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.

Ed Poor recently even crossed the forbidden divide and did some editing on Rationalwiki. Of course, CP does has amongst it's many, many block reasons "Member of a site promoting vandalism." (The irony behind all this, is that Terry Koeckritz keeps citing the LA Times article as the basis for this, whilst conveniently forgetting that it mentions him by name and pokes fun at CP too. But what is a little "truth" to somebody who pretends to be both Christian and conservative and is, instead, a raving ho- oops, almost got carried away there. We'll save that tit-bit for another day, won't we Terry?) Of course, "editing" in Ed's book doesn't mean so much as having a conversation, but rather posting inane, one-line responses to questions. Then again, given that his contributions to CP are mostly inane, one-line and often fairly disturbing, what else would you expect? let's have a look at some of Ed's contributions (for simplicity's sake, I'll use a conversation I has with him:

Ed:

The cynic is his own worst enemy. It requires far less skill to run a wrecking company than it does to be an architect." Okay?

Me:

Really Ed? I think I'd rather trust a wrecking crew with a controlled demolition than an architect. Still, maybe you can silence the cynic within me by answering the following: How come you find references to prostitutes "too lurid for your kids", a picture of a cartoon maid "too sexy for a family site" and claim you deleted a picture of Lara Croft, because she has "voluptuous breasts and a bulging vulva"; when at the same time you are adding references to bestiality (on more than one occasion, including a 'sex with animals" redirect), rimming, "adult child sex" and "hard-core pornography? Or are you implying that your kids and families that use Conservapedia are comfortable with those things, whilst finding a cartoon French maid, abhorrent? Prove the cynic within me wrong, by actually giving a reasoned and sensible answer, and not hiding behind some inane quote-mine.

Ed:

See [Wikipedia's article] on the "Exception that proves the rule."

Me:

No Ed, I will not follow your inane links (and what rule are you the exception to anyway?). Or is that your answer to why you can post here and everybody else gets blocked? How about responding to my initial claims above? Can't be that hard can it? Come on Ed, put the cynic inside me to rest. You can do it.

Ed:

"If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein

Me:

Ok, so based on your quote above, just so we're clear here: You can't explain to me why you have a predilection for writing about bestiality, rimming and bulging vulvas (not to mention young girls), because you don't understand why you do it.

Now you can see why talking to the man is equivalent to showing a half-blind dog and new card trick.

But enough about this pathetic moron's activities on RW, let's have a look at him swaggering around his home turf on Conservapedia. Now following on New Scientist magazine's exposé of Andrew Schalfly's blithering ignorance of the Theory of Relativity, there's been an influx of doomed editors, trying to set Andy straight. This continued when Andy started rabbiting on about the Fields Medal. Of course, most of them were blocked and any changes they made swiftly deleted. While this was going on, Schlafly was still bleating about censorship, and the fact that the Medal would be awarded to less-deserving individuals.

Laughably, it's Schalfly who raises the question of censorship, by saying, "Your proposed bet also has the effect of suspending discussion until the bet is resolved. That has the effect of censoring open discussion. If you don't think the Fields Medal will be given to a woman on Thursday as you claim, then please explain why you feel that way." (Of course, the medal wasn't awarded to a woman). This was in reply to doomed editor JoshuaZ, willing to wager a donation to charity if a woman did win. Andy's response was as expected - stupid and just another way of weaselling his way out of a tight corner.

Now Ed jumps in:

And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We '''do''' follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of "describing all viewpoints fairly". It doesn't require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

He also replies to so-to-be-blocked editor RonLar (who is RW editor LArron - who had been allowed back into CP by Schlafly to debate his Best New Conservative Words garbage, but had to use a sock, because Terry Koeckritz had blocked his IP address. Remember this point, it's important), saying:

Thanks for telling me you have evidence. Now show it to me; I'd like to take a look.

RonLar duly obliges with 2 links to items which had been deleted from CP. They can be found here and here.

Now Ed has a problem. He's been given evidence and he's not sure how to react. So he flannels around, whilst summoning the cavalry.

Let's get past the blocking thing first. TK, if you're listening, have you decided to permit RonLar to remain in our project? Any conditions, or is he A-Okay?

Wow, so suddenly, it's not about evidence, it's about whether RonLar is allowed to edit on CP. Remember, it was Andy who allowed him back.

Needless to say, up minces Terry Koeckritz in a flash, with a wonderful statement:

No, he isn't the type of editor CP wants.  First he is socking. Second he is a major contributor of a known vandal site, so proclaimed by independent (not Conservapedia related) observers. He has edited here and at his vandal site with the same name, setting up his one-sided criticisms elsewhere by his provocations and manipulations here.  He has demonstrated by his statements elsewhere his high contempt for not only you, Ed, but Andy Schlafly as well, which provides ample proof of his intentions to undermine and literally destroy CP.  When they call you a pedophile on their vandal site, Ed, one can easily observe that those like "RonLar" who claim to be fair-minded, "rational" thinkers, never once publicly speak out about such smears or remove such items even though they are Administrators with the power to do so.  So no, he won't be allowed back.

Now this is awesome on so many levels. Terry decides he can override Andy's decision, plus claims the editor is socking up - because Terry had blocked his IP address in the first place, then he manages to slip in a snide remark about references to Ed Poor's apparent tastes for young girls - which is not only off topic, but a direct dig at Ed by Terry, whilst seeming to blame RW. This is why he's such a master troll. Terry, of course, then delivers the coup de grace, banishing RonLar from CP until the entropy death of the universe.

All that remains now is for Ed to... er... censor the offending comments, by deleting the post, along with the smug little comment, "Bye." The really scary thing about all this, is that the smug, sanctimonious, dishonest fuck-face probably has no idea that there's anything wrong with what he's doing.

Still, you have to say that Ed Poor and Terry Koeckritz make a wonderful couple... except I don't think Ed is Terry's type. Too old for a start...