Column 9: On legitimate authority on Conservapedia

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. Except for a few minor incidents, things seem to have quieted down over at Conservapedia (probably because there’s hardly anyone left to make trouble). So today, we shall take a step back and discuss leadership.

Leadership is in my opinion the one point where Conservapedia has failed most miserably, and leadership problems seem to be behind the majority of the problems that plague the site. For that reason, it would be interesting to make a closer analysis of the style of leadership or “government”, if you will, that is being used at Conservapedia. For that purpose, we shall take our point of departure in the book Economy and Society by the German sociologist Max Weber.

In Economy and Society, Part 1, Chapter 3(i,2), Weber supposes three fundamental sources for legitimate domination, i.e. an exercise of authority that meets with at least some level of approval from those who are subject to it. These three types are rational/legal grounds, traditional grounds, and charismatic grounds. Rational grounds are those “resting on a belief in the legality of established rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands”, traditional grounds are those “resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them”, and charismatic grounds are those “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism and exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”. In other words, domination can be legitimate because viz. “it speaks with the force of law”, “it has always been that way”, or “I trust this guy to do the right thing”.

According to Weber, any given government gains its legitimacy from one or more of these sources. It can (rarely) be purely of one type, or it can be mixed to different degrees from two of or all three of the different sources. Briefly explained, the purest type of legal/rational authority is the strict bureaucracy. Only the supreme official is elected, and even he is limited by a “sphere of legal competence”. Everyone else in the administrative staff are appointed. The purest type of traditional authority is the patriarchy found in e.g. tribal societies and early medieval monarchy. It is based on personal loyalty to a ruler who acts on the basis of ancient, or supposedly ancient, rules. The purest type of charismatic authority is more difficult to describe precisely, because it is very dependent on the charismatic ruler himself. However, Weber explains that, “An organized group of subject to charismatic authority […] is based on an emotional form of communal relationship.” And that, “There are no established administrative organs. In their place are agents who have been provided with charismatic authority by their chief, or who possess charisma of their own. There is no system of formal rules, of abstract legal principles, and hence no process of rational judicial decision oriented to them. But equally, there is no legal wisdom oriented to judicial precedent. Formally concrete judgments are newly created from case to case and are originally regarded as divine judgments and revelations.” In contrast to the rational/legal and traditional authorities, which are both heavily oriented towards rules, although different types of rules, charismatic authority denies such rules – it is “specifically irrational” and “repudiates the past”.

We shall now examine how the administration of Conservapedia fits into this structure. We can dismiss traditional authority right away. Conservapedia has only existed for six months, which even in the quickly-changing environment of the Internet is too short a time for traditional authority structures to form. That leaves us with rational/legal and charismatic authority.

At first sight, Conservapedia may seem to fall pretty squarely in the rational/legal category. It has a set of rules and guidelines, to which the leader is theoretically also subject, and it has a bureaucratic staff in the form of the sysop team. However, a closer analysis and a comparison of the modus operandi on Conservapedia with the description in Economy and Society shows certain important differences.

According to Weber, “Legal authority rests on the acceptance of the validity of […] mutually interdependent ideas.” Among these are that, “the typical person in authority, the ‘superior’, is himself subject to an impersonal order by orienting his actions to it in his own dispositions and ideas.” And in conformity with this point, “it is held that the members of the organization, insofar as they obey a person in authority, do not owe this obedience to him as an individual, but to the impersonal order. Hence, it follows that there is an obligation to obedience only within the sphere of the rationally delimited jurisdiction which, in terms of the order, has been given to him.” And further, “Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense,” and “[the official] is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in the conduct of his office.”

As I have discussed extensively in previous columns, and will likely continue to do so, none of this is true for Conservapedia, however. Conservapedia has rules and guidelines, but these can hardly be said to constitute an “impersonal order”, and for the most part, they aren’t being followed by the administrative staff in any case. There are no clear demarcation of competences, no clear processes for anything, and very importantly, no structural means of recourse in case of possible mismanagement. In case of e.g. an unjustified block, the only means of recourse available to the average member of the group is an appeal to the blocking official or to the supreme authority, mr. Andrew Schlafly.

This would seem to have very little to do with authority based on rational/legal grounds (although the site management has been very eager to argue otherwise). And because of the relative youth of the site, we have already ruled out traditional authority (with which it has very little to do in any case). That leaves us with only charismatic authority, and we quickly find that the management of Conservapedia does indeed share many similarities with that type of authority.

As quoted above, a significant characteristic of government by charismatic authority is the lack of administrative organs and processes, and of judicial precedent. Further, “There is no hierarchy; the leader merely intervenes in general or in individual cases when he considers the members of his staff lacking in charismatic qualification for a given task.” This is all consistent with what we see on Conservapedia.

We can conclude that the management of Conservapedia is based in charismatic authority with some aspects of rational/legal authority added (but often disregarded). What does this mean for Conservapedia? It means that the site can count on the loyalty of those who agree with the purpose and who believe that the leader is the right man to carry out the project that he has set for himself. But it also means that site has nothing to attract the loyalty of those who do not agree fully with the project and with the leader. The leader will effectively have no authority over these members of the group, and this will result in problems as soon as the first conflict arises with them.

In Weber’s explanation, “It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma. This recognition is freely given and guaranteed by what is held to be a proof, originally always a miracle, and consists in devotion to the corresponding devotion, hero worship, or absolute trust in the leader. But where charisma is genuine, it is not this which is the basis for the claim to legitimacy. This basis lies rather in the conception that it is the duty of those subject to charismatic authority to recognize its genuineness and act accordingly. Psychologically this recognition is a matter of complete personal devotion to the possessor of the quality, arising out of enthusiasm, or of despair and hope.”

(It should be mentioned that while this refers extensively to divine revelation, charisma is by no means limited to religious leaders. Napoleon was just as much a charismatic ruler as e.g. Moses. Also, while this point is beyond the scope of this Column, it is interesting to note that Conservapedia has many similarities with a religious group. It is based in charismatic authority, it has an administrative staff with the power to “excommunicate” (i.e. block) members, and it is developing something that closely resembles a mythology (such as a foundation myth, the opposition to Wikipedia, and the great “Icewedge” enemy)

And later, Weber adds that, “The only basis of legitimacy for [charismatic authority] is personal charisma so long as it is proved; that is, as long as it receives recognition and as along as the followers and disciples prove their usefulness charismatically”. Those members of the group who do not recognize the charisma of the leader will almost necessarily have to reject the legitimacy of his authority and either place themselves in opposition to him or separate themselves from the group.

This is exactly what we have seen on Conservapedia in the recent month: A massive crisis of legitimacy. The great amount of media attention that Conservapedia attracted in early March resulted in an influx of new members to the group that were attracted by general interest or curiosity, rather than by a strong belief in the project or by the charisma of the leader. These new members did not recognize the charisma of the leader, and, because of the absence of other sources of legitimacy, therefore rejected the legitimacy of the site management’s authority as a whole. Parts of management responded to this rejection with a high level of belligerency, thus further escalating the crisis. The rest is history.

We can draw a few conclusions from this. Firstly, as long as Conservapedia is based on charismatic authority, mr. Schlafly will most likely maintain complete control of the project, but it will only be able to draw members from a very small pool of people who can unreservely agree with the project and its current form of government. It must resign itself to relative obscurity, except for the occasional spike of interest from the media. It is possible that this is what management wants, and in that case, nothing ought to change.

If it is not, and at least they openly state that it is not, there must be changes. The management of Conservapedia will need to base its authority less on charisma and more on one of the other types. Traditional legitimacy is by its nature not really viable for an Internet project, especially one so young as Conservapedia, so the only option is to move towards a greater reliance on a rational/legal basis: Clear processes, reasonable rules that are actually being followed, and, in general, greater accountability and transparency in the exercise of authority. This will be a difficult process, but I would be happy to offer my services in helping the Conservapedia management to achieve it. They have only to ask.

While we wait for that to happen, I wish you all a good night, and good luck.


143 Responses to “Column 9: On legitimate authority on Conservapedia”

  1. 1 Kelseigh May 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    This, of course, is where TK’s authoritarianism, Andy’s blindness to the problems of the site, Conservative’s carte blanche to bully editors and degrade articles, and all the rest really harm the CP effort. Those individuals and a few others have done far more damage to CP than all the vandals combined, and then some. Encouraging behaviour like this, and of course the contradictory “rules” (at least, those that have been written down) that don’t apply to the “elite”, just serve to destroy the credibility and legitimacy of the bureaucracy.

    It’s sort of like shooting yourself in the foot, then shooting it two or three more times to make sure it stays dead.

  2. 2 Tmtoulouse May 20, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    I am not sure I would be so quick to dismiss any role of “traditional” governance. Conservapedia does not exist in a vacuum and has attempted to mimic Wikipedia to a large extent. That means that users familiar with Wikipedia will be carrying over the traditions of power structure and precedence with them. A large amount of conservapedia policy is a bastardization of Wikipedia policy. I think one major source of conflict has been a large number of editors that came in with the expectations of precedence created from their experiences at Wikipedia, only to find a “we are not Wikipedia” flippant remark at the end of every dispute.

    Wikipedia worked out its power structure in a way that was as close to John Rawl’s Theory of Justice as the world has ever seen. I think conservapedia would do well to embrace much of it, rather than be purely reactionary against it.

  3. 3 Kelseigh May 20, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    I was thinking about the “traditional” concept as well, but from a different angle.

    In a lot of what Andy says about what’s “encyclopedic” and what’s not, it’s clear that what he wants on some level is a traditional-style encyclopedia, along the lines of Brittanica. However he’s not so much pursuing that tradition as what he thinks is that tradition, filtered through the traditions of his faith, politics and general ideology, which seem to combine into a very top-down, authoritarian structure. So in the end, he ends up chasing the “encyclopedic” cachet and trying to claim that tradition, while drawing from a vastly different tradition and using software that implies a third that’s at great variance to the other two.

    No wonder new users get so confused.

  4. 4 lanfranc May 20, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought about it that way, but there is a lot of ‘customary law’ that carries over from Wikipedia. This is often set forward as the antithesis of Conservapedia, especially by TK who has often condemned it as ‘mobocracy’. The irony is, of course, that the current system can be interpreted as even more of a mobocracy, because it is so dependent on popular approval, but lacks the impersonal legal processes of Wikipedia.


  5. 5 Tmtoulouse May 20, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    The strange brew of fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism and MediaWiki software is entertainment in its own right!

    The Religious angle is getting interesting as well in regards to patriarchal governance. More and more Schlafly is seems to be appealing to his role as minister of God. Even promoting the idea that God is behind the project, ect. Check out these diffs:

  6. 6 Kelseigh May 20, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    I’ve noticed those. They really stand out, since stuff like “Lord bless you” and so forth is so rarely employed by the other Sysops, even biblical inerrantists like Conservative.

  7. 7 Icewedge May 20, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    This will all become moot tonight at 6 E.S.T., when the largest attack on the CP servers to date will be made.

  8. 8 Geo.plrd May 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Thanks for the heads up Icewedge!

  9. 9 Raptor15 May 20, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    One wouldn’t even want to explain to morons that even the post above by Ice is illegal and terrorist threat, lol.

    You guys are in for some interesting times. Even trying to argue it was a joke doesn’t wash.

  10. 10 Tmtoulouse May 20, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Uh huh, there is fascinating social commentary on what you guys consider to be illegal and “terrorism.”

  11. 11 Tmtoulouse May 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    And I know you don’t think its a joke, but the rest of us do. How serious would you take me if I filed an IC3 report against you guys for stalking, harassment and threats and started posting my automatically generated index number as the “federal case file”?

  12. 12 human May 20, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    That was some really smart stuff about governance. I wish I was that smart 😉 But you have nailed it. Although CP has “rules”, they are not obeyed or enforced. The “leaders” just do whatever they want.

    Oh, and hi, TinKy!

  13. 13 PAL May 21, 2007 at 1:16 am

    Ok, one of the more literate and correct things Ive every read. I hope you consider it for the new site.

  14. 14 btw May 21, 2007 at 1:25 am

    btw many of the cp editors feel you folks represent a fairly vitriolic but uneducated bunch. This is clearly not true. There is an inherent distrust of intellectualism at CP, which is also characteristic of fascists (not EQUAL to fascism, a SHARED TRAIT; Im not accusing them of fascism (yet)). Certainly there are cracker-types like Ice who are less about intellectual criticism, but clearly the “cabal” knows that of which it speaks.

  15. 15 PAL May 21, 2007 at 1:28 am

    I think it is ironic that AK and Aschlafly basically share the same first name. Anyway, i would love to collaborate with you, AK, on my new frontpage essay, which is under development. Im drawing from Umberto Eco, but I think Ill have to include Weber. Im not that well read on political philosophy.

  16. 16 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 1:51 am

    Does anyone stop and think why we have our system of governance?
    You can thank all the folks who vandalized CP

  17. 17 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 1:52 am

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

    Honestly, btw, I’m sure that Andy, TK and crew would be entirely too happy to go that way, so long as, like GWB, they were the dictators. And, of course, you didn’t actually call it fascism.

  18. 18 PAL May 21, 2007 at 1:59 am

    Ill be addressing the issue. Also, Chris Hedges addresses it in his book, but it’s not a real accessable read.

    And I would argue that the system of governance on CP CREATED vandalism, not vice versa, but I can’t prove that (or I dont feel like it now…someone could go through and do a count, etc.)

  19. 19 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 2:13 am

    really? so you didn’t have a choice?

  20. 20 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:24 am

    Okay geo, lets talk about this, lets create dialog.

    What do you think we should have done?

  21. 21 human May 21, 2007 at 2:25 am

    Funny, I didn’t do any vandalism. But the “system of governance” produced a ban of my account predicated partly on accusing me of it. (Along with “sock” and “icewedge gang”)

    So, no, I’d say I didn’t have any choice. How could I not “vandalize” if vandalization is defined as “whatever user:Human did”?

  22. 22 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 2:26 am

    I think that attempting to suppress our site was not a productive way to work

  23. 23 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:27 am

    One of the biggest issues here is what people are calling vandalism.

    99% of us never vandalized the site in the way vandalism is usually described.

    We did things like create a series of articles on science, that we coordinated our efforts on. All perfectly accurate, well sourced, and some of the best material on the site. Is that vandalism? At CP it is because a lot of it was evidence for evolution….

  24. 24 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 2:28 am

    You could have bounced icewedge and his merry crew

  25. 25 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 2:29 am

    They made everyone look bad

  26. 26 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:29 am

    We weren’t given a mechanism to be productive. We were threatened, banned, faced with locked articles, and had absolutely ZERO recourse to address issues when we felt like we were getting royally screwed.

    Do you realize that the standard response to a user pointing out an abuse of a sysop was to be mocked and insulted and told to go away?

  27. 27 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:31 am

    Yes we could have, but we are an accepting bunch. You should check out our guidelines for dealing with vandalism on when we open up rational wiki. The discussion is about how best to preserve it and give the vandals an outlet and still maintain the coherency of the site. We are that interested in creating an open environment. We even accept vandals who are there to vandalize our site.

  28. 28 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 2:47 am

    You could have worked on other articles. The articles on mazlow, jung and freud are pretty blank.

  29. 29 PAL May 21, 2007 at 2:54 am

    It has always been Ed’s suggestion to move on from conflicts and try editing something else. All that does is avoid important topics, and has been shown many times, ANY issue can become politicized quickly.

  30. 30 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:56 am

    Check out my contributions under my main account after I got unblocked. Thats exactly what I did, I worked on a range of articles that were unrelated to controversial topics. My contribs will show that.

    I was blocked for “conspiracy” because Conservative e-mailed me and tried to pretend to be a “liberal” anti-cper. I knew who he was and knew he was spying. So I sent him e-mails full of total bunk, because it was silly of him to do that first of all, and it was funny.

    But its amazing the articles that create controversy at times. I would be working on something random and it catches the eye of Rschlafly or Conservative and all of a sudden, bam I am locked out. There is only so many times you can put up with being erased, insulted and locked out before you get disgruntled.

    Do you remember what was the initial cause of my annoyance with CP? I was desysoped and insulted for performing an action dozens of others had performed, and performed after me with no consequences. I was given ZERO options of recourse and my annoyance was met with pithy one-liners.

    The things is we gave a shit about CP, I don’t know why, but we did. Why did you stick at WP for so long if you hated it? Its a combination of a belief in free speech, the power of wikipedia, competition of intellectual ideas, and addiction I suppose.

    The best option would have been to say fuck it and leave. But we wanted to see it change, we were given no power to do anything, so we did what any disenfranchised group would do. We banned together. We tried to show the hypocrisy of the system and hope for change. But all we did was get repeatedly screwed and insulted. And each time we got a little more bitter, a little angrier and a little nastier in our approach to dealing with CP.

    We have given up now, no one really wants to go back.

    You are free of us, for whatever that will give you…..I don’t know but I think your site thrived on the exchange of ideas, controversy and our existence. I think you will miss us.

  31. 31 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 3:01 am

    I hope that the vandals will be as willing as you to stop

  32. 32 PAL May 21, 2007 at 3:04 am

    It always strengthens you to debate your beliefs. Always. Only when your beliefs are challenged to the point of complete suppression does it become a problem. The NewSpeak on CP would have you believe that the far christian right is an “oppressed majority”; their perceived majority status confers legitimacy, oppressed status allows them to use certain tactics. Since they feel embattled and besieged, they suppress dissent. Of course their is inherent contradiction in claiming to be a majority and oppressed at the same time. Just some thoughts, but it is this feeling of oppression that they have, and the way it emboldens them to suppress dissent, that will ultimately doom them to a small corner of the thinking world.

  33. 33 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 3:05 am

    *shurg* I have no control over the vandals, none at all. Icewedge is Icewedge and we embraced him and gave him his own vandal space and he leaves us a lone for the most part. Though he has messed up our site several times. But the vandalism is coming from far far far more places then just Icewedge.

    Wiki’s generate vandalism. You know that. Its the nature of the beast. A site needs a really really thick skin. The legal threats only make it worse to be honest. Gives them more power than they have, gives what they do more respect.

    But like I said, I don’t control the weather, I don’t control wiki vandalism. Andy has a direct line to the one person in the Universe that could stop it though doesn’t he? Okay sorry that was out of line :).

  34. 34 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

    Sorry, Geo. Doesn’t work that way. It’s easy to drive away the productive people, but the ones who vandalize simply don’t care the way they did. You’re stuck with them.

    Universal Law of the Perversity of Nature: Positive expectations yield negative results. Negative expectations yield….negative results.

  35. 35 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 3:10 am

    Pal, the “oppressed majority” is a fascinating topic. People who are “oppressed” lash out at the “oppressors.” If it really is a minority and they really are being oppressed then their power is controlled and they can only do so much. But when the “oppressed” really are not oppressed and really do have power bad things happen. They act out and lash out but also have the power to have it enacted into law. I think certain things like the attacks on Jewish people during the Nazi regime is an example of an “oppressed majority.”

    Its a cheap political trick to mobilize voters by feeding into insecurities like the “cultural war.” But its very dangerous too….

  36. 36 hyperbole May 21, 2007 at 3:12 am

    Andy can either create an online creationist-based text book, or he can have a wiki, but he probably can’t have both. I don’t get a real hostile vibe off of him, but i think he fundamentally (oops, pun) misunderstands a couple of things: either the nature of a wiki, or the nature of Americans.

  37. 37 PAL May 21, 2007 at 3:14 am

    I’ll have to incorporate that into my essay, because i think it is another shared trait with fascism.

  38. 38 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 3:16 am

    A wiki is not what he should have used to do this project. Check out the twisting and consternations they have to go through to lock down the site the way they want it. A wiki is designed to be an open environment and that is not what CP wants to be.

    The best thing to do now is shut down new user registration permanently and use an application process for each new user. TK’s idea basically.

  39. 39 human May 21, 2007 at 3:16 am

    Hiya Geo, it’s nice seeing everyone discussing things relatively calmly. For myself, I didn’t even bother to edit “controversial” articles at all – I mostly stuck to stuff like music and the building trades. Oh, and created American Flag, Pledge of Allegiance among a few other useful articles. Sometime when you’ve free time to kill you might want to dig up my contrib list, sort for “main” and check out my work. I commented all articles that were new with “creation”, by the way.

    Anyway, as far as vandals – CP has the unfortunate distinction of being a high interest vandal magnet. First, because like any wiki, it can be messed with (WP has a steady flow of “Mike’s a jerk” type insertions), and secondly, vastly raising the attraction, it is very ideological – giving vandals an angle, if they don’t just want to deface things.

    It is quite likely that CP will endure constant cycles like this last one. 30 or so people who pretty much just wanted to help end up so burnt out and worn down from the petty power struggles they leave. You will surely get more editors from other than the YEC part of the spectrum, who will suffer at the hands of some of the less socially adept sysops, and go their own way eventually. Or get banned for trivial reasons.

    What you guys really need over there are some better, more transparent and accountable procedures for dealing with conflict. It can be done, and it can happen. I would use as an example a silly “fight” I got into with (now sysop) Bohdan. Over the course of a couple of hours we went from fisticuffs to mutual apologies – and although I can’t speak for him, a raised level of mutual respect. The middle of it was ugly and churlish (well, I was, anyway), but luckily no one came crashing in with a heavy hand, and we worked it out on our own. And went back to editing. Of course, our paths diverged quite widely a day or two later, but that’s ancient history now.

    More transparency, and a sense that all are governed by the same rules, would help the site retain those who can contribute even if they are not in political lockstep with the site. House wiring has no politics (these days). It was fun to write.

  40. 40 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 3:25 am

    Each one of us started at the site with the intent to produce articles about things we are experts on. Each of us contributed a significant amount to the site. Each of us now has a very nasty taste in our mouths and do not want anything else to do with it.

    It would be good for CP to figure out why. This happened in a matter of like 2 months. Thats BAD we are not talking burning out after months of conflict. We are talking weeks of conflict. If your site is turning off educated users with in a few weeks something has to change.

    The two major changes that would have made ALL the difference in the world would be:

    1) As human said, a sense that all users are treated by the same rules, and rules are not just arbitrary.

    2) A respected system that would allow users to address concerns of abuse from admins.

    Out of the dozens of suggestions I could make, those two would have made my experience a million times better and rationalwiki would never have formed.

    The problem is Geo, you have become what you hate. You are now a microcosm of everything you stood against with Wikipedia.

  41. 41 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 5:19 am

    i have become what i hate? I am only like this because CP is under siege.

  42. 42 Truth & Justice May 21, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    One would hope that when Tmtoulouse re-opens his wiki, he at least has the integrity to leave ALL the previous material there.

    To do otherwise would present a completely false picture of the wiki, and the original members of it, since they have all claimed, at one place or another that they have *never* vandalized, yet are clearly seen discussing plans for vandalism, like the idea to plant seeds of suspicion on other editors by claiming they are Ice, etc. Failure to leave all original material will merely make you another in a long line of pots calling the kettle black.


    I have an idea. We should just go around
    > posting on people’s userpages that we think they are socks of
    > Icewedge, and watch heads roll. Sound fun?
    > [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 12:17, 28 April 2007
    > (CDT) I have an idea. We should just go around posting on people’s
    > userpages that we think they are socks of Icewedge, and watch heads roll. Sound fun?
    > [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 12:17, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
    > :Good idea. I will post on there pages as if they are secretly vandals
    > is cahoots with me and you can expose them.[[User:Icewedge|Icewedge]]
    > 12:21, 28 April
    > 2007 (CDT) :Good idea. I will post on there pages as if they are
    > secretly vandals is cahoots with me and you can expose
    > them.[[User:Icewedge|Icewedge]] 12:21, 28 April 2007 (CDT) + ::I’ll use my
    > [[cp:User:Reaganomist other account]] to do so.

  43. 43 hyperbole May 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    The idea of the new site is to be out in the open. To abandon any hidden pretensions. Tabula Rasa. Everyone knows already the various ideas played with when the wiki started, but the new site is going to be essentially unrelated to the old, except for the core of contributors. We intend to save the productive material, and wipe old, useless, silly, and destructive ideas as being no longer productive or useful. It is not a matter of “hiding” anything. It’s just the original creative banter, regarding vandalism and regarding legitimate ideas, is no longer relevant. If it shows up on the new site, so be it. It will be out in the open to counter or accept.

  44. 44 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Also much of the material was designed to communicate just been the core editors. There are is a lot of personal information, analysis and comments about SYSOPs and CP. This information was useful for us in many ways, but would be harmful to have just sitting out their for a google search. I do not think anyone wants that.

    No the new site will be a clean slate. We paid about as much attention to things like namespace as CP has. Talk pages bleed into article pages and all sorts of things went into the main namespace. Think of rationailwiki 1.0 as a giant brainstorming session. Rationalwiki 2.0 will be a reflection of that, but will not contain that original material. Its not really an issue of not be “open” or “honest.” I am willing to discuss any material that was posted there. Its an issue of cleanliness, and you all know how God feels about cleanliness.

  45. 45 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    About Icewedge:

    We have all been denying being vandals a lot, because we are not vandals, but I do not want this to be interpreted as the fact that I am some how disavowing icewedge or putting him down.

    Icewedge is Icewedge. He tells you who he is, what he is about, and does what he says he is going to do. You always know where you stand with him, even CP knows. Because this I believe Icewedge has more integrity than all the CP admins put together. He also has more integrity than I do, since I often used guile and manipulation to get what I needed or wanted out of CP and its aminds. All the CP admins and at least I from the “rational” gang have all used duplicity in one form or another. Icewedge has been the most honest of us all.

    He is also intelligent, and creative, and highly entertaining. And come on, CP, has given you a reason d’etre you have been lacking.

    While I am not a vandal, and do not vandalize, I do not believe that icewedge has broken the law in anyway, and I firmly stand by him as a person and am proud to say he is a member of the rational gang.

  46. 46 Anonymous May 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    out of curiosity, what will be the purpose of rationalwiki? What will it offer to distinguish itself from something like WP or CP?

  47. 47 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Its not an encyclopedia first of all. It will be much more similar to what wiki’s were like before wikipedia come to the stage.

    It will have a specific purpose, refuting and analyzing anti-science, crank idea, right wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and similar topics. We won’t have random entries on Tennessee or Civil War battles, or even pokemon.

    It will be predominantly works of original research and authorship. The kinds of articles posted will be closer to a blog type entry than an encyclopedia article. Someone will post a work and others can come in and improve it but its an essay more than anything.

    We want to encourage discussion, the “talk” pages and meta-discussion will be just as important if not more important than the “article” themselves.

    We are after dialog and debate, and having a record of that debate. In this fashion it is more like a forum than a wiki. The debate will be an important piece in and of itself. We therefore encourage people of all stripes to come in and argue.

    So we are not an encyclopedia, we are a collaborative blog/forum/wiki with a specific focus. I think it will be very different from CP or WP.

  48. 48 human May 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    I believe its “lead purpose”, at least as a starting point, will be to offer clear and concise (!) rebuttals and refutations to the less, um, “factual” articles on CP.

    If there is interest and energy, it should grow beyond a simple focus on CP (as we’ll probably lose interest in CP at some point), and become soem kind of clearinghouse for information and links on a broader level. I don’t know (no one does) if it will remain focused on the countering of YEC-type nonsense, or grow beyond that, as well.

    I doubt it will ever be as large a presence as, say, talkorigins, jrandi, or penn&teller, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

    That’s my understanding, but keep in mind that I am just a humble user, not an owner or manager of the site.

  49. 49 human May 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Yes, what he said 🙂 above my last comment.

  50. 50 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    Provided that RW 2.0 does not advocate vandalism, I will support it.

  51. 51 PAL May 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Todd, you might want to keep a copy of that for the frontpage.

  52. 52 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    I don’t think anyone ever advocated vandalism at first, but probably decided that “hey, if TK and his goons are going to accuse me of it, why not actually do some?” The downfall of CP is from your own interal hemorrhaging.

  53. 53 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    *internal … duh

  54. 54 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    Vandals had a choice. TK did not force them to click that button.

  55. 55 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    Actually TK did come into my house and click the button. I felt very violated.

  56. 56 Wikinterpreter May 21, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    I think that, bar Hoji, I might be one of the only liberals left on the site. I emailed TK many times, but he conveniently has ‘not received’ the messages. Do you want me to cause some (perfectly legit, of course!) trouble there?

  57. 57 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    Does Dpbsmith count as a liberal?

  58. 58 Wikinterpreter May 21, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Oh, and another thing – how does one join to help out with rationalwiki? I can’t find the create account button …

  59. 59 Wikinterpreter May 21, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Dpdsmith – hmm, not sure really. Sometimes he’s helpful, the rest he’s with them: a true paragon of neutrality.

  60. 60 Truth & Justice May 21, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Tmtoulouse, as I said, and your denying it doesn’t remove the obvious fact that someone who assists a vandal, people who discuss planting false information, are vandals. Godless Liberal did indeed effectuate his “plan” along with Icewedge, on the pages of CP. That is the realization of a pre-mediated act of vandalism. Not all vandalism involves acts of real destruction. Trying to ruin someone’s reputation in vandalism, no matter how you slice it. I repeat:

    To do otherwise would present a completely false picture of the wiki, and the original members of it, since they have all claimed, at one place or another that they have *never* vandalized, yet are clearly seen discussing plans for vandalism, like the idea to plant seeds of suspicion on other editors by claiming they are Ice, etc. Failure to leave all original material will merely make you another in a long line of pots calling the kettle black.

  61. 61 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    TK like some of the other sysops will reply when he has what he thinks is a good answer, but when you stump them or prove them wrong the line of communication ends.

  62. 62 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    Umm … TK you do realize that planning a bank robbery and actually commiting it are two very different things right? I can talk about doing something illegal all I want and won’t get in trouble.

  63. 63 Truth & Justice May 21, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Oh, perhaps in celebration of your “Grand Reopening”, I will indeed place your entire Rational Wiki 1.0 on a site, so all can see and compare the “real” intellect of all of you, with the sanitized revisionist editions of your members.

    That seems only fair, don’t you think? Doesn’t the public have a right to your history, a right to see what you all are like behind the scenes? I think they do! 1.0, in spite of your new efforts of spin, is nothing more than excuses about being “forced” to turn into hoodlums, LOL.

    Yes, personal information will be revealed. But the truth should win out over personal discomforture.

  64. 64 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    You do get that if plans for a bank robbery are found by authorities you will still go to jail.

  65. 65 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Really, truth should win out over personal discomforture (sic)? Aren’t you the one who’s always demanding conversations be held in private to avoid embarassment?

  66. 66 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Whatever helps you get it up at night, TK. I doubt anyone would care.

  67. 67 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Maybe I am

  68. 68 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    No one broadcasts dirty laundry in public.

  69. 69 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Geo … I was replying to TK.

  70. 70 Geo.plrd May 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Dont worry we are still taking out the trash

  71. 71 Truth & Justice May 21, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    darkshadow, legally there is a difference.

    Morally there is not.

    One following through simply has the balls to put into action their real intentions. I have more respect for the actual robber than so-called, self-labeled “intellectuals” sitting around ripping people to shreds who don’t even have the opportunity to defend themselves.

    I believe if you are going to present this “high minded” 2.0, people should know all sides of the presenters, not just the part they have carefully crafted.

    Unless and until you accept your past, admit it, you cannot even begin to sit in judgement of others, or discuss their mistakes. That is because you are being intellectually dishonest with everyone, hiding activities that are clearly a part of all of you. The people at CP will not have the advantage of sanitizing their wiki to make all of their actions look better, in light of your criticism, will they?

  72. 72 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    So you’re saying you respect the vandals? Why’d you block them then?

  73. 73 darkshadow May 21, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    Aren’t you also being intellectually dishonest by deleting blocked user pages and editing histories of talk pages? Maybe you should deal with your own skeletons in the closet before trying to paint someone else in a bad light. BTW, I hear hot or not might reopen their moderator pages, you could be busy on both sites soon!!

  74. 74 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    TK, Karajou, whoever you are, if you are will to host RW 1.0 go for it, will make it easier to discuss it if we can just post links.

  75. 75 prof0705 May 21, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Has the new site gone up yet? I would be interested in contributing.

  76. 76 La Cabale May 21, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    Mon Dieu!!

    “people who discuss planting false information, are vandals”

    Vraiment??? Then PhilR, TK, Ed, Andy, Cons, and a host of others are vandals. Have you SEEN the merde they have posted as truth?????

  77. 77 Anonymous May 21, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    “Unless and until you accept your past, admit it, you cannot even begin to sit in judgement of others, or discuss their mistakes”

    That’s kinda funny, considering CP constantly filters this type of stuff out of it’s articles on conservatives and labels it “gossip”.

  78. 78 Tmtoulouse May 21, 2007 at 9:07 pm

    The new site is almost accessible, but there will be a few days of house cleaning. However, open registration will be there from the get go, there just wont be much to look at.

  79. 79 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    CP also disavows Conservatives who actually screw up, claiming they’re not “real” conservatives. Abramoff, Wolfowitz, etc…

  80. 80 palmd May 21, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    The Great Purge has now been followed by The Great Wipe. Hopefully what follows will be interesting and refreshing.

  81. 81 Kelseigh May 21, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    That has a disturbingly biological ring to it, Dr. Pal…

  82. 82 palmd May 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm

    Such is my life. The Great Flush is coming.

  83. 83 Flippin May 21, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    when the “great wipe” has been completed, will there be a post here directing interested parties to…the party? I’m headed out for some champagne as soon as I finish typing.

  84. 84 palmd May 21, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Im certain there will. There have been a few suggestions on dissemination of the information.

  85. 85 human May 21, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    front page of the NY Times?

  86. 86 human May 21, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    oh, wait, no – surely, a mention on the CP main page?

  87. 87 palmd May 21, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    That seems more likely.

  88. 88 Todd Larason May 22, 2007 at 12:51 am

    And there goes Wikinterpreter, although I suspect it was for this comment rather than this one as the block message says. At least, I hope they aren’t blocking editors for comments their own sysops left.

  89. 89 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 12:56 am

    Wow, these conservatives are all about the thoughtcrime, aren’t they?

  90. 90 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 12:58 am

    Oh, wait…I just noticed that Kajagoogoo included a link to the blog in his block summary. Doesn’t that fly in the face of TK’s efforts to avoid links to us?

  91. 91 Bohdan May 22, 2007 at 12:59 am

    Now that I have been given sysopship and gained Andy’s trust, I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions on how I should vandalize CP. I don’t want to make it so obvious that I get caught. Some help would be greatly appreciated.

    EDIT: Don’t impersonate other users.

  92. 92 conservative May 22, 2007 at 1:02 am


    You wrote:

    “I think that, bar Hoji, I might be one of the only liberals left on the site. I emailed TK many times, but he conveniently has ‘not received’ the messages. Do you want me to cause some (perfectly legit, of course!) trouble there?”

    Karajou just banned your account!

    Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? – Psalm 2:1

  93. 93 human May 22, 2007 at 1:04 am

    We don’t recommend vandalism or advise vandals here – perhaps you have us confused with another group that used to exist?

    The best thing you can do on CP is edit truthfully and honestly, and stand up for reason and transparency wherever necessary.

    They call that vandalism anyway, so you’ll be all set.

  94. 94 conservative May 22, 2007 at 1:07 am

    EDIT: Don’t impersonate other users.

  95. 96 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 1:10 am


    “I think that, bar Hoji, I might be one of the only liberals left on the site. I emailed TK many times, but he conveniently has ‘not received’ the messages. Do you want me to cause some (perfectly legit, of course!) trouble there?”

    May 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 am

    “We don’t recommend vandalism or advise vandals here – ”


  96. 97 Bohdan May 22, 2007 at 1:16 am

    When will RW be back up? Or is the cabal gone forever? 😦

    EDIT: Don’t impersonate other users.

  97. 98 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 1:17 am

    You do realize that “perfectly legit” trouble constitutes nothing more than citing credible sources and an understanding that the Bible isn’t a science text, right?

  98. 99 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 1:17 am

    Er…you just proved him right. Wiki made a comment about trouble, which he noted as legit, not vandalism, and nobody advised him or recommended he do it. So from the evidence, Human was being honest and you…well, let’s be charitable and call it illiterate.

  99. 100 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 1:43 am

    Well, secular people never see anything that is morally wrong, and cloak themselves in technical legalities.

    That is why many have for months suggested some of you belong elsewhere, simply because your views are completely opposed to CP’s and Andy’s. To just walk away would be the morally correct choice, since there is no possibility of changing Andy’s mind or beliefs, and it would be wrong to try.

  100. 101 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 1:46 am

    Actually, I’m not secular, I’m pagan. But that’s not terribly relevant, is it?

  101. 102 Todd Larason May 22, 2007 at 1:49 am

    It’s wrong to try to change someone’s mind?

  102. 103 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 1:49 am

    Now you’re advancing the position that science and credible citations are “morally wrong.”

    Have you yet realized that you have quickly become a caricature of yourself?

  103. 104 conservative May 22, 2007 at 1:55 am

    “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: “It happened.” Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd.” (Simon Conway Morris (Cambridge University), “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,” Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

    …supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all! – Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

  104. 105 Icewedge...? May 22, 2007 at 1:57 am

    Making idle threats is fun. Just watch the fur fly!!

  105. 106 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 1:58 am

    Have you actually read either of those, Conservative? What are the two sentences immediately before and after those quotes, quick! If you can quote them with authority, then you’d better have them at your fingertips.

    Now, hop!

  106. 107 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 2:00 am

    Conservative – what makes you think you can have an evolution debate solely on your terms, at a time only you get to determine?

    You’re a joke – get over yourself.

  107. 108 Todd Larason May 22, 2007 at 2:00 am

    Sid, er I mean Ianfranc, sorry for derailing this thread further, but RW isn’t here yet and I can’t seem to hold this in.

    Wtf is up with this edit? The edit summary says “Reverting back to Andy’s edits. Recent changes give too much credence to UN”, but there are exactly three things changed:

    1. “The Hockey stick graph in the 2001 IPCC report” is replaced with “The 2001 IPCC report”. That doesn’t give “credence to UN”.
    2. The sentence “The overall temperature increase on Pluto is greater than that on the earth.” is removed. That doesn’t give credence to the UN in any way I see, and would seem to favor the global-warming-is-natural argument.
    3. A reference to “Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007” is added. Nothing to do with the UN.

    Next, items 2 and 3 were quickly changed back by [User:Learn together] (brave user!) TK apologized(!) for those removals, I think, and said they “got caught up in the removal of some other stuff”. Which means the whole revert was to remove the words “Hockey stick graph”, because it gives too much credence to the UN?

    So half that edit summary makes no sense — how about the other half, “Reverting back to Andy’s edits”? The version reverted to was by [User:RSchlafly], not [User:Aschlafly].

    head table bang bang bang

  108. 109 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 2:04 am

    haha, money catch – Todd

  109. 110 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 2:29 am

    Speaking of classy people, people with intellect, who value civil discourse, here is another of your own……

    Colin|away is now known as ColinR.
    [05/21/2007, 03:27:02 PM] ColinR: whew, busy channel
    [05/21/2007, 03:27:22 PM] TK__: hahaha, just the way we like it, Colin
    [05/21/2007, 03:27:38 PM] TK__: free of terrorists
    [05/21/2007, 03:28:18 PM] ColinR: oh yes, all those people who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
    [05/21/2007, 03:28:21 PM] ColinR: oh wait
    [05/21/2007, 03:28:29 PM] ColinR: i’ve yet to come across any at cp
    [05/21/2007, 03:28:38 PM] ColinR: except perhaps a few sysops
    [05/21/2007, 03:31:20 PM] TK__: Really? I thought we got rid of those…although there are still two or three that will be leaving us soon.
    [05/21/2007, 03:35:05 PM] TK__: Well thanks for checking in, Colin, however this official Conservapedia channel is for editors of CP, not banned users.
    [05/21/2007, 03:35:40 PM] *** Mode change “+b ColinR!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 03:35:40 PM] *** ColinR has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__
    [05/21/2007, 03:36:09 PM] *** ColinR|away (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.
    [05/21/2007, 03:36:39 PM] *** Mode change “+b ColinR|away!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 03:36:39 PM] *** ColinR|away has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__
    [05/21/2007, 03:37:32 PM] *** ColinR_ (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.
    [05/21/2007, 03:37:36 PM] ColinR_: hehehe
    [05/21/2007, 03:37:41 PM] *** Mode change “+b ColinR_!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 03:37:41 PM] *** ColinR_ has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:04 PM] *** TKtheTerrorist (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:12 PM] TKtheTerrorist: hey guys!
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:18 PM] TKtheTerrorist: I’m TK
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:21 PM] TKtheTerrorist: blah blah blah
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:23 PM] TKtheTerrorist: listen to me
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:25 PM] *** Mode change “+b TKtheTerrorist!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 03:40:25 PM] *** TKtheTerrorist has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__
    [05/21/2007, 03:42:42 PM] *** TK_has_a_vag (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.
    [05/21/2007, 03:42:50 PM] TK_has_a_vag: and it’s smelly too!
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:00 PM] *** TK_has_a_vag is n=colin@ (Colin)
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:00 PM] *** TK_has_a_vag is on: #conservapedia #cp-cabal
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:00 PM] *** TK_has_a_vag is using
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:00 PM] *** End of /WHOIS.
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:17 PM] TK__: all captured and sent to freenode admin, colin
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:24 PM] TK_has_a_vag: hooray!!!
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:53 PM] *** Mode change “+b TK_has_a_vag!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 03:43:53 PM] *** TK_has_a_vag has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__
    [05/21/2007, 03:46:26 PM] *** TK___ (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.

    [05/21/2007, 03:46:35 PM] TK___: I’ll notify the fbi on y’all
    [05/21/2007, 03:46:39 PM] *** TK___ (n=colin@ has left #conservapedia.

  110. 111 hyperbole May 22, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Why would FBI or freenode care about TKs smelly twat?

  111. 112 hyperbole May 22, 2007 at 2:38 am

    Im sorry, that was vulgar..please delete.

    Why would the FBI or freenode care about allegations that TK has a malodorous female genitalia?

  112. 113 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 2:40 am

    T&J – you’ve yet to defend your argument that science and credible sources are morally wrong. Quit changing the subject and provide support for your ridiculous arguments.

    By the way – let me see you call Colin a terrorist for the chat quoted above. You know, declare his actions tantamount to those that bring down buildings and lead to mass loss of life. Come on, call him a terrorist.

  113. 114 conservative May 22, 2007 at 2:48 am


    re: quotes

    You will notice that the theory of evolution article at Conservapedia has links to the associated articles in question.

    Theory of evolution:

  114. 115 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

    No, Conservative. Answer the question. What are the sentences. Demonstrate that you understand the content of the articles, not just a suggestive out-of-context quote. Otherwise, it’s so much bullshit.

  115. 116 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 3:38 am

    hyperbole, those were all Colin….using name after name after getting booted. Since that channel is only for active editors, no banned Sysops.

    My point was to show his high intellect and moral values. That is all.

    And I neve said science and credible sources are wrong. That is something you have taken out of context in one of the oldest debating tricks alive, lol. I will not dignify those kind of parlor tricks. You should be better than that. And still you cannot guess who this really is, lol.

  116. 117 hyperbole May 22, 2007 at 3:41 am

    point taken…i think…?

  117. 118 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 3:47 am

    Thank you. Perhaps the level could be raised here by all of us…..

  118. 119 Colin May 22, 2007 at 3:49 am

    And I’m going to go with that conversation was hilarious. Oh, and is up. Hooray!

  119. 120 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 3:50 am

    Out of context? What are you talking about? Let me summarize the positions – tell me specifically where I am wrong.

    You took issue with Wikinterpreter discussing providing some “legit” trouble, which I defined as science and credible sources. In your next post, you conceded my definition and claimed that this “trouble” was morally wrong, which I couldn’t see because we don’t worship the same god.

    Therefore – you’ve posited that science and credible sources are morally wrong. What, specifically, is out of context? Looks like a slam-dunk on my end.

    By the way, I really don’t care who you are. At all. A moron by any other name …

  120. 121 Truth & Justice May 22, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Well, that really does sum up the caliber of the people here, doesn’t it?

    Good day. Your wiki will be shit without the people you are roasting. Of course I am sure, given your proven low morals, accounts will be created to make it appear we are posting. Enjoy!

  121. 122 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 3:56 am

    “Your wiki will be shit without the people you are roasting.”

    Given that the only way this could happen is if you lot stop posting batshit insane rants in place of facts, does that mean Andy (or you) is going to take CP down out of spite?

    I say, do your worst!

  122. 123 Huey Gunna Getcha May 22, 2007 at 3:57 am

    Andy’s beloved Parthian Shot. How delightful.

  123. 124 Raptor1 May 22, 2007 at 4:03 am

    [05/21/2007, 08:57:58 PM] *** Cmon_TK (n=colin@ has joined #conservapedia.
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:02 PM] Cmon_TK: play nice
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:05 PM] Cmon_TK: don’t be a baby
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:09 PM] TK__: by insulting me?
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:13 PM] Cmon_TK: or have a smelly vag
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:36 PM] Cmon_TK: no one likes a stinky vagina
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:39 PM] Cmon_TK: well
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:47 PM] Cmon_TK: no normal person does
    [05/21/2007, 08:58:54 PM] Cmon_TK: laters!
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:01 PM] *** Cmon_TK is n=colin@ (Colin)
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:01 PM] *** Cmon_TK is on: #conservapedia #cp-cabal
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:01 PM] *** Cmon_TK is using
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:01 PM] *** End of /WHOIS.

    [05/21/2007, 08:59:02 PM] *** Cmon_TK is now known as ColinR.
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:07 PM] *** Mode change “+b Cmon_TK!*@*” for channel #conservapedia by TK__.
    [05/21/2007, 08:59:07 PM] *** ColinR has been kicked from #conservapedia by TK__: TK__

  124. 125 Colin May 22, 2007 at 4:13 am

    Almost as funny as the first one!

  125. 126 Kelseigh May 22, 2007 at 4:14 am

    I think this is supposed to be sorta like those “Magic Eye” books. You stare long enough, turn off your brain, and it makes some sort of sense. Ooh! I see a pony!

  126. 127 Geo.plrd May 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

    We are quivering in our boots, your site doesn’t work.

  127. 128 Geo.plrd May 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

    new and improved, my ass

  128. 129 Gulik3 May 22, 2007 at 7:59 am

    There’s a quote from the Principia Discordia that comes to mind here:

    –Lord Omar
    1. Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear–and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM!
    2. Ye have cast out yer brothers for devils and now complain ye, lamenting that ye’ve been left to fight alone.”

    Today, I logged back on to Conservapedia to find that not only had I been banned without any warning, reason, or recourse, but that Karajou (the mod in question) had reverted almost all my edits–nice policy.

    For a while I thought maybe Conservapedia could be improved. Now? I’m looking forward to watching it stifle itself to death.

  129. 130 Todd Larason May 22, 2007 at 8:15 am

    It’s from a different parable, but my favorite bit was always

    “But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it.”


    Come over to RationalWiki, Gulik. Maybe commenting on it will be more rewarding than trying to participate in it was.

  130. 131 Gulik3 May 22, 2007 at 8:32 am

    Thanks–RationalWiki looks like a great deal more fun, I have to admit. I’m on there as Gulik.

    And I’d never have known it (or this blog) existed, if not for TK! Funny how these things work….

  131. 132 bilbo May 22, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    I think the most hilarious thing is the repeated postings of the CP Staff here. I would think that they shouldn’t care about any of this. They’ve removed what they see as a ‘problem’ from their website, they should be happy with that. They show up here, pick up a few new four letter words, and engage in activities they denounce on their own site. What happened to turn the other cheek? Why not just stay on your own website where you can be as rude and accusatory toward as many of your editors as you want with no recourse?

  132. 133 Wikinterpreter May 22, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    It’s great that they’re reading this. Shows they’re concerned. Oh, and thanks to everyone for noting the ‘legit’ bit. I nearly clicked send, but I thought that I might as well give myself a bit of protection.

  133. 134 Linus May 23, 2007 at 1:50 am

    On the subject of “cyberterrorism”:

    If I was so inclined, I could hypothetically run, say, rm -rf on the CP server, and totally destroy the site. However, this does not qualify as cyberterrorism. If one cracked into American Airlines, and crashed a plane, that would be cyberterrorism. If one directed the Pentagon to attack Vermont, via cracking, that would be cyberterrorism. Cracking in and of itself, even black-hat cracking, is most certainly not cyberterrorism. I don’t know where you guys got the idea that it was. Please don’t try to feed us the “FBI said it was” rubbish.

  134. 135 human May 24, 2007 at 5:27 am

    Geo.plrd, why come join us? The site only gets broken for brief moments while the crack admins make stuff work better. We have pizza 🙂

  135. 136 human May 24, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    I meant, duh, why *not* come join us.

    The water’s fine…

  136. 137 Kelseigh May 25, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    …don’t drink the water.

  137. 138 lanfranc May 25, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    And don’t breathe the air.

  138. 139 Todd Larason May 26, 2007 at 12:22 am

    hot and cold running crud!

  139. 140 Kelseigh May 26, 2007 at 2:10 am

    The breakfast garbage you dump into the bay
    They drink at lunch in San Jose!

  140. 141 Todd Larason May 26, 2007 at 3:25 am

    Have you all seen [[Youtube:Roy Zimmerman]]? He’s the closest I’ve seen in a long time to Lehrer’s humor ans sensibility.

  1. 1 Column 10: Breaking news, again! « The Conservapedia Column Trackback on May 22, 2007 at 8:46 am
  2. 2 Column 13: 1934, Revisited « The Conservapedia Column Trackback on June 12, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.


%d bloggers like this: