Ed Poor – Sanctimonious, Disingenuous, Dishonest Idiot

(Yes, I know I called him a Sanctimonious, Disingenuous, Dishonest Asswipe before, but Terry Koeckritz was getting all Harpic about it and was threatening handbags at dawn, so I toned it down a little.)

And those are his good qualities. Although, as you will see, Ed couldn’t have done it without the help of his *ahem* fairy godmother, Terry Koeckritz.

There’s always one thing you can guarantee when Ed Poor gets into stride – he will do something that will make Conservapedia look even more inane, bizarre or just plain stupid. If he isn’t adding articles on “sex with animals,” or “adult child sex, ” or the now legendary “Two meters,” he’ll be doing his best to show just what an arse-wipe he is.

Ed Poor recently even crossed the forbidden divide and did some editing on Rationalwiki. Of course, CP does has amongst it’s many, many block reasons “Member of a site promoting vandalism.” (The irony behind all this, is that Terry Koeckritz keeps citing the LA Times article as the basis for this, whilst conveniently forgetting that it mentions him by name and pokes fun at CP too. But what is a little “truth” to somebody who pretends to be both Christian and conservative and is, instead, a raving ho- oops, almost got carried away there. We’ll save that tit-bit for another day, won’t we Terry?) Of course, “editing” in Ed’s book doesn’t mean so much as having a conversation, but rather posting inane, one-line responses to questions. Then again, given that his contributions to CP are mostly inane, one-line and often fairly disturbing, what else would you expect? let’s have a look at some of Ed’s contributions (for simplicity’s sake, I’ll use a conversation I has with him:


The cynic is his own worst enemy. It requires far less skill to run a wrecking company than it does to be an architect.” Okay?


Really Ed? I think I’d rather trust a wrecking crew with a controlled demolition than an architect. Still, maybe you can silence the cynic within me by answering the following: How come you find references to prostitutes “too lurid for your kids”, a picture of a cartoon maid “too sexy for a family site” and claim you deleted a picture of Lara Croft, because she has “voluptuous breasts and a bulging vulva”; when at the same time you are adding references to bestiality (on more than one occasion, including a ‘sex with animals” redirect), rimming, “adult child sex” and “hard-core pornography? Or are you implying that your kids and families that use Conservapedia are comfortable with those things, whilst finding a cartoon French maid, abhorrent? Prove the cynic within me wrong, by actually giving a reasoned and sensible answer, and not hiding behind some inane quote-mine.


See [Wikipedia’s article] on the “Exception that proves the rule.”


No Ed, I will not follow your inane links (and what rule are you the exception to anyway?). Or is that your answer to why you can post here and everybody else gets blocked? How about responding to my initial claims above? Can’t be that hard can it? Come on Ed, put the cynic inside me to rest. You can do it.


“If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.” — Albert Einstein


Ok, so based on your quote above, just so we’re clear here: You can’t explain to me why you have a predilection for writing about bestiality, rimming and bulging vulvas (not to mention young girls), because you don’t understand why you do it.

Now you can see why talking to the man is equivalent to showing a half-blind dog and new card trick.

But enough about this pathetic moron’s activities on RW, let’s have a look at him swaggering around his home turf on Conservapedia. Now following on New Scientist magazine’s exposé of Andrew Schalfly’s blithering ignorance of the Theory of Relativity, there’s been an influx of doomed editors, trying to set Andy straight. This continued when Andy started rabbiting on about the Fields Medal. Of course, most of them were blocked and any changes they made swiftly deleted. While this was going on, Schlafly was still bleating about censorship, and the fact that the Medal would be awarded to less-deserving individuals.

Laughably, it’s Schalfly who raises the question of censorship, by saying, “Your proposed bet also has the effect of suspending discussion until the bet is resolved. That has the effect of censoring open discussion. If you don’t think the Fields Medal will be given to a woman on Thursday as you claim, then please explain why you feel that way.” (Of course, the medal wasn’t awarded to a woman). This was in reply to doomed editor JoshuaZ, willing to wager a donation to charity if a woman did win. Andy’s response was as expected – stupid and just another way of weaselling his way out of a tight corner.

Now Ed jumps in:

And please don’t think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We ”’do”’ follow Jimbo and Larry’s original NPOV policy of “describing all viewpoints fairly”. It doesn’t require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something … merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth … than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

He also replies to so-to-be-blocked editor RonLar (who is RW editor LArron – who had been allowed back into CP by Schlafly to debate his Best New Conservative Words garbage, but had to use a sock, because Terry Koeckritz had blocked his IP address. Remember this point, it’s important), saying:

Thanks for telling me you have evidence. Now show it to me; I’d like to take a look.

RonLar duly obliges with 2 links to items which had been deleted from CP. They can be found here and here.

Now Ed has a problem. He’s been given evidence and he’s not sure how to react. So he flannels around, whilst summoning the cavalry.

Let’s get past the blocking thing first. TK, if you’re listening, have you decided to permit RonLar to remain in our project? Any conditions, or is he A-Okay?

Wow, so suddenly, it’s not about evidence, it’s about whether RonLar is allowed to edit on CP. Remember, it was Andy who allowed him back.

Needless to say, up minces Terry Koeckritz in a flash, with a wonderful statement:

No, he isn’t the type of editor CP wants.  First he is socking. Second he is a major contributor of a known vandal site, so proclaimed by independent (not Conservapedia related) observers. He has edited here and at his vandal site with the same name, setting up his one-sided criticisms elsewhere by his provocations and manipulations here.  He has demonstrated by his statements elsewhere his high contempt for not only you, Ed, but Andy Schlafly as well, which provides ample proof of his intentions to undermine and literally destroy CP.  When they call you a pedophile on their vandal site, Ed, one can easily observe that those like “RonLar” who claim to be fair-minded, “rational” thinkers, never once publicly speak out about such smears or remove such items even though they are Administrators with the power to do so.  So no, he won’t be allowed back.

Now this is awesome on so many levels. Terry decides he can override Andy’s decision, plus claims the editor is socking up – because Terry had blocked his IP address in the first place, then he manages to slip in a snide remark about references to Ed Poor’s apparent tastes for young girls – which is not only off topic, but a direct dig at Ed by Terry, whilst seeming to blame RW. This is why he’s such a master troll. Terry, of course, then delivers the coup de grace, banishing RonLar from CP until the entropy death of the universe.

All that remains now is for Ed to… er… censor the offending comments, by deleting the post, along with the smug little comment, “Bye.” The really scary thing about all this, is that the smug, sanctimonious, dishonest fuck-face probably has no idea that there’s anything wrong with what he’s doing.

Still, you have to say that Ed Poor and Terry Koeckritz make a wonderful couple… except I don’t think Ed is Terry’s type. Too old for a start…


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, Censorship, Conservapedia, Ed Poor, Terry Koeckritz, TK and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Ed Poor – Sanctimonious, Disingenuous, Dishonest Idiot

  1. Norseman says:

    Too many hints are giving *it* away!

    It’s a great read. Too bad there wasn’t a single WIGO on the whole thing, it would’ve made Best Of probably.

    • cpmonitor says:

      Ah well, at least it will keep you-know-who on his toes. Actually it was WIGOd here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=prev&oldid=640322.
      Sadly it doesn’t seem to have garnered the love it deserves.

      • TK says:

        Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits

        A false sense of Internet security can mean legal quagmires for critics who are careless about facts.

        By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

        August 23, 2010

        The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

        “It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,” said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

        Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously.

        Some postings have even led to criminal charges.

        Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges “deserve to be killed” for having rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge to the city’s handgun ban in 2009. Turner, who also ran his own Web-based radio show, thought it “was political trash talk,” his lawyer said. But this month a jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

        In western Pennsylvania, a judge recently ruled a community website must identify the Internet address of individuals who posted comments calling a township official a “jerk” who put money from the taxpayers in “his pocket.” The official also owned a used car dealership, and one commenter called his cars “junk.” The official sued for defamation, saying the comments were false and damaged his reputation.

        In April, a North Carolina county official won a similar ruling after some anonymous bloggers on a local website called him a slumlord.

        “Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’ ”

        Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster’s identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

        Calling someone a “jerk” and a “buffoon” may be safe from a lawsuit because it states an opinion. Saying he wrongly “pocketed” public money could lead to a defamation claim because it asserts something as a fact.

        “A lot of people don’t know how easy it is to track them down” once a lawsuit is filed, said Sara J. Rose, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in Pittsburgh.

        The Supreme Court has said that the 1st Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech includes the right to publish “anonymous” pamphlets. But recently, judges have been saying that online speakers do not always have a right to remain anonymous.

        Last month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Nevada judge’s order requiring the disclosure of the identity of three people accused of conducting an “Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings” against Quixtar, the successor to the well-known Amway Corp.

        “The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited,” wrote Judge Margaret McKeown.

        Quixtar had sued, contending the postings were damaging to its business. The judge who first ordered the disclosure said the Internet had “great potential for irresponsible, malicious and harmful communication.” Moreover, the “speed and power of Internet technology makes it difficult for the truth to ‘catch up to the lie,’ ” he wrote.

        Media law experts say lawsuits over Internet postings are hard to track because many of them arise from local disputes. They rarely result in large verdicts or lengthy appeals to high courts.

        Goldman, the Santa Clara professor, describes these cases as the “thin-skinned plaintiff versus the griper.” They begin with someone who goes online to complain, perhaps about a restaurant, a contractor, a store, a former boss or a public official. Sometimes, one person’s complaint prompts others to vent with even sharper, harsher complaints.

        “There’s a false sense of safety on the Internet,” said Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. “If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment” before posting a comment, she said.

        Not surprisingly, the target of the online complaints may think he or she has no choice but to take legal action if the comments are false and malicious.

        “These can be life-changing lawsuits. They can go on for years and cost enormous amounts in legal fees,” Goldman said.

        He is particularly concerned about teenagers and what they post online. “Teenagers do what you might expect. They say things they shouldn’t say. They do stupid things,” he said. “We don’t have a legal standard for defamation that excuses kids.”

        Media law experts repeat the advice that bloggers and e-mailers need to think twice before sending a message.

        “The first thing people need to realize, they can be held accountable for what they say online,” Baron said. “Before you speak ill of anyone online, you should think hard before pressing the ‘send’ button.”

        • Norseman says:


          Because really, if this blog can be hit with a lawsuit, Conservapedia will get nailed. Hard.

  2. TK says:

    What is it that you consider trolling, “Norseman”? David Savage’s factual reporting? The article seems well-cited…..

    And if you think CP can fall under defamation, you should take steps to see that it is forced to correct itself, otherwise making such gratuitous statements like “Conservapedia will get nailed. Hard.” would indeed be considered trolling, not the news story I posted.

    • cpmonitor says:

      Oh yes Terry sweetheart. And just how long would somebody who took “steps to see that it is forced to correct itself” last on CP. Especially with you around. And once again, you fail at the definition of trolling. Although is was so sweet of you to leap to Ed’s defence yet again.

  3. cpmonitor says:

    Wow now I’m getting trolled by Terry Koeckritz. I must be doing something right.
    Tell me Terry, on what grounds based on the contents of the above article, would you initiate a lawsuit?
    Every claim I make about Ed is backed up by a screenshot – because we know how much you love the oversight button.
    And you do realise that at the first mention of a lawsuit, the first thing that I will do is have CP’s server subpoenaed and all editing stopped, in order for my lawyers to access the oversight log.
    Ok, so maybe calling Ed an asswipe was a bit over the top – but certainly deserved. I’ll tone it down to something more appropriate and not so lurid. After all, as the man says, he does have daughters.
    Still, your leaping onto the stage to defend Ed’s honour once again certainly does make you look like Ed’s fairy god mother, and from statements that you two acts as each other’s proxy, it’s obvious you have a special relationship.
    Oh yes, and if we wanted to, I’m sure there’s any number of articles on so-called liberals on CP, that would open Andy to a libel suit. In fact, let me make that my next big project.

    • Norseman says:

      “And you do realise that at the first mention of a lawsuit, the first thing that I will do is have CP’s server subpoenaed and all editing stopped, in order for my lawyers to access the oversight log.”

      Oh man. I hope there’s no gag order on that. ❤

      • cpmonitor says:

        Sadly, that probably would be privileged information. Of course, if we left a file lying around, I’m sure it wouldn’t be long before Terry leaks the contents. Again.

Comments are closed.