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.)
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?
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.
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.
/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 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:
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:
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.
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:
"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?"
