Yes folks, you read it here first (or maybe not!). However, I wish to go on record that Ken DeMyer aka Conservative aka Ruylopez aka David Jensen aka any number of aliases (more of them can be found here) lacks MACHISMO! Now, before we carry on, maybe we should have a look at what Ken thinks is a good example of machismo. You’ll have to look here, because in true CP-style, the original post has been deleted and oversighted. I guess even Andrew Schlafly gets embarrassed by Ken’s drivel at times.
John Hinckley Jr. was certainly crazy, but at least John Hinckley Jr. (I love how Ken appears to have never heard of pronouns!) had more machismo [than Richard Dawkins] and was obsessed with a woman.
Wait a minute… Ken sees somebody who a) was deranged, b) stalked Jodie Foster and c) shot Saint Ronnie as possessing machismo! Suddenly, I start to see why the right-wing in America shun Conservapedia. It’s because stuff like this is too crazy for even Beck and Coulter.
Now you might be asking yourself why I claim that the author of the seminal “Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?” lacks machismo himself, given that he is clearly an expert on what constitutes machismo and what doesn’t? let’s have a look at some of Ken’s wonderful, flowing prose:
Right now, Hispanic ladies are quite troublesome to Señor Dawkins. Hispanic women constantly kick sand in Señor 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 Señor Dawkins avoids at all cost debating strong debaters from the opposition. So unfortunately for Señor Dawkins, he is a weak atheist showman who cannot enjoy a day at the beach.
Now are these the writings of somebody who is even vaguely sane? Never mind those of an administrator on Conservapedia, the so-called (or self-titled rather) bastion of conservative thought on the net? But it is not because of these insane ramblings that I’m saying that he lacks machismo. It’s because the man is a coward. A craven cur with a yellow streak wider than the Yangtze River. A mental midget, with the debating skills of a newt. He is possessed of a liver that even the most lily-livered of chickens would disown.
Now these are fairly substantial accusations. Why do make them?
Well, remember we are dealing with a person – possibly of limited mental capacity – who makes ridiculous and unfounded claims, safely behind the walls of Fortress Conservapedia. His recent emissions (I’m sorry, I can’t think of a better word… maybe diarrhoea?) have been ridiculous attacks on Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. Ken can’t seem to get his around the fact that the chances of a biologist writing about the evils of Stalin are fairly remote. Plus, Ken DeMyer knows full well that he can never be challenged on his ridiculous assertions – not to mention his quote-mined abortions of articles – because he cowers behind a screen of blocking rights, oversight and fellow hand-picked sysop goons. And of course, on Conservapedia, if there’s no record of it, it never happened.
However, Ken did venture boldly forth, signing up as Ruylopez (he must have a Hispanic fetish. Must be all those smooth, tanned boys, with those sexy-sexy Gomez Addams moustaches) on the wannabe Christian encyclopaedia A Storehouse of Knowledge, initially so he could link-spam all his articles (Homosexuality, Atheism and Evolution) back to CP. However, there were two problems with this plan.
Firstly, ASoK is run by a former Conservapede admin, called Philip Rayment, who doesn’t have much of that ol’ Christian lovin’ for CP or its goons, so Ken’s link-spamming efforts soon came to an end. Secondly, little cowardly Ken suddenly found himself out in the big, bad world, with no ban-hammer, no oversight and no Terry Koeckritz to cover his ass (well, we think that’s all he does with Ken’s ass. However, given Ken’s obsession with homosexuality, one has to wonder).
Ken suddenly found himself having to answer some very pointed questions about his writings. How did this embarrassment to the conservative cause react? Maturely? With a flash of machismo to silence his critics. Or like the whiny little bitch he is? Let’s look at some examples of his replies:
- I quickly glanced and saw that you made a post to my talk page. I hope you did not have your hopes up as far as me reading it because that is not going to happen.
- I hope you did not hope that I would read you latest post because that is not happening either
- Trent, if your wiki is so successful then why is it that I no intention of looking at any material you write. (This is especially precious, given Ken’s many, many “Dear Gentlemen” shouts from inside CP. Although these have stopped now, probably because Terry got firm with him, and Ken’s still panting like a bitch on heat. Not to mention the fact that he stole Rationalwiki’s tumbleweed animation, for his “essay”. Just a little tip, girly-boy. Essays tend to have more than just a picture. Now, I know that all the books you read have really big pictures and very few words, but this is an encyclopaedia you’re apparently running).
- I am not reading any further communications from Rationalwikians so it is pointless to try to communicate through this channel. (True, because you can’t block and delete any comments you don’t like.)
- Gentlemen, I see by the yellow banner that I got a message. By the way, I did not read your recent postings.
So, for somebody who’s ignoring his detractors, he seems to spend an awful lot of time responding to them.
Ken DeMyer, you are a coward and an intellectual nobody. You are an immature child playing in a very big pool, and just because EVERYBODY (not just the Hispanic ladies) is kicking sand and water in your face, doesn’t mean you can take your ball and run whimpering like a cur that’s just been given a good kicking back to the warmth of Terry Koeckritz’s arms. If you had any machismo, you’d stand up to your detractors. But that’s beyond your mental faculties.
Godspeed, you sad, pathetic little man.