Archive for the 'Miscellaneous' Category

Leifr Eiriksson is not amused!

As you may or may not be aware, early August witnessed a curious incident – to briefly summarize, Andrew Schlafly stumbled across an obscure article that mentioned there was no evidence that the Vikings who reached North America in the early 10th century had ever sailed as far south as New England – a fairly uncontroversial statement. However, in Mr Schlafly’s mind – and in Conservapedia’s News column – this got turned into the more unusual claim that the Vikings had never been to North America at all. Instead, the whole story about Leifr Eiriksson and his intrepid crew who landed in Vinland is merely a liberal myth intended to downplay the “Christian achievement” of Christopher Columbus.

As might be expected, certain CP editors, including your author, took a careful exception to this interpretation, pointing out particularly that there is ample historical and archaeological evidence for a brief Viking presence in North America, that Leifr Eiriksson was just as much a Christian as Columbus, making the whole discussion somewhat pointless, and that the freaking article didn’t even say what he claimed it said. As might be expected, Mr Schlafly refused to budge an inch, even going so far as to claim that the Viking artifacts excavated at L’Anse aux Meadows was planted there by the archaeologists who discovered the site. For interesting parts of the discussion, see especially Talk:Main Page and Talk:Leif Erikson.

Now, it is well-known to regular readers – to the extent that a blog on de facto hiatus can have regular readers at all – that the CP Column has never been known to mince its words, so I will be unapologetically frank here. While perhaps the question of Vikings in North America may seem less immediately important by comparison, I believe that what we have witnessed in this situation is in essence of the same species as Holocaust denial – the gross distortion, or even attempted falsification of history to serve a political agenda.

For that reason, following these events, I have decided that I will waste no further of my limited and precious time on that piece of group delusion. You just don’t mess with Leifr Eiriksson. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Besides, RationalWiki‘s What is Going on at Conservapedia now does a usually excellent job at documenting and discussing the various inanities that happen at CP, so this blog has really outlived its usefulness. We thus consign it to history.

In other news, you might or might not be interested in my other, newly-launched blog, Vox in Deserto, which will feature all sorts of interesting commentary about medieval subjects and other things. For instance, the very first post contains a quote by the Venerable Bede. For those who might be in doubt, I can inform you that this fact in se shows that this blog will be not just great – this is practically a given thing – but truly sublime.

As for Conservapedia, I may mention them at Vox from time to time. In the meantime, I wish those poor souls a good night and good luck.

Baraminology Revisited

Good news abound!

I’ll briefly take a page out of CP Sysop Conservative’s book and rejoice that we’re apparently moving up in the world. The Conservapedia Column today ranks as number 23 out of 15,800 on a Google search for “Baraminology”. Specifically, the post En Passant: Baraminology, which, if I may say so myself, is indeed a both well-researched and well-written post that contains everything the inquiring mind would need to know about Baraminology. I’m quite happy to learn this, since Baraminology is such an important subject as it is, so I’m looking forward to welcoming many new users who come here to learn about Baraminology. I hope that with time, this site can turn into an important learning resource about Baraminology.

Did I mention Baraminology yet? Oh yes, I see that I did mention Baraminology. Good, because we wouldn’t want to forget about Baraminology, would we?

In other news, I find this hilarious on a whole range of levels.

Just a few questions

I found this amusing: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Hi

Poor MikeG didn’t seem to get much of a response to his questions – just a single one on his talk page so far – but I’d say it looks like he got his hands on some interesting data anyway.

Update

Greetings to all and sundry! As you have probably noticed, updates and new columns have been scarce recently. I have an immensely important report deadline coming up in a few weeks, and, following my usual pattern, am ridiculously behind schedule on it. Fortunately, I work well under pressure, but it means that the update scarcity will continue for a little while yet.

However, when we return, it will be with many interesting new columns, including a return to our Weberian analyses of the Conservapedia power structure. In the meantime, why not head over to RationalWiki for all your Conservapedia-related needs?

For the record

Sysop TK has recently provided a list on mr. Schlafly’s talk page of the people he believes are responsible for the vandal attacks on Conservapedia, including your columnist among them:

Most of this isn’t the several people using the “Ice” account, but Tmtoulouse, ColinR, AmesG, AKjeldsen, Palmd and Sterile, among others and their many socks. The poor things are so devoid of a life, they crave argument for arguments sake. Feel free to contact me for a more complete list. —Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I would like to state that I resent this implication. I have never engaged in vandalism against Conservapedia, and would never dream of doing so. I believe the only reason why I am on that list is because of my activities on RationalWiki, which, that is true, has been a hang-out for some of the vandals that have attacked Conservapedia in the past. However, I have not been connected with these activities.

In a recent IRC conversation I have asked TK to remove my name , which he refused. I would call upon him to produce evidence to back up his claim, except that I know he can have none, and that it is well-known that he does not consider evidence necessary.

I know that the management of Conservapedia believes highly in moral laws. I would like to ask, what kind of moral laws support unsubstantiated accusations against an innocent men? I am not a Paulus, and this is not Caesarea, but still: For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

Notice to the Conservapedia Sysops

I notice that you have archived the Sysop abuse page, but forgot to include a link to the archive. I’ll just put it here, for your convenience:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Editing_Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse_Archive_%2804/11/07-05/19/07%29

Oh, and while you’re at it, you may also want to actually do something about all those abuse reports, eh? If it’s not too much to ask.

EDIT: Well, this is long gone. But fear not – archive.com runs to the rescue! Only from May 13th, so there’s a couple of days missing, but much better than nothing.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070513125150/www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse

Unfortunately, Conservative’s very own abuse subpage appears to be gone beyond retrieval, though.

Oh, one more thing…

I’d also like to extend my congratulations to Mssr. Bohdan and Joaquín Matínez for being appointed Sysops. I do hope you both know what you’re doing, though. And be sure to read up on all those little… unwritten rules.

Best of luck.


View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.

del.icio.us