoia about being stalked, clearly indicate that something's not quite right with Ken. Which makes writing this make me feel a little like I'm pointing and laughing at a disabled person. However, that said, I'm guessing that there will be offer of assistance, or enquiries into his health, from his brother administrators, because a) they all hate him, b) it's quite simply not in their nature to be charitable towards others, and c) it'll blow Andy's claim about CP having "0 mental problems" out of the water. And those cowards are more worried about earning Andy's favour, than helping a colleague.

Ken DeMyer lacks machismo!!

/Rant on

Yes folks, you read it here first (or maybe not!). However, I wish to go on record that Ken DeMyer aka Conservative aka Ruylopez aka David Jensen aka any number of aliases (more of them can be found here) lacks MACHISMO! Now, before we carry on, maybe we should have a look at what Ken thinks is a good example of machismo. You'll have to look here, because in true CP-style, the original post has been deleted and oversighted. I guess even Andrew Schlafly gets embarrassed by Ken's drivel at times.

John Hinckley Jr. was certainly crazy, but at least John Hinckley Jr. (I love how Ken appears to have never heard of pronouns!)  had more machismo [than Richard Dawkins] and was obsessed with a woman.

Wait a minute... Ken sees somebody who a) was deranged, b) stalked Jodie Foster and c) shot Saint Ronnie as possessing machismo! Suddenly, I start to see why the right-wing in America shun Conservapedia. It's because stuff like this is too crazy for even Beck and Coulter.

Now you might be asking yourself why I claim that the author of the seminal "Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?" lacks machismo himself, given that he is clearly an expert on what constitutes machismo and what doesn't? let's have a look at some of Ken's wonderful, flowing prose:

Right now, Hispanic ladies are quite troublesome to Señor Dawkins. Hispanic women constantly kick sand in Señor Dawkins' face when he goes to the beach because they are quite upset with Mr. Dawkins. The Hispanic ladies see the tough talking and outspoken Dawkins before the friendly liberal press, but Señor Dawkins avoids at all cost debating strong debaters from the opposition. So unfortunately for Señor Dawkins, he is a weak atheist showman who cannot enjoy a day at the beach.

Now are these the writings of somebody who is even vaguely sane? Never mind those of an administrator on Conservapedia, the so-called (or self-titled rather) bastion of conservative thought on the net? But it is not because of these insane ramblings that I'm saying that he lacks machismo. It's because the man is a coward. A craven cur with a yellow streak wider than the Yangtze River. A mental midget, with the debating skills of a newt. He is possessed of a liver that even the most lily-livered of chickens would disown.

Now these are fairly substantial accusations. Why do make them?

Well, remember we are dealing with a person - possibly of limited mental capacity - who makes ridiculous and unfounded claims, safely behind the walls of Fortress Conservapedia. His recent emissions (I'm sorry, I can't think of a better word... maybe diarrhoea?) have been ridiculous attacks on Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. Ken can't seem to get his around the fact that the chances of a biologist writing about the evils of Stalin are fairly remote. Plus, Ken DeMyer knows full well that he can never be challenged on his ridiculous assertions - not to mention his quote-mined abortions of articles - because he cowers behind a screen of blocking rights, oversight and fellow hand-picked sysop goons. And of course, on Conservapedia, if there's no record of it, it never happened.

However, Ken did venture boldly forth, signing up as Ruylopez (he must have a Hispanic fetish. Must be all those smooth, tanned boys, with those sexy-sexy Gomez Addams moustaches)  on the wannabe Christian encyclopaedia A Storehouse of Knowledge, initially so he could link-spam all his articles (Homosexuality, Atheism and Evolution) back to CP. However, there were two problems with this plan.

Firstly, ASoK is run by a former Conservapede admin, called Philip Rayment, who doesn't have much of that ol' Christian lovin' for CP or its goons, so Ken's link-spamming efforts soon came to an end. Secondly, little cowardly Ken suddenly found himself out in the big, bad world, with no ban-hammer, no oversight and no Terry Koeckritz to cover his ass (well, we think that's all he does with Ken's ass. However, given Ken's obsession with homosexuality, one has to wonder).

Ken suddenly found himself having to answer some very pointed questions about his writings. How did this embarrassment to the conservative cause react? Maturely? With a flash of machismo to silence his critics. Or like the whiny little bitch he is? Let's look at some examples of his replies:

• I quickly glanced and saw that you made a post to my talk page. I hope you did not have your hopes up as far as me reading it because that is not going to happen.


• I hope you did not hope that I would read you latest post because that is not happening either


• Trent, if your wiki is so successful then why is it that I no intention of looking at any material you write. (This is especially precious, given Ken's many, many "Dear Gentlemen" shouts from inside CP. Although these have stopped now, probably because Terry got firm with him, and Ken's still panting like a bitch on heat. Not to mention the fact that he stole Rationalwiki's tumbleweed animation, for his "essay". Just a little tip, girly-boy. Essays tend to have more than just a picture. Now, I know that all the books you read have really big pictures and very few words, but this is an encyclopaedia you're apparently running).


• I am not reading any further communications from Rationalwikians so it is pointless to try to communicate through this channel. (True, because you can't block and delete any comments you don't like.)


• Gentlemen, I see by the yellow banner that I got a message. By the way, I did not read your recent postings.

So, for somebody who's ignoring his detractors, he seems to spend an awful lot of time responding to them.

Ken DeMyer, you are a coward and an intellectual nobody. You are an immature child playing in a very big pool, and just because EVERYBODY (not just the Hispanic ladies) is kicking sand and water in your face, doesn't mean you can take your ball and run whimpering like a cur that's just been given a good kicking back to the warmth of Terry Koeckritz's arms. If you had any machismo, you'd stand up to your detractors. But that's beyond your mental faculties.

Godspeed, you sad, pathetic little man.

/Rant off

Ed! Get help! Please!

I know I've already raised the issue of Conservapedia sysop Ed Poor's strange relationship with what is and what isn't acceptable on a family friendly encyclopaedia. If you want to refresh your memory, they're here and here. However, I can paraphrase as follows:

• He objects to Jack the Ripper's victims being referred to as prostitutes (which they were), replacing the word with 'women' and saying, "Don’t make it so lurid – I’ve got kids' in the edit summary.


• He deletes a picture of a cartoon character in a French maid's outfit, claiming it's "a little bit too sexy for a “family” site”


• He deletes a picture of Tomb Raider's Lara Croft, claiming it is "too slutty" and when questioned what he means by that, replies, "Voluptuous breasts and bulging vulva isn’t slutty?"


• Pens a 2-line "essay" on "Immortality in America", wherein he bemoans the fact that people are referred to as 'sexy" rather than "handsome."

Even with that last part, things are getting a bit weird. But on the whole, "Uncle" Ed  (as he likes to call himself on Wikipedia, and god knows where else) comes across as a fairly decent guy, with a pretty conservative outlook on what is acceptable on a "family" wiki. Except when his other side shines through.

The same man who finds "prostitutes" an unacceptable word for a bunch of Victorian trollops, has no problem adding the following to the "family" wiki:

• A reference to "rimming" (as a wiki-link no less) to CP's "article" on “Gay Bowel Syndrome”


• Creates an article on "Bestiality" and just in case you don't know what that means, creates a "sex with animals" redirect.


• I think the "Voluptuous breasts and bulging vulva" deserve another mention, as only Ed would see that in a small, low quality picture of a video game's cover.


• On the subject of redirects, Ed helpfully creates the "hard-core pornography" redirect, as clearly users of CP are quite particular about the kind of porn they want to read about.


• Feels the need to tell us that "adult" is commonly used as a euphemism for "pornographic", and that with regards to liberal Internet companies (the link here is to Google only), it can be seen that they often promote 'adult' material, with the above premise that such vile material is acceptable if referred to by such a euphemism. Ed has clearly done his research here.

I'm not going to get into "Uncle" Ed's fascination with young girls, suffice to say he refers to the daughter in "Fort Apache" as "doing nothing but wearing pretty clothing and pouting." And the less said about his movie category, "Movies about fathers with 11-year-old daughters" the better.

Now I see he's done it again. Not content with having an article on "fornication," Ed feels the need to expand on the definition. As it stood, it was already laughable:

'''Fornication''' is "sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other or, more broadly, sex other than with someone you can marry, as with incest.

Wow! CP doesn't mince words. Not even girl- and boyfriends, or "the girl who got really drunk at my party" are examples of fornication. No - CP heads straight for incest.

But even that isn't enough for Ed. Once again he wades in and adds "or bestiality" after "incest," with the edit comment "hate to even mention this, but it happens."

Ed, listen to me. Normal people don't do things like that. Especially not on a "family" encyclopaedia. You are clearly not a well man, and I suggest you seek help before it's too late. People like you do not have a fun time in prison.

I Saw What You Did There, Andy

Now I know I have already spoken about Andrew Schlafly's "Best New Conservative Words" nonsense. Still, Andy keeps on coming back to it, in much the same way you can't help playing with a rotten tooth. As you may, or may not, know Andy has surmised that ever since the 17th century, more and more conservative words have been created, essentially doubling in number every century.

There are, of course, two problems with this:

• The so-called "conservative words" appear to be a random collection of terms pulled out of Andy's ass, and augmented by several parodists. Thus we get such entries as "Radar" and "transistor" being conservative terms.


• Andy applies his own selection bias to the project. Thus if the 1700s had 5 new "conservative" words, the 1800s must have 10. So, Andy stops counting when the words he has decided on match his criteria. He hardly ever goes further back, because finding a new word in 1600 would mean 2 new 1700s words, 4 new 1800s words, 8 new 1900s words and 16 new 2000s words. And even Andy could have trouble coming up with so many words.

Still, despite the unscientific nature of the whole thing (but then we all know science is the Devil's work!) Andy has issued a challenge on Conservapedia's font page, which reads:

"Liberals doubt our observed doubling per century for these words, yet every layer reproves the remarkable growth pattern. Still looking for 6 more. Can any liberals disprove the pattern?"

Bible Translation Schlafly Style

So, I know Andy reads this blog (or has done in the past) so I'm not sure if this is a response to what I said below. Anyway, Andy has gone on to "defend" his statement. I use inverted commas, because Andy's version of defend runs along the lines of "I'm right - you're wrong; you're a liberal and need to open your mind; Oh look, Terry Koeckritz has blocked you."

To whit, the insane one rambles:

Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Erm, ok Andy, so you're making a claim on Conservapedia, and you don't even know the source for your claim. (Again, why am I not surprised).

Washing The Hand That Feeds You

I'm actually not too sure just how to respond to Andrew Schlafly's latest bout of insanity. Most of me just wants to yell, "He can't be serious!" and leave it at that. However, as sad as it may be, he is being serious. And that makes his comment all the more bizarre. Remember, we are dealing with a man who has received (and squandered) a fairly substantial education.

Anyway, to the case in point. Conservapedia boasts an article entitled "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" which "is the remarkable content of the Bible showing a comprehension of scientific knowledge beyond anything that existed among atheistic sources at the time when the Bible was composed." Sadly, most of the sources are CreationWiki and Answers in Genesis, so one would have to assume the teeniest bit of bias, and whole lot of what-the-fuckery.

Football Woes

As has been mentioned many, many times, Andrew Schlafly really knows a great deal - if not everything - about everything. And he certainly isn't a man to let his monumental ignorance get in the way of a good comment. Lately, he's taken to the World Cup (I wonder if FIFA could have him up for ambush marketing), and started predicting how teams would perform... except that most of his predictions came after the fact.

Some of the funnier claims include:

Lenski redux... or Andy Writes Another Letter

Still bathed in the glow of his Conservative Bible Project, Andrew Schlafly is now taking on the more esteemed translators of the Bible. Nevermind the fact that Andy's "translation" is a lukewarm abortion of a project, which involved several parodists changing words such as "thee" to "you" and "wine" to "grape juice". Oh yes, and the removal of the whole 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' liberal garbage - because Andy's Jesus is all about hellfire, baby.

At no point did they revert back to the original Greek (or should that be Aramaic?) documents, even though Terry Hurlbut tried gamely for a bit, armed with an English / Greek pocket dictionary and Google Translate, but even he fell away. Despite all this, and the legion flaws contained in Andy's "translation" he went forth to proclaim the Good News. Well, he appeared on the Colbert Report, and didn't quite get the fact that he was the butt of their joke. Hint: Andy, people are laughing AT you, not with you. Still, now he's going after his detractors... hopefully not one at a time, because I think the universe will end before he gets done. First on his list is Prof. Douglas Moo, who is currently involved in a new translation of the NIV and TNIV, who dared call Andy's project "silly."

Just a quickie

Terry Koeckritz's favourite trick to to take any conversation, where he has more control and can pass edited highlights of the discussion on to Andy. However, he's not above making stupid comments in the edit line, then sulking and bitching about "taking it off-line" when queried on it.

A good example, is on the "Atomic bomb" article,  where the slimy one reverts an editor's correct edition - albeit with a broken like, using the comment "adding working citation, that is correct, not revisionist." Of course the minute, his revisionist claim is queried, he starts to backtrack, whining that, "The reason I prefer email between Admins is to save embarrassment, Jessica. Revert and try your link. It didn't work, went to a deleted or blank page. In the future try counting to ten, asking or checking before you publicly comment to me, please!"

So, commenting publicly about Terry's work is a no-no, but the malicious scumbag can make all the comments he likes. Oh, I should also mention that he deleted the talk page, but luckily it was restored by Roger Schlafly.

Terry Koeckritz - grade one arsehole, malignant scumbag and possessor of zero machismo. (Which, actually, once you check the definition of 'machismo' is a compliment. Now if only somebody could tell Ken DeMyer that...)

Crying Foul

By now we all know that Andrew Schlafly - whilst hating anybody else's claim to expertise - is a true master of all knowledge. We also know that he is equally capable of perverting anything to suit his own everything-is-black-or-white worldview. So it should come as no surprise when he turns his jaundiced eye on the World Cup. The football world cup (i.e. "soccer", not that bastardized version of rugby the Yanks play. Stick any linebacker in a good old scrum without his padding and the moffie would last 30 seconds. Max.) , you know, the one where the whole world takes part, unlike the *ahem* "world series".

The Fine Art of Backstabbing

Actually, another title might be “A Lesson in Hypocrisy.” Either way, what follows below is a prime example of creepy “Uncle” Ed Poor at his best. Or should that be worst? However, before we embark on this sordid little tale, a little bit of background info is required methinks.

Amongst the chosen few who act as “administrators” - please forgive the “”, it’s just that the one thing these goons don’t do is any actual administration. Probably due to a lack of machismo – it’s fairly safe to say that paranoia runs rampant among them. Well, except for Rob Smith and Ken DeMyer that is… they only suffer from paranoid delusions. This paranoia manifests mostly itself in off-line discussions about anything CP related, lest they dare show a divided front to the three non-clickbots that actually visit their site. The attempts by Terry Koeckritz and Brian Macdonald to block every IP-address outside the USA are clearly another symptom. Then again, Terry does a great job of fuelling the collective paranoia with his frequent references to “vandal sites” – none of which can be named, but nevertheless, does send a steady stream of members to RationalWiki. Which is just what Terry wants, of course.

Happy Birthday Me

Yup, WCMTU turned one sometime this month.

Been an interesting year too, during which Conservapedia's sysops tried to shut me down; Terry Koeckritz ran rampant over the few remaining editors; RationalWiki became a bigger site than Conservapedia - a victory in a very real sense of the word; Andrew Schlafly made the Bible more conservative; two parodists were promoted to sysop, where they help Terry undermine CP; and Andy made a fool of himself in front of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

About the only thing that hasn't happened is the demise of CP, but given the downward spiral it's enjoyed over the past 12 months, that day must be drawing close. After all, even the Fab Five, or Super Six super nutty admins can't keep an encyclopaedia running.

Oops... my bad. It's not an encyclopaedia... it's Andrew Schlafly's little soap box.

Macho Ken DeMyer

Sadly, I must confess to having long ignored one of Conservapedia's more notorious administrators - user:Conservative (aka Ken DeMyer, Ruy Lopez, Peter Moore, David Jensen or any one of the many aliases this international man of moron-ity adopts in his efforts to boost his pet articles up Google's rankings via search engine optimisation - SEO). By now, anybody vaguely familiar with CP should be aware that his "pets" are Atheism, Homosexuality, Evolution and Richard Dawkins... although not necessarily in that order. Forgive me if I don't link to those articles myself, but I have no desire to assist in his frantic attempts to have his drivel appear in Google's Top 10. To this end, Ken sees himself as a bit of an alpha male, and must stake out his territory by scattering his droppings all over CP's main page and mostly Andy's talk page.

"Drivel?" I hear you say. "On the Trustworthy Encyclopaedia? Surely not." Well, you're welcome to read them yourself, but I'm sure you'll find them a turgid mess of quote mines, terrible English (Ken deserves an award for the use of the word "regarding" virtually every sentence he types), repetition (again with the SEO thing) and bad facts. An apt comment when describing Ken's stuff (which was originally applied to the Conservative Bible Project, I believe) is that "it reads about as well as shitting barbed wire feels good.") Of course, these articles are also protected, so only Ken, or the other admins, can actually edit them. However, given that CP happily displays this garbage on their front page, clearly means that the Trustworthy Encyclopaedia is proud of this un-encyclopaedic rubbish... even if all the other admins studiously avoid touching Ken's output. They're probably scared his stupidity is catching.

Making Karajou Funny

Conservapedia administrator Karajou – who would appear to be immune from their “use your real first name and initial” block reason (after all, there’s no possible permutation of ‘Brian MacDonald’ that gives you ‘Karajou’) – fancies himself as a bit of a cartoonist. However, before we go into that, it’s probably best to have a quick refresher course on what we know about the man behind the myth.

Karajou is CP’s resident navy veteran, something he confirms on his user page. Where he tells us which countries he visited, what courses he took, but is strangely silent on his rank achieved after 20 years’ service. Then again, given his passive-aggressive anger issues, hair-trigger temper and generally grumpy temperament, it’s likely he kept getting  busted down to seaman, for punching out his OC. Probably because the latter wasn’t conservative enough. Personally, I’ve always pictured him as a weird hybrid between Capt. Haddock’s bushy beard and pipe, Capt. Sobel’s (from Band of Brothers) people skills… and Colonel Kaddafi’s eyes. This is best displayed by his reaction to a (probably false) letter from a mother of a gay son - blocking her whilst calling her a bigot.

It’s not the way that you caress and toy with my election…

(with apologies to Erasure)

Let me start off by saying that I really admire Andrew Schlafly. It takes a very special man to consistently ignore reality, facts, common sense and informed opinion in order to hang on to whatever idea has popped into what passes for his mind.  It takes an even more special man, to – when confronted with irrefutable evidence that he was wrong all along – alter his own reality, in order to keep up the pretence that he was right all along.

Actually, now that I think about it, “special” isn’t the right word. “Fucking insane lying deceitful full of shit lunatic” probably expresses it better. And you can’t help but admire his continuous ability to act like a fucking insane lying deceitful full of shit lunatic, and still get to eat his dinner with something other than a plastic spoon.

How to treat editors, part umpty-ump

I've blogged before about how badly editors on Conservapedia are treated. It's basically a case of "we think you're a liberal parodist, until you prove otherwise, and even then we won't believe you." Plus you're also fair game for the many parodists who have earned blocking rights by acting as Andrew Schlafly's echo chamber. Even worse, you might find yourself blocked, because the sysops have no idea how checkuser works and no comprehension that two or more users could have the same IP address. Then again, most of those blocks are by Terry Koeckritz, who's probably in need of sexual gratification at the time.

Free Speech 1, Conservapeda 0

Good news - seems that despite the best efforts of John Patti (no doubt guided by the slimy hand of Terry Koeckritz) this blog is still alive and kicking. So much for that little storm in a teacup. Many thanks to everybody for your support, it's greatly appreciated on this side, and now I'm more determined than ever to keep on "digging the dirt on the insanity that is Conservapedia" for my loyal readers. Although this time round there may be fewer personal remarks. Maybe.

Conservative Censorship

Interesting, it would appear as if there's one bunch of people who aren't very happy with me (I wonder who that could be?), and have approached WordPress to have the blog taken down. (Truth hurting a bit there, boys?). I've replied to WordPress, providing the full difflinks which back up any and all statements I've made on here, so we'll have to wait and see.

At the worst I expect a slap on the wrist for calling the morons morons, as I am not making any unfounded or libellous statements.

The Tradegy of Conservapedia

I admit, I've been lax in my updates, but to be honest, writing about the same old stuff (Andrew Schlafly spouting nonsense, Terry Koeckritz lying through his teeth, etc) is becoming about as appealing as gargling with drain cleaner. Still, I live in hope that something juicy will crop up. Given how Andy's been gloating about the Conservatives winning the upcoming UK election, there might be something there next week. At the very least, his ridiculous comments about Britain being "the land of atheism" deserve challenging.

More sauces

Because you can never have too much sauce. Well, that's what the school dinner lady used to tell me... after school... behind the bike shed. Was years before I realised "sauce" was something you put on food.

Or in this case, a pun on the provision of information. Now, I've seen that since my last posting (and I apologise for my silence since then), Terry Koeckritz has been running around denying that he was the source of the sauce, if you get my drift. So be it. We all know he's as capable of honesty as Liberace fathering triplets. Still, it was amusing watching him stumble about like a bear with a sore arse, mumbling incoherent threats about lawsuits. Not to mention the bizarre plot he hatched with fellow sysop Rob Smith over on Wikipedia's Conservapedia article.

Sauces

In the spirit of openness (and many requests) I've decided to share my sources from Conservapedia's Zeugloden Blues chat room. Think of it as my birthday present to you, Constant Reader. I've sat on these for a while, firstly to protect the identity of the sysop who provided me with the info and secondly, because I didn't think there was that much in there that was interesting.

However, I've since decided that Terry Koeckritz is a lowlife scumbag who doesn't need protecting and I thought you'd like to read at first hand just what a bunch of nasty, narrow-minded, bigoted, paranoid people are running Conservapedia.

So, without further ado - happy reading.

Conservatism is Good for You!

Wow! Andrew Schlafly is really peddling Conservapedia hard... and sounding more and more like one of those people (Kevin Trudeau comes to mind... or the chick from the Big Green Clean Machine) you see touting their snake-oil on the Home Shopping Network.

Call now, our operators are standing by. Use our special brand of conservatism for at least one by-election and

• 
  

  Lose inches from your waist, hips and butt! Yes! Conservatism cures obesity and other addictions. Of course, never mind that obesity isn't an addiction, you'll still be cured. After all, as they say, laughter is the best medicine, and if you hang out at Conservapedia, you'll be laughing... a lot!

  
  

Liberals versus Conservatives

In response to the drivel I spoke about in "Conservatives versus Reality" below, I see the Drudge Retort (a witty alternative to the Drudge Report... why do conservatives suck at page layout?) have come up with a list of their own, that makes far more sense.

• If a liberal doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, she doesn’t have one.
  If a conservative doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, he or she wants to prevent anyone from having one.

The Andromeda Stain

Amazingly, every now and again, Conservapedia manages to attract people who genuinely believe CP is an encyclopaedia and try and add content other than "Obama is the Devil". Examples would include the slightly obsessive, such as FOIA and his fixation with Alger Hiss, as well as BertSchlossberg's hang-up with KAL007. There are also those who enjoy their field and know something about it. Amongst these would be KrysG (Egyptian History and Mythology), JessicaT (Japanese language and history), everybody who ever tried to edit a maths article... and BMcP, who is an astronomy buff... and the latest to fall foul of Andrew Schlafly's special brand of insanity.

One thing you need to know about editing on CP is that even if you survive Terry Koeckritz's machinations, at some point you will step on one of Andy's crazy toes and then your time at CP is over, especially if you try and apply logic to his insane rants.

Conservatives versus Reality

I always take note whenever Conservapedia admin Terry Koeckritz does more than just abuse and block editors. Especially when he goes to the effort to "create" a new article - in this case "Conservatives versus Liberals". Of course, where Terry is concerned, "create" means "plagiarised from here, here, here and here".

In typical style, it's a list of "Conservatives do good things, while Liberals do bad things" and it's simplistic to the point of being idiotic. In other words, it's a perfect addition to the rest of Conservapedia's "Liberals are... " articles. The latest of which is another Andrew Schlafly masterpiece, "Liberal Inability to Abstract " - but more on that another day. Let's have a look at the points Terry raises in "his" article and try and apply some sound reasoning to them.

Relatively Speaking

Andrew Schlafly dislikes many things. Chief amongst these would appear to be Pres. Obama, Professors, Hollywood and for some strange reason the Theory of Relativity. Just reading the talk page (plus archives) gives you a pretty good insight into just how Andy thinks - even when confronted with facts by his own brother.

I've spoken about his run-in with Kate Sorenson before, where Andy came up with the wonderful statement: "Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much?" That went on to become a recurring theme in Andy's defence of Why-Relativity-Is-Wrong - because people won't read the Bible if they believe in relativity. And this man teaches children??

Strange Days Indeed...

Every now and again Conservapedia, and especially Andrew Schlafly, still manages to surprise me with some really off-the-wall insanity. I've become accustomed to Andy "conservatising" the Bible, or Terry Koeckritz lying like a cheap rug to cover his deceit and plagiarism, so I really do look forward to the moments when they do something special. The example below is hopefully going to develop further, with hilarious results.

Let's start off with Andy coining another new term. Apparently, when Sarah Palin was asked what she read and couldn't answer, that was a "Liberal trap", which Andy defines as "a deceptive, and often dimwitted, question designed to elicit a response that can be taken out of context in order to criticize someone, for liberal gain". Note - not just for gain, but for liberal gain. Also, it would appear as if "dimwitted" is Andy's word of the week - he also uses it to describe the onlookers who beat up a man who slaps a woman (see entry below).