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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).