Wiki!? Just What *is* Henley’s Position on Unicorns, Anyway?
By Mona
Jim Henley holds a reputation as a sophisticated commentator and a fellow who know his way around the Intertubes. So, it is with sadness — nay, shock — that one observes his making recourse to Wikipedia, when everyone who is anyone has moved on to Conservapedia. This fine new online resource exposes liberal bias in the Bible, the secular-progressive myth that unicorns never existed, and details how “judicial activism” causes black-robed masters to rule against anti-miscegenation laws and coercively segregated schools (silly, wicked liberal Justices, like there is a 14th Amendment or something).
.
Surely this new aggregation of knowledge would appeal to a guy like Jim, because as its introductory page states (links omitted):
Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
Exactly so, and I expect Mr. Henley to effing get with the program.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Wait, unicorns?
I read your Sadly No link, but when I went to conservapedia to confirm it I discovered that their service is at best patchy. So no luck.
Comment by Mona —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:21 am
Thoreau, I’ve seen in comments sections here and there that after Conservapedia become on object of…interest in the last week or so, accessing it became difficult. Perhaps an overwhelmed server.
Comment by Handsome —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Wait. Doesn’t C.E. stand for “Christian Era”? And Wikipedia’s use of this makes them anti-Christian?
I demand REAL anti-Christianity, damn it. (Heh.) I want to see dates in “S.E.” (Satanic Era) or “EOTB” (Era Of The Beast). And for that last, we should renumber so our years date back to the founding of Rome, too. So this isn’t 2007 A.D. or C.E., it’s actually 2757 EOTB.
Yeah. Yeah.
Comment by Mona —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Handsome: When I was doing the undergrad thing — back when dinosaurs roamed — the seckyular university I attended had us using C.E., to mean Common Era, or B.C.E., Before the Common Era. My understanding was that this was somewhat in (outrageously liberal)deference to Jewish sensibilities, since that cohort of scholars doesn’t think 2007 is the Year of Our Lord.
Comment by Chris Quinones —
February 27, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Handsome: [Latin nerd]That would be 2760 AUC, buddy.[/Latin nerd]
Comment by Leonard —
February 27, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Thoreau the unicorn picture at SN really was what the conservopedia had a few days ago, when I looked. The text has evolved somewhat, though. When I looked at it, it was just a paragraph.
Seriously, this is a great thing about the Net. It can offer an unmediated view into alien cultures. Creationists think they really have something? Great! Put it up there and see how it flies.
Unicorns!
Comment by Handsome —
February 27, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Mona,
Common Era? How… common. ::sniff::
Chris,
AUC? After Unicorn Creation? How do you pin that down? And what does it have to do with Romulus and Remus?
Comment by radish —
February 27, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Hunh. I was originally told that C.E. and B.C.E. were “Current” Era and before, but I see that on Wikipedia “Current” redirects to “Common” rather than the other way around, so obviously I was told wrong.
Of course the person who told me was a) an anthropologist, and b) hadn’t even finished their doctorate, so I should have known they were leading me astray. But it does go to show that “science,” for all its claims about consistency and empiricism and peer-review, is as haphazard and unreliable as theology.
Comment by Jon H —
February 27, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
“My understanding was that this was somewhat in (outrageously liberal)deference to Jewish sensibilities, since that cohort of scholars doesn’t think 2007 is the Year of Our Lord. ”
It also applies to Hindus, Buddhists, and others. Doesn’t make much sense to date events in their regions by the death of a guy they didn’t know existed.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 27, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Should have known! That’s why they’re going to Hell.
Comment by Jon H —
February 27, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Good point, Jim! Being born hundreds of years and/or thousands of miles away is no excuse!
They’ll learn the price of their willful ignorance. Or, for many, they already have. Bwa-ha-ha.
Comment by matthew hogan —
February 27, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
“Doesn’t make much sense to date events in their regions by the death of a guy they didn’t know existed.”
Birth, you heathen, birth. Though even that’s off by 4 years or so.
Comment by Michael B Sullivan —
February 27, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
I always have thought that the CE/BCE thing is kinda stupid. I mean, if it were genuinely a different dating system, then you could make a case for it sticking it to the MAN. (The MAN is apparently the pervasive Christian-centric-ness of Western culture).
But, and this is important, it’s NOT. It’s just refusing to say the words “anno domini.” It still dates everything relative to (a mis-estimate-of) the birth of Joshua of Nazareth/Jesus Christ. The idea that somehow 7 BC was “not in the common/current/or even Christian era” and 12 AD was “in the common/current/or even Christian era” is laughable.
(Okay, it’s not quite laughable to call 12 AD (or better yet 34 AD) the Christian Era if and only if you’re a devoted Christian and think of Jesus’ very existence — regardless of how many people had heard of him, believed in him, or whatever — literally changed the world in some way. But those aren’t the people who use BCE/CE)
I guess that what I’m saying is that I don’t care how you guys want to call the new dating system: I’ll be pretty complemented once everyone starts using my birthday as the basis for keeping track of years.
Comment by Glaivester —
February 27, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
AUC? After Unicorn Creation? How do you pin that down? And what does it have to do with Romulus and Remus?
AUC stands for ab urbe condita, “from the founding of the city” (Rome), which officially occurred around 753 B.C.
The idea that somehow 7 BC was “not in the common/current/or even Christian era” and 12 AD was “in the common/current/or even Christian era” is laughable.
Actually, it is A.D. 7. A.D. comes before the date, not after it.
Comment by Mona —
February 27, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
That’s exactly right.
Altho back in the day a few of my religious studies and history profs preferred that I use the CE/BCE dating terms in papers ‘n stuff, I’ve not adopted them in any of my other writing. I agree that they are silly, and contrived. The pivotal date remains the guestimated birthday of the man-god in the Xian trinity, so what’s the point?
But I decline to see those who disagree as making an “anti-Xian” statement. In my view they are going overboard in sensitivity to non-Xians, but reasonable people could see it otherwise.
Comment by Michael B Sullivan —
February 27, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
I wrote “complemented” where I meant “complimented,” too.
Comment by moocat —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
hehee — okay, so consider me CRACKED UP by this!
Just for the record, Jesusism isn’t the only civilization that dates the beginning of significant time on their god-prince-dude; the Thai calendar starts with the birth of Gautama Buddha.
So.. Happy 2548, everyone!
Comment by moocat —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
oh, and the Republic of China (ahem) year starts with the “founding of the” (cough, cough) “Republic” in 1911.
So, Happy Year 96 (no apostrophe) from Taipei!
Comment by Michael —
February 27, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
I think Jim is on record supporting the hypothesis that the Unicorn is (the female ‘yin’) half of the creative force that formed every existing universe through the mechanism of lightning, blood and lyre.
I do not know if he has taken a position on the thesis that unicorns are allegorical stand-ins for Jedi Knights (or perhaps that Jedis are allegorical stand-ins for unicorns). This thesis is explored in detail on the worst web page ever designed. (Warning, may cause eye-bleeding. wayback link, press “cancel” a half-dozen times if it asks you to log in).
Comment by moocat —
February 28, 2007 @ 4:00 am
Hey — Conservapedia won’t let me create an account! One can’t edit anything without having an account, and it’s not allowing me to even contact anyone there to create an account…
Wassup widdat?
Comment by Jon H —
February 28, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Apparently the Conservapedia entry for the Moon says, roughly, that the only tenable explanation for the Moon’s origin is a creationist or design explanation.
Which makes me want to edit the page to say “That’s no moon…”
Trackback by World —
August 28, 2007 @ 11:12 am
World largest dating portal…
…