So Conservapedia, besides being “trustworthy” also tries to promote itself as a learning resource geared towards children and teenagers. I wonder what the parents of these children would make of the administrators of this site asking editors for their e-mail addresses (especially Terry Koeckritz), or even worse, their telephone numbers, in the case of Ed Poor? The latter case is especially worrying, given his seeming focus on matters sexual, as witnessed by his comments about “bulging vulvas”, “interstellar pimps” and a little sexual experimentation for our daughters. Then again, given that he is a Moonie, maybe it’s just his way of grooming impressionable youngsters for the next mass-matrimony ceremony.
All of that is, of course, hidden behind the scenes on users’ talk pages and is rarely seen by the casual visitor to CP. So it’s even more worrying when they blatantly display it on their front page.
Administrator Brian MacDonald has taken to creating a “Weekly Cartoon” – which is just the sort of thing an encyclopaedia should be displaying. (Oh, by the way Brian, I know you’re no Giles, but here’s a hint: a cartoon is supposed to be funny. After all, Jesus did invent comedy, according to Schlafly). It’s just more proof that Conservapedia is sliding from what could have been an interesting alternative to WikiPedia, to a blog for a very small, very isolated and very insane group of right wing nutjobs. When WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah thinks you’re a bunch of loonies, you know you’re pretty much out on your own.
Anyway, getting back to Brian. Remember, this is the man who is worried that PNAS (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) sounds like “penis”, has a Dolly Parton fixation and thinks that all “slutty girls” are prostitutes.
So how on earth does he come up with “Quim Parton” productions? Obviously, the Dolly Parton fixation is coming through, especially when you consider that there is one – and only one – possible definition for “quim”: “a vulgar term for a woman’s genitals, specif. the vagina.”
However, where it gets really fun – and thanks to Constant Reader Pi for reminding me of this – is when people dare to complain about it. Now, I’m not interested if they are genuine editors or not, I’m interested in the response of the administrators.
First up, we have JacobB. Now he might, or might not, be parodist – it’s just that when newcomers latch on to Andy’s pet projects and virtually parrot Andy’s every word, I get suspicious. Either way, Andy Schlafly has deemed JacobB worthy of enjoying limited administrator rights, which makes him legit either way you look at it.
Now when I say parroting Andy’s every word, have a look at this reply and as anybody who knows Andy Schlafly will realise, he has to be taking the piss:
StClaire (see our naming conventions), I see you have two edits to the encyclopedia (both attacking young earth creationism) and seven (7) edits to talk pages, all crating controversies which didn’t exist before and demanding removal of cartoons written by established and respected users. I encourage you to contribute constructively, or leave. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:50, 17 November 2009 (EST)
He then goes on to spout the most ludicrous reason why the word “quim” should be allowed to remain in place:
just to end this argument once and for all, I’ve looked it up and “quim” is actually a short form for Joaquim, a Portugese (sic) first name. Thus, the use of it as a proper name in the cartoon is not offensive and you are now a demonstrated trouble maker if you wish to continue the discussion. Satisfied? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Yes, in true CP style, he tries to stifle discussion with a combination of a lie and a threat. And you wonder why I think he’s a parodist? However, it doesn’t stop there. One of the complainants responds to the above drivel with a “Shame on you!”, which is a rallying cry for Andy himself.
Now remember, Andy is the “leader” of an educational resource for children that at the time of writing is proudly displaying the word “quim” on its front page. Would your (or any sane person, for that matter) response be the following:
I love liberal expressions of “Shame on you!”, because they are awkward attempts to make a conservative argument. Liberals don’t believe in “shame”! Try going to a liberal site and say “Shame on you! Shame on you!” and see the incredulous reaction. We don’t fall for that stunt here.–[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Stclaire, the answer to your demand for liberal censorship is this: “no”. We don’t cave in to demands for censorship, even when punctuated by repetitious “Shame on you!”
Ok, so asking somebody to remove profanity from his website is suddenly “censorship” – good to see that Andy’s persecution complex is still up and running on all cylinders.
One can only imagine what was on Brian’s mind when he drew this. What was on his mind when he posted it to the mainpage, for all the children to see, is quite another. Given the antics of some of Andrew Schlafly’s trusted colleagues, we wonder if this isn’t giving a whole new meaning to “home-schooling”? However, it must be said that at least – unlike Schlafly – Brian MacDonald realised he’d cocked up and deleted the offending cartoon. blogsurfer.us condron.us