Admittedly, things have been quiet on Conservapedia lately, probably as Andrew Schlafly gets over his post-election orgasmic bliss, coupled with the new “e-mail us to join policy.” I see the latter still hasn’t stopped Terry Koeckritz blocking users because they happen to share an IP address with somebody who was blocked before… although we only have TwinKle-toes’ word for that – and we know what his word is worth. I wish somebody would explain “static” and “dynamic” IP addresses to them.
The lack of editors also means that there aren’t many people left who can poke Andy with a stick, highlight his “not-even-wrongness” and sit back as he spouts some demented defense of his insanity. The Kate Sorensen – Black Holes debacle was a good example, with Andy’s defense resting upon ‘if belief in black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you still promote black holes?”
Of course, this does have the advantage that when Andy does step on one of his own crazy-toes, we know we’re getting pure, unfiltered, unadulterated insanity, straight from the man. Then again, we are talking about somebody who thinks a “heartfelt” letter from George Washington to a family member holds more weight than the US Constitution.
There has been some talk about Andy’s narcissism; now I’m not going to get into that debate here, but it’s certainly safe to say that the man has delusions of grandeur, especially where his little blog might be concerned. This could be caused by the fact that he managed to appear before two state Supreme Courts, without having either bench breaking out in laughter (possibly due to a mix of professional ethics, stunned disbelief and pity). Whatever it is, Andy’s ego has been going to strange new places lately, which, when combined with the fact that every time the 3 brain cells he possesses touch, he must write something, has produced some unintentional hilarity lately.
Now, under ordinary circumstances, I would write the comments off as parody, along the lines of Landover Baptist. If it was Terry Koeckritz writing this, I’d put it down to him being a troll. But when Andrew Schlafly writes stuff like this, you know it’s a special kind of crazy. So, now maybe I should get on with it. There’s three examples to go through:
First off, we have a comment made by an editor, who makes a pretty sound analysis, basically stating that viewers will watch the news station that mirrors their political viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, and probably quite true. However, it is missing that special dose of Andy nuttiness, which – thankfully – he provides (please excuse the screen captures, but I find it’s the best way to stop entire conversations mysteriously “disappearing.” Yes, I’m looking at you, Terry Koeckritz).
You may be right about the financial incentive for the polarization. But if true, then wouldn’t the most credible source be the one lacking in any financial incentive … the Bible? I don’t see the critics of the polarization suggesting it.
Ah, so if you’re looking for a good, non-partisan news source… read the Bible. It’s not even off-topic, it’s not even vaguely relevant to the discussion. Then again, he does strike me as the sort who reads Revelation, looking for signs that it’s time to sell his shares because the Rapture’s a-comin’.
Anyway, moving right along – that was your starter for 10, so to speak, we get some more Main Page madness from Andy. I always love it when they say really stupid things in the “news” section – it does more to shout “Here be morons!” than any number of parodists could achieve. Now it would seem – in the real world anyway – that a preacher in New Jersey’s Living Word Christian Fellowship church, has told his flock to get off Facebook, because being on it leads to adultery or something.
Now, Andy’s had a small hard-on for FB for a while now – probably because nobody accepts his friends requests. Basically, he thinks that people who use it are all a bunch of narcissistic morons. Which is kind of ironic, given that Conservapedia sysops Ed Poor, John Patti, Geoff Plourde, Brian Macdonald, Dean Slade and Andy’s own daughter have accounts on there. There is one sysop, however, who uses *ahem* another on-line media to meet his “friends.” Then again, it’s been proven time and time again that Andy hasn’t the faintest grasp of what irony is.
So, how does Andy spin the above tale to his own advantage?
The African-American, New Jersey pastor “is forcing about 50 married church leaders to delete their Facebook accounts,” which is destroying relationships. Notice how he doesn’t complain about Conservapedia?? (emphasis Andy’s)
Now really, how could I make shit like that up? I’m also not sure why the pastor’s race is an issue – is it Andy’s way of saying, “See, even black people think like I do?” Goodness knows. But as with all things, it’s what isn’t said that makes it funny.
You see, when reading the article, the pastor also didn’t complain about Wikipedia (which must have really pissed off Andy). Nor did he complain about Rotten.com, Twitter, Hustler.com, etc, etc – all of which must, therefore, be as good and wholesome as Conservapedia.
Then again, given one sysop’s fascination with young girls, Conservapedia is – at times – as wholesome as your average pedophile site.
As always, I’ve saved the best for last. Now, an editor took it upon himself to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Needless to say he did this fairly rationally, listing the benefits and disadvantages of both. There was his first mistake – in Conservapedia land, WP has no benefits and CP has no disadvantages. I think it’s fairly safe to say that the editor’s time on Conservapedia is drawing to a close. However, not before Andy gives us an extra special dose of his insanity. He turns up on the talk page to offer some suggestions of his own: (I’ve taken the liberty of adding some comments of my own)
Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:
- Wikipedia: mobocracy.
- Conservapedia: meritocracy.
(Merit in this case meaning “sucking up to Andy at every opportunity and acting like a dick to everybody else)
- Wikipedia: sometimes the worst of the public.
- Conservapedia: the best of the public.
(Who pass an IP check, are around for the 2 hours CP is open for editing, aren’t parodists, etc, etc)
- Wikipedia: pretending to be unbiased when it isn’t.
- Conservapedia: says what it is, and doesn’t try to fool anyone.
(And with claims such as Obama’s a Muslim, we know exactly what it is…)
- Wikipedia: a poor educational resource.
- Conservapedia: a superb educational resource.
(that Andy actually believes this, especially in the face of two canceled courses, speaks volumes of the man’s mental state.)
- Wikipedia: like the National Enquirer, and visitors aren’t enriched by the experience.
- Conservapedia: like the Bible, and visitors are enriched by the experience.–Andy Schlafly 18:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)
(Yes, folks, Conservapedia – despite waxing orgasmic over Al Gore’s divorce, is not only not a gossip mag, but it’s as good for you as the Bible.)
Yes, let me say that again. Andrew Schalfly is comparing his error- and parody-filled little hate blog to the Bible. Do we really need anymore evidence that the man’s head is stuck so far up his ass, he can lick his tonsils. Not content with re-writing the Bible (ok, so 90% of that was done by parodists) to suit his own needs, he now puts his blog on the same pedestal as the “most logical book ever written.”
In the good old days, they used to burn people for doing things like that.