|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User:EddyP/TheLifeAndCrimesOfETrundel
I decided to make this to reveal why ETrundel was blocked, and also to reveal the thuggery and intellectual cowardice of RJJensen. After ETrundel was blocked for a week by RJJensen for nominating various articles (entirely copied by Andy and others) for deletion – I had found a big list here – I began an e-mail conversation with the good professor. Well, I say conversation, but really it was a monologue by me, as the good prof was too busy hiding down an ‘intellectual bunny hole’, as they say on CP, to reply. E-mails follow.
"Dr Jensen,
Might I ask the reason why I was blocked and plagarised material
reinstated? As I said in my edit comment, it matters not whether the
material is copyrighted or not, according to CP Commandment 1:
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from
Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]"
So unless you purport to be the original writer of that material, it
seems it must go.
Regards,
Ed Trundel"
His clever and educated pedantic response:
"Ed--
give us a break, we're compiling an encyclopedia.
plagiarism means taking academic credit for someone else's research,
which is not the case here.
RJ"
Notice how he cleverly evades the question.
"Dr Jensen,
Ah, you have evaded my question masterfully, but you're not getting off that easily! CP commandment one clearly states:
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from
Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]"
So once more, unless you purport to have written the original text at the original website, it must go.
The definition of plagarism is a non-issue. The rule is up there in black and white. As for the compiling of an encyclopedia, well, anyone can do that if he has enought time. The difference is if people consider it comprehensive and original, viewpoints that will not be fostered if copying from non-copyrighted sources is considered good editing practice.
Many regards,
Ed"
After three days and no reply, I sent the following:
"Dr Jensen,
Seeing as how you have not replied to my concerns about copied material, I am forced to conclude that you know me to be right and you to be wrong but are too proud to admit it. Alas, it seems I must teach you something.
You see, when you accepted your job as sysop on Conservapedia it came with a little thing we here in Britain like to call responsibility. That means that it is your duty to deal with copied articles and the like - and yes, they were copied and so must be deleted; a reminder of CP commandment one, just for you:
1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.
This does not mean that you, as an administrator, may simply plug your fingers in your ears and hope that the fellow pointing out these copied articles goes away (with the help of a block), just for the sake of preserving your own pride (which, may I remind you, is one of the seven deadly sins).
However, if you still do not wish to delete the copied articles, and you still do not wish to accept responsibility for your repeated harbouring of such felonious articles, then I suggest that you resign your position as sysop, as I feel it will save you from embarrassment and disgrace later.
All the best,
Ed"
Infinite block followed (as intended), along with two /20 and two /16 rangeblocks. 100 points >:D. But still no reply from the resident professor.
Still, I decided to write one last e-mail:
"Dearest Richard,
Well, now that you've intellectually prostrated yourself before me (your obvious and undeniable fear of debating me shown by your abject refusal to do so, your resorting to cheap, thug-like tactics in an attempt to prevent me from exposing your perjury and deceit - which, may I add, are also great sins), I have just one thing to say (so don't worry, after this e-mail you'll be able to stop quivering under the sheets); surely any half-competent professor purporting to know even the most common scraps of history knows what kind of places (and, indeed, the inevitable fate of such places) harbour and encourage frauds, thugs and intellectual cowards such as yourself, while driving away honest and hardworking contributors such as AlanE?
So that's it from me, professor. I'm afraid that unless you buck up your ideas we're going to be forced to kick you from the course.
Remember CP commandment one!
Ed"
And that, alas, was the end of ETrundel, brother of NeilEG. He had a good life, inserting small factual inaccuracies here, spewing forth utter moonshine facts there, all of which still remain (and even a quote on Fundies Say The Darndest Things), and entering into a variety of interesting and enlightening e-mails with various users (which clearly showed a positive correlation between user rights and lack of intelligence). He gained no rights and blocked no good users, but he gave me an insight into the cruel, deranged and savage world which the CP administration inhabits, and for that, I am thankful.
Now, some advice for anyone seeking block rights on CP: Don’t bother. Ever since Bugler, RodWeathers and MikeSalter, they have stopped handing out block rights to new users (at least, I can’t think of anyone apart from Wesley, who had several thousand edits), and there is little doubt that sucking up to Andy is viewed with suspicion (at least by the sysops, if not by Andy himself). You will have to contribute massively to the site (which is to its benefit, not its detriment) and suck up to Andy just enough without drawing too much attention to yourself as the site bootlicker.
And let us assume that after months and months of toil, that you do get block rights. What shall you do with them? There are no good editors left to block; TK and co. have seen to that. I would honestly be surprised if over 20% of the active users without rights there weren’t parodists/ linked to RW in some way (and the only reason I don’t say 10% is because you can’t have half a person).
So here’s what I propose you do: rather than sucking up to Andy, reverting vandals and condemning liberals at every turn, just create an apparently harmless user who has no views on anything and use him to explain, for example, how the outcome of the little-known Battle of Shit Creek was decided by an unlikely incident involving an elderly badger. It’s just as satisfying, it gives your imagination a work-out and it doesn’t involve months and months of slaving for a group of ungrateful morons.Rationalwiki in no way condones or delights in parody and will not be held responsible for the aforementioned.
And finally, my humble apologies for my deceit towards some of you. You can guess who you are.
EddyP 14:59, 23 April 2009 (EDT)