Encyclopaedic?

Andrew Schlafly has long held a grudge against Hollywood, as evidenced by the bizarre Hollywood Values article. This might be because it's full of "liberals" - liberals in this case meaning everybody who isn't Andy, Mama Phyllis or Saint Reagan Himself. Then again, Andy holding grudges is nothing new. He harbours similar grudges towards professors and, of course, against his former boss at the Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama.

What makes it even funnier, is when Andy works himself up into a fine old lather over something and demonstrates for all to see that Conservapedia no longer even vaguely resembles and encyclopaedia, but has merely become yet another right-wing hate-blog, from which Andy and his cohort of losers can spout their bile.

To whit, Andy's latest outrage at the fact that "liberal" Hollywood types can dare to be offended by Ricky Gervaise, seeing as they poke fun at conservatives. Now, I must agree that the stars have shown remarkably thin skins, just as much as Gervaise has shown remarkably bad taste, but it's funny to see Andy indulging in some liberal name-calling:

Hollywood values: the moronic "stars" think jokes about conservatives are hilarious, but they're still angry that Ricky Gervais made fun of them at the Golden Globes ceremony.

Just the kind of level-headed reporting you'd expect from the "Trustworthy" Encyclopaedia. Having posted that on the Main Page, Andy now needs to create an article on the Golden Globes. Notice I didn't say an "encyclopaedic" article, because by now he's too busy frothing at the mouth to worry about things like "facts."

The Golden Globe award is yet another silly, self-congratulatory prize given by the movie and television industry to typically liberal performers. It usually precedes the Academy Awards.

The annual Golden Globe ceremony is held each year at the Beverly Hills Hotel, which makes it even sillier.

Now there's a lot of words I could use to describe that - childish, puerile, pathetic, silly (to use Andy's current favourite term) - but one thing it's not is encyclopaedic. Just another example of CP's rapid slide from pretend-encyclopaedia, to hosting drooling rants from a first grade moron.

As you were

The problem with the tags has been fixed.

Terry Koeckritz has been a busy little boy

Well, well, well. Conservapedia's de-facto 2IC and resident troll, Terry Koeckritz, has been pretty quiet lately. In f ct, his last edit made to Conservapedia was on Dec 16th. That makes it his longest absence from the hallowed halls of CP, excluding the time of his banishing for swearing at Andrew Schlafly and his blatant plagiarism.

Now there have been questions raised about Terry's whereabouts and health - after all, he is an old, sickly and poor man. However, it might be too soon to break out that well-loved refrain from the Wizard of Oz. It seems everybody's favourite malicious internet troll has been busy somewhere behind the scenes.

Now, we've commentated in the past about how Terry has almost single-handedly shut down Conservapedia, by starving it of its life-blood - editors. Nobody has done more to shut CP off from the outside world than our friend Terry. By using a masterful combination of blocking as many editors as possible, plus vast amounts of long-term IP range blocks, usually covering the x.x.0.0/16 range. These were backed up by his insistence that other sysops could neither question, nor undo, another's block. Given that the others are all a bunch of cowards, this became law. Finally, he played on the already rampant paranoia of the remaining sysops, which has resulted in them eventually shutting down open registration, instead requiring prospective editors to apply via e-mail. Apparently, sysops also demand to know if editors have Facebook / Twitter / or similar accounts, so they can engage in some cyber-stalking to verify your bona fides.

All of this means that CP has been reduced to a central core of the 6 remaining sysops, and the myriad of short-lived parodists, and the project is essentially dead in the water, apart from Ken Demyer's ongoing bizarre "essays." There's nobody left for him to abuse, bully, taunt and block, so life must be pretty boring for somebody who gets his jollies from acting like a playground bully. Our friend Terry is very likely going to ditch Conservapedia soon, for pastures new.

Why do I say this?

During 2010, Terry and partner-in-crime Rob Smith, troll their asses off at Wikipedia, trying to get Terry's name removed from their article on Conservapedia. The problem was, his name - which he gave to the journalist himself - was published by a reputable source, and so the name stayed. He tried a similar tactic with RationalWiki, but also failed.

And now it seems he's turned his beady little eyes on me. A reader fortunately informed me of a strange development with the entries on this blog. As anybody familar with blogs will know, clicking on a tagged item, takes you to similarly tagged pages on other blogs. So imagine his surprise, upon clicking the 'Terry Koeckritz" tag to find the following:

Now, this doesn't appear to be a Wordpress error, as the tags for Andrew Schlafly and Ed Poor, for example, still work fine.

So, it would appear as if friend Terry has run like a whiny bitch to the Powers That Be, and somehow convinced them to de-link his name. I'd like to know how and also why Wordpress didn't contact me. Still, we all know just how well Terry can play the victim, so I'm sure he managed to win somebody over with his pathetic sob story.

It looks like Terry Koeckritz is trying to cover his tracks, prior to joining some other on-line community. The less references to him on the web, the better for him. Conversely, for the sake of those innocents out there, as much information about this devious, scheming, malicious scumbag needs to be as public as possible. And there are plenty of ways to skin a cat...

It's also worth noting that Terry's Christian charity only stretched as far as covering his own ass. For all the cares, the other sysops could go to hell for all he cares. Which is what we've been telling Andy all along.

As Classy as Steaming Dog Crap on a Marble Floor

I was going to write an entry on just how classy Conservapedia has been, regarding the tragic shooting in Arizona, but I've decided against it, save to say a few words.

As with most tragedies, Andrew Schlafly and his cohorts have shown the grace and dignity of a steam pile of dog crap on a marble floor. Not content with branding the shooter a liberal and atheist, they've also taken to using his quotes in their "Nihilism" article. So much for reputable sources. He's also jumped on the "liberal" (as in  "they say things I don't agree with") New York Times, which issued a call for gun control. You have to understand that next to classroom prayer, and girls making cookies, gun control is closest to Andy's heart - never mind the fact that people like him shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon. Of even a metal fork for that matter.

It's nothing new from those pathetic scumbags. They never hesitate to dance on the graves of any victims, as long as they can make a political point out of it. The irony being that as nobody reads or comments on their excretions in a positive light, they're left, littering their main page, as little beacons - clearly highlighting that Conservapedia, far from being the alternative to Wikipedia, is more at home with such wonderful people as Metapedia and Stormfront.

That said, I'd like to use my first post of the year, to highlight a perfect example of the raging paranoia, ignorance, stupidity and just down right insanity of Conservapedia and those who run it. Below is a comment from user:Karajou, aka Brian Macdonald, (so much for the "use your real first name and initial" rule, hmm), Conservapedia's very own swabbie. Now, it's a well-known fact that Karajou has serious anger management issues - especially when somebody contradicts him, or dares ask him to justify a particular falsehood he's pushing. These often boil over into semi-coherent rants, such as the one below (original screencap, just in case it vanishes), which contains everything from stoned Nazis to fears about the Federal Reserve, to the usual persecution complex. I won't comment any further, because - really - how do you respond to such rank stupidity?

A lot of liberals don't accept federalist laws; a lot of liberals got to have that joint before breakfast; a lot of liberals fail to understand that their liberalism has its roots in Fascism and National Socialism; and I'm sure there's some liberals who want the return to the gold standard simply to get their hands on the taxes that go with it. And there are some liberals - even those who come here - who are attempting to play down Loughner's liberalism to the point where he should be treated as just another victim of society. The blame Bush/Palin game is going on right now, courtesy of the liberal left.