More Conservapedia weirdness

Yesterday I noted that a Conservapedia editor had linked to the Chimp Refuge’s discussion of his territory from his user page. Now, he has put up the same link on the “Talk” page of my aggressively edited entry on the American Decency Association along with the statement, “This page was mentioned on a blog.”
I find it unusual that someone would strip away the lion’s share of an entry on the basis of its being “a straw man,” only to link, sans critical commentary, to a page containing the full glorious original. Maybe it’s simply the P.T. Barnum credo at work, or (reaching far into my ass here) maybe MountainDew actually wants people to get the entire scoop onthe ADA, but doesn’t think the entire scoop belongs on Conservapedia.

8 thoughts on “More Conservapedia weirdness”

  1. The capacity to comprehend (or lack thereof) might be in play here; or, of course, you could be dealing with a Conservap[a]edia mole.
    I believe it was PZ who put forth the notion that you can’t tell when the wingnuts are being sincere or satirical, because whatever they say it’s completely outrageous.
    Perhaps the entire reason for Conservap[a]edia is to mock the fanatics; or perhaps the fanatics are simply unaware that one (or more) of their number is really making fun of them from the inside.

  2. I mentioned this before, but I am very curious if this Mountain Dew fellow is the same person who posts on letsrun.com under that name. How many people can there be who spout mindless conservative felch while preferring to be known by the name of a vile-colored soft drink? If it is the same fellow, keep your eyes peeled as he has come up with some real doozies in the past.

  3. Dang it, Warren stole my joke.
    Only 258 Google hits for “Conservapaedia” as opposed to a million for the A-Muhrican spelling. . . but on the cheerful side, the first page of hits for the latter spelling are almost all mocking blog entries.

  4. “Mountain dew” is the impetuous result of a hillbilly’s morning woody. His tag is the shameful confession of a sexually repressed blogger.

  5. I believe it was PZ who put forth the notion that you can’t tell when the wingnuts are being sincere or satirical, because whatever they say it’s completely outrageous.
    Related note: Poe’s Law, which posits that “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
    Only discovered it today, thought I’d share…

  6. The explanation is really quite simple; the Conservapedia community isn’t nearly as homogenous as most people assume it to be.

  7. The explanation is really quite simple; the Conservapedia community isn’t nearly as homogenous as most people assume it to be.
    Posted by: Tsumetai

    Of course they’re not! They believe homogeneity is a sin!

Comments are closed.