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: