Wednesday, April 11, 2007


Well, as expected I have found that Conservapedia should really be Fascistipedia. So far I have seen that one cannot say anything, and I mean anthing that might offend the Fasciti acting as sysops and il Duce, Andy Schlafly (brother of the great Roger, son of the doyenne of right wing harpies, Phyllis).

My first warning of being blocked was for writing “rat’s behind” (yes, behind, not ass) and for saying “cold bucket of hamster spit”. Yes, I kid you not. Anyway, I got this warning from il Duce:

Please reread our rules. This is a clean site. That means users who sprinkle their words of wisdom with obscene references and epithets are blocked. I don't want to have to wade through litter and pollution to find whatever nuggets of insight may be there. This, of course, applies to our talk pages also.--Aschlafly 09:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT) for more see

Then after this exchange, regarding the name of the Bible , in which I noted things like

“The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
BTW, the word was never Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. NousEpirrhytos 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed this: ...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia... -- la is not a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article illa. NousEpirrhytos 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT) “


“Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on all religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
Now, when are you going to fix la to ta? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that la is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- if he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no true scholar of the NT. NousEpirrhytos 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. NousEpirrhytos 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) “


Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? A simple yes or no will suffice. Karajou 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.
As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my modus legendi for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.
BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). NousEpirrhytos 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I incurred the wrath of Kakajuju for “attacks on the Bible...”, which, as anyone reading through the thread can see, I never did.

I was reprieved by ColinR with the note, “attacks were not made on the bible, only bible literalism, something this site doesn't explicity endorse as far as I can see/have been told by other sysops.)”

Then, good old Uncle Ed, Jackass Emeritus of Wikipedia noted, “reblock - should apologize before being reinstated” Yes, Eddie, for what? Besides, I couldn’t even if I wanted to, which I don’t, as the twits at Con-pedia have yet to mail a confirmation to my e-mail addy after 5 days (maybe I need to wait until the 6th for the big creation moment), nor can I edit even my own page. Like Duh.

Alas, it was an eye-opener while it lasted…certainly fodder for the press – especially given that it’s a wiki and is in the public domain.

Now the real fun begins.


Blogger Doc said...

Ah, but wait, my little gem at
See the part about financial stakes.

Wed Apr 11, 06:43:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Trent said...

If no one else has contacted you or invited you I would like to to extend an invitation to you to join a community of refugees from conservapedia. Most of the evil rationalist have joined. For the link and info if you want, e-mail me at

Wed Apr 11, 07:22:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Doc said...

Le vrai amusement? Dites-moi, s'il vous plait...

Wed Apr 11, 07:34:00 PM 2007  
Blogger JES said...

Up soon, comments on Doc's "" ... recommended by a Wikipedian browsing Con-pedia

Le vrai amusement sera la publication des données historiques -- Conpedia sera exposé ainsi chacun peut voir ses verrues, sa sottise, son attachement servile aux idées folles de son chef.

Thu Apr 12, 06:05:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Mya said...

I'm kind of amazed you expected anything otherwise. Maybe you didn't. I haven't gotten myself banned yet, mostly because I don't think I've edited enough to be on anyone's radar. And I somehow got away with insulting Il Duce himself. I think I'll have to try a little harder. Actually, they're now probably monitoring this comment thread, so maybe I won't have to do anything at all.

Thu Apr 12, 12:52:00 PM 2007  
Blogger JES said...

You're right...I really didn't. I had hoped against hope that the lapdogs on the site wouldn't be so slavish in their devotion to dogma, ideology and ignorance, but, well...

Sun Apr 15, 12:03:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am still on, but I expect to be banned soon. I will not give out my name, only to say I am open with my politics. These people are nuts--the more I listen the more fearful I become they will be less than a nuisance someday.

Tue Apr 24, 01:44:00 PM 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home