User:AKjeldsen/Deceit and villainy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Full of all deceit and villainy (Acts 13:10)

21 April 2007

It seems that in the middle of the usual brouhaha over such things as evolution, exotheology and the utterly disgusting exploitation of the Virginia Tech tragedy to promote a political agenda, a new skirmish is already developing over at the recently created article on deceit, which, I might add, I have always found to be an interesting subject to pontificate on. The word itself has a raw, aesthetic beauty all of its own. Try it out: De-sssseit. Lovely.

Anyway, our respected Site Owner mr. Andrew Schlafly is apparently intent on using the page in question to enlighten the unsuspecting world about the inherent and unbreakable connection between deceit and Liberals. I, for one, am happy to learn of such an important relationship. Lord knows what could have happened if I hadn't been been informed in time.

One is, however, curséd with a contrarian mind and soul. And that leads one to wonder whether it can really be true that Liberals are really so inherently linked as it is being claimed here? Mr. Schlafly certainly seems to think so, and as we all know, his words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAP... um, with blocking powers, that is. Already two users have paid the price of three days of exile for questioning the assertion.

One also wonders whether there have in fact never been any great Conservative, or even non-Liberal, perperators or great deceit? Further complicating the matter is that one is also curséd with a fairly good memory, and that's rarely a good thing when looking at the greater perspective. In this case, it causes strange names like G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North and Kenneth Lay to come to mind. A little experiment may be in order here.

On the other hand, not all is unwell in Conservapedia. For one thing, User:Reginod seems to be back from his unfortunate temporary exile. The Column would like to use this occasion to mention our absolutely uncritical admiration for his extremely well-researched Dicta, which can only be called Conservapedia's first collection of official case law. As is well known, rules are one thing - when they are being followed in the first place, that is - but just as important is the way that such rules are actually being implemented, and Reginod's Dicta represent an important step towards shedding some light on that issue. Here's to hoping he'll continue with this work, because it needs to be done.

In other news, in a move that must in all fairness be recognized as very commendable, the Powers That Be have established a page where users can apply for adminship. The very first person to register such an intent is none other than User:AmesG, and The Column naturally heartily endorses this candidacy, for all the good that will do. There is some kind of voting apparatus set up, but how the actual process of acceptance or rejection will be carried out is at the moment still obscure. If I personally were to place a bet, though, I'd say that it's a pretty safe one that the Panel will be involved somehow.

Still, having at least some part of the nomination process taking place out in the open must, again, be recognized as a very positive development. We can only applaud this, and urge the Powers That Be to continue this process towards greater transparency and accountability in the site administration.

Thank you, and good night and good luck.