Thread:Pr1s0n3r0fl1f3666/@comment-66.183.41.215-20121105043901

On November 2nd, 2012. a user called "Pr1s0n3r0fl1f3666" came to Conservapedia as the user "Reactionary22", to conduct a so-called experiment on the "anal-retentive blocking policies at Conservapedia". To be honest, this is somewhat true, a user called Reactionary22 joined, was requested to provide 5 reasons why Ronald Reagan sucks, and for failing to do so in a timely manner, banned. However, this user completely left out a few points. Firstly, the nature of his edits were clearly to provoke, and not to create any beneficial/useful conversations. The very first edits made were "Ronald Reagan Sucks", on his userpage. Well, my colleague, EJamesW proceeded to request in a tolerant manner, given your obvious provocateur's stance, for 5 reasons why Ronald Reagan sucks. After a period of time, you were blocked, innitially for infinite. You next failed to include that I stepped in, and gave you another chance, extending your window of opportunity to reply by another 15 minutes. Still, no word from you. Finally, my colleague banned you, this time permanently, while you went of to this website, to write up your "Adventures to Conservapedia", as though you were trully unfairly blocked. Your friend (or not?), Prox, came over to RationalWiki, to draw attention to your blog post. They proceeded to paraphrase me, and pointed out your failure to portray things fairly, yet you still ignore them. In light of this, I cannot take seriously your efforts to portray us in a negative light.

Your attempts to smear Conservapedia with blatant lies on intolerance of liberals are ridiculous. While Conservapedia is by nature less appealing to liberals, it is not inherently against liberals on it's website. I identify quite liberally on Conservapedia, and a quick look at EJamesW's postings will prove his point of view as well. Strangely though, we are both sysops at the website now, a clear disproof of your theory that liberals cannot thrive there.

Finally, your arguments that Ronald Reagan sucks, would not have been taken seriously in good faith. The 5 reasons you expounded, "pro-life, increased the national debt, deregulated the economy, created "Reagonomics", and being a Republican" clearly shows that you have not taken the time nor effort into creating thoughtful, reasonable responses to the question EJamesW posted. Yet, you still think we are being unfair in blocking provocateurs? If you could not be bothered to do a little bit of research on his actual policies and actions (which shockingly, are quite liberal in comparison to the caricatures of him), and yet come over to write things, as though you know everything, then you have no reason whatsoever to be claiming you were wronged.

-Brenden (A Conservapedia Sysop) 