sotnd conservaleaks

2008-05-19 ZB1 Guard Dog 1.5.1
2008-05-19 ZB1 Battle of Gettysburg
2008-05-19 ZB1 Ratwiki article
2008-05-19 ZB1 Conservapedia down!
2008-05-19 ZB1 Conservapedia down - further info

Ratwiki article

kara...@gmail.com, Mon, 19 May 2008 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT):

I still am of the opinion that we should do an article on RW, and back
it up not only with facts as to what they've done against us, but
their failures as to why they refused to live up to their own creed of
being a portal that "refutes the anti-science movement", why they
chose to turn it into a parody site, etc.  What we would include would
be backed up with screen-shots of the relevent pages, so they cannot
successfully refute us.

It would also, should it come to court, be a means to protect us from
them by providing the evidence that Trent would erase at any time.

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Mon, 19 May 2008 11:48:53 -0700 (PDT):

Karajou, by "anti-science movement" they mean 2 totally different and
contradictory things.

1. By "anti-science" they mean "irrational". They mean that
conservatives - and people of faith in particular - are literally
insane because we reject the findings of mainstream science. They are
so sure that science is (finally?) right about everything that anyone
who doubts the consensus must be out of their minds.

2. But "anti-science" also means, "opposed to methodological
naturalism". This is the kind of adherence to naturalism (i.e.,
materialism) that refuse to admit the possibility of supernatural
causes OR assumes that the supernatural would necessarily be flaky and
unreliable (like Zeus throwing thunderbolts whenever he felt like it)
OR simply chooses to confine their studies of nature to physical
causes alone. A lot of this is tied up with the philosophy of
Determinism. Quite a bit of it assumes that the human mind is a
PRODUCT of the brain and that the mind or heart or soul or spirit dies
along with the body (no afterlife, sorry!) and there is "no hell below
us, above us only sky" (per John Lennon).

The second can't really be refuted. In fact, it's supposed to be
outside of the domain of science, because they have decide to live
within their chosen, materialistic bounds. The first is part of their
"divide and conquer" strategy.

They want to play off the Young Earth Creationists against the Old
Earth Creationists. Well, it's not working at Conservapedia. Every
attempt to get Philip and me to fight each other has fallen so flat
that they've given up trying. We have a firm (if tacit) agreement to
"disagree agreeably". I've never pushed any of my Old Earth
Creationist views into any articles, and I've done no more than
occasionally aired my own opinion on a talk page. But I *never* have
edit warred about the difference. Rather, I have tried to *describe*
the difference.

Perhaps it is time for us to get together now, where we have common
ground. We can blow the ship of liberalism out of the water when it
comes to science, because they've got it so politicized and hamstrung
- or tied town with little strings like Gulliver.

Ed Poor

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Mon, 19 May 2008 13:49:59 -0500:

Try this example for starters:

==============

RationalWiki is a website purportedly dedicated to refute the "anti-science
movement" on the internet.  Created in early 2007, the site instead has
become little more than a parodist blog, its users engaged in harassment,
vandalism, and cyber-terrorism of those they disagree with.

==History==

In November, 2006 Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, the purpose
of which was to provide a clean, family-safe version of an online
encyclopedia alternative to Wikipedia.  Joining Schlafly almost immediately
were several individuals whose stated intentions were good at the time, but
whose edits indicated a forcing of a liberal scientific consensus that was
at odds with Conservapedia' stated mission.  Instead of complying with the
posted guidelines of the site, they chose to vandalize the site; often they
would pick fights with Schlafly and other sysops over content.  By the end
of March, 2007, many of these individuals had been removed from
Conservapedia; forced on the outside, they chose other means and methods to
continue their attacks.

====RationalWiki created====

RatonalWiki version 1 was created at roughly the same time, and hidden
within the internet under the guise of a "cabal".  Visiting the site was by
invitation only, yet was uncovered by May 2007.  Evidence discovered on the
site indicated several past and future attacks on Conservapedia and several
other wikis, forcing one of the operators there to "erase" the evidence and
create a new site, called RW 2.0, which is still in use today.

====L.A. Times article====

(insert screenshot of Flippin cyber-terror letter)

In late May, 2006, newspaper reporter Stephanie Simon chose to write an
article for the Los Angeles Times about Conservapedia, and to do so she
initiated contact with several sysops asking for details.  Watching this
were members of RationalWiki, who themselves wrote to her detailing their
own view of the site.  One of the letters sent was from a man named "Craig",
who went by the user name of "Flippin" both during his time in Conservapedia
as well as RationalWiki.  In it he boasted of using "cyber-terror"
techniques when he and his cronies launched attacks against Conservapedia;
other user histories concerning similar attacks confirmed the "Craig"
letter.  One such attack was launched by an "Andrews Palop", who made an
extortion threat against Schlafly (insert CP page shot or link to this
posting); "Palop" was determing to have been a 13 year-old boy from England
who was subsequently handled by London Metropolitan Police.

(Expand)

==Anti-science?==

(Insert subtopic about their own problems refuting the anti-science
movement)

==Defending RationalWiki==

(Insert their own failed attempts to defend RW from third-party sites who
looked and criticized them, such as Denise O'Leary)

==Conclusion==

As a wiki purportedly posted to defend science, it fails by not properly
addressing their own allegations in a straight-forward manner; as a site
refuting the "anti-science movement" it fails miserably in that there is no
sound refutations at all.

As a site it is little more than a blog, run by childish amateurs who's
unofficial stated intent is to destroy the website they were thrown out of
for their own behavior, Conservapedia; indeed, RationalWiki has become a
mere advertisement for an unhealthy obsession against Conservapedia.  As
journalist Denise O'Leary has pointed out, RationalWiki is little more than
a "rubbish heap".
===================

If this is to be worked on, do it here first; when ready, upload the proper
screen shots, then this article.

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Mon, 19 May 2008 13:53:53 -0500:

There is two versions of "anti-science" and I think you pointed both out.
One of them is the RW version of this concept, and that should be made
clear.  I don't know exactly how to do it, but if you want a stab at placing
it properly within the proposed article, feel free to do so.

Just keep in mind that it's going to be written within the confines of this
group until absolutely ready for CP posting.

2008-05-19 ZB1 Guard Dog 1.5.1
2008-05-19 ZB1 Battle of Gettysburg
2008-05-19 ZB1 Ratwiki article
2008-05-19 ZB1 Conservapedia down!
2008-05-19 ZB1 Conservapedia down - further info

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.