En Passant: Pouring in

So, according to the current Conservapedia front page, “Letters pour into the Los Angeles Times in response to its article about Conservapedia.

Yeah. Three letters, all of them negative. I suppose that might theoretically be called “pouring in”, under the right circumstances, just like Wikipedia might theoretically be called “six times more liberal than the American population”, under the right circumstances. But I digress.

Also: Seriously, gentlemen. How long are you going to be parading that L.A. Times logo around on the front page? It’s been two weeks now. I think they might want it back now, although they don’t like to ask for it.


17 Responses to “En Passant: Pouring in”

  1. 1 interpreted July 3, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    The internets have given me only a three letter word to describe Andy’s current madness –


  2. 2 Flippin July 3, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    How can they ask for their logo? Everyone who signs in gets blocked. LMFAO!

    Hey, we also need an update on the Tk, RobS, Karajou and peekaboo issue. Some of us have been out of town for work.

  3. 3 lanfranc July 3, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Working on it. It’s a bit complex to figure out what’s actually going on, though.


  4. 4 Flippin July 3, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Yeah, I thought so. I just caught this in Andy’s talk–apparently he’s going to be on Fox Noise http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=217059&oldid=217038

  5. 5 PalMD July 3, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    I cannot wait to see that one. Too bad Russert can’t get his hands on him.

  6. 6 Flippin July 3, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Personally I’d like to seem him on Olberman. If he went on O’Really they just end up making out…AGAIN.

  7. 7 PalMD July 3, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    Yuck, messy consex.

  8. 8 Flippin July 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    Well, technically they can’t have s*x because the act is forbidden by God, our Lord, blessed be the name of the king of republicans, or savior the Holy Good Samaritan of the Precious Blood…heart.

  9. 9 PalMD July 7, 2007 at 3:34 am

    I didn’t realize your article title would be so prophetic…good luck with the basement.

  10. 10 lanfranc July 9, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Haha, indeed not. All’s fine now, though, thanks.


  11. 11 Newton August 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I see that “Rational”Wiki people cannot defend their Conservapedia article lying from the very beginning and have taken the cowardly route of banning me.

    Please see: http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Conservapedia

    The cowards and liars at RationalWiki still haven’t shown that Conservapedia states that homosexuals are anti-American like they state in the very beginning of their article on Conservapedia!

  12. 12 human August 9, 2007 at 1:03 am

    “and have taken the cowardly route of banning me”

    Hahahahahaha, yes, sometimes for several seconds! It’s a hobby of ours, to block the noobs. Some people really like it.

    And, Ken, have you ever heard of “humor”?

    So, anyway, I skimmed the CP article on homosexuality, and did not see a header titled “anti-American”. Just enough general gay bashing piled on to make it obvious what CP “thinks” of the issue. By the way, since CP “waves the flag” over every article, anything they dislike can be construed as being called “anti-American”.

  13. 13 Gulik3 August 10, 2007 at 7:54 am

    Hey, I TRIED to correct the article, but the Insidious Liberal Swarm wouldn’t let me!

    You know, “Newton”, IF that’s your REAL name, if you don’t like an article on RationalWiki, you can always edit it. If it’s better, it’ll stick. If now, the Mob will change it to something they like better.

    Do you have any idea how pathetic your arguing style is? I can just imagine you poring over a first-edition copy of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, searching for a single misplaced comma, which would INVALIDATE _ALL_ BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH EVAR AND PROVE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM AS THE TRUTH. Or something.

  14. 14 lanfranc August 14, 2007 at 12:39 am

    It’s really quite simple, Newton.

    It is well-known that several of the high-profile members of CP considers the US a Christian nation, and that Christian values (or at least their perception of those) are coincident with American values. I guess I could find a quote if you wish, but this seems rather uncontroversial.

    I also doubt that you will deny that most of those same people consider homosexuality a transgression of those Christian values.

    Hence, it follows that a substantial part of the CP management would consider homosexuality un-American, although they might not explicitly say so.

    This reasoning utilizes a method called “synthesis”, which is quite widespread in what you could call the “less exact sciences” – i.e. those that deal with human thoughts and ideas, rather than easily verifiable facts. This also means that your claim that the article “lies” about the facts is at best a misunderstanding on your part – the statement is an interpretation by RationalWiki, and interpretations cannot easily be reduced to a simple reductionistic question of true or false.


  15. 15 PalMD August 15, 2007 at 3:28 am

    Wow…well said…for an auslander.

  16. 16 Flippin September 13, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Where is RW???

  17. 17 PalMD September 13, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    If you haven’t found it yet, let me know. The old address should redirect there now. There was a…problem.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: