Sauces

In the spirit of openness (and many requests) I've decided to share my sources from Conservapedia's Zeugloden Blues chat room. Think of it as my birthday present to you, Constant Reader. I've sat on these for a while, firstly to protect the identity of the sysop who provided me with the info and secondly, because I didn't think there was that much in there that was interesting.

However, I've since decided that Terry Koeckritz is a lowlife scumbag who doesn't need protecting and I thought you'd like to read at first hand just what a bunch of nasty, narrow-minded, bigoted, paranoid people are running Conservapedia.

So, without further ado - happy reading.

Conservatism is Good for You!

Wow! Andrew Schlafly is really peddling Conservapedia hard... and sounding more and more like one of those people (Kevin Trudeau comes to mind... or the chick from the Big Green Clean Machine) you see touting their snake-oil on the Home Shopping Network.

Call now, our operators are standing by. Use our special brand of conservatism for at least one by-election and

• 
  

  Lose inches from your waist, hips and butt! Yes! Conservatism cures obesity and other addictions. Of course, never mind that obesity isn't an addiction, you'll still be cured. After all, as they say, laughter is the best medicine, and if you hang out at Conservapedia, you'll be laughing... a lot!

  
  

Liberals versus Conservatives

In response to the drivel I spoke about in "Conservatives versus Reality" below, I see the Drudge Retort (a witty alternative to the Drudge Report... why do conservatives suck at page layout?) have come up with a list of their own, that makes far more sense.

• If a liberal doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, she doesn’t have one.
  If a conservative doesn’t believe that abortion is morally acceptable, he or she wants to prevent anyone from having one.

The Andromeda Stain

Amazingly, every now and again, Conservapedia manages to attract people who genuinely believe CP is an encyclopaedia and try and add content other than "Obama is the Devil". Examples would include the slightly obsessive, such as FOIA and his fixation with Alger Hiss, as well as BertSchlossberg's hang-up with KAL007. There are also those who enjoy their field and know something about it. Amongst these would be KrysG (Egyptian History and Mythology), JessicaT (Japanese language and history), everybody who ever tried to edit a maths article... and BMcP, who is an astronomy buff... and the latest to fall foul of Andrew Schlafly's special brand of insanity.

One thing you need to know about editing on CP is that even if you survive Terry Koeckritz's machinations, at some point you will step on one of Andy's crazy toes and then your time at CP is over, especially if you try and apply logic to his insane rants.

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.

Relatively Speaking

Andrew Schlafly dislikes many things. Chief amongst these would appear to be Pres. Obama, Professors, Hollywood and for some strange reason the Theory of Relativity. Just reading the talk page (plus archives) gives you a pretty good insight into just how Andy thinks - even when confronted with facts by his own brother.

I've spoken about his run-in with Kate Sorenson before, where Andy came up with the wonderful statement: "Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much?" That went on to become a recurring theme in Andy's defence of Why-Relativity-Is-Wrong - because people won't read the Bible if they believe in relativity. And this man teaches children??

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).