Pharyngula

What happened to Conservapædia?

You can’t get to Conservapædia right now — it seems to have been taken offline. It’s not clear why, exactly, but there is a curiously hideous article that was posted there, as noted on Wonkette.

The Constitution provides that if a senator is unable to complete his or her term then the governor of the state will appoint a replacement Senator. Below is a list of Senate Democrats from States with Republican Governors. Currently the Democrats hold a 58 seat majority in the Senate. If these Senators were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors, the Republican Party would regain a commanding majority in the Senate sufficient to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from socializing medicine, nationalizing the financial and auto industries, and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

What follows is a list of all the Democratic senators in states with Republican governors. It’s very difficult to read that without seeing it as a hit list.

Conservapædia issued a disclaimer, saying that the article was an act of vandalism, but a little detective work by Tony Sidaway shows that the author seems to have been a long-term wiki editor with a history of writing stuff that is fairly typical of Conservapædia.

I’m trying so hard not to cry for the poor babies at the site.

Comments

  1. #1 Andyo
    January 27, 2009

    The best was earlier in its lifetime, when they were citing The Onion as one of their sources!

  2. #2 King of Ferrets
    January 27, 2009

    This is what as known as creepy and insane.

  3. #3 Qwerty
    January 27, 2009

    I often go through Conservapedia by entering “Paul Zachary Myers” in their search engine; then, clicking on the link. The link to Pharyngula is about the only unbiased thing I’ve seen on their website.

    So, they had a Democratic senators in states with Republican governors that can appoint replacements list, huh. I am not surprised as the conservative venom reeks when I take a peek at some of the articles.

    I guess Amy Klobuchar must have been on this list. As my senator, I hope she’s watching her back. Don’t want our silly governor Pawlenty appointing Norm Coleman back into the senate after he loses to Al Franken.

  4. #4 Zifnab
    January 27, 2009

    I was a huge fan of the Northern Washington State Tree Octopus. That thing was up there for months.

  5. #5 Steve_C
    January 27, 2009

    Yeah… having the FBI or the Secret Service investigating you will really take a toll on your page hits.

    Dumbasses.

  6. #6 Che
    January 27, 2009

    It looks like they’re just upgrading to a new server.

  7. #7 Natasha Yar-Routh
    January 27, 2009

    That sort of thing doesn’t surprise me at all. I expect a lot more not so veiled calls to violence in the next few years. The only thing that does surprise me is that the site has been taken down. Or did they accidentally take the site down while trying to take the article down?

  8. #8 j.t.delaney
    January 27, 2009

    Somebody has some ‘splainin’ to do…

  9. #9 The Tim Channel
    January 27, 2009

    Little too much light on the cockroaches?

    Enjoy.

  10. #10 Sastra
    January 27, 2009

    Ah, think. It wasn’t a hit list.

    It was a prayer list.

    When God’s the hitman, it doesn’t count.

  11. #11 'Tis Himself
    January 27, 2009

    A quite conservative friend of mine was banned from Conservapaedia because he isn’t a YEC. ASchlafly comdemned my friend for being an atheistic liberal when, in fact, he’s neither.

  12. #12 Capital Dan
    January 27, 2009

    In the interest of socialized medicine, PZ, I am going to send you one (yes, ONE!) box of tissue absolutely free so that you may weep for the poor, poor children of Conservapædia without any restraint.

    It’s okay, Big Guy. There, there. Just let it go. Let it out.

  13. #13 Janine, Leftist Bozo
    January 27, 2009

    Posted by: Sastra | January 27, 2009

    When God’s the hitman, it doesn’t count.

    God is a bullet
    Have mercy on us everyone

  14. #14 abb3w
    January 27, 2009

    I suppose the question of what would constitute “witnesses to the overt act” might keep it from going to trial, but I wonder if this could be argued “an act of war against the United States” in court?

    Certainly I’d expect the conservatives to argue so if it had been done the other way around – say, how many Republicans would need to be assassinated to allow conviction for a Bush impeachment trial.

    Steve_C: Yeah… having the FBI or the Secret Service investigating you will really take a toll on your page hits.

    I’d lean Secret Service, given that I’ve been told part of the preparation for protective detail is mandatory surgery to remove the sense of humor.

  15. #15 Nick
    January 27, 2009

    Just one more reason to support Russ Feingold’s proposed Constitutional Amendment to eliminate Gubernatorial appointments and require Senate vacancies to be filled by special election.

    538.com had a post about it the other day.

  16. #16 Hugh M.
    January 27, 2009

    Terrorism is so ugly. Why don’t they just secede?

  17. #17 Zeno
    January 27, 2009

    I noticed recently a surge of hits on my blog post concerning Conservapedia’s ridiculous entry on President Obama. I checked Sitemeter to see what was going on and discovered I was getting referrals from Google searches for “conservapedia.” In fact, Halfway There had become the top item in the Google search results. Think about this. While I am not shy about my opinion that I’ve created a fairly neat little blog, it is indeed a little blog whose hit rate hovers between 200 and 300 per day. If my blog became the top Google search result for “conservapedia” (even if only for a few days), it’s an indication that Conservapedia is getting the attention it deserves: very, very little.

    Naturally I find this quite amusing.

  18. #18 Mena
    January 27, 2009

    Presented without comment, other than it’s 3:02 of facepalm while listening to Schafly’s horrible voice:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI

  19. #19 Insightful Ape
    January 27, 2009

    I am jut horrified…

  20. #20 PalMD
    January 27, 2009

    It just so happens that the crack home school brigade isn’t all that tech savvy. the bork the site fairly often (that is, when they aren’t stalking me or threatening to call teh FBI!!!)

  21. #21 Longtime Lurker
    January 27, 2009

    Fekkin fools forgot Franken!

    Nice Concrete Blonde reference, Janine.

  22. #22 j.t.delaney
    January 27, 2009

    “When God’s the hitman, it doesn’t count.”

    There’s one thing we can all agree on: God knows how to make it look like an accident.

  23. #23 Capital Dan
    January 27, 2009

    Janine made a Concrete Blonde reference and I missed it?

    And I thought she couldn’t get any more attractive.

    Rock On, Janine!

  24. #24 Stewy.cvl
    January 27, 2009

    If you go to to conservapedia dot com and click the “/w” directory you can access the main page… but this article has been removed, it seems…

  25. #25 zaardvark
    January 27, 2009

    Meh. It’s usually a bit more thinly veiled, but (probably) every article on that site is utter shite. Check out the article on homosexuality, if you have a strong stomach (site’s down, but you can find it via Google cache).

    Here’s a bit from the opening of the article on evolution:

    Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution which will be discussed shortly.

    So, yeah… this isn’t surprising.

  26. #26 Capital Dan
    January 27, 2009

    j.t.delaney | January 27, 2009 7:29 PM

    There’s one thing we can all agree on: God knows how to make it look like an accident.

    Then why do they call accidents an “act of God” instead of just, you know, accidents.

  27. #27 gypsytag
    January 27, 2009

    When conservatives advocate violence against people with whom they disagree, they are no longer interested in convincing people not to vote for the other side. They have rejected democracy itself.
    And I think that you can expect a lot more rejection in the next 8 years. yes 8!

    And BTW, speaking as a Canadian, as soon as everyone gets health care, they will not give it up. Not ever. You do not realize the peace of mind you get, until you have it.
    Its the primary reason I will not give up my citizenship.

  28. #28 altona
    January 27, 2009

    OMG, Longtime Lurker, are you from Ireland???!

  29. #29 Brian X
    January 27, 2009

    Ain’t no brain damage like Schlafly brain damage.

  30. #30 Barry
    January 27, 2009

    To the writer of that article: I think the country would notice a distinct pattern after 2 or 3 Democratic senators are assassinated. That plan is pure fail, with a total lack of strategiary. You have a better chance of taking over the Senate by starting a grass roots door-to-door campaign. Murdering 9 senators? From the site that claims it stands for family and values. This is pure gold.

  31. #31 AJ Milne
    January 27, 2009

    … But, intriguingly, while the site does seem to be coming back to life, I note the original article the Wonkette piece points out isn’t there anymore… or at least not where it used to be.

    Ah, the memory hole. Where would they be without it?

  32. #32 zaardvark
    January 27, 2009

    Wow, ignore my previous comment, sorry. I didn’t really catch on to the “hit list” angle, at first read. That’s sick and truly anti-American, if that word has any meaning.

  33. #33 AnthonyK
    January 27, 2009

    I always thought that the funniest thing about it was that there most popular article was on homosexuality.
    But then, conservatism is so gay (in a bad way, obviously)

  34. #34 AJ Milne
    January 27, 2009

    Erm… since #31 sorta continues a comment which seems not to have appeared yet (Moderation? Dunno… Me and moderation aren’t on speaking terms)… it looks like WingnutoPaedia’s server is sorta lurching back to life now… tho’ with the minor problem that their default page just points to an autogenerated index… you can get to the Wiki tho’.

  35. #35 AnthonyK
    January 27, 2009

    Shit, I meant “their”. That is just so republican

  36. #36 Longtime Lurker
    January 27, 2009

    are you from Ireland???!

    No, altona, sometimes one can pretend, but the blue sky gives it away:

    http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/bronx/woodlawn/katonahave/index.htm

    Got Roscommon roots, though!

  37. #37 chancelikely
    January 27, 2009

    Ain’t no brain damage like Schlafly brain damage.

    …’cause Schlafly brain damage don’t stop.

    I know it doesn’t scan quite right, but I never claimed to be Cuttlefish.

  38. #38 John Morales
    January 27, 2009

    I’m surprised no Conservapædia principals or fanbois have commented here yet.

  39. #39 Longtime Lurker
    January 27, 2009

    I’m surprised no Conservapædia principals or fanbois have commented here yet.

    Conservapædia has fanbois? The very thought of Conservapædia cosplay is terrifying!

  40. #40 Mal Adapted
    January 27, 2009

    “I guess Amy Klobuchar must have been on this list. As my senator, I hope she’s watching her back.”

    Schlafly and his accomplices better watch *their* backs. What goes around comes around. Just sayin…

    Of course, if I was to act on such a suggestion, I wouldn’t say anything to anybody, before or after.

    Mal

  41. #41 Alverant
    January 27, 2009

    I don’t know if I’d call this terrorism, but this won’t improve the site’s image. Certainly doesn’t improve my image of conservatives in general. Maybe if we’re lucky it will drive some people away.

  42. #42 Eamon Knight
    January 27, 2009

    ….Barack Hussein Obama from socializing medicine, nationalizing the financial and auto industries, and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

    And has he actually said he intends to do any of those things? (I know, it’s his secret plan). Of course: #1 would be good; #2 was started by Bush; #3….I don’t even know what that means.

    Is there anything at Conservapedia that isn’t barking-at-the-moon insane?

  43. #43 AnthonyK
    January 27, 2009

    No

  44. #44 Lurkbot
    January 27, 2009

    So how many of the four states that require any new gubernatorial appointment to be from the same party as the previous incumbent are on that list? I suppose I could look it up, but I’m too lazy.

    This certainly does seem to me to rise to incitement to assassination, and I think the Secret Service should take a good long look at this (and the right-wing blogosphere in general.)

  45. #45 Jadehawk
    January 27, 2009

    bloody hell. is it just me, or are the murderous types suddenly crawling out of the woodwork in vast numbers?!

    I remember when bush got re-elected, most people were simply contemplating emigration. conservatives lose, and they contemplate cold-blooded murder and armed rebellion (note the sudden spike in gun and ammo sales after the election)

  46. #46 Paul
    January 27, 2009

    Well, this particular brand of loonie really couldn’t emigrate. Who would take them?

  47. #47 Jadehawk
    January 27, 2009

    This certainly does seem to me to rise to incitement to assassination, and I think the Secret Service should take a good long look at this (and the right-wing blogosphere in general.)

    well, they are, if it makes you feel better. recently, they arrested this crazy fuckwad

  48. #48 raven
    January 27, 2009

    I’ve pointed out for a while that hate, lies and violence and the odd murder are never far below the surface of fundie xians.

    A hit list of 9 democratic senators.

    Death threats over the internet are felonies. There are plenty of people doing long, hard time for exactly that.

    I’ve also said the fundies want to destroy the USA and head on back to the Dark Ages. They say so often. Schlafy probably considers those who hate the USA to be hopeless moderates.

  49. #49 Intelligent Designer
    January 27, 2009

    It Does. Errors in DNA replication and recombination can produce DNA strands that are longer and contain more information than the parent strand. This is trivial.

    This paragraph contains information. If we start to randomly modify this paragraph could it get longer. Yes. Will it have more information? No.

  50. #50 Jadehawk
    January 27, 2009

    not that intelligent, if you can’t even post in the correct the tread, ID! *snicker*

  51. #51 Longtime Lurker
    January 27, 2009

    Re Alverant:
    Certainly doesn’t improve my image of conservatives in general. Maybe if we’re lucky it will drive some people away.

    Those people were already driven away, now it’s just the dead-enders.

  52. #52 Lurkbot
    January 27, 2009

    Jadehawk:

    well, they are, if it makes you feel better. recently, they arrested this crazy fuckwad

    That’s good to hear.

  53. #53 Ben
    January 27, 2009

    It looks like they’re back up. Too bad, so sad. And back to their ol’ pin-headed, anti-science BS, as evidenced by the chest-beating below:

    The Conservapedia evolution article, which skewers the theory of evolution, is now in the top 11 search results for the search evolution at the Yahoo and AltaVista search engines!Ole! Ole! Ole! Stay tuned for new developments!

    ‘Course it’s just so much more BS, in the case of Yahoo. I just tried it and saw no mention of the article. Didn’t try Alta Vista, but who uses that dog anymore?

  54. #54 JohnnieCanuck
    January 27, 2009

    You forgot the second, most important step, ID.

    That’s where selection occurs to determine if the random changes hold value.

  55. #55 Molly, NYC
    January 27, 2009

    You see a hit list; I see a list of swing states–which suggests, considering the rate at which the GOP is imploding, that those governors’ seats are pretty vulnerable.

    So that’s: AK (Palin, up for election this year) (I think); CA (the Governator, 2011); FL (Crist, 2011); HI (Lingle, 2010); LA (Jindal, 2011); IN (Daniels, 2012); MN (Pawlenty, 2010); NE (Heineman, 2010); NV (Gibbons, 2010); ND (Hoeven; 2011) (I think); SD (Rounds, 2010).

    (Not sure if these years are ends of terms or the years of the gubernatorial campaigns, or a little of each. In any case, those Conservapedophile home-schoolees better get their skates on if they don’t want to waste their chances to spend 25-to-life in a prison run under a contract awarded to an RNC bribe-artist donor, under what passes for humane conditions by a Republican prison board–and all for the greater glory of the Republican party–who, I assure you, won’t even send them a thank-you card.)

  56. #56 Alyson Miers
    January 27, 2009

    Rethuglicans behaving like Rethuglicans. I am shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.

  57. #57 Altona
    January 27, 2009

    Hard to get more Irish than Roscommon! ;-)

  58. #58 Ward S. Denker
    January 27, 2009

    It’s very difficult to read that without seeing it as a hit list.

    Wow. I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt that by “hit list” you mean to say “seats we should work to replace with Democrats” instead of “people we should murder because they don’t agree with us.” The way you said it is disturbing and, for your own good, I’d suggest you reword it.

    Assuming the former, I’d like to point out that it’s quite hypocritical of you to hold the belief that Democracy works only so long as it puts your guy in office and that it fails and falls to evil when the process elects the other guy. I cannot see any way that you can salvage such a position in a way that doesn’t make you appear to be an enemy of liberty or Democracy, but I encourage you to try.

    I must also point out that this blog entry smacks of ad hominem, not because you’re being insulting, but because you are arguing that there’s something wrong with the people that have a position you don’t like. You’re not arguing against the position itself, so far as I can see. That’s not a tack I’d advise an educated man, such as yourself, to take. That’s my humble advice, for what it’s worth.

  59. #59 Jon
    January 27, 2009

    Austin Cline, the About.com atheism Guide, posted a list a while back of the statistically most viewed pages on Conservapedia, based on the site’s own metrics:

    1. Main Page? [1,949,393]
    2. Homosexuality? [1,773,481]
    3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis? [518,380]
    4. Homosexuality and Parasites? [453,027]
    5. Homosexuality and Promiscuity? [422,571]
    6. Gay Bowel Syndrome? [404,480]
    7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence? [374,426]
    8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea? [332,257]
    9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer? [294,820]
    10. Homosexuality and Mental Health? [294,197]

    Still makes me laugh…

  60. #60 joe blowski
    January 27, 2009

    oh, and the constitution does not require that governors make appointments, though it empowers legislatures to allow the governor by law to make a temporary appointment.

    whatever.

  61. #61 Jadehawk
    January 27, 2009

    Ward, think before you type. it’s not us who wrote the list and make thinly veiled suggestions about assassination. the list is of states in which a dead Democrat senator could be replaced with a live Republican one.

  62. #62 Jadehawk
    January 27, 2009

    Molly, ND is not a swing-state, even though it aways kinda looks that way. it’s had an odd mix of democrat senators and republican governors for ages, and it also always goes to the Republican in Presidential elections.

  63. #63 BAWLS
    January 27, 2009

    HOO EVER BROGHT DOWN COSERVAPEIDIA SHOOD BE WATRBORDED AND TORCHERED!!!1!!

  64. #64 JohnnieCanuck
    January 27, 2009

    WSD
    You have a reading comprehension failure as best I can tell. You quoted PZ, who was posting about something written on Conservapædia, which he quoted (in Comic Sans, if that helps any).

    What your confused post seems to be doing is condemning PZ for what are actually the suggestions of the Conservapædia author he quoted. Those are Democrat seats with Republican governors, and the most obvious mechanism for making them “unable to complete their terms” is violence. Against the Democrats. Clear?

  65. #65 Tony
    January 27, 2009

    An angel is sodomized every time PZ spells it “Conservapaedia”.

  66. #66 ice9
    January 27, 2009

    Wait…his middle name is HusSEIN?

    ice

  67. #67 chuckgoecke
    January 27, 2009

    I’ve got a feeling that guy Qwest probably has Feds crawling up his jockey shorts as we speak.

  68. #68 Stanton
    January 27, 2009

    Hugh M. said:

    Terrorism is so ugly. Why don’t they just secede?

    Because they want to take the rest of the country with them.

  69. #69 'Tis Himself
    January 27, 2009

    Tony Sidaway started a Conservapedia Classic Quotes thread at The Guardian website last November. Some of the quotes and links are hilarious.

    The entirety of the article English grammar:

    English grammar is based on sentences typically formed out of a subject followed by a predicate.

    Sometimes people are able to sabotage some of Conservapedia’s articles. This is from the article on Glasgow, Scotland:

    Language
    The language of Glasgow is formally English but, informally, the natives speak a local variant of Scots. Here are some common everyday phrases which may be useful for the visitor:
    * Hullawrerr – Good morning/afternoon
    * Hoozitgaun? – How are you?
    * Awright – I’m very well
    * Geeza – Please
    * Ta – Thank you
    * Yer bahookey – You’re welcome
    * Wherraboozer? – Where can I get something to eat/drink?
    * Fuctifanaw. Ahmno fae here – I’m sorry I don’t know. I’m a stranger myself.
    * Jeewant chibbed yabassa – Please leave me alone
    * Aye, right – I agree
    * Yeraffyerheid – I disagree
    * Gerritupye – Good health
    * Ahwislikaat – I was surprised

  70. #70 Dust
    January 27, 2009

    Janie, Lestist Bozo @ 13: God is a bullet
    Have mercy on us everyone

    Dust rejoins—

    I told the preist; Don’t count on any Second Commin’
    God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slummin’

  71. #71 Nick
    January 27, 2009

    How could God allow Conservapedia to fall?

    Is this an argument against the power of prayer.

    Arsefly does appear to be a bit of a “groomer” doesn’t he?

  72. #72 Janine, Leftist Bozo
    January 27, 2009

    Dust, Concrete Blonde did a cover of that song but Andy Prieboy wrote it.

    Also, I do not have a gun. My name is not Janie.

  73. #73 Ian Monroe
    January 27, 2009

    Yet another reason states should take away the right of governors to appoint senators.

  74. #74 Dust
    January 27, 2009

    Is it required to mention who wrote the song when one quotes a snippet of lyrics?

  75. #75 oaksterdam
    January 27, 2009

    Is it required to mention who wrote the song when one quotes a snippet of lyrics?

    I say yes. But PZ credits it to CB in his random quotes and we don’t seem to be holding it against him.

  76. #76 Jeeves
    January 27, 2009

    @Ward,

    Read the paragraph again. Think about it for a few minutes. Read it again. Jot down your thoughts. Okay, do you still think that we’re overreacting to this? At best, at the very best, Conservapedia is hoping (read: praying) for the Democrats mentioned to die in some accident or by natural causes. The second possibility is assassination. That’s it. The paragraph doesn’t mention future elections. They are writing of the here and now.

  77. #77 Zar
    January 27, 2009

    Posted by: Longtime Lurker | January 27, 2009 8:07 PM

    Conservapædia has fanbois? The very thought of Conservapædia cosplay is terrifying!

    If you think that’s bad, you should see the slash fanfiction they write.

  78. #78 Angela
    January 27, 2009

    When Wonkette posted this, several commenters pointed out that some of those states have rules that prohibit the governor from freely picking a replacement for a departed senator. I believe Alaska, for one, requires a special election. So it wouldn’t even be an effective hit list.

    Oh, and Ward? In a democracy you replace senators with someone else. The article specifically referred to Democratic senators being unable to finish their terms. I saw it as more of a masturbatory fantasy than a hit list, myself, but I wouldn’t want to put it out there for some deranged people to see as an assignment.

  79. #79 raven
    January 27, 2009

    Ward S. Denker the homicidal fascist:

    Wow. I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt that by “hit list” you mean to say “seats we should work to replace with Democrats” instead of “people we should murder because they don’t agree with us.” The way you said it is disturbing and, for your own good, I’d suggest you reword it.

    It’s a hit list, a list of 9 senators that Schlafy et al. think and hope should be assassinated so the Republican governors can appoint someone of their own party. Why else would the governor’s party matter?

    Ward S. Denker threatening PZ Myers:

    for your own good, I’d suggest you reword it

    OOOHHHH!!!! Another threat. So what will you do if PZ doesn’t reword it. Bullet to the head, car bomb, fly a plane into U. Minn. Morris. What is it with you mental defectives and lies, violence, and killing anyway?

    All fundie xians have lists of people they want to kill. So Ward, who is on your list of people to kill? Must be a long list, millions or tens of millions. There is no doubt that a fundie xian theocratic state would be rivers of blood and mountains of bodies. They can’t even wait for it.

    Death threats over the internet are felonies.

  80. #80 Ward S. Denker
    January 27, 2009

    Jeeves,

    I’d extend to them the same assumption that I’m extending to PZ on that accord. It’s hypocritical to assume PZ means it one way and they mean it the other or vice versa. Until they actually say they’re trying to incite violence, it’s only wishful thinking. I don’t have any vested interest in seeing either side “win” because both want to reduce my liberties in different ways. I’m trying to be unbiased here in how I’m reading it and extending the same benefit of the doubt both ways.

  81. #81 raven
    January 27, 2009

    Ward S. Denker psychopathic moron:

    I must also point out that this blog entry smacks of ad hominem, not because you’re being insulting, but because you are arguing that there’s something wrong with the people that have a position you don’t like.

    Most people think that effecting a change of control of parties in congress by murdering 9 senators is wrong. Evidently you think that is just fine and normal behavior.

    Oh well, fundie xians do produce loads of mentally and morally twisted people. That is why we have armies, cops, courts, and prisons.

  82. #82 Ward S. Denker
    January 27, 2009

    Most people think that effecting a change of control of parties in congress by murdering 9 senators is wrong. Evidently you think that is just fine and normal behavior.

    I am saying no such thing, I’m extending the same benefit of the doubt to their side. I’m not on either side, remember?

    You are aware that there are non-violent methods to remove Senators from office. You’re looking at it from the point of view that these Senators are beyond reproach. Watching them for missteps that are grievous enough to call for their resignation is not an overtly evil behavior. Who knows what misdeeds can be discovered if anyone does any watching. It’s not like that’s a tactic Democrats haven’t used in the past to bring down Republican politicians.

    I think all of you are really overanalyzing this in your own favor. Would someone publish a hit list in public? Seriously? Why draw that kind of attention to oneself?

  83. #83 PZ Myers
    January 27, 2009

    Reality check here: if they were just urging people to campaign for more Republican senators in states currently represented by Democrats, there would be no point in specifically selecting only states with Republican governors, or saying “If these Senators were unable to complete their terms…”. How would campaigning harder for Republicans make the sitting senators unable to complete their terms?

  84. #84 eddie
    January 28, 2009

    Re TisHimself @69 – I am surprised that their article on Glasgow was uncharacteristically accurate. But they seem to have mistaken it for its near neighbour Govan.
    For those interested in examples, search youtube for ‘rab c nesbit’.

  85. #85 raven
    January 28, 2009

    <>If these Senators were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors, the Republican Party would regain a commanding majority in the Senate sufficient to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from socializing medicine, nationalizing the financial and auto industries, and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

    Its a hit list.

    1. Why would 9 senators who happened to be Dems in states with Homithuglican governors all be “unable to complete their terms” simultaneously? Big coincidence there. Unless all 9 were murdered.

    2. Why are all the 9 senators on the hit list in states with Homithuglican governors. In most states the governor appoints the replacement for senators who have “accidents” in office.

    3. Look at the source of these threats. Schlafy is an insane wannabe thug with an enormous load of raw hostility.

    4. The list has disappeared off their site. Chances are very good the FBI has managed to get a few brain cells firing and have some questions. If law enforcement had their act together, these guys would be phoning their lawyers from a lockup.

  86. #86 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    PZ, I’m talking about dirt digging. Looking for scandals, the same old stuff that people have been up to in politics since politics has been invented…

  87. #87 BlueIndependent
    January 28, 2009

    I would remind Ward S. that the type of people that frequent Conservapædia as a source of good information are the same ones that read Ann Coulter books as if they’re harrowing accounts of realpolitik and think it’s just hilarious when she offers up suggestions for how to poison someone’s food and drink in order to remove them from office quickly.

  88. #88 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Raven, #85,

    1. They all fall victim to scandals (like Blagojevich) and are forced to resign.
    2. The best people to watch for scandalous behavior.
    3. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that he’s not stupid enough to post a hit list in public. That would make him an accessory, you know?
    4. Or, someone realized that people might see it the same way you interpreted it and decided to remove it to avoid culpability if others saw it that way too. A lot of hate mail can cause someone to retract statements, even if they meant nothing ill by them.

    *shrug*

  89. #89 raven
    January 28, 2009

    Ward S. Denker confused:

    I am saying no such thing, I’m extending the same benefit of the doubt to their side. I’m not on either side, remember?

    I don’t believe you. It is clearly a hit list of 9 senators that Schlafy and his clown bunch want to see killed.

    Senators get caught doing ugly illegal stuff all the time and never get tossed out. Larry Craig the notgay restroom cruiser is still in office.

    Just keep working on your List of Groups to Kill. It will make you feel better even if it doesn’t clear the fog in your brain. The record holder is Sarah Palin and the Rapture Monkeys. They want god to destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people. A few are hoping we discover intelligent extraterrestrial aliens. Then god can kill them too.

    Fundies put the Warped into Warped Religion. So many people to kill, so little time. And Oh yeah, jesus loves you.

  90. #90 Jeeves
    January 28, 2009

    Ward,

    The only option I didn’t mention was the possible of a enormous scandal, a bubonic plague of political screw up that could some how unseat all the members that they mention. But really, isn’t that the most unlikely reason for their post? Someone with a statistical degree should fill us in on the likelihood of something like that happening. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt but I’m afraid I’m too familiar with Conservapedia, particularly the discussion pages ( talk about back alley theorizing!) to think that this wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. That sentence that we keep discussing was constructed for a purpose. There is a definite meaning behind it. You can call the gang at Conservapedia lots of things but they don?t hold back. They write exactly what they mean. Sorry, Ward, but the two most horrid possibilities are also the most obvious.

  91. #91 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    BlueIndependent, I’d like to see an argument that could convince me that the simplest explanation here wouldn’t be the best one. I’ve said incindiary things in the past that sounded like I was saying something other than what I meant. Can you honesty say you have never said something that you wished you could take back once you realized that what you’d actually said wasn’t what you meant at all?

  92. #92 Autumn
    January 28, 2009

    If I’m reading my US Constitution right, the removal from office of a sitting US Senator requires an impeachment and then a conviction, same as for removing a President, and ostensibly requiring a similar amount of time.
    There is no possibility that the removal of nine sitting Senators could be accomplished prior to the next election without violence. The authors must have been aware of this, and the fact that the page has been taken down is evidence for that fact, as the authors must also know that satire is protected speech, but they failed to crowd behind its aegis.

  93. #93 Richard Simons
    January 28, 2009

    Ward, I think you must be reading a different article from everyone else. “It’s hypocritical to assume PZ means it one way”. What do you mean by ‘it’? What assumption are people making about this mysterious ‘it’ that PZ wrote? I don’t see anything in what PZ wrote that requires anyone to make any assumptions.

  94. #94 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Autumn, they can hope to get them to resign without an impeachment hearing. At the least it would hurt their re-electability. Hoping to unseat 9 senators with individual Senators via scandal isn’t impossible (especially considering the amount of scandal Washington seems to attract), though implausible. I doubt these guys are statisticians or even particularly bright. They may be prone to praying that the Senators that could not be unseated with scandal would have something nasty befall them. I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid that most school-aged kids that compose those lists as a joke (without regard to the fact that it’s not funny, but kids can be stupid) know better.

  95. #95 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Raven,

    I don’t believe you.

    Fuck you. I’ll say what I believe and if I have any major faults is that I’m too honest, a fact to which anyone that actually knows me would attest. You can take your internet psychological analyses and cram them up your ass.

    Regards.

  96. #96 Rey Fox
    January 28, 2009

    “Larry Craig the notgay restroom cruiser is still in office.”

    Actually, he isn’t. But he did serve out the rest of his term.

  97. #97 Matt
    January 28, 2009

    The den of ignorance seems to be online again now.

  98. #98 Sarah Palin
    January 28, 2009

    Conservapedia, again, is representative of all that is good in This America, the good folks and gals at the kitchen table, who, again, are trying for those values, family values,here again, in this venue, and progressing Gods’ values, for America and to suggest that this is a “hit list”, it is a negative connotation that unAmerican liberals and, also too, people like Bill Ayers would, be suggesting in, to progress their unAmerican ideas and values in a way that is hurting in a negative way, again,ya know, for family values.

  99. #99 raven
    January 28, 2009

    Ward S. Denker the mental defective:

    Raven,

    I don’t believe you.
    Fuck you. I’ll say what I believe and if I have any major faults is that I’m too honest, a fact to which anyone that actually knows me would attest. You can take your internet psychological analyses and cram them up your ass.

    Regards.

    You just proved my point. A mental defective, crazy and stupid and living in a mental fog.

    Go over to Conservapedia and help them with their terrorist plots. You can provide the excuses when the cops arrest them. With your competent help, they will undoubtedly hit jail sooner rather than later.

  100. #100 Weaves
    January 28, 2009

    Half way through that I was thinking “someone’s made a hit list and even SUGGESTED that these be people be made…unable…to continue”

  101. #101 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid that most school-aged kids that compose those lists as a joke (without regard to the fact that it’s not funny, but kids can be stupid) know better.

    You would doubt stupidity because?

  102. #102 Jeeves
    January 28, 2009

    “I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid that most school-aged kids that compose those lists as a joke (without regard to the fact that it’s not funny, but kids can be stupid) know better.”

    That’s right. It slipped my mind for a minute there. Wasn’t Conservapedia started by this guy’s students? I wonder how many of these entries were created by brain washed teens?

  103. #103 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    You just proved my point. A mental defective, crazy and stupid and living in a mental fog.

    Go over to Conservapedia and help them with their terrorist plots. You can provide the excuses when the cops arrest them. With your competent help, they will undoubtedly hit jail sooner rather than later.

    A hit list posted in public is so retarded that I don’t even believe Republicans are that stupid. I’d say the same for Democrats, but your level of stupidity is approaching that. I’m not sure how you manage to keep from drowning on your own drool. If you’re a shining example of Demmocrat reasoning, I never want a thing to do with it. You and Bush can go hang out. While neither of you would have a thing to discuss, politically, your intelligence is about on par with his. I’m sure you’d get on well.

  104. #104 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    Hey, now you can do that Janine thing.

    Raven, Drowning in Drool.
    —————————-

    Denker: It’s a hit list. There IS no limit to stupidity.

  105. #105 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Hey, now you can do that Janine thing.

    Raven, Drowning in Drool.

    I’d suggest:

    Raven, Bush’s Counterpart in IQ

    There IS no limit to stupidity.

    I stand corrected. You and Raven have illustrated that beautifully.

  106. #106 Desert Son
    January 28, 2009

    A hit list posted in public is so retarded that I don’t even believe Republicans are that stupid.

    Check Chuck Shephard’s “News of the Weird” sometime for repeated instances of stupidity hand-in-hand with criminal behavior, not just in the recounting, but in the original perpetration. Better yet, check your local police blotter or interview police representatives sometime.

    Point being, stupidity does not necessarily preclude the criminal. It’s also, to be fair, no guarantee of the criminal, either. Which goes to show that “But that’s so stupid!” is a stupid reason to argue the criminality, or lack thereof, of the subject.

    No kings,

    Robert

  107. #107 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    WSD

    It must be past your bedtime. You can’t see the obvious, and you’re cranky.

  108. #108 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    It must be past your bedtime. You can’t see the obvious, and you’re cranky.

    You guys want your rough bar and now you cry out like babies when you have to take a few lumps for saying patently stupid things. I guess it’s only rough when everyone else treats you with kid gloves and you do all of the lambasting. Take your lumps for getting involved in a fight that didn’t involve you like a man.

    Desert Son,

    Blagojevich tried to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder. That’s about as knock-down-drag-out-knuckle-dragging DUMB as I can imagine, and he’s got quite the pair on him to deny it. Ergo, every Democrat is just as stupid as he is.

    Is that the kind of reasoning you’re employing?

  109. #109 Capital Dan
    January 28, 2009

    Careful… An unmedicated and cornered Ward S. Denker is a frothy, bitey, little beastie. And, though it may be fun to watch him wet himself when agitated, please remember that his handlers are getting paid minimum wage.

  110. #110 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Careful… An unmedicated and cornered Ward S. Denker is a frothy, bitey, little beastie. And, though it may be fun to watch him wet himself when agitated, please remember that his handlers are getting paid minimum wage.

    You guys set the tone. You make your bed, you can lie in it.

    “But PZ, he’s so mean!”

    Does someone have to hold your dick for you? Is that why your panties get all in a twist when you get back what you give? Whine and cry all you want, I tried to be civil and all I got for it was insistence that I lie about my own fucking beliefs. How deep in denial do you have to get? If there’s anyone who needs some meds it’s you hyped-up, sensationalistic, overly-sensitive, know-it-all, mealy-mouthed, little fucking pansies. A bottle of Ritalin, coming right up for you. I hope I don’t have to tell you which end you put the meds in.

  111. #111 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    You guys want your rough bar and now you cry out like babies when you have to take a few lumps for saying patently stupid things.

    You took an indefensible position, and instead of admitting you might be incorrect, you have stuck with it.

    The stupid is trying to sugar-coat an obvious call to violence.

    Do gawd’s will. We are the ones who gawd has chosen to be in charge!

    The religionists kill often and with impunity. A hit list is no suprise.

    Go to bed, you’re crabby.

  112. #112 Desert Son
    January 28, 2009

    Ward S. Denker,

    Blagojevich tried to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder. That’s about as knock-down-drag-out-knuckle-dragging DUMB as I can imagine, and he’s got quite the pair on him to deny it. Ergo, every Democrat is just as stupid as he is.

    Is that the kind of reasoning you’re employing?

    Nope.

    Here’s what I said, from my post at #106: “Point being, stupidity does not necessarily preclude the criminal. It’s also, to be fair, no guarantee of the criminal, either. Which goes to show that “But that’s so stupid!” is a stupid reason to argue the criminality, or lack thereof, of the subject.

    In other words, your case that the page in question isn’t a threat because no one would be that stupid, is not a very strong case for why it isn’t a threat.

    I didn’t make the point to score partisan points. In fact, I made the point without reference to any particular political allegiance. Why you think this is a Democrat or Republican issue is your business. It seems to me the larger question is, is it a criminal issue?

    So far, the evidence you’ve supplied for why it’s NOT a criminal issue isn’t very strong (i.e., “No one would be that stupid,” or in your words, “A hit list posted in public is so retarded that I don’t even believe Republicans are that stupid”). That was the kind of reasoning I was employing.

    Hope that clears it up.

    No kings,

    Robert

  113. #113 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid that most school-aged kids that compose those lists as a joke (without regard to the fact that it’s not funny, but kids can be stupid) know better.

    O RLY

    some people are crazy. a lot of those seem to post on far-out internet sites. one of those is conservapedia.

  114. #114 Desert Son
    January 28, 2009

    Closed quote AND nested quote fail:

    Part of text in #106 should have shown formatting more along the lines of the following:

    Here’s what I said, from my post at #106: “Point being, stupidity does not necessarily preclude the criminal. It’s also, to be fair, no guarantee of the criminal, either. Which goes to show that ‘But that’s so stupid!’ is a stupid reason to argue the criminality, or lack thereof, of the subject.”

    “It’s late, the reds have Oklahoma, my mistress is pooped, and I’m going to bed” (with apologies to Berke Breathed and Hodge Podge).

    No kings,

    Robert

  115. #115 Autumn
    January 28, 2009

    I stand by my statement that no resonable person could interpret “unable to complete their terms”, in light of the difficulty of removing a Senator from office, or the ridiculousness of expecting a Senator from the majority party in the Senate to be cowed into a resignation over an issue that requires his own party to vote in the House to impeach him, and in the Senate to convict him, as anything other than a call to violence.
    I have read nothing to convince me otherwise.

  116. #116 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    You took an indefensible position, and instead of admitting you might be incorrect, you have stuck with it.

    No, I said I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt. I’m giving the same to PZ, because what he said can be just as easily misconstrued.

    If it were posted on Stormfront or some other such obvious hate-monger site, I’d be inclined to shed the benefit of the doubt. While I’ll refrain from subjecting myself to the kind of inanity I’d be sure to see if I went to that (or other sites like it) I’d suspect that even they aren’t that stupid, but I wouldn’t doubt what I was seeing if I went there.

    The only reason you’re willing to so easily take the position that you are is because you don’t like Republicans. I don’t like them either, but I’m inclined to believe that neither side meant to imply violence to the other, especially because it makes no sense whatsoever. I’m impartial about it because, frankly, both Republicans and Democrats are enemies to liberty. For every example of knuckle-dragging Republican stupid I can provide a counter-example of equal levels of Democrat stupid.

    Go to bed, you’re crabby.

    Well, I bet you can’t remember where this came from:

    “I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance ? oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here. “

    If you’re being intellectually dishonest in advancing a claim that you can’t prove beyond some vague bitching about how you feel about Republicans then I’m inclined to shred that dishonesty without regard for politeness. It’s what PZ told me to do because the box I’m typing in says “Comments” and by hitting “Post” I become a “Commenter,” therefore he means me too. Neither of us can “prove” that our interpretations of the meaning of the entry are what we are saying they are and that’s the whole damned point. We’re both just speculating, but you’re still insisting that you are right, ergo you’re being intellectually dishonest, ignorant, and deluded and subject to the very same bitter medicine PZ’s prescribed.

  117. #117 Janine, Leftist Bozo
    January 28, 2009

    For me, Conservapædia will always be the site that said that the theocracy as described in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaiden’s Tale was not a bad idea. And for demanding Dr Lenski’s research data.

    It is so nice to have confirmed that I was right to killfile WSD.

  118. #118 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    @ Jadehawk

    WTF? How do you find this crazy shit?

    Stupid-Name-Calling-WSD (who I hope went to bed):

    I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid

    Read the link. I somehow overestimate stupidity?

  119. #119 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Desert Son,

    My apologies. I misapprehended what you were trying to say. It’s only fair that, sans any actual threat, both sides have about equal evidence, cancelling them out as pointless bickering over unprovable hypotheses.

    It’s the point I’ve been trying to make all along. My first post said:

    I must also point out that this blog entry smacks of ad hominem, not because you’re being insulting, but because you are arguing that there’s something wrong with the people that have a position you don’t like.

    I think that makes it rather clear that I believe it to be a baseless claim with no evidence to back it up. I simply provided an alternate explanation that favors the idea that the poster of the message with the benefit that he was moderately stupid and said something he didn’t intend over the idea that he was both incredibly stupid and incredibly malicious. I do believe such people exist, but I also understand the proclivity of Democrats to assume that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging yokels for Jesus (just as I’d be defending a Democrat in the same situation who was being charged with being an evil, god-hating, uppity, elitist snob).

  120. #120 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    If you’re being intellectually dishonest in advancing a claim that you can’t prove

    Read the article. It’s wildly irrational. Conspiracy-theory bizarre. Perceiving the implied threat contained therein is not some dark imagining.

    Gawd as quoted in the bible gives plenty of orders to kill. Apparently the legacy lives on in this whacko’s mind.

  121. #121 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    that particular gem I found via CTSTDT (a spinoff of FSTDT). The internet is full of violent, crazy, stupid, and combinations thereof

  122. #122 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    evil, god-hating, uppity, elitist snob

    Awww, c’mon, don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.

  123. #123 TeleMan
    January 28, 2009

    I still doubt a hit list would be posted in public, that’s so supremely stupid that most school-aged kids that compose those lists as a joke.

    Has Ward actually read much of Conservapedia?

  124. #124 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    Oh, FSTDT is news to me. Cool.

  125. #125 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Awww, c’mon, don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.

    Hey, nimrod, pull your head on out and give a listen. I shouldn’t have to say it all again.

    I’m a Libertarian and an atheist. Republicans see me as an evil, god-hating, uppity, elitist snob. Democrats see me as a knuckle-dragging yokel (and even if they know I’m an atheist it doesn’t score me any real points on the Jesus bit).

    I’m subjected to criticism from both sides you ignorant twat. Keep on nurturing your sick little persecution complex and I’ll keep slamming your fucking head against the desk until I’m tired of doing so or your IQ improves (it might, hell anything might improve it at this point).

  126. #126 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Has Ward actually read much of Conservapedia?

    Nope, if I feel like going neck-deep in stupid, I come here.

    It doesn’t feel so good when the aspersions are about you, does it? It’s ad hominem bullshit and we both know it.

  127. #127 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    kamaka, FSTDT is teh awesome. i discovered it in a conversation about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when some moron posted this:

    One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy.[emphasis mine] If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

    I’ve been hooked on Teh Crazy ever since :-p

  128. #128 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Jadehawk, Poe’s law on that one. Seriously.

  129. #129 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    nope. the moron was serious. i’d provide context, but i lost the ink to the original discussion

  130. #130 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    actually, i lied. here is the original thread if you really want to read it.

  131. #131 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Poe’s law “[...]it is utterly
    impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for
    the genuine article.” It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually a parody, just that if it were a parody it wold be impossible for us to tell the difference. The fact that you could bold that section at all (given such an obvious answer) gives me the sneaking suspicion that someone was parodying a Creationist. Either way, I think the law is in effect because ethier of us may be mistaken and it would be hard to prove which without a confession. :)

  132. #132 Jadehawk
    January 28, 2009

    true enough…

  133. #133 BlueIndependent
    January 28, 2009

    Ward: “BlueIndependent, I’d like to see an argument that could convince me that the simplest explanation here wouldn’t be the best one. I’ve said incindiary things in the past that sounded like I was saying something other than what I meant. Can you honesty say you have never said something that you wished you could take back once you realized that what you’d actually said wasn’t what you meant at all?”

    Yes, I do say stupid things from time to time, or say things that are otherwise fine, stupidly. I don’t however make comments on what would happen if a sizable group of senators disappeard overnight, only to be conveniently replaced the next day by governors of the opposite party, thereby completely throwing the balance of power in the US Senate over to one side indefinitely. If a Democrat posted an article about which one or two Republican senators they’d like to see go away by some odd happenstance so the Senate can get to 60 or 61 D votes and put away the Rs for good, it would very possibly make a news outlet somewhere, if not several at the very least. You are ignoring (or don’t know, period) the fact that this happens on a rather regular basis on the right. freerepublic is but one glaring example, and Conservapaedia is but one more. They market books that joke about poisoning certain politicians’ food and/or drink; they post the contact info of individual citizens they want to scare into submission; they rent steamrollers to crush CDs by people who speak truths they cannot handle; they incite violence in churches without being called out for it publicly; they threaten to break from the union for no damn good reason; they gather in forests to shoot their guns and feel like big tough militia types; they send emails about the manchurian candidate Obama and to buy as many guns as you can right away (btw, I’m STILL getting right-wing garbage in my inbox months *AFTER* the election); one of their damn religious leaders talked about assassinating certain world leaders he didn’t care for on a national TV station; another of their religious leaders equates Christians with brown shirts (sorry for going Godwin) and implores them vis a vis passion for their cause; need I go on?

    The answer you seek is their past track record. This crap happens daily on the right and nobody calls them on it. And we get you coming in here and telling us it was just someone saying something the wrong way. I’m frankly sick and tired of hearing conservatives “saying things the wrong way” all the damn time, especially when they never get any backlash for doing so. The problem is this guy didn’t spend two seconds thinking about what he typed because he is not so inclined to begin with. I know this because any sane person who reads Conserva-junk-apaedia would know that they post them some patent insanity as identifiable fact. I cannot accept the notion that some dude, with a proven history of posting to Wikis no less, just got it so wrong this one time. Maybe for once someone had had enough and busted that site’s chops for it. About damn time. You don’t see professionals posting to a blog that say something so absurd randomly amongst hundreds of other items that are fine, and cause a huge stir. Well, around here you might because so many people have a beef with PZ saying nearly anything these days, but the point remains that Crap-o-pedia over there harbors intellectual malcontents that distort reality and think exceedingly little about almost anything they put up. Why again should I accept that they screwed up this one time? What this idiot posted has been suggested before about others in right-wing books, blogs, etc. Only powerless morons like this sit around and posit what would happen if these chosen senators just poofed out of existence one day and bam, the political opportunity of a century is presented them. Your pleas for Occam to enter the room are pretty bad, because he’s not likely to cut your way given appropriate back history.

  134. #134 kamaka
    January 28, 2009

    Dink Wad

    Man, you are just one nasty name-calling bitch. Your posts are filled with invective.

    The part where you offer to commit violence against me, that’s Internet cowardice/courage. For sure you would never dare to speak to me like that in my face.

    You are a wimpy, bullshit, Internet bully. You want to bang my head on a desk? Put on the gloves, three rounds. Well, 30 seconds, but whatever.

    Be smart, get counseling. Threats of violence over the Internet could prove to be a problem for you.

  135. #135 TeleMan
    January 28, 2009

    Well, Ward, if you haven’t read Conservapedia then you don’t know the context. Go read what they say about atheists, evolution, and oh, how they love teh gay.

    Also, knock off the violent threats.

  136. #136 Peter Ashby
    January 28, 2009

    I must say that looking from outside the appointment rather than run a byelection does look a little strange. Considering how deep your democracy can run (dogcatcher!) this little absence rather stands out. I expect it made sense back in the late 18thC (like the bit about a militia) but is no longer so fit for purpose. The UK often gets criticised for not having a written constitution, but it is a bit more nimble at need (our failure to properly reform the House of Lords being a lack of political spine rather than it being legislatively hard). For eg we could roll the monarch and replace him/her with a president with identical constitutional powers with a snap of a finger.

  137. #137 Liberal Atheist
    January 28, 2009

    socializing medicine, [...] and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

    Yeah, it didn’t work so well for Sweden. I mean, wealth redistribution and social programmes rid us of poverty and illiteracy, and provided healthcare for everyone. It’s hell!

  138. #138 Marty in Boise
    January 28, 2009

    Way, way back at #42, Eamon Knight wonders what Conservapedia meant by its fears of Obama implementing “a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.”

    I’m pretty sure that’s the commie proposal to change the marginal tax rate from 36% to 39% on incomes over $100,000.

    You know. Exactly like Karl Marx wrote about.

  139. #139 Ragutis
    January 28, 2009

    Ward, go peruse Conservapædia for a while and then come back and tell us if the hit list theory is really that much of a stretch. I think you’re grossly underestimating the arrogance and boneheadedness of Schlafly and some of the other contributors. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to many, but not that lot. The stupid and crazy around there are hip deep at low tide.

  140. #140 Azkyroth
    January 28, 2009

    No, I said I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt. I’m giving the same to PZ, because what he said can be just as easily misconstrued.

    And what exactly is he supposed to have said that’s in any way comparable?

  141. #141 Anton Mates
    January 28, 2009

    Ward,

    I simply provided an alternate explanation that favors the idea that the poster of the message with the benefit that he was moderately stupid and said something he didn’t intend over the idea that he was both incredibly stupid and incredibly malicious.

    You’re suggesting that the poster believes that at least 9 out of 14 targeted senators could be forced out of office by watching them for scandal really carefully. Despite also believing that a socialist Muslim who faked his birth certificate is happily ignoring all these scandals and reigning as president of the United States,

    Why in the world is this smarter than thinking it’s okay to post a hit list on the internet?

  142. #142 SEF
    January 28, 2009

    @ #103:

    so retarded that I don’t even believe Republicans are that stupid.

    You’ve just had 8 years of G.W.Bush and you still don’t believe?!

  143. #143 Ted Dahlberg
    January 28, 2009

    A very appropriate Mitchell and Webb sketch:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0KmNVZs-VI

  144. #144 Wowbagger
    January 28, 2009

    Come on Pee Zee. Show your troops you are not a coward and “debate” Davison. You would destroy him.

    Oh, great. The short bus is here.

  145. #145 NewEnglandBob
    January 28, 2009

    Ward S. Denker must be a troll.

    No one can be that ignorant, abusive, arrogant and offensive.

    Oh wait, yes, they can.

  146. #146 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 28, 2009

    Come on Pee Zee. Show your troops you are not a coward and “debate” Davison. You would destroy him.

    VMartin, when you aren’t busy manipulating JAD’s hernia harness what do you actually do?

  147. #147 Nerd of Redhead
    January 28, 2009

    I’ve always thought that those who demand PZ debate them are shitheads who essentially are acknowledging that their ideas can’t be legitimate, since they recognize there is no way their ideas could be published in peer reviewed journals. Just asking to debate puts their ideas into the outhouse effluent category. So, JAD/VMartin are shitheads trying to spew their unscientific shit.

  148. #148 Dianne
    January 28, 2009

    In partial defense of the Conservapedia (I don’t know why I’m doing it but I am), the list doesn’t have to be a hit list. My initial interpretation was that it was a “find the scandal that will force them to resign” list. Certainly if I wanted to get Senator X out of the senate I’d be more inclined to try to find out if s/he had any scandals involving (for example) large sums of public money, sex, and inflatable rhinoceruses with vibrating horns than to stalk him/her with a gun. Shooting people, particularly for political gain, is illegal and immoral but finding out whether or not (as an obsolete example) Santorum is really into santorum and obtains it from his interns is investigative journalism. And scandalmongering is a fine old American tradition. But maybe that’s more a liberal than a conservative thing.

  149. #149 Dianne
    January 28, 2009

    A hit list posted in public is so retarded that I don’t even believe Republicans are that stupid.

    The Nuremberg files. Most anti-abortionists, particularly the radical ones*, are Republicans. Therefore, at least some Republicans are stupid enough to post a hit list in public.

    *Though, of course, most Republicans are not anti-abortion terrorists.

  150. #150 Dean
    January 28, 2009

    WSD, one reason nobody (other than you) believes your comments is that most senators are not removed due to scandal – it’s a rather rare event. Your assertion that it would be easy to find one and do it has no basis in fact.

    Your retreat to name-calling and other idiotic assertions simply reflects the fact that you are unable to mount any reasonable argument in favor of your position.

    It’s probably a fair bet that you do believe what you say, but the assertions don’t hold up to scrutiny.

  151. #151 WRMartin
    January 28, 2009

    My cousin used to do a pretty fair impersonation of Ward. Except this was before the Internet and she would flop onto the floor on her back, kick and flail her arms about, wail about something she wanted and wasn’t getting, then hold her breath. Her face would turn beet red and about this time her mom would start to get a bit upset but then things would turn out OK after my cousin passed out and then woke up much calmer.

  152. #152 Ranson
    January 28, 2009

    …inflatable rhinoceruses with vibrating horns…

    Hold on, I need to call my wife…

    Valentine’s Day is coming up, you know.

  153. #153 The Other Ian
    January 28, 2009

    It appears that Tony Sidaway has now backed off on his speculation:

    UPDATE: My speculation was incorrect. TK does think the editor was a parodist, particularly because of the choice of username, and the user has been blocked. The site really did have a normal early Wikipedia-style crash, and TK says that QWest will again be blocked when Conservapedia sorts out its systems issues. How many Conservapedia editors are real?

  154. #154 InstituteofAsininity
    January 28, 2009

    Hi guys, I’m here to pick up Ward S. Denker for his residency at the mental institute. I hope his straight-jacket fits him. One size does not fit all.

  155. #155 william e emba
    January 28, 2009

    And over on 538.com, there was a nutcase who kept posting a request asking for Nate to publish daily probability estimates of a presidential assassination. Perhaps Denker can explain how that too might actually be innocent.

  156. #156 Monado
    January 28, 2009

    Ward, you are correct that incapacitating someone from continuing in office doesn’t necessarily mean shooting them. However, “incapacity” does not mean “embarras into leaving office because of scandal,” either. It suggests injury and breathes menace: “Nice senator you got there; i would be a shame if something happened to her so she couldn’t work any more.” Hit and run “accidents,” perhaps?

    You are talking about the same side of the political spectrum that posted names, addresses, and photos of people who worked at abortion clinics and doctors who performed abortions and invited people to assassinate them. And more recently, Ann Coulter wrote suggesting poison for her ideological opponents. (“Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live” ? original wording of biblical text later altered to mention witches. But hey, no prejudice.)

    The link for Creationists almost discover the sun.

  157. #157 Monado
    January 28, 2009

    Sorry, I seem to have autoposted while I was looking for a better link. The one I published has the quote on it – just go up a bit if you don’t see it. Here’s the original:

    Creationists almost discover the sun” from a thread called “God or big bang/evolution–where did we come from?”

  158. #158 Monado
    January 28, 2009
  159. #159 Watchman
    January 28, 2009

    It looks like they’re just upgrading to a new server.

    Yup, code name “Soledad”.

    Ward:

    Nope, if I feel like going neck-deep in stupid, I come here.

    You’ve got it wrong, bud. Here, it’s knee-deep. Conservapuddlia is up-to-your-eyeballs deep. Different league, really.

  160. #160 Dianne
    January 28, 2009

    …most senators are not removed due to scandal – it’s a rather rare event.

    Actually, I’m not WSD. I’m not even a libertarian, just another obnoxious contrarian. And as such am going to ask how many senators have been removed due to assassination in the last 30 years or so? I can’t think of any unless you assume that Wellstone was assassinated. (Not that I can think of any senators that have managed to get themselves removed due to scandal either…at least not to the extent of having to resign midterm. Not getting reelected yes, but that’s not what the authors of this list are after.)

    You’re probably right that the list is meant to hint at, without overtly suggesting in any way that is legally actionable, that certain senators be assassinated. There are certainly examples of right-wingers putting up assassination lists on the web (see post 149). I do hope that if anyone read that post and took it seriously they would interpret it as “Ok, I’ve heard a rumor that Senator Y is into goats and latex. Let’s see if his goat parties are paid for by the taxpayers” rather than “must kill now”. After all, the former could provide the country with weeks of entertainment while the latter would probably just result in the idiot who tried to do it getting put in jail.(Successful assassinations really being rather rare in the US in the past several decades.) Unfortunately, the more mentally unstable portion of the conservapedia readership, i.e. the ones most likely to act on the suggestion, are more likely to think of simpler ways of making a senate seat unoccupied…Yeah, ok, so it’s an assassination list.

  161. #161 Molly, NYC
    January 28, 2009

    JadeHawk @ 62 – You’re probably right. But if Indiana can go for Obama, I figure anything’s possible.

  162. #162 Dean
    January 28, 2009

    Dianne: I apologize for my monumental brain fart in referring to you as WSD. I do stand by my point, and you’ll note that I didn’t pass any judgement on the “article is a hit list” stand – neither pro nor con on that issue.
    Dean

  163. #163 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Wow, you consider a metaphor a “threat of violence?” No wonder all you can see is a “hit list.”

    Keep on nurturing your sick little persecution complex and I’ll keep slamming your fucking head against the desk until I’m tired of doing so or your IQ improves (it might, hell anything might improve it at this point).

    Look at the tense of the word. Look again… I’m indicating that I have already been slamming your head against the desk. You know, a metaphor that you keep coming back for more and I keep ripping you a new asshole.

    Your IQ still isn’t improving. You’ll probably take “ripping you a new asshole” to mean that I intend to come to your home and literally rip you a new asshole withy my bare hands. What a fuckwit.

  164. #164 Nerd of Redhead
    January 28, 2009

    WSD is still beating the dead horse. Of course, it would require actual thinking for him to stop.

  165. #165 thalarctos
    January 28, 2009

    Of course, it would require actual thinking for him to stop.

    Which renders his surname even more ironic (“Denker” = “thinker” in German).

  166. #166 John Phillips, FCD
    January 28, 2009

    Ward. S, I realise that you think you are smarter than the rest of us, but a little hint, when in a hole stop digging.

    Rather than pontificating here on whether they are stupid enough to do such a thing, why don’t you go have a read of Conservapaedia for yourself and see just how stupid they can be. And no, it is not a Poe site. If only.

  167. #167 Ric
    January 28, 2009

    Hey Ward, as an outside observer, I just have to tell you that your posts come off as ridiculous.

  168. #168 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Dean,

    Your retreat to name-calling and other idiotic assertions simply reflects the fact that you are unable to mount any reasonable argument in favor of your position.

    Actually, I only got nasty when Raven said “I don’t believe you,” referring to my own personal beliefs and my tack was intentionally parodying the kind of reception I’ve been getting here.

    Go back and read Open Season on Fresh Meat. Look at what is being advocated, and look at my patient, polite responses to it. Then come back and read this thread and tell me you don’t think I might be employing what was advocated to make a point.

    Note how, other than a few people who have been rude and “taking a swing” at me got clobbered. I got called a “homicidal fascist” and a rant filled with idiocy and assertions that has yet to backed up from Raven.

    I didn’t see any of you speaking up in the Open Season thread for my point of view (that incivility gets you nowhere). I was merely insulted and attacked. This is bitter medicine and I hope that some of you learn a lesson from it. All of the arguments you’re making against my incivility in this thread were the same ones I was making in that thread.

    If there are no more attacks on my character or insistence that I’m lying or that I have some underhanded reason for posting I’ll remain true to my word and keep my tone civil.

  169. #169 John Phillips, FCD
    January 28, 2009

    Ward. S. By the way, in one or more of your posts you accused PZ of an ad hominem in his post. I assume you do know what that term means so perhaps you would care to explain where exactly he did that.

  170. #170 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    John,

    I’m assuming that you don’t know what ad hominem means, but that’s OK, most people don’t. It just means that the argument is against the person/people making the statement instead of arguing one’s own case. No insults need be thrown to make an ad hominem argument. The focus just has to be wrong.

    It’s no surprise how PZ feels about Republicans, he’s always telling everyone about it. If, instead, he tried to bolster his claim that it was a hit list with more than just how he feels about Republicans, it would not have been an ad hominem argument.

  171. #171 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 28, 2009

    I’m assuming that you don’t know what ad hominem means, but that’s OK, most people don’t. It just means that the argument is against the person/people making the statement instead of arguing one’s own case.

    Um

    No, not exactly. It makes claims against the person’s argument not just against the person.

    It’s saying that the person’s argument is wrong because that person is an asshole, douchebag, [insert unrelated insult here]. It’s not just an argument against the person.

    Source A makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Source A
    Therefore claim X is false

  172. #172 Anonymous
    January 28, 2009

    The thing about conservapedia is that because they’re all batshit insane if someone posts something that’s utterly ridiculous they’ll actually agree with it. QWest was probably a parodist, but the fact is (unfortunately CP has tried to remove this from history) that the article was contributed to and implicitly approved by several Conservapedia mods/sysops.

    Oh and it -is- a hitlist. Duh.

  173. #173 Dean
    January 28, 2009

    Ward:

    I haven’t seen a well-reasoned argument from you at all. Arguments require support for a position – you artfully dodge that, replacing support by opinion.

    It is beginning to look less like you actually are trying to make a point and more that you are simply attempting to stir things up.

  174. #174 John Phillips, FCD
    January 28, 2009

    Ward. S. FYI: An ad hominem would be me saying your arguments here are rubbish because you are a douchebag (or any other derogatory term) while ignoring the substance of your argument. As far as I can see PZ has not done that here. Or perhaps you can see it where I can’t. If so, please enlighten me.

  175. #175 Julie Stahlhut
    January 28, 2009

    If you think that’s bad, you should see the slash fanfiction they write.

    Andy Schlafly and a culture of F+ E. coli. My One True Pairing.

  176. #176 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    Rev. BigDumbChimp,

    Go back and read the rest of the article

    Guilt by association can be a type of ad hominem argument. In this case, the underlying assumption is that Republicans are both evil and stupid enough to post a hit list on a popular (I assume it is?) web site. Because the assumption that there’s something wrong with them, it’s an ad hominem.

    Conservapedia makes claim “we’re innocent”
    There is something objectionable about Conservapedia (we don’t like them because they’re Republicans and probably Christians).
    Therefore claim “we’re innocent” is false

    You don’t have to insult someone to make an ad hominem argument, you just have to focus on the person making the claims instead of the claim being made.

    Dean,

    I haven’t seen a well-reasoned argument from you at all. Arguments require support for a position – you artfully dodge that, replacing support by opinion.

    It is beginning to look less like you actually are trying to make a point and more that you are simply attempting to stir things up.

    I never made a claim that what I said was right or the only way to look at it, just that there are other ways to look at it, ergo it is my opinion. I even said it, outright:

    Neither of us can “prove” that our interpretations of the meaning of the entry are what we are saying they are and that’s the whole damned point. We’re both just speculating, but you’re still insisting that you are right, ergo you’re being intellectually dishonest, ignorant, and deluded and subject to the very same bitter medicine PZ’s prescribed.

    Dianne even said the same thing I thought:

    In partial defense of the Conservapedia (I don’t know why I’m doing it but I am), the list doesn’t have to be a hit list. My initial interpretation was that it was a “find the scandal that will force them to resign” list.

    Now tell me, why is it so objectionable when I say it and not objectionable when she does? Doesn’t that uncover the real motive behind all of the attacks on me?

    Where is Raven calling Dianne a “homicidal fascist” or “psychopathic moron?” Can you not see a double standard being applied here when it’s right under your nose?

  177. #177 thalarctos
    January 28, 2009

    Where is Raven calling Dianne a “homicidal fascist” or “psychopathic moron?” Can you not see a double standard being applied here when it’s right under your nose?

    There’s no double standard–if, instead of being a long-time poster with a history of thoughtful, well-reasoned, cogent comments, Dianne had plunged in for the first time like you had, committing logical errors and making accusations, she’d most likely have gotten a similar reception.

    Dianne has earned respect, while you’re simply demanding respect. That’s a salient difference that you’re glossing over with accusations of a false “double standard”.

  178. #178 E.V.
    January 28, 2009

    Calm down Ward. Your victimhood is firmly intact. PZ and the rest of us are all big mean ad hominem attack Ninjas and are conspiring against you by pretending it didn’t happen, (you poopyhead). AHA! (I didn’t hear anything!?!)
    * hangs head*
    So you were right all along. All better now?

  179. #179 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    thalarctos,

    Ah, so what you mean to say is “she’s one of the good-ol-boys ’round these parts.” The undercurrent to what you’re saying is it matters who you are more than how good your point is.

    Ad hominem reasoning, nothing more.

  180. #180 John Phillips, FCD
    January 28, 2009

    Ward. S. It probably came about from your first post where you accused PZ of doing what Conservapaedia was doing. I.e. you started your post with this:

    Wow. I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt that by “hit list” you mean to say “seats we should work to replace with Democrats” instead of “people we should murder because they don’t agree with us.” The way you said it is disturbing and, for your own good, I’d suggest you reword it.

    Considering that the list in the article that PZ quotes from Conservapaedia (BTW, you do realise that the piece in Comic sans to the right of the gumby figure is a quote from Conservapaedia and not PZ’s words) was all Democrat senators who would have to ‘go’ for Conservapaedia’s wet dream of Republican governors appointing Republican senators to replace them to come true, your post didn’t make a lot of sense.

    As to the rest, as explained to you by numerous posters, and if you had any experience of Conservapaedia yourself, you would see that this type of crazy, which has little to do with main stream Republican thought (at least we hope not), is quite normal over there. Hence there is no ad hominem, simply experience of what often passes as the crazynorm over there.

  181. #181 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    E.V.,

    Grow up. I don’t believe there’s a conspiracy against me, just typical name-calling and childish behavior because it’s clear that some of you don’t like me. I can’t wave a magic wand and say “I’m not even a libertarian, just another obnoxious contrarian” and get an apology, because it’s not true. I am a Libertarian, and an obnoxious contrarian (on this point, anyway).

    It’s OK to confront something ugly about yourself, even if you don’t like the person that’s telling you.

    In this case, science is very much on my side. Reason shuts down and emotional response takes over, and there are brain scans to prove it.

  182. #182 thalarctos
    January 28, 2009

    Notice how, for Ward, having a track record of thoughtful, compassionate, and logical posts, based on hard work and study in a specialized domain (oncology, in Dianne’s case), amounts to nothing more than a “good old boy” network, and further, how he has no shame about putting words to that effect in my mouth to continue to portray himself as a victim.

    Welcome to my killfile, Ward; say hi to all the other subpar “thinker”s in there.

  183. #183 Libeqrat
    January 28, 2009

    The Constitution provides that if a senator is unable to complete his or her term then the governor of the state will appoint a replacement Senator.

    No, it does not. As joe blowski (January 27, 2009 8:57 PM) noted, the legislature of each state may empower the governor to make such an appointment. But it does not have to. Here are the actual words from Amendment 17:

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    Ultimately, it is up to the state legislature to determine what happens when the state’s U.S. senate seats are vacant. Most states, but not all, have empowered their executives to make appointments in the case of a vacancy.

    Autumn | January 28, 2009 12:15 AM:

    If I’m reading my US Constitution right, the removal from office of a sitting US Senator requires an impeachment and then a conviction, same as for removing a President

    Actually, impeaching legislators is even more rare than impeaching presidents. In fact, there is some scholarly debate over whether impeachment is proper for legislators. Impeachment is proper for “officers” of the government. Some construe that to mean members of the executive and judicial branches, not the legislative.

    In any case, the simpler way to remove a Senator is to have the Senate itself exercise its Constitutional — ahem — removal power. If 2/3 of the Senate votes to kick a member out, that’s that. No need to take the impeachment route. :)

    There is no possibility that the removal of nine sitting Senators could be accomplished prior to the next election without violence. The authors must have been aware of this

    Heh, let’s not forget with whom we’re dealing. They probably think that the removal will happen if they just pray hard enough to their sky friend. ;)

  184. #184 Dianne
    January 28, 2009

    Dean: Thank you. I must admit I was making a similar argument. The difference, IMHO, is that I was speculating on a possible alternate explanation rather than insisting that I had THE right answer and gave it up when, upon further reflection and reading, it was clear that the argument just wasn’t going to work.

  185. #185 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    thalarctos,

    You’re invited to correct the record if you believe I’ve misjudged you. Storming off in a huff and making a public proclamation that I’ve been added to your killfile only serves to reinforce what I’ve been saying. That’s denial, pure and simple.

    You don’t want to admit to yourself that your only real objection to what I am saying is because you object to my political philosophy. You object to me because you see a mote in my eye, but ignore the beam in yours.

    Some of you are acutely aware of how society views atheists, how we’re treated. Is it so hard to wrap your mind around the idea that Libertarians, a small percentage of the poplation, might face similar treatment for a philosophical position ? ironically from those who should know better, who should be sympathetic but aren’t? Prejudice comes in many forms. I was judged before I said a thing, and I think that’s just dead wrong no matter who is on the receiving end of it.

  186. #186 John Morales
    January 28, 2009

    Ward: Why do you post a comment directed to someone who’s stated they’ve killfiled you? Heh.

    I was judged before I said a thing

    Um.

  187. #187 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    John Phillips, FCD,

    I didn’t accuse PZ of anything, in fact I allowed for the opposite conclusion. I merely suggested that he reword what he wrote for clarity.

    I hope I never face you as a juror over a crime I didn’t commit. That’s guilt by association. I don’t see anywhere in the screenshot of their post that advocated anything violent at all.

    The title of this blog entry is “What happened to Conservapædia?” and starts “You can’t get to Conservapædia right now ? it seems to have been taken offline. It’s not clear why, exactly, but there is a curiously hideous article that was posted there, as noted on Wonkette.”

    I’m not stupid and I can read between the lines too. What he’s saying with the title is that “The FBI/Secret Service probably siezed the server.” The first line of the actual post was basically disclaiming that’s what he was saying — plausible deniability. That way, when the first few posters put together what was being said and commented on it he’s distanced himself from putting that idea in their heads to begin with.

    What’s also being said, subtlely I concede, is that if the FBI or Secret Service siezed the server, they’ve got to be guilty of whatever they’re being charged with. That’s re-enforced by the final line which is saying “boo hoo, you’re a bunch of criminals and deserve to go to jail for what you did.”

  188. #188 Wolfhound
    January 28, 2009

    As a Libertarian, I’d like to apologize for Ward and urge you to consider the fact that not all of us are douchebag apologists for right-wing nutters.

    I also live in Florida and have repeatedly apologized for my state in the past. Sigh.

  189. #189 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    “Ward: Why do you post a comment directed to someone who’s stated they’ve killfiled you? Heh.”

    I am aware there are other readers and, by responding to me in a favorable way he may reconsider his action.

    I was judged before I said a thing

    “Um.”

    It’s the very definiton of prejudice. Think about it, I could have been anyone and had the same opinion (Dianne) but because it was me specifically and that I’ve made no effort to hide that I’m a Libertarian, the judgement had occurred before I said a thing on this topic.

  190. #190 Faid
    January 28, 2009

    Ward, give it a rest. You are wrong for no other reason than that the facts disprove you.

    1. First of all, it is the very vagueness of the post that is condemning. You say that noone would be so stupid to post a hit list on the web, and perhaps you are right- but one could argue in the same way that noone would post such a post, subject to all kinds of innuendo, without crarifying their position as much as possible.
    The post is strangely silent on what it actually proposes should be done. If the poster wanted to incite a specific kind of action, what would be more logical that to directly state it, and give instructions for it? Did they just assume that the course of action should be to look for scandals etc? And that not even mentioning it was needed? Would you, if you had written that article?
    The only reason for this deliberate vagueness, IMO, is that the poster was fully aware that it was not a proposal that should be openly discussed, but rather implied.

    But none of this matters, really. And it doesn’t matter for a simple reason: Conservapedia itself disagrees with your position. Did you check the other link PZ provided? They attribute the post to a “parodist/vandal”, who has been banned. They have completely disassociated themselves from it. If your interpretation of the post was the right one, why didn’t the CP admins themselves propose it? And save some face for their site?

    Maybe because they understand full well it cannot hold water?

  191. #191 The Other Ian
    January 28, 2009

    It’s the very definiton of prejudice. Think about it, I could have been anyone and had the same opinion (Dianne) but because it was me specifically and that I’ve made no effort to hide that I’m a Libertarian, the judgement had occurred before I said a thing on this topic.

    You seem mightily defensive of your politics, considering that nobody in this thread has actually maligned you for it.

  192. #192 John Phillips, FCD
    January 28, 2009

    Ward. S. In your first post you quoted the Conservapaedia post and commented as if PZ had written it. Or at least that is how it came across.

    PZ’s ‘what has happened…’ was probably more along the line of, what a surprise, they are off line while they clear up another mess. I.e. it has happened before, the gone off air while they clear up a mess that is. Though it wouldn’t surprise me, if they didn’t react quickly enough, that for a short while they might have had some questions to answer.

    The last line is more a bit of gloating in that they have screwed up once again and if anyone deserves it they do. If you knew anything about then you would probably agree.

    I would hope that if I was a juror for a trial involving you that you would be a bit less confusing.

    BTW. are you sure you are not a creationist and not a libertarian atheist as I am giving up with your apparent paranoia where everyone is against you. Try clarity and informing yourself about what we were talking about, i.e. what Conservpaedia is like, before you pontificate about everyone else being wrong and you would probably get a better reception, irrespective of your politics. For there are other libertarians who frequent the blog and generally only get a hard time from some here when they espouse libertarianism.

    Good night all, I am off to bed so speak among yourselves :).

  193. #193 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    You seem mightily defensive of your politics, considering that nobody in this thread has actually maligned you for it.

    Read the first post to me from Raven where he calls me a “homicidal fascist.” That was completely uncalled for and indicative of prejudice. It’s obvious why he harbors the prejudice toward me that he does, but only if you are honest about it.

  194. #194 The Other Ian
    January 28, 2009

    Read the first post to me from Raven where he calls me a “homicidal fascist.” That was completely uncalled for and indicative of prejudice. It’s obvious why he harbors the prejudice toward me that he does, but only if you are honest about it.

    No, it’s not obvious at all. You evidently want us to think it’s because you’re Libertarian, but you hadn’t identified yourself as such at that point. Perhaps you revealed it somewhere else, but I have no idea what history you may have with raven on other threads or fora.

    From my perspective, it seems likely that the reason was exactly the one raven identified in that post: because you swooped in defending a known nest of wingnuts’ hit list, and made an apparent retaliatory threat against PZ in the process.

  195. #195 mr. thalarctos (not my usual 'nym here)
    January 28, 2009

    Storming off in a huff

    Heh. Believe me, that was no “huff”. When thalarctos “storms off in a huff”, you, and everyone in earshot, will know it for sure. She sees to that.

    If I had to guess, I’d say that of all the traits you’ve displayed so far, the fact that you’re boring probably was the main thing that got you killfiled.

    I am aware there are other readers and, by responding to me in a favorable way he may reconsider his action.

    Totally setting aside for the moment the fact that syntax deserves to be taken out back and shot, being the millionth-and-first clueless commenter to make the default assumption that she must be a male doesn’t do anything to render you any less boring.

    In other words, I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting her to reconsider. But really, why on earth should you care, one way or another, what she thinks of you?

  196. #196 richCares
    January 28, 2009

    they can’t take Conservapedia off line, it’s required for proof. Convervative are intellectually challenged (one step above retarded), this site offers concrete proof that this is true!

  197. #197 Ward S. Denker
    January 28, 2009

    mr. thalarctos,

    If I had to guess, I’d say that of all the traits you’ve displayed so far, the fact that you’re boring probably was the main thing that got you killfiled.

    If that were true, I can’t see why people like to respond to me. Somehow I’m being controversial by pointing out that there’s scant evidence for the original claim. Besides, you felt compelled to reply.

    Totally setting aside for the moment the fact that syntax deserves to be taken out back and shot, being the millionth-and-first clueless commenter to make the default assumption that she must be a male doesn’t do anything to render you any less boring.

    I’m sorry, I forgot to check the bottom of the post for testicles. I’ll be sure to flip the post over in the future to check.

    In other words, I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting her to reconsider. But really, why on earth should you care, one way or another, what she thinks of you?

    I’m not, and I don’t. There are others watching and this isn’t a private conversation.

  198. #198 mr. thalarctos (not my usual 'nym here)
    January 28, 2009

    I’m sorry, I forgot to check the bottom of the post for testicles.

    Now THAT was funny! :-)

  199. #199 KnockGoats
    January 28, 2009

    Some of you are acutely aware of how society views atheists, how we’re treated. Is it so hard to wrap your mind around the idea that Libertarians, a small percentage of the poplation, might face similar treatment for a philosophical position Ward S. Denker

    Nah, there’s no parallel. Atheists vary enormously in beliefs and character, while “libertarianism” is a ludicrous and highly unpleasant ideology, and all the “libertarians” I’ve encountered so far have been smug, callous hypocrites.

  200. #200 KnockGoats
    January 28, 2009

    Interestingly, wonkette now appears to be down – at least, I can’t access it.

  201. #201 Miranda Hale
    January 28, 2009

    Holy shit, that is some scary stuff. And I love how they see “oh, no, it was just a wackjob, not one of us sane conservatives who did that” as a disclaimer. Whatever. Like they’re not all wackjobs.

  202. #202 Nerd of Redhead
    January 28, 2009

    I see WSD is still being an ass wipe. Of course, his only way out is to stop posting.

  203. #203 The Other Ian
    January 28, 2009

    Nah, there’s no parallel. Atheists vary enormously in beliefs and character, while “libertarianism” is a ludicrous and highly unpleasant ideology, and all the “libertarians” I’ve encountered so far have been smug, callous hypocrites.

    This statement is unfair; there is a large amount of variation within libertarian philosophy, and I don’t see anything “ludicrous and highly unpleasant” about the basic idea of individual liberty.

    That said, WSD’s claim of persecution seems silly to me. I have yet to see anybody make the claim that libertarians caused the holocaust, or that libertarians suffer an inherent lack of moral values.

  204. #204 mgr
    January 28, 2009

    WSD:

    Your position is that it is ridiculous for the parties at Conservapaedia to have posted a hit list because no one is that stupid.

    You are arguing
    1.) from incredulity, and,

    2.) from a failure to recall past history–If I recall, folks associated with the radical anti abortion movement (of which Schalafly is associated to some degree) posted or circulated such a list of abortion providers in the 1990s, with the result that one (or more, I’m not sure Eric Rudolph should be included) were assassinated.

    On the incredulity, read Vonnegut’s Mother Night. BOD my ass.

    Mike

  205. #205 S
    January 28, 2009

    The “Trustworthy” Encyclopedia? Well, their research leaves something to be desired. They missed Dodd and Lieberman on that list.

  206. #206 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 28, 2009

    Guilt by association can be a type of ad hominem argument. In this case, the underlying assumption is that Republicans are both evil and stupid enough to post a hit list on a popular (I assume it is?) web site. Because the assumption that there’s something wrong with them, it’s an ad hominem.

    Sorry i missed this earlier, I’ve been matting and framing some photos for sale but…

    No the underlying assumption has nothing to do with their Republicanism. It has 100% to do with Conservapedia’s demonstratable track record of being reckless and irresponsible with the facts as well as fear mongering and outright lying. It also has to do with the person who made the post’s track record with … well the same things.

    Not ad hominem. But that’s been covered.

  207. #207 Julie Stahlhut
    January 29, 2009

    The “Trustworthy” Encyclopedia? Well, their research leaves something to be desired.

    Aw, give ‘em a break. It only took them a year or so to correct their initial misspelling of “trustworthy” on their home page.

  208. #208 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 29, 2009

    I must say that looking from outside the appointment rather than run a byelection does look a little strange. Considering how deep your democracy can run (dogcatcher!) this little absence rather stands out.

    There seems to be some unwritten law (in most states and at the federal level) that forbids having any elections ever except at the first Tuesday (!) in November once every two years. So, for example, if a president dies in office, there’s no election; oh no, presidential elections must not be anytime other than on the first Tuesday in November in years divisible by four — the vice president steps in and serves the rest of the term till election day. There have even been senate candidates who died during their campaign, got elected anyway (because there must not be a primary when there already was one!), and had their widows serving their full term!

    Result: lots and lots and lots of elections all on the same day (which isn’t even a holiday, but I digress).

    I suppose the idea was to make the administration feasible under the conditions of the beginning of the 19th century. Has way outlived its usefulness, and has become counterproductive, like so many other traditions (some written, some not) of US politics.

  209. #209 Tony Sidaway
    January 30, 2009

    A RationalWiki member has owned up to creating the “hit list” article as a “parody”. I’m less than impressed.

    There are now three threads on my blog related to this:

    Conservapedia site crashes after posting an embarrassing ?hit list?. This blogger adds 2+2, gets 5.: The original thread

    Confessions of an accidental Conservapedian: Some background on my attempts to persuade Conservapedia to adopt a more open, “Wikipedia-style” editing model. Both RationalWiki and Conservapedia people showed up and a bickerfest ensued. 103 comments and counting.

    I then temporarily switched my blog to full moderation.

    RationalWiki parodist owns up to creating Conservapedia ?hit list? article: in which I take the RationalWiki people to task for condoning (and in some cases committing) vandalism on Conservapedia. Again both Conservapedia people and RationalWiki people showed up, and I’m trying to keep them from turning my blog into a flame fest.

  210. #210 Africangenesis
    January 30, 2009

    PZ,

    You might want to add a note to the original entry about Tony Sidaway’s correction above. regards.

  211. #211 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 30, 2009

    Well, all that moronic RationalWiki member did was prove Poe’s Law or rather Ebert’s Fallacy once more. After all, extremely stupid criminals really do exist.

    Just today there was a little article in the newspaper about someone who wanted to join the Austrian army and make his driver’s license there. He showed up… drunk… in a stolen truck. Was arrested right away.

  212. #212 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 30, 2009

    PZ isn’t likely going to read this here… you’ll have to e-mail him or mention the issue in a very young thread.