Archive for the 'En Passant' Category

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.


En Passant: Ed Poor vs. Jack Sparrow

This quote from the Main Page Talk caught my eye:

The government cannot permanently maintain an official “neutrality” toward religious and moral issues. Look at Wikipedia and their arbitration committee, which has become their acting government. They pretend to maintain a neutral stance toward everything, but they end up protecting some views more than others.

It would be be better to adopt an official view, and then define various degrees of tolerance for disparate or opposing views. For example, the Judeo-Christian ethic against murder and theft could be non-negotiable, but a mild degree of tolerance could be shown toward, say, Robin Hood (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with strong disapproval given to piracy (no ads for “Pirates of the Caribbean”) or socialist confiscation of property.
An ethic of support for pre-marital chastity would be good for any school system or government. Perhaps those parents who believe in promiscuity could be allowed to opt out, but the school staff should not tell girls to take off their chastity rings. —Ed Poor Talk 17:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Is it just me, or does that sound like something distastefully close to a theocracy? Either way, it seems decidedly not-conservative to want the state to interfere with ads for entirely harmless non-violent movies, or with something as personal as whether or not to engage in pre-marital sex.

Makes you wonder how widespread such opinions are among the Conservapedia administrator group as a whole.

En Passant: Joke

Well, at least some people on Conservapedia actually have a sense of humor.

An archaeologist was digging in the Negev Desert in Israel and came upon a casket containing a mummy, a rather rare occurance in Israel, to say the least. After examining it, he called the curator of the Israel museum in Jerusalem.

“I’ve just discovered a 3,000 year old mummy of a man who died of heart failure!” the excited scientist exclaimed.

To which the curator replied, “Bring him in. We’ll check it out.”

A week later, the amazed curator called the archaeologist. “You were right about both the mummy’s age and cause of death. How in the world did you know?”

“Easy. There was a piece of paper in his hand that said, ‘10,000 Shekels on Goliath’.”

En Passant: Arguments for a Recent Creation

You know what I find somewhat amusing? The people over at Conservapedia have this page that lists a number of arguments that support a recent creation, i.e. within the last 10,000 years or so. Quite extensive, too. It’s obviously very well-researched. Full of crackpot theories, sure, but at least they’re well-researched crackpot theories.

But what strikes me as a bit odd is that while as of this writing, they’ve spend two weeks on it and been able to find no less than 38 different “scientific” arguments, they haven’t gotten around to writing even one under ‘Theological reasons’. Pardon me, but shouldn’t that sort of be the foundation for the whole thing? Biblical literalism and all that? You know, if you need a little help here, I’m always ready to lend my research skills for a very reasonable consultancy fee.

Well, anyway – keep up the good work, guys.

Oh, and needless to say, RationalWiki has an extensive refutation of the whole thing (or most of it – work in progress). We’re seeing a frank and open exchange of opinions here, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s great to see!

En Passant: Baraminology

I just took a break from the purgatory of report writing and came across this little gem of an article on Baraminology, which is probably overall the outright weirdest article I have ever read on Conservapedia. Just take this:

Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[4]).

Uh-huh. And this:

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

What does that even mean? I don’t know, but I do know that it is something that desperately needs a refutation. Fortunately, I don’t have to write it (not that I’d have the time, anyway), because a mr. John Ponce was kind enough to write it for me way back in the 17th century:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary)

Get with the program, Conservapedia.

Anyway, back to the report writing. 13 days to go. Stay frosty, America!

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.