Conservapedia:Parthian shot/ClementB

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.

Is this a Parthian Shot?[edit]

You asked for a Parthian shot (Make it a good one). The readers can decide

  • whether this is a Parthian shot and
  • whether it is good

(unless it is deleted after a couple of minutes for some spurious reason). Perhaps, you'll take this edit as a reason to endorse TK's blocking of my account and my Internet Service Provider. Then, TK can follow the undeclared policy to delete my user page – and my user talk page (especially ridiculous, as you at the same time accuse wikipedia of unjustified deletions):

my person[edit]

If you don’t want to reveal you identity, it is impossible to prove claims about your person on the internet. So, if you think that my edits show me to be a German teacher at a Gymnasium for history and math, well, that’s okay. If you want to see me as an actor of sarcastic comedy, fine with me (though somewhat surprising). If you think of me as a three-headed water-breathing organism from Betelgeuze, covered with green fur, be welcome: the debates should be about facts, not about persons (thankfully, the Betelgeuzians have a tendency to stay calm and polite.) I shouldn’t have answered any questions about my real-life experiences, as it became clear that there was no interest in my person: you have made up your mind about me - You're almost certainly a liberal who's here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn - and anything going against your perception would be ignored.

my contributions[edit]

I became a member of this wiki in January 2009. But there was some kind of data loss, and so I had to recreate my account. The first edits in my edit history are corrections of some really bad errors (though, in fact, my first comment was on the necessity to recreate my account. This one seemed to be lost) I went on to make corrections: these edits were – as I thought – unproblematic and most times welcomed. However, major disputes arose about some seemingly clear topics

What's common for all these discussion - other than an amusing ring of surreality - is that at some point, you - Andy - strayed from the topic at hand and started to ask unrelated questions about my person and my convictions:

  • why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site?
  • Do you ever apply the Bible in your quest for the truth?
  • Are you as critical of liberals, or this yet another example of a double standard common among liberals?
  • how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?

Though answering these question doesn't help when discussing historic or scientific statements, I tried to answer all of them, albeit not to your satisfaction, as these answers didn't agree with your perception of my person (see above).

other editors[edit]

RJensen's selective enforcement of quality: R. J. Jensen's article are great. Obviously, he hasn't read the History of the World Lectures, otherwise, gaffes like the wrong dates of life (and dates of reign) of Louis XIV or Philip II would not have stand uncorrected for so long a time. But he doesn't even be interested in correcting statements he thinks to be wrong (á là Prussia is a former name of Germany) in these lectures, though he takes offense when such a statement is inserted into the articles he edits. Double standards?

Ed Poor's selective enforcement of politeness Congratulations, Ed Poor, for finding the insulting phrase you seem to be quite opinionated (a misquote from my actual phrase May I observe that you seem to be quite opinionated?) while ignoring all other insults in the same discussion (you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics, You also seem excessively critical, Nearly every one of your postings here includes a puerile, sneering remark. You're almost certainly a liberal who's here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn.) Factual statements, or observations like mine, too?

proxy et. al.[edit]

When I edited from school, I used hidemyass. This lead to some mix-ups with other editors, so, I promised sysop Dean to edit from now on from home by use of the IP my ISP provided me with. As TK blocked my ISP, I've to use a proxy to make this edit.


Most men don't like to be corrected. You, Andy Schlafly, are no exception to this rule. But the efforts you take to defense even the more absurd positions, these are exceptional. Please, ask someone whom you trust and whose expertise isn't questioned by you at once (perhaps R.J. Jensen and R. Schlafly) on the questions I've risen. And when they answer your question, don't only listen to the parts you like, but try to follow the whole answer. You may be surprised.

And I would be pleasantly surprised if you unblocked my account and my ISP, and allowed me to contribute further to Conservapedia.

Clement ♗