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).

Women Abuse and Good Conservative Values

I'm not sure which I enjoy more - Andrew Schlafly saying something insane (or stupid, or both), or watching how he defends what he's said, normally backed up by at least one snivelling sycophant in the form of Terry Koeckritz, and a couple of parodists egging him on to greater insanity.

Case in point this week, is Conservapedia's entry on "Greatest Conservative Movies". Andy adds a new entry for the film "Pillow Talk" which, I must confess I've never heard of, but I see it stars the homosexual Rock Hudson, who hid the fact that he was gay, thus engaging in liberal deceit (sorry, I was just applying conservative values to the film there for a minute) . Andrew's description of the film is certainly illuminating:

a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading woman, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it! (my emphasis)

Lies, Damn Lies and Terry Koeckritz

Ok, I'm going to risk falling foul of Godwin's Law in my opening sentence, but it was Hitler who said something along the lines of if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth. However, I think he was referring to lies told to other people. In the case of Conservapedia administrator Terry Koeckritz, however, he appears to believe that no matter how big the lie he tells, and no matter that he's been found out, he will keep on bleating about how right he is, and how the nasty "liberals" (i.e. everybody who's seen through his lies) are ganging up on him - a tactic used to great effect by well-known Conservapedia parodist Bugler. Terry is clearly following in his shoes. In fact, looking at just how delusional Terry is at times, one gets the feeling that not only does he build castles in the sky, he moves in and then charges himself rent.

So, let's illustrate an example here. Just before Christmas (23 December to be precise), Terry uploaded a pretty picture, which he used to decorate his fellow sysops' talk-pages with a Merry Christmas message (ordinary editors - if there are any left who aren't parodists that is - are clearly not worthy of Terry's attention, unless he's blocking them). Nothing wrong there, even if the image was copyrighted - Conservapedia has no qualms about ignoring copyright, or falsely claiming "fair use" as a cover for their infringements. "Professor" RJ Jensen is a good example of this, claiming "fair use for commentary or parody" but then uses the pictures for neither purpose.

Double Standard Much?

One thing about taking a break from Conservapedia is that I managed to miss out on a whole bunch of fun stuff, such as Andrew Schlafly defending his "best of the public" nonsense, Terry Koeckritz blocking everybody who called him out on his plagiarism (again!), Andy and his "Fidel is dead" lunacy and Ed Poor's rampage, following his smacking at Wikipedia (Again. Way to go user 188).

However, I'm going to kick off with a trip down memory lane, courtesy of my secret sources. Now what makes this interesting is you need to remember that Conservapedia is quite happy to block editors for period of 5 years (or most often infinity) for such misdemeanours as daring to disagree with an administrator, point out that they made a mistake, or imply that Terry Koeckritz actually stole the image he claimed as his own. Needless to say, the most block-happy is said Terry, as this example shows.