Monday, February 28, 2011

Moonies on Conservapedia

"Moonies" are members of a cult founded by Sun Myung Moon. The official name of the cult is the "Unification Church." The cult is best known among Conservative Christians for the mish-mosh of Eastern Mysticism and Moon's claim to be essentially the second coming of Christ. While the claim is dressed up in some euphemistic terminology one cannot read the actual claims and doctrines of the Unification Church without realizing that is exactly what Moon is asserting. Many Churches have issued specific warnings about the Moonies, and several books listing world cults have discussed them.

Given the blasphemous, anti-Christian nature of Moon's claims one would THINK Moonies would be poorly represented on Conservapedia. Ed Poor however, one of, if not the most powerful editor on conservapedia, is a Moonie, a member of a cult that claims "Rev" Sun Myung Moon is the second coming of Christ.

The Conservapedia entry on the Unification Church has been heavily edited by Ed Poor. Let's take a look at some of his edits to see what kind of bias he's adding.

Many of the edits are routine. For example he added a year reference to a section about cult leader Moon's age. Others edits however let his bias shine through. On February 14, 2011 Ed Poor added the following comment to the "Theological development and doctrine" section of the article:
This section has various problems, e.g., it implies that Rev. Moon's ideas are not a valid revelation from God. I think it goes beyond the scope of articles here to make such a judgment.

Moon claims to have been visited by Christ when he was 16 and told to "complete" the work left undone by Christ after the Crucification. Here, Ed Poor is quite seriously claiming that Conservapedia, an explicitly Conservative Christian resource, should not be questioning the validity of this claim in the "theology" section about the cult.

On November 6, 2010, Poor edited the text:
Charges of mind control and manipulation by the Unification church were often heard in the 70's and 80's.

to read:
Charges of mind control and manipulation by the Unification church were often heard in the 70's and 80's, but dwindled practically to nothing after the American Psychological Association declared that the theory of [[mind control]] had no scientific basis.

Emphasis mine.

Notice the complete lack of sources for that wild speculation. Notice how he dishonestly tries to claim that the accusations of brainwashing were actually accusations of "mind control." The brainwashing practiced by Moonies is well documented in the exhaustively researched book "The Making of a Moonie", published in the mid 1980's. You see no mention of it on the Conservapedia page about the Moonies. Like most other cults, the Moonies have been accused of, and been documented using, brainwashing techniques to manipulate and control its members. Thanks to Ed Poor however this dangerous cult is being whitewashed, with documented accusations of brainwashing being waved away by evoking sci-fi visions of "mind control."

Ed Poor doesn't stop there. On November 6, 2010, Ed softened the information about the suicide of one of Moon's sons:

one of Moon's other sons committed suicide in 1999, by jumping from a 17th story balcony in Reno


one of Moon's other sons apparently committed suicide in 1999, falling from a 17th story balcony in Reno

Ed Poor doesn't just enjoy whitewashing the brainwashing techniques used by the Moonies, he likes whitewashing the term itself.

On August 20, 2010 Ed Poor changed the quite accurate text:
>Its followers are typically referred to as ''Moonies'' by critics, a term the church's adherents, called ''Unificationists'', dislike.
Its followers are typically referred to as ''Unificationists''.

No one outside the "Unification Church" calls the members "Unificationists" unless they are trying to curry favor with the Moonies. People who monitor this cult, as well as much of the literature describing their practices and beliefs, refer to them as "Moonies."

I guess Ed Poor doesn't like the term, just as the text he purged asserted. The term "Moonie" doesn't even appear in the text of the article about the "Unification Church". It's only seen in a few URLS in the "References" section.

There are many more edits to examine. Individually many may seem unimportant, but when taken as an aggregate, it's clear that Ed Poor has been slowly but surely editing the article to reflect an increasingly apologetic tone towards a dangerous cult of which he is one of the members / victims.

Is conservapedia intended to be an actual resource for homeschooling parents, or a front end and propaganda site for the Moonies?

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Have you been banned by Ed Poor?

Are you a Conservapedia contributor who has been banned, either temporarily or permanently by Ed Poor?

If so, I want to hear from you as part of my ongoing research into the editorial practices of Ed Poor and how he's impacting Conservapedia. If you want to contribute to unmasking Ed Poor, please respond to this post or e-mail me at

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Vanity of Ed Poor


If you spend any length of time perusing Conservapedia, you begin to realize that a good deal of the articles are either created or edited heavily by Ed Poor. My first and only encounter with Ed Poor consisted of him banning me for life from editing Conservapedia because I disagreed with him on a minor point about an obscure Japanese film whose very Conservapedia entry was later deleted. In short, he banned me for life because of something literally no one but him actually cared about. There wasn't even a warning. I was simply banned because I disagreed with Ed Poor.

I was gobsmacked. It made no sense. The more I pondered the irrational nature of his actions the more I realized the deep implications of what he had done. If he was willing to ban me for something that no one cared about, he was probably willing to ban other people for equally trivial reasons. I had been a minor contributor to Conservapedia. Most of my entries had amounted to nothing more than fixing a few typos or correcting some grammar. What about people who were trying to make major contributions? What about the people who were dedicating the time to grow Conservapedia in very real, substantial ways? Was Ed Poor attacking them with the same vigor?

I decided to do some digging.

The First Vanity Entry

If you search Conservapedia for the name "Ed Poor" you come to the entry for Edmund Ward Poor. It's not surprising if your response is "Who?" He was one of four early investors when Leroy Grumman started a small welding operation. While Leroy Grumman would grow this tiny business into the Grumman Aircraft Company, Edmund Ward Poor never achieved anything more substantial than having invested in Leroy Grumman.

According to Conservapedia's entry however, he was a co-founder of Grumman Aircraft Company, an organization that Conservapedia doesn't consider important enough to have an entry of its own. The entry goes on to point out that Edmund Ward Poor is the Grandfather of Conservapedia editor Ed Poor. Looking at the vanity article's history you find that Ed Poor created the article, such as it is, and was responsible for most of the edits. When challenged on the very existence of the article, Ed Poor responded with:

unlike Wikipedia, longtime contributors here are allowed to blow their own horns

In that comment, Ed Poor admits he's created an irrelevant vanity article for the sake of self aggrandizement.

The article however, is, to be kind, inaccurate. Edmund Ward Poor was NOT the co-founder of Grumman. He was one of four minor business partners when Leroy Grumman started a company that did nothing but weld aluminum frames for trucks in the late 1920's. Leroy Grumman doesn't have a Conservapedia entry, but a minor financier who didn't even have a say in day-to-day operations has an entry giving him the bulk of the credit for Leroy Grumman's business acumen and ambition. This would be like having no entry for Microsoft or Bill Gates, but having an article claiming a bank manager who approved an early loan to the company was the co-founder.

The very first thing I found on Conservapedia when looking up Ed Poor was a falsehood riddled vanity piece designed to paint an obscure ancestor of Ed Poor's in a far grander light than the man ever deserved.

My research will continue, but my hopes are not high. I fear I may discover that Conservapedia has decayed into nothing more than the Ed Poor vanity project.

Saturday, February 12, 2011


Liberal hand-wringing activists at report:

"With Republicans back in charge of the House of Representatives, funding for NPR and PBS is in grave danger. Again. The Republicans just released their budget proposal, and it zeroes out funding for both NPR and PBS."

Two of the biggest liberal indoctrination sources may be shut down once and for all! Free speech is not the issue here. No one is shutting down MSNBC, we're just shutting down tax funding for Liberal propaganda. I wonder if either network will manage to get funding from other sources.


If "Air America" didn't manage it I doubt Ira Glass will.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Banned for life by Conservapedia

You'd better be careful on Conservapedia. If you point out an incident of borderline pedophilia in a Japanese movie about demons you might just get banned for life.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by Ed Poor. The reason given is crazy speculation in Totoro film article.
Start of block: 16:18, 11 March 2009
Expiry of block: infinite
Intended blockee: AlexC

The movie "Totoro" is considered a "harmless" film by some. This is inexplicable, because the title character is a "forest spirit" AKA, a Demon, who routinely kidnaps two sisters with a dying mother and puts them in dangerous situations.

In one scene, the father, whose wife is in a hospice, is seen taking a bath with his two daughters, one of whom is old enough to be on the cusp of puberty. The perversion of this scene is undeniable and yet adding a brief mention of this to the Conservapedia article on the film resulted in the above ban.

I attempted to resolve this issue by contacting the moderator who banned me.

From: AlexC
To: Ed Poor
Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 2:43:14 PM
Subject: Conservapedia e-mail

Mr. Poor,

I'm confused as to why my user account was banned. What "crazy speculation" was I engaging in in the Totoro article? The radiation poisoning of the Mother was based not on wild speculation but upon the fact that her symptoms in the film roughly matched some of the symptoms of mild radiation poisoning.

Alexander Cornswalled

Ed Poor to me
Who banned you, and when? All I know is that Mei's mom was considered to have TB.

If she had other symptoms, please list them ... and maybe provide a source that agrees with what you saw on screen.

Ed Poor

Alexander Cornswalled to Ed
When I tried to log into Conservapedia, I got a message telling me
that you had banned me for speculation in the Totoro article.

To tell the truth I hardly remember the article myself. It looks like
the director has since weighed in on the question of what the mother
had, making whatever information I'd found irrelevant.

Alexander Cornswalled

After receiving no reply I sent the following message:

Alexander Cornswalled to Ed
According to the site you banned me.

"The block was made by Ed Poor. The reason given is crazy speculation
in Totoro film article.
Start of block: 16:18, 11 March 2009
Expiry of block: infinite
Intended blockee: AlexC"

Is an "infinite" ban really appropriate if the moderator who initiated
the ban is unable to recall or find documentation on what caused the

Alexander Cornswalled

To date I have not received a response from Conservapedia. I find it unlikely that I was banned over a disagreement about if a dying woman in a movie about demons had TB or Radiation Poisoning. It's clear to me however that "Ed Poor" is determined to defend a movie that casts demons in a positive light, even if it means banning educated, articulate conservative Christians from contributing to Conservapedia.

It may be time for Conservapedia readers and editors to start reviewing the edits, bans, deletions, IP blocks and protected entries list of Ed Poor. Based upon his enthusiastic, no-holds-barred support of a pro-demon movie I suspect he may be one of the alleged "deep cover liberals" to have infiltrated the site.

It's ironic that Ed Poor put so much effort into banning me for pointing out one of the issues with the Totoro movie, as another Conservapedia editor has deleted the article completely.

My Neighbor Totoro
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
13:11, 25 April 2010 DouglasA (Talk | contribs) deleted "My Neighbor Totoro" ‎ (Pop Culture: content was: '{{speedy}} {{Infobox Film | name=My Neighbor Totoro | image=Totoro poster.jpg | caption= | director=Hayao Miyazaki | producer=Toru Hara | writer=Hayao Miyazaki | narrator= | starring= | music=Joe Hisaishi | cinematography=Yo)

Deleting the page I can understand. You don't need a detailed article on a movie glamorizing demons, witchcraft and pedophilia in a reference source geared towards home-schooled children.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

South African Atheists ban Churches from advertising

Etv ordered to pull 'miracle' ads

The Christ Embassy church in South Africa has been ordered to pull all advertising from the airwaves because the church "cannot prove that its pastors can perform healing miracles".

That's right, a church has been banned from spreading the message of Christ by a atheist-dominated branch of the South African government because miracles don't meet the same, abstract "scientific" standards as the big-pharma funded sham-studies. While the CLAIM is that this is about a lack of evidence, the reality is this is about a very anti-Christ agenda and the church refusing to bribe the necessary government officials.

Christ Embassy's ministry had been focusing on providing hope and aid to AIDS victims in a nation with one of the highest percentage of HIV infected people in the world. Now their life-changing work has been stopped by politicians who mock religion and consider men of God to be fools.

Keep South Africa in your prayers. Their churches are under attack and need our support.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Bill Clinton: Satanist

The adulterer Bill Clinton has a long history of debauched behavior. His wife included a version of the infamous "death panel" in her draft of a national socialist health care plan during his administration. Now it seems Clinton is dabbling in VooDoo.

The "Power Balance" bracelet is a silicone wrist band with an embedded hologram. The claims made by the manufactures are scientifically unfounded, but heavily steeped in Eastern Mysticism.

Bracelet claims balance improvementReporter: Frank Pangallo Broadcast Date: December 15, 2009It is called a Power Balance Bracelet and whatever some people claim to feel when wearing one defies their belief and logic.Tom O'Dowd has the Australian rights for the bracelet which sells for around $60.The secret, he claims, is embedded in the hologram on the band and so-called Mylar technology."In the Mylar hologram is a frequency and the frequency as soon as it comes into contact with the electrical field of your body basically works with your body's electrical field that gives you a feeling of wellness," Tom claims.Tom alleges he can demonstrate straight away that it improves balance, strength and flexibility.Mylar technology supposedly restores the body's frequency to somewhere near the 7.83 hertz required."This will make you the best you can be, it won't turn you into Tiger Woods let's put it that way, but it will make you the best you can be," Tom claims.

In other words, they're magic, the very sort of thing banned in the Bible. The company making them even has a statement on their web site admitting there's no evidence they work.

Now, Bill Clinton is wearing one.

You can see the video here:

I wonder what Bubbah needs to compensate for. Perhaps his heart isn't strong enough to get a Viagra prescription and this is his next desperate attempt to keep up with his affairs.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Meet the New Egypt

This is the face of the new Egypt, the people seeking to overthrow a stable, if brutal, government and replace it with, well they don't know.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Barney Frank to run again?

Barney Frank v. Sean Bielat II?
GOP rival, experts stunned by re-election bid

Frank is 70 years old. If you read his comments about this race in the article and other places it's clear he's primarily running to be stubborn. He hasn't bothered to raise a war chest and he hasn't bothered to court new donors.

He's only running to try and influence who DOES win by having his say at the debates. This isn't about winning again, but about sticking his nose into an election he doesn't expect to win. We need to make sure the people he WANTS to win don't. He wants a legacy by hand-picking his successor by destroying the other contenders and we can't let him.

Anyone who thinks he's TRYING to win has been mislead by his campaign and fallen right into his trap.

This idiot for example, is expending his time battling a "sacrificial lamb" contender:

Frank does not plan to win, he plans to choose who does. Watch the campaign and you'll see what's REALLY happening.