 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Conservapedia?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM Today's Guardian reports the founding of a Rightwing U.S. Republican online Encyclopedia intended to counteract the alleged "Liberal Bias" of Wikipedia. (Which amongst other crimes sometimes uses "British spelling") Is this an interesting experiment in widening the parameters of debate or evidence that the Right is becoming divorced from reality? Any views? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:44 AM Wal, I dunno. I've always felt that knowledge, in the sense used by encyclopedias, was above the fray, so to speak. Seems to me as if it is trying to run hamburgers through a coffee-mill. Ain't likely to produce anything edible. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:58 AM Has anybody got a link for this 'Educational Tool"?!!! Should be worth a laugh or two... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Grab Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM Nothing to stop the conservatives putting their views on Wikipedia too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM Well its www.Conservapedia.com but when I just tried it I got "page cannot be displayed". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM "Liberal bias" is often a cover term for "too much rationality for comfort". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM here is the Google cache |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM "Well its www.Conservapedia.com but when I just tried it I got "page cannot be displayed"." Now that IS 'conservative'! ROFLMAO! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:14 AM hmmm cant get that cache URL to display,,,,but a search IN Google gets it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM But you can read ABOUT it here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM I've wondered about the fact that Wiki can be added to by anyone. Why doesn't a more conservative element just add to the current data instead of starting up another? Is it a problem of who holds ultimate control of wiki? (PeterT was into that wiki thing. Myabe he could add his $.02 in here?). If there is an alternative universe of "conservapedia" it really will do no good. Like the alternative media, it is just discounted without question by liberals anyway. I suppose we are now so polarized that only history will be able to sort through the data and determine who was telling the truth....though history has show us that whoever wins gets to determine how history is written. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Scoville Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM Okay, that's just ridiculous. Whatever you think of Wikipedia, it DOES warn about the disputed neutrality of articles, and as has been pointed out, there is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from contributing or altering articles. Unless, of course, they favor altering them to a non-neutral, right-wing slant, which is what I suspect is really the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM All of the Conservapedia pages 404 out. Seems it was a short-lived experiment in mixing knowledge with unreason. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: autolycus Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:55 AM It's part of the conservative mindset that Shrub produced with his"If you're not for us,you're against us." A conservative goes off the deep end really quickly with anyone who doesn't just agree and shut up;much the point of view of most bosses,too.[Not known for their liberal tendencies,either.] That's why I think they believe Wiki is 'liberal'. What the conservative mind seems to reject (pulling a punch,there), are shades;for them,everything is black and white. And of course,when someone says that someone/something is conservative/liberal/socialist,left/right/centre, it's necessary to know the position of the speaker in order to begin to understand what they've said. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bainbo Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM OK. let's start our own, then. Under 'A' Abroad A nasty, foul-smelling place inhabited by peple you can't trust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM According to the Guardian article Andy Schlafly (founder of Conservapedia)says that they are unable to make changes to Wikipedia because of "inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors". So nothing to do with being unwilling/incapable of coping with anything beyond the narrow parameters of their own ideology at all. No siree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:16 AM Does this mean I'm going to be considered a wiki-winger? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM Genuine query. Please define wiki-winger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM "According to the Guardian article Andy Schlafly (founder of Conservapedia)says that they are unable to make changes to Wikipedia because of "inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors". " Well, then it makes sense. So there's a "board" of sorts that gets ultimate editing control? This sentence... "Whatever you think of Wikipedia, it DOES warn about the disputed neutrality of articles" contradicts this sentence... "Unless, of course, they favor altering them to a non-neutral, right-wing slant, which is what I suspect is really the issue." If they warn of the bias in the articles, it should make no difference to them if the warning is to alert for left wing OR right wing bias. You see no problem because you accept left-wing as "truth" and right-wing as "bias". Pretty simple, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:35 AM I woudl like to see some specifics demonstrating this "inherent left-wing bias". The pursuit of knowledge, generally, tends to be a liberal pursuit (in the classic sense of the word liberal, not Ann Coulter's bizarre contortion of it). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM oh, good grief. Here we go again with the semantic dance. So "liberalism" is the pursuit of knowledge? How about... Conservatism is about conserving the integrity of honest and scientific pursuit of knowledge, while Liberalism is for free, capricious interpretation of data as "truth" wherever politically useful. I can shovel it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Scoville Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:16 PM I was unclear--I meant "they" as in ,the people who are setting up Conservapedia. Conservapedia-ites apparently favor altering Wikipedia to right-leaning status and away from neutrality. Sorry. I should have phrased that better so that it was more clear that I was not contradicting myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Scoville Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM JH--my mother swears that the U.S. is being brought to its knees by Bush and his anti-intellectuals (I think it's pretty safe to say that Bush is anti-intellectual. Now I'd like to hear him pronounce it.) I suppose that tagging Wikipedia as liberal goes with that, as does teaching religion in science class and silencing/slandering anyone with dissenting political or social views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Donuel Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:30 PM Amos, you are as sharp as "unfrozen caveman lawyer" a character that Phil Hartman used to perform. The conservative word for Cancer (particularly on procuct lables) is: unintended health concerns. The conservative word for holding pens, freedom zone torture chambers, rendition etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: autolycus Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM "The pursuit of knowledge generally tends to be a liberal pursuit" is simply NOT the same as "liberalism is the pursuit of knowledge". In other words,those two quotations are in NO way identical. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Grab Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM global team of volunteer editors In other words, a majority decision. Hell no, we can't have one of those... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:37 PM "In other words, a majority decision. Hell no, we can't have one of those... ;-)" Sure you can, as long as you understand that "majority" does not equal "true". At one time in the world the majority thought the earth was flat. The majority was wrong. It often is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: wysiwyg Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM Alec, As a Wiki-Winger, of course my views can be defined according to whatever is added/subtracted by whomever goes into Wikipedia to change them. I'm just glad to finally understand (I think) why I'm so confused! :~) I'm used to Mudcat defining my views and beliefs-- that was crazy enough. But I can live with the randomness of being a Wiki-Winger, and I think I should change my Mudcat name to WYMMOTBIWYG. Quick! '~ | ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM Oh,Ok.For myself I'm sometimes a Wikiwhinger which is someone who has a bit of a grumble when infallibility is implicitly ascribed to Wikipedia,Conservopedia or any other solitary source. At one time in the world the majority thought the Earth was flat. I have often heard variants of this claim made but the evidence is inconclusive & contradictory. Certainly if 1 million people believe a foolish thing then it is still a foolish thing but the verifiable observations and experiences of many people help rather than hinder the pursuit of knowledge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:06 PM "Conservapedia" is a pretty monstrous distortion of language. In can't imagine any self-respecting Conservative would want to have anything to do with anything with a label like that. And the idea of an "encyclopedia" which grabs you by the lapels and bellows argumentatively into your face instead of setting out to give you the facts to make up your own mind is pretty bizarre. But then the word seems to have a somewhat different meaning in the USA. Here it is anyway - for what it's worth, which doesn't seem much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Scoville Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM Well, they better add to it in a hurry because right now it's likely do die of sheer uselessness. They have a stub on the Easter Rising but not a page on Easter, the holiday. Nor Christmas. I would have thought they had a mouthful to say about those. I notice they were quick to point out possible pagan bases of the Muslim prohibition against pork, though. And they misquote at least one term in the article on Quakers (the Wiki article on Quakers, by the way, is one of the best explanations of Quakerism I've seen. Most "religious dictionaries" leave one with no clue about anything). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM Well it's informative.I've learnt that there is evidence for Dinosaurs and men having co-existed and I have learnt that the Vietnam War doesn't warrant an entry.Ah well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM John: I made no such claim. I said that academic pursuits tend to be liberal -- in other words they broaden the horizons and make one more aware of the comonalities among different groups, the similarities between religions, and the values of interaction and tolerance, as distinguished from the virtues of profit, war-making, and controlling people. This has nothing to do with "liberals" in the political sense which is a word which has been so distorted and twisted as to have lost all meaning. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bee Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:13 PM Andy Schlafly is Phyllis Schafly's son. For those too young to remember, she travelled the US railing against the Equal Rights Amendment and advocating women sustain the biblical submissive stance with their husbands. Conservapedia is having troubles - last week, as fast as articles like the above business of dinosaurs walking with men were input, other people were replacing them with more accurate articles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:04 PM If you can't serve a pedia, maybe you can serve a pizza. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:28 PM The notion that "conservative" and"liberal", when they aren't official party labels, are in some way opposite and itrreconcilable ways of looking at the word. Rather as if peopoe were to sugest that being a democrat mean being opposed to the reopublican form of giovernment, or being in favour of a republic had to mean you were against democracy. If you want an opposite for "conservative" the most appropriate word miht be "destructive"; and for an opposite to "liberal" the obvious wrod is "illiberal". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:36 PM From their main page: "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, as well as more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 857,000 page views and over 16,300 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly. 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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:38 PM "Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance." Anybody know WTF that means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:50 PM "The term Renaissance describes an attitude toward life which values earth more than heaven, the immortality of fame over immortality of the soul, the striving for success more than striving for justice, the individual over authoritarian institutions, and humanism over Christianity." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:51 PM "RE: BS: Conservapedia?" Rewrite of history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: bobad Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM Should be labelled "Evangelicopedia" IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:07 PM Sure as hell looks like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:17 PM "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. " So the rest of the world can just sod off... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM Search results From Conservapedia You searched for wanking Jump to: navigation, search There is no page titled "wanking". You can create this page. No page title matches Page text matches Plato (558 bytes) 1: ...buildings wherein Plato taught his students while wanking. He wrote the [[Republic]], and its logical seque... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM ... and I thought they were experts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:44 PM Plato From Conservapedia Plato was a great Greek philosopher from 428 to 347 BC, after which he was not so great. He was a student of Socrates and founded the Academy, a school bereft of buildings wherein Plato taught his students while wanking. He wrote the Republic, and its logical sequel, The Laws, as well as a large number of other, less popular works in which he showed (amongst other things) how to teach geometry to slaves, how to irritate sophists, and how everything in the world is made of triangles. One of Plato's pupils was Aristotle. ~~~~~~ "after which he was not so great" ROFLMAO - now you know what happened to all those kids who gave those hilarious interesting 'exam answers' - they grew up and started writing for Conservapedia... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: dianavan Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM According to Conservapedia, abortions cause cancer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Jim Dixon Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:45 PM "Eugenics is proof that scientists who are Darwinists should be carefully watched." -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Eugenics "Mercantilism was the British policy at the time of the American Revolution. For this reason, the United States has always rejected mercantilism, choosing instead to run enormous trade deficits." -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Mercantilism "Greek is also a style of wrestling, and of love." -- http://www.conservapedia.com/Greek There is no page titled "folk music". You can create this page. (There is also an "encyclopedia of creation science": http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 PM Are those quotes accurate? Does it really say that? Incredible! The reference work of the ignorant and irrational, by the ignorant and irrational, for the ignorant and irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM No entries for masturbation or orgasm. Not a happy world, they live in! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: katlaughing Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:12 PM Jaysus!! I hope a cadre of folks who have written for Wiki, and anyone else who wants to keep this kind of bullshit from propagating, will immediately "contribute" factual refutations, and OFTEN! I hope they are swamped out of existence with postings by any and all who do not agree with their stupidity. Scoville, your mother is right! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM No entry for Wilhem Reich, either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:27 PM From the fourth lecture on world history on conservapedia: - "The aphorism "idle time is the work of the devil" applied to the people of Rome. For entertainment, people would go to the Colosseum and watch people (at one time, Christians) be fed to lions, or see two gladiators fight each other until one died. The morality of the Roman people was in complete decline. It was like everyone now spending hours each day watching murder on television, except it was real then." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:13 AM I quoted from Wiki and I was told I was using a right wing site. It looks pretty neutral to me and tries to present all sides. I am amazed at the quantity if info in Wiki. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: DMcG Date: 03 Mar 07 - 03:54 AM So using English spellings is automatically anti-American? I hope no-one tells Tony Blair & co before the next review of the UK School Curriculum... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: autolycus Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:06 AM Why is the use of C.E. "anti-Christian"? Why not,say,'non-Christian'. Or 'humanist'? Or 'modern'? Why "anti-"? As I said,it's rather like Bush's,"If you're not with us,you're against us." All so black-and-white. incidentally,the first half of the first Cons...... commandment is 'Everything you post must be true...." Ivor ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: bobad Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:56 AM That has got to be a parody site, It's hard to believe that there are that many people who see the world through such a distorted lens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: George Papavgeris Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:03 AM And there's the tragedy, bobad: There are... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:01 AM "I hope a cadre of folks who have written for Wiki, and anyone else who wants to keep this kind of bullshit from propagating, will immediately "contribute" factual refutations, and OFTEN! I hope they are swamped out of existence with postings by any and all who do not agree with their stupidity." Apart from the fact that the idiots in charge of the edit button (... hmmm, wonder where I heard THAT before...) will corrupt any added material till it fits - like the bed of Procrustes - it really is just best to leave them in their own corner digging themselves deeper into their own hole of ridicule... and besides, that way they will lose the 'popularity contest' that they are obviously wanting... This way the WHOLE THING can be discarded at once... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:05 AM "There is no page titled "folk music". You can create this page. " Oh No - - are you trying to get us to overload and crash their Wiki Server? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM From CreationWiki Front Page... McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire Though not addressing evolution, the Arizona Senator has received flack from pro-abortion/gay rights/ethanasia group. ABC February 22, 2007 So Spelling doesn't matter either, eh? :-) ~~~~~~~~ Oh No.... Conservapedia's entry on kangaroos says that, "like all modern animals ... kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood." While CreationWiki remains mostly unscathed by the web's parodists, Conservapedia has fallen victim to countless attacks. One entry in particular has gotten a great deal of attention: the page about a tree-dwelling mollusk called the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus. Schlafly is amused by the page and its references to the endangered species falling victim to the ravages of logging and suburban encroachment. He sees it as a parody of environmentalists, and he plans to leave it up. "Conservatives have a sense of humor, too," he says. ...but today I noticed ... http://www.conservapedia.com/Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus ----> Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus From Conservapedia At the request of its original author, this entry no longer exists here. You are welcome to visit other entries on Conservapedia. Damn.... Wonder if we can get in an entry for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.... ~~~~ Hey wait on... "kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood" seems to be acceptance of 'Evolution' to me..... -) Just how many modern species of roos (and wallabies, wallaroos, and potaroos) are there now?.... :P ROFL.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM Actually CreationWiki is fascinating - like being stared at by a poisonous snake.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Category:Catastrophology From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Catastrophology comes from the Greek word katastroph meaning an overturning, ruin, or conclusion, and logy which basically means "the study of". It is the study of catastrophes or catastrophic processes. The links listed on this page are specifically related to this topic. Subcategories There are 2 subcategories to this category. F [+] Flood geology V [+] Volcanology ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Category:Flood geology From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Flood geology is the study of geologic formations with respect to the Global flood recorded in ancient writings and traditions in every culture in the world[1]. Flood geologists seek both to show that Earth's geologic features are best explained with reference to the Flood, and also to understand the specific events surrounding the flood. Subcategories There are 2 subcategories to this category. C [+] Catastrophology G [+] Geology ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, this is a Music Forum... "Here we go round the Mulberry Bush..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Alec Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM Of every clean beast thou shalt take by sevens, the male and his female:and of beasts that are not clean by two the male and his female. God's instructions to Noah for stocking the ark.(Genesis Ch 7 v 2) I would expect these people to misrepresent the evolutionary process but for them to misrepresent The Bible came as a surprise. Still I suppose its balance.Of a sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM "I would expect these people to misrepresent the evolutionary process but for them to misrepresent The Bible came as a surprise." Which is why they are best left alone - they will make themselves look foolish enough without 'help'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bill D Date: 03 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM When ANY person or site begins with an inflexible set of premises, then alters and distorts and re-configures reason & facts to make them fit their preconceived notions of reality, you get creations like "Conservapedia". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:59 PM Wikipedia is a blog, not an encyclopedia, and should not be cited as such. Conservapedia (or Conservapaedophilia, or whatever the hell it is) is a blog also - but one evidently organized by and posted to by morons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM According to that great American tradition... ... of the morons, by the morons, for the morons... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:01 PM Bill D that stuff above about the flood theory on CreationWiki shows that 'Creation Science' is simply NOT Science - since Science doesn't accept 'circular definitions, but rather focuses on 'hierarchal' definitions - a complex concept is defined by splitting it up into a greater number of smaller more understandable chunks - thus a whole thing cannot be a part of itself is one fairly basic assumption of Real Science ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:19 PM Conservapedia has the relationship to knowledge that worms do to astronomy. BTW, all you pundits in Mudcat Land. Take the following quiz. (You can lie about your results. The rest of us will. (I got 100%.)) QUIZ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: bobad Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM I'm an unsaved idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:30 PM LOL Gee, what a surPRISE! LOLOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Scoville Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:56 PM 100% . . . wrong. Heh heh. But then I never claimed I knew better than anyone else about the Bible. So, what's with the length of the flood? Did it RAIN for 40 days and then stay flooded for 150? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM I lied about my score. I have NO idea. They kept talking about cubits and I got all f#cked up after that. Had a 1960s flashback to a Walt Disney movie where the ants came marching two by two and then the wall melted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Mr Happy Date: 03 Mar 07 - 11:22 PM From Conservapedia Katana The weapon of choice for "Bushi". Is usually curved |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:05 AM I wonder if they have anything on History of China - which could be awkward fitting all that alleged history into the allotted time span - maybe they believe in 'time warps'... Just a jump to the And then a step to the right. You bring your knees in tight (ladies especially!) But it's the pelvic thrust, that really drives you insane, Now that's just enough of that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: autolycus Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:34 AM guys,guys,guys,you're not paying attention. I say again,the first part of the first Consrvapeditricsthingamebob commandment (they're soooooo deist) says,in English,that :- "Everything you post must be true..." So,it's all true,true, don't knock it,it's true. It probably doesn't have to be argued for 'cos the truth will out,to reword the original,Conservapedia "shall set you free." Or at least up the humour quotient. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: danensis Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM I like their rewriting of WWII: The Luftwaffe was the German air force. It was unmatched! The best men, the best training, the best equitment, the best guns, and the best airplanes! The Royal Air Force was no match for them and they picked and swated and destroyed the French Air Force. Its only competitor was the United States Air Force which had a hard time defeating it. It the Battle of Britian, the Luftwaffe lost a thousand planes and about 2000 men. This wasnt even a dent in the mighty air force of Germany. But just as all armys, it fell towards then end of World War II because of an insufficent amount of experince pilots to fly the planes. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:42 PM Hey, it asked if I wanted to start a page for "fornication!" This could be fun!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM ". . . because of an insufficient amount of experience pilots to fly the planes." That's a crock! Back around 1951 or so, when I was at the University of Washington, there were a whole bunch of World War II vets attending the University on the G. I. Bill. I also met a couple of exchange students from German who were vets, but on the other side. One was Rolf Hotzmann, who had flown ME-109s (the famous Messerschmitt fighter). He met an American vet who had been in the American air force and had flown fighters over Germany at about the same time as Rolf. They had some fascinating conversations (very friendly—they were both flying enthusiasts) about whether or not they were ever in the same skies at the same time and maybe even exchanged fire. I sat there with my eyes wide and my jaw slack, following their conversations and being amazed and bemused at the fact that if these two friends had met each other in the sky a few years before, they would have tried to kill each other. Anyway—and here's the point—Rolf said that, toward the end of the war, he and several of his friends (also pilots) had been transferred into the paratroops because they were running out of planes. Still plenty of qualified and experienced pilots, but they were running out things to fly. Rolf said he was not particularly fond of the idea of jumping out of a plane unless he absolutely had to. I think that probably gives a pretty fair example of the veracity and authoritativeness of Conservapedia. Sorta like Fox News Service: "Fair and Balanced." Ooooh, yeah. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM And Don, that is exactly why nobody should try to help them 'fix' it - best to leave them on their own... if the blatant errors are removed by well meaning 'helpful' externals, then the whole psychosis of the bunch gets hidden and is harder to expose. I speak as one who was bullied for years by a bunch of psychos at work - every time I pointed out just how bad their version was - it would be 'amended' to remove the blatant stupidity - if I had just gone to court, I might have won... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: danensis Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM Just put "Brazil" in the search box. Brilliant! John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Bagpuss Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM They have closed down new registrations because there were so many people putting up spoof articles - leading a lot of people to believe the whole site was a spoof. It is often hard to tell which is which! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Greg F. Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:56 PM leading a lot of people to believe the whole site was a spoof SPOOF??? There's nothing amusing about this whatsoever- these ignorant a$$holes actually believe the crap they post. Pretty frightening, if you ask me, that ANYONE AT ALL could believe this garbage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: danensis Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM So you disagree with their definition of Brazil? Surely not! John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:18 PM "Brazil A lie propagated by godless hedonistic liberals." LOLOLOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:46 PM A look at their entry for "homosexuality" brought up a musical connection: De Colores is one of the many liberal theme songs sung during protest rallies to promote the violent overthrow of the American government. It is the anthem of the Communist United Farm Workers of America founded by disgruntled lettuce picker, Ceasar Chavez. When singing this song, the group must "hold hands and sway". It became popular in the 1980's among liberals and Communists in Central and South America as "priests" preaching "liberation theology" began to anger local residents who, due to Latin tempers, frequently murdered them. This song is also a favorite of homosexual groups due to the "rainbow" references. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM Are people really sure the whole thing isn't in fact a parody? The fact that there are nuts like that out in the real world, or at least in America, doesn't mean that this might not actually be a spoof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:11 PM "Ceasar Chavez" The man's name is CESAR CHAVEZ. They couldn't even spell his name correctly. Assholes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:18 PM Which makes me wonder whether they'll have an entry for Abe Linkoln. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Jim Dixon Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM Regarding Foolstroupe's discussion of kangaroos— Some creationists do accept evolution to a limited degree. For example, they might accept that kangaroos and wallabies have a common ancestor. The main thing they WON'T accept is that humans and any non-humans have a common ancestor. (I wonder how creationists explain the fact that kangaroos live only in Australia? Did Noah drop them off there before sailing on to Ararat?) By the way, "baramin" was a new word to me, but I found it in Wikipedia at Baraminology. "Baramin" is a term coined by creationists. Google "baramin" and you find lots of creationist web sites. Wikipedia has LOTS of information about creationism. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia contains a better explanation of creationism than either Conservapedia or Creationwiki. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:11 PM Assuming it's not a rather heavy-handed attempt at parody, it really does seem rather impertinent to try to define "Conservative" as coterminous with this very peculiar set of ideas - still more to try to define Christianity as somehow existing mentally within these kind of narrow limits, which are only accepted by a pretty small proportion of Christians around the world, and even, I suspect, in the States.) It'd very much the same kind of aggrandisement by a extreme fringe sect with access to money that is attempting the same thing for the world's equally diversified Muslim traditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:16 PM Just a jump to the And then a step to the right. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Don Firth Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:24 PM If they can fly at all, birds with only one wing tend to fly in circles. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:03 AM "In creationism, Baraminology, sometimes referred to as typology or discontinuity systematics, is an attempt to classify proposed created kinds, sets of animals which are presumed isolated from all others" Ahh - I feel nostalgic for philostogen and aether... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:28 AM That'd be Phlogiston? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM Athpedia (in German) You may have guessed it by the name, it is a Wiki for atheists and they are serious as well. We are waiting now for Femipedia, Blackiki etc to explain to us the reality from their point of view. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:17 PM I have reviewed about fifteen random pages from Conservapedia. The articles, where accurate, are shallow, generalized cartoon-level explanations of topics. And, often, they are not accurate, sometimes showing the most remarkable bias on behalf of provinical or superstitious outlooks imaginable. Certainly not worthy of the name "encyclopedia". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: autolycus Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:23 PM or a Front for the Liberation of Judaeapedia. Look up 'Marxism' and it just says something like 'Derived from the ideas of Karl Marx'. And that's it. Can't fault it there for inaccuracy. Can't see other 'opedias worrying about the competition. And it says the Koran is the holy scripture for Muslim,analagous to the Bible for Christians. How are the fundamentalists going to respond to that? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:14 PM Oh the pain.... oh, the pain... : Celts From Conservapedia Clicky here The people groups who speak the Celtic languages, primarily of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man. The Celts were the first ethnic group to become widespread in Europe. Using tribes rather than stable civilizations, the Celts began in central Europe and migrated west beginning in about 500 B.C. to the British Isles (especially Ireland) and also northwest France and portions of Spain. Their religion consisted of worshipping gods and goddesses, and their priests were called "druids". They had no written language but often told myths and folktales. I am appalled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM 100 up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:57 AM "You may have guessed it by the name" What's next? Arseopedia? |
