Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Open Your Mind, Dude!

screenshot because the Schaflys aren't known for their integrity

I was scrolling through Conservapedia's Talk page (don't ask me, apparently I like having aneurysms) and came across the weirdest exchange ever. I don't really know what to make of it except that perhaps everyone at Conservapedia is drunk?

Mr. Arrogance

The news story about Nick Clegg accusing David Cameron of arrogance states that Richard Dawkins "supports the accusation". The linked article does not support that assertion. It merely refers to Dawkins as a named supporter of the Liberal Democrats' campaign to bring about a fairer Britain. It says nothing about Dawkins even being aware of the assertion, let alone supporting it. Perhaps the news item should be reworded? --ClaudeEB 17:12, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

I could add in the fact that a increasing number in the liberal media now refer to Dawkins as a clown. Would that help clarify the item? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:19, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Umm... is there someone else that I can talk to? --ClaudeEB 17:37, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Well yes, I am certain if you walk into most any street in Melbourne you will find someone. But around here a closed mind isn't appreciated, I'm afraid. You should open your mind, Claude. The truth will set you free! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:38, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
I edited the entry taking into account your input. conservative 23:40, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

That's just freakin' weird, although I do enjoy ClaudeEB's attempt to find a sober person to talk to.


  1. I like the Norwegian Murders one, myself. Six out of ten Norwegian killers are intoxicated, therefore socialists have no family values.

    It's apt! Apt!

  2. I saw that, and I felt like (a) pointing out that correlation does not equal causation, and (b) probably most murderers in most countries are drunk at the time, and (c) isn't it a little better to have been intoxicated rather than sober when you committed your murder? I mean, at least then you could say that murder isn't something you would normally do, it was just the alcohol/drugs, as opposed to someone who was sober at the time who then has to admit that murder is just what they do.

    Then I remembered where I was and moved on.

  3. Conservapedia is so entertaining! I browse it too. Even the talk pages.

  4. The obsession with Dawkins is fascinating. Note how they advertise on the main page the Richard Dawkins Project . That project lists about a hundred different articles they want to eventually have about Dawkins. My favorite section of that:

    Conservapedia essay: Why does Richard Dawkins appear to be so unpopular to Hispanic women?
    Conservapedia essay: If Richard Dawkins debated Dr. William Lane Craig instead of running away from debating him, would Hispanic women finally believe Dawkins had machismo?
    Conservapedia essay: Should Richard Dawkins become a part-time matador to improve his apparent flagging popularity among Hispanic women or would debating William Lane Craige be better? Ole! Ole! Ole!

    The racism, sexism and attitudes towards other cultures here is just amazing.

  5. "Umm... is there someone else that I can talk to?"

    That made me chuckle. I do wonder if TK is always like this, which would throw an unpleasant light on Censorvapedia's standards for recruiting administrators, or if he was simply intoxicated at the time of posting.

  6. Joshua, I hate to break this to you, but Conservapedia is like the Mecca of parodists. Poe's law applies to anything but the main articles, and even those are suspect.
    That they haven't noticed THIS, however, is simply pathetic.
    There's a site, Rationalwiki, that details all of this (all seven popes ordered it burned).

  7. What Wandered In said. Conservapedia is either infested with poes, or is living proof of Poe's Law. Not that there's any essential difference: when minds are so mixed up, what does it matter if it's sincere or not, or is there even a difference?

  8. Yes, whenever I link to something from Conservapedia I try to make sure it isn't a parody. The easiest way to do that is to either make sure that Andrew is the primary author. If not, check that one of the other major writers who has a web presence elsewhere is the main contributor. (This doesn't always work. At least one Conservapedia admin's name shows up a few times elsewhere as a pastor for Landover Baptist Church). In the case I linked to above, the main author is User:Conservative who is a real person. (Among other things he was before Conservapedia even existed banned from Wikipedia for his repeated POV pushing).


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at