Conservapedia’s Law

No, that doesn’t mean “Say Andy is right… or else”, nor does it mean “Kiss Terry Koeckritz’s ass and give him your e-mail address, chest measurement and name of your junior high school when he asks, or else”. No, what this means – and I was remiss in not bringing this up earlier is that hot on the heels of “Best New Conservative Words” comes Andrew Schlafly’s new master-piece, “Conservapedia’s Law.” I do confess to being surprised that it’s not Schlafly’s Law, or even Mummy Phyliss’s Law… maybe deep down he realises that having his name associated with it will confirm his insanity to the world.

So what does CL hold in store for us? Brace yourself, because it’s a doozie:

Conservapedia’s Law is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.

For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.

This startling revelation is based upon the findings of Andy “Best” New Conservative words exercise we spoke about. Now normally, before some new law that governs the universe is promulgated, you can bet that some pretty serious investigation and research has gone into its formulation. Fortunately, this isn’t the case here. No, all Andy has done is take a bunch of words that he (and one or two parodists) decided were conservative and then chopped and changed them to fit his pre-determined result. Words were cast off as being “not conservative enough” in order to meet his “geometric rate” of growth. Maybe we’ll see these one day in a list of “Not quite good” New Conservative Words, or “Worst” New Conservative Words.

Richard Feynman had a great way of describing a posteriori conclusions (reasoning from known facts to possible causes), but sadly Andy hasn’t even done that. He’s grabbed a random selection of words that he – and he alone – has decided are conservative, has ignored the single most important source when studying the etymology of words, the OED (Andy used Merriam-Webster, of course. The OED is a liberal dictionary) and massaged the results until they fit into his geometric progression. Still, here’s Feynman’s quote anyway, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I saw a car with the licence plate ARW357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licence plates in this state, what was the chance I would encounter this particular one tonight?”

So, not content with concocting a “law”, based on “data” that has no foundation, or basis other than Andy thinking the word is conservative, and arriving at a pre-determined result, Andy does on to equate his law to Moore’s Law (which states that the number of transistors on a chip of a given size roughly doubles every two years.) But then again, “transistor” is a conservative word – because it enabled Saint Ronnie to dream up his insane Star Wars program. He then adds (we presume for a laugh) the “striking” implications of his “Law”, of which the most hysterical has to be:

Wikipedia, in order to survive, will inevitably feel compelled to adopt principles similar to Conservapedia’s. The liberal practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin.

Yes, Andy. So that means that WP will start blocking every editor in sight who might query a dubious fact; spout dubious facts at an alarming rate and then lock pages so they can’t be corrected; lie; cheat and abuse editors. Then WP will have adopted principles similar to Conservapedia.Then he has the cheek to state:

How quickly is truth discovered in a free society? Conservapedia’s Law suggests that truth is discovered at a geometric rate, much faster than an arithmetic rate.

Andy, your personal I-Hate-Obama blog has about as much resemblance to truth as a dead rat does to a Doberman (that’s defensive weapon of dog to you). Man, I suck at analogies

Oh… and as for the “inevitable ruin” bit… Conservapedia currently has 75 editors (who made an edit in the last 7 days… 50% of those have been blocked since then), Wikipedia currently has 147,000 editors. I think I know which wiki I’m going to be placing my bets on.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia, Wikipedia and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Conservapedia’s Law

  1. Pi says:

    Well I notice the liberal new words roughly triple every century 2-10-29. Not only are they growing at a geometric rate too but a higher geometric rate. This shows the inevitable triumph of liberalism. Seriously though did it not occur to him that pretty much everything grows at some sort of geometric rate? The Fibonacci sequence gets, on average, roughly 1.6 times larger each step and it is a very natural sequence of numbers. Geometric is, as geometric does.

  2. Dantius says:

    You misspeld Meriam in your post. Other than that… Great job!

  3. cpmonitor says:

    I phail at spellign. My first boss used to despair of me writing “appologise” in letters (yes, it was that kind of job).
    Thanks for the feedback though, luckily I have Andy and his goons to write most of the material for me.

  4. FirstnameI says:

    The average adult knows 10^5 words (I’m lenient here, because I see the number 60000 quote more often). Let us assume that each word represents a conservative insight, thanks to the beneficial influence that Conservapedia has had over the last few years. Since Conservapedia’s law states that the number of conservative insights halfs each preceding century, that means that 2000 years ago, the average person had 10^5/(2^20) = 0.1 conservative insights in biblical times. Since a partial insight is not an insight, this implies that it is of no use for a real Conservapedia conservative to follow biblical commands: there is nothing of substance to be found there for them.

Comments are closed.