The general public can edit the articles, because it is a wiki, but you need a user name to edit, and if you make an edit the admins don’t like, they’ll revert the edit and ban you. So, if the text is still in the article, that means the admins approve.
Well, his brain went for a ride 42 years later. Does that count?
This thread shows the need to have a national conversation (or at least an SDMB conversation) on what a “conservative” is. The dude in the OP, while the founder of a “conservative” website, seems to be motivated in this regard by simple religiosity. Lots of religious people are conservatives, but that doesn’t mean that any idea thought up by a religious person is a “conservative” idea.
I don’t usually comment on the Google ads at the bottom of a thread, but I couldn’t help but notice this thread’s ads included one for “Lesbian Personals.”
Wow. A conservative exists that even Rand Rover won’t defend. Was that a rip in the fabric of space/time I just heard? 
But seriously, to your point, and I know this is a complete hijack, so I apologize in advance, how can one objectively define a conservative when conservatives themselves don’t, can’t, or won’t agree on a definition? Hm…probably deserves its own thread.
This does basically mean we have to line up all the conservatives and shoot them, right? There is absolutely no reasoning with them.
Well, it’s all relative.
Hey, not all the relatives! I’m from Texas, and some of my kin are just to the left of Otto von Bismarck.
Maybe I should start looking at you closer then.
For your sanity I don’t recommend following the link that goes to their hilarious parody of evolution:the flying kitty
So they support UHC?
It’s like the real-life version of my all-time favorite Onion article:
Prescient, eh?
Damn that’s some quotable funny right there, that is!
Gee, I dunno . . . That’s kinda . . . But the alternatives . . . Well . . .
Oh, all right. But only if I get to go through their pockets and pull their fillings.
Now I’m all confused. Who are they making fun of?
From that site:
I wonder why…
(Bolding mine)
Creationists consider it an objection to the theory of evolution that (in the version most commonly understood) it assumes a gradual transition over time from one species to another (see phyletic gradualism), and in some cases “transitional” forms don’t seem to make sense, e.g., partly-evolved wings are useless for flying. But see punctuated equilibrium and hopeful monster.
Shooting them isn’t the best choice if your intention is to kill them. After all, chances are pretty small that you’ll hit them in the heart or brain.
As a conservative (if you read BrainGlutton’s link, I’m apparently a “(paleo)Progressive”) in some senses, I’d be on board with just shooting the Schlaflys.