 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Conservapedia?
|
|
|
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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia? From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM 100 up |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:28 AM That'd be Phlogiston? |
|
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: 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: 05 Mar 07 - 09:16 PM Just a jump to the And then a step to the right. :-) |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:18 PM "Brazil A lie propagated by godless hedonistic liberals." LOLOLOL |
|
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: 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: 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: danensis Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM Just put "Brazil" in the search box. Brilliant! John |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:30 PM LOL Gee, what a surPRISE! LOLOL |
|
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 - 09:19 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:05 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 - 09:01 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: George Papavgeris Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:03 AM And there's the tragedy, bobad: There are... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM No entry for Wilhem Reich, either |
