User:Π/The most ridiculous conversation in CP history

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

An open letter from a disillusioned conservapedian[edit]


I have written what follows over the course of a couple of weeks. One of the ways that I work through my frustrations is to type it all out in the form of a letter or email and then over time work through what I typed editing out unreasonable comments or inflammatory language, and removing anything that has been dealt with in the meantime. Having done so, I find that instead of removing what has been dealt with, I am constantly adding because the situation is deteriorating rather than improving.

I therefore raise this in all seriousness and with a heavy heart.

Are you going to do something about Bugler or not? As far as I am concerned, CP’s credibility hangs by a couple of very thin threads, and the answer to this question is one of them.

Bugler’s unacceptable behaviour towards other editors includes; repeatedly insulting them (e.g. calling them “idiots”, “maggots” and such), accusing them of dishonesty and deceit, attributing malicious motives to them. Bugler exhibits much disrespect to other editors. In discussion pages Bugler is not so much “often rude” as “rarely polite”. The exception to this is when interacting with other editors that he has apparently identified as “allies” (this “group” seems to have been dubbed the “posse”).

Bugler also regularly and openly abuses his blocking rights. Often Bugler uses blocks to censor dissenting opinion, and without warning. Either CP practices ideological blocking or it does not. Presently CP practices ideological blocking (at the very least through Bugler, but I think he is following the example of others in this) but claims not to. CP also states that block warnings are appropriate, but they are extremely rare, and in at least one case that I know of the warning was immediately followed by the block with no additional edits by the blocked editor (this was not one of Bugler’s; I am unaware of any warnings that he may have given).

In November 2008 alone Bugler performed the following inappropriate blocks, and the contrib. histories show the block reasons to be invalid:. At best these blocks were erroneous and careless, at worst malicious and dishonest.

• TerrenceN – 5 years - Malicious Calumny • LowKey – 3 months – Malicious and aggressive deceitfulness • CarolH - 5 years - Lies and Slander • CompuHacker - 5 years – Grossly insulting all Conservapedians • Mike770781 – 1 month – Insulting comments • SiemerD – 1 month – 90/10 • Fdingo – 5 years – To save trouble reverting later • GSpalding – 5 years –Abuse [Ironically, for use of the word “stupid”] • Ema – 5 years - Slandering CP Editors

All of the stated block reasons are false, and many if true and worthy of such blocks should earn Bugler himself similar blocks. Bugler’s abuses of blocking rights (and the lack of corrective action) have been raised before, at the Desk and on Bugler’s talk page, and in fact on several sysops talk pages, and lately on your own talk page. The response is generally a rude and insulting response from Bugler and a block for the editor raising the issue. Bugler seems to believe that his block actions are beyond discussion or questioning, a view he seems to have garnered from TK.

Bugler has also very recently given a rather extreme example of rude behaviour and abuse of blocking rights in one incident. In a single post, he accused a senior administrator of personal remarks and then likened him to a “cockerel on a dunghill”; then went on to block him and after that accused him of “last-wordism”. And again the block reason is belied; the given reason was “Insulting Andy” but on his own talk page Bugler claims that he himself is the victim, and again implies that the blocked sysop (PJR, for the record) has called him a parodist, when this is the one editor consistently stating that he does not think Bugler is a parodist.

Bugler has been called a parodist often. I think this belief is understandable but incorrect. I think Bugler is what we could a “try-hard” in my neck of the woods, someone who is trying hard to be something that would impress certain others around them (I don’t think he is the only one, but he is the most blatant). My impression is that Bugler believes his bully-boy extreme behaviour will impress you, given that he usually mentions you by name or role in mid harangue. There is also the fact that certain trigger phrases like “liberal deceit” and “sterile debate” crop up gratuitously and often. Of particular concern to me as a Christian are Bugler’s comments like “Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it.”

The question in my mind is: is he right about such behaviour impressing you? Do you want CP to be the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia it claims to be, or are you happy for it to be the rightful butt of scorn? This is demonstrated by whether take action to curb such behaviour, or tolerate it and thus endorse it.

I would like to stress that Bugler is not alone in this behaviour. RodWeathers likewise blocks giving reasons at odds with actual contributions. Ed Poor also blocks without warning, giving block reasons inconsistent with contributions, but Ed is at least conscientiously civil. TK is dismissive and insulting and seems to be another try-hard.

Interestingly, the block that Bugler hit me with was undone in about 5 minutes by a sysop, and then restored by Bugler a few days later when he realised it had been unblocked. I emailed a number sysops of over time asking for someone to at least look at the block, and give me a yes/no or at least acknowledgement. Eventually, the original unblocking sysop unblocked me again – without any contact from me - and told me “Stop making comments about Bugler.” What concerns me is that the loud-and-clear message in this is “Don’t poke the bear,” which practice already looks to be in effect among even sysops judging by the silence my enquiries generated.

Why is it that some editors are allowed to make insulting and quite possibly libellous remarks with impunity, but if other editors even try to discuss this we suffer lengthy blocks? You yourself levied a 1 month block against an editor who asked for action. I have noted that comments from editors such as PJR, although about actions and not people, are denounced by you yourself as insulting, when much worse comments by Bugler unabashedly aimed at people and not actions are quietly tolerated.

Lately, Bugler has also been deleting the talk posts of other editors. These deleted posts are neither to nor about Bugler, and they are generally not offensive in language, content or tone, unless disagreement itself is now offensive.

I fully expect a lengthy (if not permanent) block for even raising this, but if CP is to be “trustworthy” it absolutely must be addressed. Every community has members that behave contrary to that community’s standards, but when the leaders of the community turn a blind eye or endorse the behaviour of those members, they effectively change the standards of that community. Those in the community that subscribe to the community’s expressed (though no longer practiced) standards have a choice of 3 actions. Firstly, they can have the issue addressed. This has been attempted without success at CP, but I am here attempting it again. Secondly, they can remain silent and accept the new standards. Scripturally, this option cannot be supported. Thirdly, they can leave and find another community that upholds the standards.

Currently the standards practiced seem to be:

  1. The truth will be declared by Andy, and it is undisputed and undeniable.
  2. Disputing or denying the truth as declared is censorship; worse it is liberal censorship.
  3. Editors subscribing to standards 1 and 2 can say and do pretty much anything they please on CP. without fear of reprisal
  4. Editors not subscribing to standards 1,2 and 3 are liberals. They have no right to respect of even civility, and may be attacked with impunity.

Frankly, I came from Wikipedia hoping to find an encyclopaedia practicing Christian standards, but the only difference I have seen is that CP claims to be such. The claims have not yet been borne out. One of the thin threads that CP’s credibility hangs by is whether or not its own rules actually mean anything in practice. Lately, they do not, as several editors in good standard disregard them at will.

Bradley LowKey 23:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

"Lowkey", your rant above on my talk page is silly. I looked at your edits over the past two months and they have been mostly talk with almost no substance. Contribute first, then talk, as I'm going to do now.. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 08:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Did you actually read the so called "rant"? I did, and it is definitely not silly. Most of what he says should be carefully considered because it is firmly based on the truth. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 08:19, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Tim, your edits have also been an excess of talk. Contribute first, then talk. This is a meritocracy, and an educational project. An excessive talker lacks credibility in criticizing a real contributor.--Aschlafly 08:28, 11 December 2008 (EST)r

Lowkey, there are two issues here:

  1. Bugler using unpleasant language
  2. Ability of contributors to exercise free speech in discussions of article content

First, if you have problems with Bugler, you should let *me* know. As the author of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, it's largely my duty to rein in the frisky ones. No one has complained to me in a couple of weeks, so I don't understand what you are supposedly bottling up.

Second, all contributors are allowed to express their editorial disagreements. I wouldn't stay here a minute longer if I found that CP was censoring opposing POV the same way Wikipedia does. Mr. Schlafly is an even stronger proponent of free speech than I am!

Next time, instead of making a long speech - without enough examples - bring up each problem one at a time. --Ed Poor Talk 08:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

We can't, we get blocked for the 90/10 rule.--IanG 08:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I contribute. I share Tim's and LowKey's observations. --BRichtigen 08:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)
BRichtigen, you contribute only slightly more than Lowkey and Tim. A review of your edits sees lots of talk, and an example of "substance" is inserting a "fact" tag.
Folks, ever play on a sports team? A good coach cuts the talkers and plays the people who contribute the most value to the team. He doesn't care if the best contributers are thought to be rude or impolite by those who stand around talking all the time.--Aschlafly 08:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)
At least you acknowledge he can be rude and impolite. Also, a good coach cuts people who drag the rest of the team down, even if he alone is a good player.--IanG 08:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)
*LOL* So, how many graphs to mathematical articles do I have to provide to get a meaningful reply to LowKey's observations from you? --BRichtigen 08:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • Hmmm, was it LowKey or you, BRichtigen, that wants a response?
  • A good example for liberals of being rude, it appears, is my post on your talk page carefully laying out CP, and our stress on doing, not arguing. While I was very polite, plain-spoken, and pointed out I wasn't specifically talking about anyone on that page, I was slandered there by a so-called Administrator of Conservapedia. It is yet another example of the politics of personal destruction we have seen so much of lately from our liberal editors. --₮K/Talk! 09:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Liberal is the new communist is the new witch. Call someone it and watch everyone scramble.--IanG 09:21, 11 December 2008 (EST)

so-called Administrator of Conservapedia? Is this your way to be polite?
Obviously, LowKey is interested in a meaningful answer to his letter. And I would like to read such a response, too.
When you like to extemporate your thoughts, speaking to no one especially, perhaps my talk page isn't the best place to do so?
Your talk-page is locked. Otherwise, I'd bring this matter to it.
--BRichtigen 09:39, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Isn't there a better place for all this than someone's talk page? Is there a page for dispute resolution or something? PeytonJ 10:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)
But this isn't just someone's talk page - as A. Schlafly is the final arbiter of all things regarding Conservapedia. Therefore, this discussion seems to be apt. --BRichtigen 10:20, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • So, whenever it suits liberals, and they want a ruling on their demands you are willing to accept Mr. Schlafly as the "final arbiter". But none seem willing to accept his judgment on article content or CP policy. Interesting, but not at all surprising. --₮K/Talk! 10:28, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I see what you mean, but he's given an answer above and it must be annoying to have those 'new messages' boxes continually appearing. The only unanswered question is yours, about how many of your excellent graphs you need to add. Everything after that is people squabbling with each other.--CPalmer 10:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Sorry. I'm learning as i go here. PeytonJ 10:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • Just so you don't turn into an Eternal Critic, Peyton! --₮K/Talk! 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
No need to apologize - I think you were right. I like the look of your edits on ancient Egypt as well - we could certainly use more information on this interesting topic.--CPalmer 10:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
TK, your liberal slur aside, I'll quote what Philip J. Rayment stated to you earlier: I have been arguing with the site owner over article content, not policy (for the most part at least). --BRichtigen 10:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • BRichtigen, typical of liberals like you and PJR, you state something as a fact ("I have been arguing with the site owner over article content, not policy") then add, almost as a minor afterthought "for the most part at least". So which is it? Either he is arguing over content, or usurping his authority with the other (in his own judgment) arguments, admitted to. --₮K/Talk! 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
This is very sad to see. I for one know what Bugler puts an enormous amount of effort improving this encyclopedia and dealing with vandals. Yet the response he gets is users trying to undermine him at every turn. I'm starting to see just how much effort it takes, now that people are vandalizing my user pages, sending me obscene emails, and trying to undermine me. You have my support at least, Bugler, in spite of any page-long rants to the contrary. - Rod Weathers 11:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Rod, this is the typical response of liberal editors whenever they are stopped from inserting their left-wing point of view into articles, or wasting our time arguing forever. One of the posters above is nothing but a nasty troll, someone who would rather argue than be productive, always trying to get their way by deceit. --₮K/Talk! 11:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure about BRichtigen, but Philip J Rayment is no more liberal than you or I. It seems to me that LowKey got one thing right: whoever dares to question anything on this site is denounced as a "Liberal" in spite of all evidence to the contrary. --Ben Talk 11:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Really, Ben? Do you also support gun control? Do you also think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Do you also spell Hell with a small "h"? All three are liberal positions, and I doubt you could name a conservative who supports gun control.
A fundamental approach taken by liberals from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama is to deny they are liberals. But their positions speak for themselves.--Aschlafly 12:18, 11 December 2008 (EST)
How many times do we have to provide the exact same disproofs? Some liberals at this encyclopedia seem bent on attacking anyone with any sort of authority merely because they're being stopped from injecting liberalism. - Rod Weathers 12:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Rod, part of their deceit is to argue anything and everything they cannot win with facts or logic. Of course, like the many documented deletions and edits of President-elect Obama's campaign website and transitional site as well prove, it is really the liberals who hide the truth. Jesus Christ told mankind the truth, and like Conservapedia was hated by those with closed minds. Liberals want to revise history to coincide with how they feel now, sad to say. It didn't used to be that way. Can anyone read the words of, the history of John F. Kennedy's administration, and picture him as the leader of the Democratic Party? Why the nuts at Kos and HuffPo would drive him out! --₮K/Talk! 12:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)
And yet people stand aghast when we enforce NPOV and 90/10! - Rod Weathers 12:38, 11 December 2008 (EST)
All three are liberal positions, and I doubt you could name a conservative who supports gun control. How conservative - do you think - is Margaret Thatcher? While she was prime minister, the "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988" passed... --BRichtigen 12:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Andy, Philip isn't a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, socialist, secular humanist. He's a Fundamentalist, God created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago Christian. While I have difficulties with aspects of his style, going around calling him a liberal is not right. Learn together 13:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • Bill, a conservative can only observe a persons words and deeds. I have no doubt that Philip is indeed a Christian. In that I rejoice. He also takes political stands 180 degrees from any conservative I know, in Oz or the United States. As for his continued arguing:

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

--Thomas Paine

--₮K/Talk! 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)


Divinity of hell!
When devils will the blackest sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now: for whiles this honest fool
Plies Desdemona to repair his fortunes
And she for him pleads strongly to the Moor,
I'll pour this pestilence into his ear,
That she repeals him for her body's lust;
And by how much she strives to do him good,
She shall undo her credit with the Moor.
So will I turn her virtue into pitch,
And out of her own goodness make the net
That shall enmesh them all.

Othello - Act II, Scene III

With love, JohnZ 16:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Response to Mr. Schlafly:

I'll address your points one at a time.

Gun control: You've got me on this one. Gun control is an undeniably liberal view. Still, He seems to be conservtive on pretty much every other significant political issue.

Beauty: First of all, this isn't a question of political views. It's a question of philosophy. And yes, to a certain extent I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People have different tastes. personally i love the taste of coffee, but I know many people who don't. Some people think Mozart's music is the most beautiful, wile others may prefer Bach. The same is true for optical beauty: I might think a particular painting is beautiful, and yet someone else might disagree. That's what is meant by "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Does this make me liberal?

I agree with you that some beauty is objective inasmuch as mst of creation is beautiful to pretty much everybody, but that is because God (who is wonderful) made it.

Capitalization: This is merely a correct grammar. God never said, "Though shalt always capitalize Hell." In fact, the Bible wasn't even originally written in our alphabet. Proper nouns (such as hell) should be capitalized. However, I think Philip is probably aware of said grammar rule. I'm guessing he made an innoccent mistake.

While we can't necessarily take everybody at their word as to whethr they are liberal or conservative, I think that the evidence here points towards Philip's sincerity. --Ben Talk 16:45, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Ben, I appreciate your response, and you agree that support of gun control is a liberal position. That's what I said in connection with Philip, and he has repeatedly responded by insisting that he's not a liberal. I didn't say he was a liberal, but that he believed in a liberal position. And, by the way, there is a high correlation of beliefs in other liberal positions -- such as other government control -- once one believes in gun control.
On beauty, the subject was God's creation and Philip was adamant that its beauty (specifically autumn foliage) is in the eye's the beholder. It isn't; it's objectively beautiful, and it is a liberal/atheistic position to deny it.
On "Hell", it's not just a matter of grammar, but an issue of belief. Watch how atheists insist on not capitalizing "God".--Aschlafly 18:06, 11 December 2008 (EST)
To summarize my points:
  1. Margaret Thatcher doesn't become less conservative for not opposing gun control in Britain
  2. Not every beauty can be absolute: otherwise, the fashion industry would be out of business
  3. The Holy See doesn't capitalize Hell on its English language publications...
--BRichtigen 18:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)
BRichtigen, you're treading on thin ice with repeated denial of simple truth and arguing. Beauty is absolute. It is ordained by God. And Margaret Thatcher is less conservative due to not opposing gun control. This seems fairly obvious: liberal positions = more liberal, conservative positions = more conservative. - Rod Weathers 18:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Exactly right, Rod. As to beauty, more people agree that autumn foliage is beautiful than agree that 2+2=4. If you agree the latter is absolute, so is the former. As to Thatcher, her liberal views on gun control (if true) does make her less conservative, obviously, and does lead to other liberal views (as on health care in Thatcher's case).--aschlafly 18:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Andy, as has been pointed out above, people have different tastes in music and in art. I personally find the Mona Lisa a dull painting, but many disagree. I'm not denying that there may be an absolute beauty that everyone agrees is beautiful but your example of autumn foliage does not ring true. 2+2=4 is absolute, and noone can disagree with it. Yet I for one do not find autumn foliage particularly beautiful, I much prefer a summers day ("shall I compare thee...") as do others prefer the ocean or their pet dog. Bolly 18:57, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Denial of this point has to end here. We can't spend all week responding to the exact same point time and time again. There is no relativism when it comes to beauty, nor when it comes to truth. Atheists seek to deny beauty because they deny the God who created it. - Rod Weathers 19:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)
  • Rod! You're spilling all the medicine! No matter what we do, we cannot revive everyone's ability to think logically. ;-) --₮K/Talk! 19:11, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I don't deny beauty! And I'm going on holidays now anyway so I can't respond after this. But I just said, I find a sunny day with a light breeze one of the most beautiful things imaginable. I love it. Autumn foliage, eh, it does nothing for me. It's all relative. And I don't 'deny' God, I was an Anglican for a while, but it didn't work. So I just don't believe. Bolly 19:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Bolly, you're not fooling anyone. Absolute morality probably didn't work for you, and perhaps absolute truth and beauty don't either. Define life however you like. It doesn't change the underlying truth and beauty.--aschlafly 19:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Respectful Observation[edit]

After reading in multiple places about the non-capitalization of Hell being a liberal trait, I checked an online edition of the King James Bible and found that only 5 of the 54 references to Hell in it were capitalized. Since the Bible itself mixes tense and uses the lowercase spelling over 90% of the time, I think this provides objective proof that the capitalization issue is irrelevant to one's outlook. --DinsdaleP 13:50, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Nice try. The KJV was published in the early 1600s, when all nouns were capitalized in English. Modern reproductions may choose to capitalize or not depending on editing decisions. - Rod Weathers 13:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Another source, not the Bible, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church... --BRichtigen 14:00, 11 December 2008 (EST)
But what is the basis of these editing decisions then, RodWeathers? Surely not whether the publisher is conservative or liberal, because that choice alone wouldn't distinguish liberal and conservative versions of the Bible. My point was that there are traits one can objectively use to identify one's political leaning, but the choice to capitalize Hell would not be a reliable one. --DinsdaleP 14:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Yes, it is often based on whether the publisher is conservative or liberal. Or more specifically, whether they seek to marginalize or deny the existence of Hell. - Rod Weathers 14:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)
It just seems that if there was a fundamental principle to capitalize Hell, as there is with God, then the use of lowercase letters would be consistently prohibited. Why, in the case of the King James version of the Bible, is the spelling not uniform one way or the other but varying in places? --DinsdaleP 14:20, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I believe that Andy is correct that Hell should be capitalized, not on the basis of liberal vs conservative, but on the basis of a noun vs a proper noun. Hell when used to name the location should be capitalized while hell when to discribe anything other than the location should be lower case. This seems to be very basic editing.--Able806 14:26, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. The choice to capitalize that word is grammatical, not ideological. --DinsdaleP 14:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Why not just respect Sachlafly's position as owner of the site? If he says using Hell in all grammatical positions is the mark of conservative, then agree. --RickD 14:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
It would be fun to see Andy make a "the moon is made of cheese" type of comment here sometime. He'd probably need to go a little more subtle than that, but just say something that he knows is wrong to see how many people agree with him by default, and how many people who agree with everything he says can also think for themselves, and actually DO agree with everything he says, not just because he says it. Not saying that he's right or wrong here, but the statement "he said something, so agree" has so many things wrong with it.Mikek 14:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Rick, it isn't "just respect"ed because he uses such pronouncements as evidence to prove larger points. PJR didn't capitalize Hell (apparently), which is a liberal trait, so he's a liberal. He's certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion he wants, but he claims it as fact to then "prove" other "facts," which is another kettle of fish entirely. Aziraphale 14:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)
This comes to, once again, a false dichotomy. Black or white, conservative or liberal, good or evil. How much ideological compliance must you show to be considered a conservative? 80%? 90%? Philip supports gun control, and whatever this beauty in the eye of the beholder business is, but he seems to hit most other wickets. He is most certainly not a liberal. On the flip side, I don't agree with every single tenant of the Democratic platform, but nobody would call me a conservative. I self-identify as a liberal, and most people would probably agree with that, even though I generally don't like labor unions in their present manifestation. You could probably find some people further to the right of Andy who would consider him liberal. So who is right? If somebody called Andy a liberal because he complies with federal income tax laws, everybody here would laugh that person out of the room. The point I am making here is two-fold: one, Andy's exact point of view on issues is not the absolute standard for what makes a person conservative or liberal. Two, a person's overall, general system of beliefs is what makes them a conservative or liberal, not any one particular issue. Corry 15:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Sorry, truth is not relative. But the comments above did lead me to an important insight about how people are denying the existence of Hell, and even modern Bible translations are doing this. See Disputed Biblical Translations.--aschlafly 19:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)