Sadly, I must confess to having long ignored one of Conservapedia’s more notorious administrators – user:Conservative (aka Ken DeMyer, Ruy Lopez, Peter Moore, David Jensen or any one of the many aliases this international man of moron-ity adopts in his efforts to boost his pet articles up Google’s rankings via search engine optimisation – SEO). By now, anybody vaguely familiar with CP should be aware that his “pets” are Atheism, Homosexuality, Evolution and Richard Dawkins… although not necessarily in that order. Forgive me if I don’t link to those articles myself, but I have no desire to assist in his frantic attempts to have his drivel appear in Google’s Top 10. To this end, Ken sees himself as a bit of an alpha male, and must stake out his territory by scattering his droppings all over CP’s main page and mostly Andy’s talk page.
“Drivel?” I hear you say. “On the Trustworthy Encyclopaedia? Surely not.” Well, you’re welcome to read them yourself, but I’m sure you’ll find them a turgid mess of quote mines, terrible English (Ken deserves an award for the use of the word “regarding” virtually every sentence he types), repetition (again with the SEO thing) and bad facts. An apt comment when describing Ken’s stuff (which was originally applied to the Conservative Bible Project, I believe) is that “it reads about as well as shitting barbed wire feels good.”) Of course, these articles are also protected, so only Ken, or the other admins, can actually edit them. However, given that CP happily displays this garbage on their front page, clearly means that the Trustworthy Encyclopaedia is proud of this un-encyclopaedic rubbish… even if all the other admins studiously avoid touching Ken’s output. They’re probably scared his stupidity is catching.
Ken has always been the strangest of the CP admins – which is saying something, given Andrew Schlafly’s delusions of grandeur, Terry Koeckritz’s pathological lying, Rob Smith’s commie conspiracy theories, Ed “Moonie” Poor, with his interest in love-starved Japanese schoolgirls, movies starring 11-year-old girls and knowledge of rimming (all additions that he made to the Trustworthy and Family Friendly encyclopaedia) and John Patti, whose own personal hatred of Obama, is only offset by his redneck, third-grade level English. Did I leave anybody out? Oh yes, Brian MacDonald with his anger management issues and Terry Hurlbut – a medical doctor, who set about translating the Bible with a pocket Greek/English dictionary and Google translate (and who has the creepiest internet photo I’ve yet seen) .
So when you stand out amongst the collective group of nutjobs running CP, you know you must be “special”. Ken has a wonderful debating style – which consists mostly of cryptic messages sent to a bunch of “gentlemen at a rather liberal website” from within the walls of Fortress Conservapedia. When he does venture out, as Rui Lopez on A Storehouse of Knowledge, he answers questions with questions, dodges the point, moves the goalposts and when you finally throw up your hands (as well as in your mouth) from frustration, annoyance, or – increasingly so – pity, he claims victory and that atheists/evolutionists/Richard Dawkins won’t debate him – often ending his screed with an “Ole! Ole! Ole!” But the less said about Ken’s bull-fighting fetish the better. A look at his talk page on aSoK is illuminating – but keep a bucket handy.
However, speaking of bull-fighting does allow me to segue neatly into the topic of today’s post. Never one to avoid jumping on a bandwagon, Ken saw his chance when CP launched their “Abortion project”. No, it wasn’t an admission that Andy has finally seen CP for what it is, but rather the creation of a whole bunch of abortion related articles (presumably with SEO in mind). So far, the project main page is mostly red-links (due to the fact that besides the Fabulous Five – or is it the Super Six, not that Terry’s back in favour? – and several blatant parodists, there are no editors left to add content.) However, some of the proposed article’s names should give you an indication of what to expect – “Abortion and Adolf Hitler” (yes, they start off by Godwin-ing themselves), “Abortion and atheism”, “Abortion discarded infants”, “Abortion quotes” (actually Google took me here, from which my favourite quote is ‘If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament’. ), “Ted Kennedy and abortion” (What?) and of course, “Barack Obama and abortion”. By the looks of the number of “Abortion in (insert country of choice here)” entries, we can expect an article for every country in the world. However, I predict that we’ll experience the entropy death of the universe, before this project will be finished.
But again, I digress. Ken (who by his own admission “has not been well”, a fact that has been very noticeable by anybody who’s had dealings with him – must be all that cold, damp air in his mother’s basement, where he spends all his time – I mean all – we’ve had 16 hour marathons before now – using 12 edits to add a comma to a sentence) saw this a perfect opportunity to attack his nemesis (in what passes for his mind, anyway) Richard Dawkins. Thus was born the Richard Dawkins project – another collection of red-links and bizarre article names, of which my favourite has to be “Women’s views on Richard Dawkins”. Honestly, seeing as how Andy the teacher sees the girls in his class as inferior creatures, I’m not sure CP would be interested in women’s views. Anyway, just to give you an idea, I’ve attached a screen-shot alongside. The response to this project has been… deafening silence, broken only by hiss of their mullets rubbing against their collars, as the other admins shake their collective heads, and the muted gasps and giggles of innocents who inadvertently stumble upon Ken’s droppings.
If you aren’t aware of Ken yet, here’s the introductory paragraph, which gives you a pretty good idea, of what the rest will be like to read:
The Conservapedia Richard Dawkins Project was launched to expand Conservapedia’s current collection of Richard Dawkins material. There does appear to be quite of bit of public interest in the Conservapedia article on Richard Dawkins as it contains factual material concerning the atheist Richard Dawkins that you will not find at Wikipedia and other liberal websites.
However, at some point the medication must have worn off, and Ken decided to attack Dawkins, by insinuating he’s not manly enough. There has been some speculation about just how Ken does like his men, but given that Ed Poor likes his Nazi homosexuals to be “ultra-macho, or butch” we can assume Ken is probably bottom. Two things are funny about this – firstly, WHAT THE HELL DOES MANLINESS HAVE TO DO WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH? Are you now expected to go three rounds with Chuck Norris before publishing a paper? Secondly, I think Ken has mixed up the words “macho” and “machismo”. A quick on-line search tells me that:
- Macho = used of men; markedly masculine in appearance or manner, manly, tough
- Machismo = Machismo is prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity, or a cult of male dominance
Given that CP is basically a big sausage fest these days, with no female editors, one can understand why Ken’s latched onto the cult thing. Even so, even by his standards, his essay on “Does Richard Dawkins have machismo” is utterly bizarre. He refers to him throughout as “Senor Dawkins” (meaning – if he wanted to keep a Spanish motif – Señor, but that would require knowledge on his part. And Ken never lets knowledge get in the way of his writing), sprinkles the article with bull-fighting pictures (again VERY suitable for a family friendly encyclopaedia) and even more bizarrely, rabbits and chickens. It gets even more bizarre, when he starts raving about “hispanic (sic) ladies”:
According to Quantcast data for richarddawkins.net, it appears Richard Dawkins may not be very popular at all with hispanic women. Why is this so? Is it because hispanic women think Richard Dawkins is an abrasive New Atheist who lacks charisma? No! That cannot be the problem! It is simply because Senor Dawkins lacks the manly confidence, attitude, and demeanor that many hispanic ladies expect to see in a man and this can easily be explained. One the reasons why Senor Dawkins acts unmanly in front of these hispanic ladies is that he understandably lacks confidence.
Right now, hispanic ladies are quite troublesome to Senor Dawkins. Hispanic women constantly kick sand in Senor Dawkins’ face when he goes to the beach because they are quite upset with Mr. Dawkins. The hispanic ladies see the tough talking and outspoken Dawkins before the friendly liberal press, but Senor Dawkins avoids at all cost debating strong debaters from the opposition. So unfortunately for Senor Dawkins, he is a weak atheist showman who cannot enjoy a day at the beach.
What the fuck? No, really. WHAT THE FUCK???!!!
I’d go on, but reading the above again just made me throw up in my mouth and a good Scotch is in order to remedy it. Suffice to say, poor deluded Ken has decided that “machismo” is his new buzz word, as be evidenced from his latest offering, “Does Paul Kurtz have machismo.” Again, I think a quote will suffice (and I’m not even going to mention his latest shout-out to a certain website:
If John Wayne was removed from a leadership post of an organization he founded, would the “the Duke” have described the event as a “shattering blow”? Never! At best, John Wayne would have said, “It’s only a flesh wound.” Yet this is what Paul Kurtz did.  One of the definitions of machismo is an “exhilarating sense of power or strength”. The sad and ugly truth is: Paul Kurtz lacks machismo.
P.S. I think most men would be happy to admit they lack machismo, rather than admit they’re a chauvinistic swine.
P.P.S. Andy I know you read this, you too, Terry and John. Honestly, if you care about your fellow admin, I recommend somebody go to his basement and take him into the fresh air. Or arrange to have him committed.