Self Strangulation

If you've tried to visit Conservapedia recently, especially from a location outside the US of A, chances are you've been met by the notice above.  Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with your browser, or your connection - it simply means that Conservapedia's administrators have blocked you from viewing their site at server levels. That's right - not content with banning people from editing their little right-wing hate-blog, they're  now preventing people - especially all those nasty, liberal non-Americans - from even looking at the crap they publish.

Ok, so the actual reason is a bit more complex than that. It would appear as if our friends over at Conservapedia have been one of a number of site that have been under a Denial of Service attack (DoS). What this essentially means is that the host server is flooded with automated requests, which either slow it right down, or cause the server - and linked web pages - to crash.

There appear to be two groups behind the latest swathe of attacks - the first being hacker group Anonymous, who have launched a war on copyright and the other seeming to be extortionist attacks, originating from China. As with most things, those in the know tackle the problem and get on with their lives.

But not Conservapedia.

Oh no, first of all they have to massage their massive persecution complex, because - of course - this DoS attack is all about them. And it's not a bunch of Oriental crooks trying to squeeze them for a dollar, nor is it Anon using CP to make a point. Oh no, as "senior" administrator Brian Macdonald, aka Karajou, puts it:

What this means to the average layman reading this is a DDoS attack is conducted by the liberal left when they are faced with an idea they don't like; There are people who do not like conservatism; they do not like the morals and responsibility and accountability which is attached to conservatism. They cannot stand God, they cannot stand the Bible, and many of them are quick to dismiss "Jeebus" - as they call Jesus - as nothing more than a farce. And most of all they cannot stand anyone who would adhere to any of it. What they did to Conservapedia during the past 24 hours is very typical of their "philosophy", which is to shut down any kind of speech they don't like.

See what I mean about persecution complex? The entire machinery of the "liberal left" has been fired up to take down a two-bit backwater of a hate-blog, because you know, whenever somebody says "God", we just have the urge to do so. How dare people interfere in our site. No doubt, there has been plenty of communication with the FBI over this "vandalism" to CP. Karajou, however, has to go one step further. The DoS attack isn't because CP is a right-wing, fundie, loonie, Birther, hate-blog that liberals hate. Oh no, it's because Karajou drew a pathetic, unfunny cartoon, mocking a professor that most people have never heard of. Now how's that for a persecution complex??

However, Brian's insecurities - as many as there are - aren't the focus of this posting. It's more about Conservapedia's reaction to the DoS attack. You see, it's safe to say that the actual combined PC knowledge of CP's administrators could be written on a pinhead, with enough room left over for a good old Angel square-dance. At least they have enough gumption not to give Ed Poor bureaucrat rights and server access, no matter how many times "User 188" hints at his non-existent expertise.

Now I'm no IT boffin myself, but I'm pretty sure there must be easier ways to fend off a DoS attack than blocking half the world at server level. Otherwise, every time one happened, half the internet would suddenly be off-line. However, if there's one thing CP's administrators know how to do well - and are indeed praised for by Andrew Schlafly - it's blocking. So what better way to fend off an attack by "liberals" than by blocking them? Schlafly has even gone as far as granting server-level access to the remaining admins in his inner circle (well Karajou and Jpatt anyway. I wouldn't trust Ed Poor, Conservative or Rob Smith with an ice-cream cone, let alone a server) in order for them to make 403 range blocks.

As with all things Conservapedia, these are done to extremes, with not only large parts of the world in general and the USA in particular blocked from even reading the crap on Conservapedia, you can also bet that these aren't blocks that will expire with in a day or two, one the attack has stopped. Oh no, especially if Karajou and Jpatt are involved. These two champions rarely block for anything less than 5 years and mostly for infinity.

Which means that the site that constantly cries about conservative thought being censored have effectively cut themselves off from most of the internet, with more likely to follow. So it's somehow liberals' fault that the people running Conservapedia, instead of having the brains to how how to run a site, can only draw the wagons into an ever-tighter laager. Got to love that persecution complex.

Addendum:

Just to prove that Andy Schlafly is a lying sack of shit, in the wake of the massive DoS attack and Conservapedia shutting itself off from the outside world, just how does Andrew Schlafly deal with the matter? Well, delusionally, it would appear, as he proclaims:

Conservapedia has broken its March record for the number of unique visitors

I know today's April Fools, and I really wish I was joking. But sadly, I'm not.  You may now commence beating your head on the desk.

 

Dear Karajou

Now I know you have delusions of grandeur, coupled with a persecution complex that would make Roman-era Christians consider you intense, but please don't ever think that people are outraged over your cartoon.

I know there are many, many things you don't understand, foremost amongst these would appear to be "How to give your latest blog post a title", but I thought you would at least understand the difference between "scorn & ridicule" and "offence & outrage." As much as you'd like to believe it was your inane scribble that led to the unfortunate DDoS attack on Conservapedia (Wow, get your head around this one - even some liberals don't agree with vandal tactics) it wasn't. It was more a case of a bunch of bored 4Chan'ers, who decided to bomb the CP server, especially seeing as how it's run by such an internet guru as Andy. Maybe you should just give Ed bureaucrat rights and leave it at that.

No, Karajou, don't presume for one minute that your cartooning skills (which, let's face it, are on par with Ken Demyer's parody skills) roused sufficient wrath amongst the baby-eating atheists that they would take down CP. The only thing your cartoon offends is the intelligence of those who see it. And the only outrage it provokes, is at the first class hypocrisy of the moron who penned it. (see post below)

Hypocrite!

Yes, I'm probably going to attract all kinds of abuse for doing this, but frankly I don't mind. Exposing the hypocrisy of the malignant creatures that run Conservapedia is more important, so the gloves are coming off for this round.

Well, it had to happen sometime.As I've mentioned before, Conservapedia's resident idiot, Conservative (aka Ken Demyer) has been achieving sexual gratification recently, by claiming that atheists are obese - despite evidence to the contrary. The thing is, is he has hasn't stopped at that inane, childish name-calling. He's gone on to attack PZ Myers in particular, even insinuating that PZ has evolved into a pig. Yes, as with many things, Ken as a limited grasp of what "satire" means.

Now, Andrew Schlafly, and his spineless sysop toadies, have, of course, defended Ken's pathetic name-calling, thus revealing themselves, once again, as pathetic, bitter, small-minded, malign creatures, with not a single Christian principle between them. But I'm going to focus on one in particular - the bitter old swabbie Brian Macdonald.

Now he touts himself as Conservapedia's resident artist and comedian (I use both words in their broadest possible context, of course), frequently decorating CP's main page with editorial cartoons - the quality of which has been rapidly declining over time. You can have a look at his collected works here, or if you'd prefer, the attempts by Rationalwiki editors to make his cartoons funny here. His latest effort sides with both Ken's pathetic "atheists are obese" claim, as well as a direct attack on PZ Myers. Here it is:

Yes, I know, cartoons are supposed to be funny. We're hoping Karajou will get there eventually. Still, Karajou thinks it's funny to poke fun and laugh at fat people? Ok, laugh this off, funny man...

One of the leaked posts that was held back from general publication, was one from Brian entitled "Yes, I'm showing off my kid!" In it, he bragged about his son playing the sax in his school's jazz band. Now, a) jazz sounds dangerously liberal to me and b) I'm guessing that 8th grade would make the kid about 13 or 14.

So imagine my surprise when I follow the link, to find that Brian's teenage son appears to have a serious weight problem, especially for one so young. We're not talking a few extra pounds either. No, Brian Macdonald's (Conservapedia editor Karajou - he of the mocking cartoon) is OBESE - just look at the tree-trunk legs on the poor kid. The ironic thing is, it's not just me saying so. Andy Schlafly, in reply to Brian's e-mail said, "Looks to me like the football team is going to want him also!"

Of course, by Conservapedia standards, this must make him a stinking atheist. He's even wearing black! A sure sign of a baby-eating Bible hater. No wonder Brian's so full of impotent rage, when he has two of the things he claims to hate most living under his own roof. Then again, maybe that's why the kid eats. He's too young to drink yet.

Bizarre Stuff

Over on FaceBook, there's a page dedicated to Conservapedia, although ironically, it's meant as a parody page. Clearly the site that Andrew Schlafly thinks is merely used for gossip and breaking up marriages, isn't worthy of having a site advertising themselves in a positive light. Then again, why would they need to - there are plenty of people viewing Conservapedia. Why, there's enough that Schlafly thinks CP is solely responsible for the U.S.'s lurch to the right.  (You see, this is the kind of thing that happens when you surround a megalomaniac with simpering, spineless toadies.)

Now there's a very good reason that I mentioned that the FB Conservapedia page was intended as parody, because there have been some strange happenings going on over there. So strange, in fact, that if I wasn't that familiar with the general what-the-fuckery associated with Conservapedia, I'd write it off as somebody taking the piss and leave it at that. It might still be a classic Poe, or it might even be the true identity of CP's International Mug of Mystery, Ken Demyer.

Karajou - A Reply

So everybody's favourite swabbie and Conservapedia sysop, Karajou, has taken to the blogosphere. It's always good to see Andy Schlafly and his hand-picked goons venture forth from the safety of Fortress Conservapedia (even if only out of morbid curiosity), and at least it's a step up from former CP sysop DeanS's blog, which you could only read if he gave you permission. Clearly Dean was a bit hazy on the concept of a blog.

Sadly, Karajou doesn't offer us anything that we haven't already seen on Conservapedia, or in the behind-the-scenes discussions, so helpfully leaked by the late Terry Koeckritz. Which is sad. I was hoping for such insights as just what a Defender of Conservative Values has for breakfast before going forth to smite internet vandals and reporting them to every authority under the sun (My guess is still 30 Texan plain and a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20, until proven otherwise). Sadly no. We just get more of the same - incoherent rants about how liberals are to blame for all the ills of the world, interspersed with a creepy tale of him stalking an ex-co-worker.

End of an Era

Wow, that was quite a surprise this morning - logging on to find that everybody's favourite internet troll, Terry Koeckritz, has rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, to coin a phrase. At least that should quell the ongoing speculation about his whereabouts over the past month, whilst possibly fuelling a new discussion about his current whereabouts. (ooh, did I just say that?)

How do I feel about it? Well, Terry was a source of endless material for my humble blog and his antics will be sorely missed. In a way, I feel a little bad for referring to the "Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead" song, in my January 17^th post below. The impact he left on Conservapedia will be lasting, if not ultimately fatal. He leaves behind a website which he almost single-handedly transformed from a growing, vibrant, but slightly deranged community, into a barren wasteland, populated only by several highly paranoid administrators. Conservapedia might bounce back, but it will take a combination of time and a relaxing of the rampant paranoia (not to mention rank stupidity) that keeps good-faith editors away.

But how do I feel about Terry passing? Some say the opposite of love is hate. It's not. Those two fight it out on the same face of this particular coin. No, the opposite of love, or hate, is antipathy. And that's what I feel. I'm sorry for his family, especially his mother, for whom this must be very hard, but as far as Terry Koeckritz goes... I feel nothing.

 

Pathetic Parables

This is a silly little thing really, but it does underscore the... well, I'm not sure really - gullibility, rank stupidity maybe? Or maybe the principle that is rife on Conservapedia - why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a good story? Now, I don't mind twisting a few facts to suit one's needs  - we all do that - but when simple irrefutable facts are ignored, one has to raise one's eyebrows.

Such is the case with everybody's favourite swabbie, Conservapedia administrator Karajou (so much for the "use your real first name and initial" rule, hey Brian?). Now Mr Angry, as we've come to know and love him, recently posted a pretty little parable on his talk page. You've probably seen it yourself. You might even know that the whole thing has been proven to be a pretty lame fake. Of course, nothing like this is going to get in the way of Brian wanting to make a point and so he blunders forth.

The parable begins:

This Happened In Germany Years Before Hitler Took Over:

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion. ' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir, 'the student says."

It then goes on about how this good, clean Christian student goes on to trounce (with very dodgy logic) his "atheist professor." All well and fine, until you get to the clincher:

The student was Albert Einstein.

Once again, I'm left bereft of words to sum up, when Brian has done such a great job illustrating my point. Either the man thinks Einstein is a Christian, which is not beyond the realms of possibility, or he's willing to post anything that conforms to his twisted worldview, or he's just a moron who can do little more than "stimulus - response."

Encyclopaedic?

Andrew Schlafly has long held a grudge against Hollywood, as evidenced by the bizarre Hollywood Values article. This might be because it's full of "liberals" - liberals in this case meaning everybody who isn't Andy, Mama Phyllis or Saint Reagan Himself. Then again, Andy holding grudges is nothing new. He harbours similar grudges towards professors and, of course, against his former boss at the Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama.

What makes it even funnier, is when Andy works himself up into a fine old lather over something and demonstrates for all to see that Conservapedia no longer even vaguely resembles and encyclopaedia, but has merely become yet another right-wing hate-blog, from which Andy and his cohort of losers can spout their bile.

As Classy as Steaming Dog Crap on a Marble Floor

I was going to write an entry on just how classy Conservapedia has been, regarding the tragic shooting in Arizona, but I've decided against it, save to say a few words.

As with most tragedies, Andrew Schlafly and his cohorts have shown the grace and dignity of a steam pile of dog crap on a marble floor. Not content with branding the shooter a liberal and atheist, they've also taken to using his quotes in their "Nihilism" article. So much for reputable sources. He's also jumped on the "liberal" (as in  "they say things I don't agree with") New York Times, which issued a call for gun control. You have to understand that next to classroom prayer, and girls making cookies, gun control is closest to Andy's heart - never mind the fact that people like him shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon. Of even a metal fork for that matter.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.