Happy Birthday Conservapedia!


Yup, Conservapedia turns three today and looking back it’s amazing to see just how it’s gone from being an interesting project to one of the most bat-shit insane sites on the internet. Admittedly it is a site which has delivered many hours of laughs, including such gems as Bugler’s antics, the Lenski Affair, the Conservative Bible Project, Andrew Schlafly’s insane debate with the erudite Kate Sorenson and the wonderful “Liberal Style Word Counter” bot, created by the now-blocked Mark Gallagher (which just goes to show that even if you do suck up to Andy, Terry Koeckritz will still kick you in the balls).

And it’s about Terry that I’d like to write (once again) this evening. Anybody who’s been following CP for any length of time, will know that once upon a time, Terry was Andy’s right hand (probably in more ways than one!) boy. However, he tried his hand once too often in trying to usurp Andy’s authority – after all Andy is the proverbial Brother Leader of CP and his fellow sysops, rather than actually having a hand in making decisions, simply act as his echo chamber. Andy decided to strip… or rather remove the sysop rights from his poster boy for on-line thuggery and a rather nasty e-mail battle ensued.

In Andy’s opening salvo, he accused Terry of amongst other things:

  • He antagonized and nearly drove away some of our very best editors, while contributing few edits himself.
  • He blocked, without justification, many new editors, even after I warned him.
  • In general, he simply seemed to constantly demand attention from many of us with little productivity.
  • He claimed to know Jerry Falwell and Ed Meese; he claimed to dine with Mary and Jim Carville; he even claimed to have fallen on Nancy Reagan during an assassination attempt.
  • He failed to answer simple, direct questions.
  • He seemed to rely more on RationalWiki for information than our own site.
  • Several Sysops insisted to me privately, with lots of alleged evidence, that TK was an enemy.

Needless to say, Terry came roaring back, with a reply which included such wonderful comments as

  • I won’t embarrass him, for now,  for he is quite obviously not himself,
  • What a stupid jerk I was to express simple human compassion to a man bent on doing me harm.
  • Andy is so sick, misinformed, or really evil, he makes the bald-faced lie that I have had little productivity? (Actually Terry, outside of blocking people, what do you do on CP?)
  • How can anyone be so twisted, so mean, to someone who has given him absolute loyalty?
  • I do not know what I have ever done to deserve this massive disrespect, this slander, this smear and malice.  Vandalize Conservapedia?  Betray his confidences?  No.  All I was is trusting of him, and committed to his project.  Shame on me!   Shame on all of you for allowing this… shame on, and my personal disgust to, those of you who suggested to the others I would join up with RatWiki.

Ironically, the upshot of all this is that Terry immediately went on to join RationalWiki (where he was given pretty short shrift too) and went on to open the “behind the scenes” discussions of the sysops to all and sundry. So much for loyalty and betraying Andy’s confidences.

During the period, his former fellow sysops had plenty to say about the man.

As Rob Smith said, “TK showed no interest whatsoever in creating new articles, or improving existing articles, until I did first. And when I did, sought to publicly undercut my efforts, question “by what authority” I did such and  such, either acted directly contrary to advice I gave to an editor I was working with, or plagiarized.  And it is further interesting to note, these two events were virtually one day apart, and occurred simultaneously with the dates on Kevin Conley’s email.” (For more on the Kevin Conley e-mail, read this – it’s pretty illuminating).

Brian MacDonald: “To have him as an ally, he’s got to stop his bullying of others, and stop his lying.”

For some reason, Ed Poor, could see no fault in Terry, and even disputed the reason why Terry was eventually blocked. With no sense of irony, he said, “agree about the “attitude” TK manifests. He needs to learn some humility. A permanent ban won’t help, any more than a one-year ban,” to which former CP sysop Philip Rayment quite rightly replied, “If a permanent ban wouldn’t help, why do we give out so many of them?” With logic like that, no wonder his days on CP were numbered.

It’s easy to imagine, then, everybody’s (and I mean everybody’s) surprise when Terry returned to CP and Andy immediately began to grant him rights again. Who knows, maybe his was back to being Andy “right hand man” behind the scenes? When it came to decide who should be the new sysops, Andy overrode objections to Terry from at least three of his sysops – CPAdmin1 (TK is absolutely out of the question.  He proved his hate for CP already), Bill Bagot (do not believe it would be wise to promote anyone who has shown a disrespect for authority and Philip Rayment (I’d oppose Bugler, RodWeathers, and TK.) Interesting to see Philip lumped Terry in with the two parodists, Bugler and RodWeathers – very insightful.

Andy then strains credulity by stating, “TK has ruffled feathers on our side, but mostly on the other side.  He’s never vandalized the site and his self-initiated “double agent” work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that.  It was not a sincere effort to harm the site.  TK was defrocked by Conservapedia and yet returned to volunteer more, something very few people would do.  Our general policy has been to restore privileges to those who make a good faith return and request for them.  I’ve done that in the past as a matter of routine.  Given the strong support by several in this group for TK becoming a Sysop again, it seems appropriate.  It is needed to protect images.”

Now let’s look at that. “Strong support?” Really? At least 3 sysops spoke up against him. “Self-initiated double agent work?” Well yes, but double agent? He deliberately opened up the Special Discussion Group (whence comes my info, in case you were wondering) and only shut it down again after Andy threatened him with legal action. The “double agent” bit sounds about as credible as his saving Nancy Reagan. “Did not harm the site?” No, Andy, he’s only given us an opportunity to highlight just what kind of people you are and to warn others, especially those you home-school. And let’s face it – one thing Terry hasn’t done is protect images. Instead, he’s gone back to his usual ways of abusing and insulting editors and sysops alike.

I wonder just what kind of hold he has on Andy. People would like to know. Either way, they deserve each other – and it’s good for a laugh, even if we do get kind of frustrated now and again.

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 Andrew Schlafly, Brian MacDonald, Conservapedia, Ed Poor, Terry Koeckritz, TK and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Happy Birthday Conservapedia!

  1. Pi says:

    Just a word of advice, if you are going to be interlacing your text and commentry with quotes, you need a consistent style. You used a block quote at one point (which you commented inside), quotation marks in a paragraph and also put comments in brakets. I think you should pick one or maybe two clear styles so the reader can tell your comments from the quotes more easily.

    Does your special sauce come in a special Lenski variety?

  2. cpmonitor says:

    True! I’ll try and be more consistent from now on! Sorry about that.
    Re:Lenski, there doesn’t appear to be much. Funniest is Brian MacDonald wondering why PNAS sounds like Penis and even more hysterical, Ken DeMyer wanting to challenge Lenski to a debate on Conservapedia’s evolution article. Maybe that should go up, just to show what an idiot he is.

    • Pi says:

      Wow, that itself is just plain weird. Who thinks that much about penises that they can see it in PNAS. Ken is under some delusion he is a great debater. At least Andy has IRL debates, even if he does look to the moderator for the banhammer (have a read of Spiny’s commentary on the health care debate). A doubt Ken would ever debate anywhere were he can not just hit people with his url Gish Gallops. You will be debating him on something and he will ask you to rebut the entirety of one of his article, on only tangentially related topics. Have a look at him on atheist.ie on his RW page. He starts challenging people about legal apologetics out of no where. Lenski I doubt would want to waste his time on a person that unfocussed.

      • cpmonitor says:

        Not to mention his RuyLopez page on ASK. The man doesn’t have a clue, although from further reading, it would appear to be just another attempt to link farm his “article” and push it up the Google rankings.
        As he says, “By the way, whether or not Lenski agrees to debate or not, Conservapedia gets publicity and gets more inbound links to its evolution article which makes it rise in the search engines.
        Generally speaking, evolutionists get creamed in debates and I think Lenski probably knows this and will decline to debate (see CP
        evolution article). While Lenski may have more stature, I do think I am a better debater than Lenski. For example, I could skewer Lenski on his allusion to the Galileo “legendary words”.

        Here is the scoop on those Legendary words:

        “According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious
        phrase And yet it moves, but there is no evidence that he actually said this or anything similarly impertinent. The first account of the legend dates to a century after his death.”

        I could ask him why he cited such a weak legend in his debate with Andy and then say it is not surprising since you and your acolytes are rather enamored of the evolution legends and tall tales. 🙂 The
        word debate comes from the French word “batter down” and if by some miracle Lenski agreed to debate me, I could do some serious
        battering. ”

        Have to love his delusions. Oh, and as usual, not a single fellow sysop replied, so even they know what an idiot he is.

        • Pi says:

          So they ignore him as well?He just a sort of annoying pest that hangs around. He is the kind of guy that shows up to parties he was not invited to and start slapping people on the back, talking about how much he is going to drink that night, he might even go as far as to play punch people. Everyone near him ends up standing around not saying anything because nobody really wants to talk to him, but they are to polite to tell him to fuck off. He is usually a topper as well, anything you say or do he has to try and top it.

Comments are closed.