Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Conservapedia?

katlaughing 02 Mar 07 - 11:12 PM
Richard Bridge 02 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM
Richard Bridge 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 PM
Jim Dixon 02 Mar 07 - 10:45 PM
dianavan 02 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 09:44 PM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 09:17 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 07:07 PM
bobad 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 06:51 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 06:50 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 06:38 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 06:36 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Mar 07 - 06:28 PM
John Hardly 02 Mar 07 - 06:04 PM
Bee 02 Mar 07 - 05:13 PM
Amos 02 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM
Alec 02 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM
Scoville 02 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Mar 07 - 02:06 PM
Alec 02 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM
wysiwyg 02 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM
John Hardly 02 Mar 07 - 12:37 PM
Grab 02 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM
autolycus 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM
Donuel 02 Mar 07 - 12:30 PM
Scoville 02 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM
Scoville 02 Mar 07 - 12:16 PM
John Hardly 02 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM
Amos 02 Mar 07 - 11:35 AM
John Hardly 02 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM
Alec 02 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM
wysiwyg 02 Mar 07 - 11:16 AM
Alec 02 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM
Bainbo 02 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM
autolycus 02 Mar 07 - 10:55 AM
Amos 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM
Scoville 02 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM
John Hardly 02 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM
Bill D 02 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM
Bill D 02 Mar 07 - 10:14 AM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM
Bill D 02 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM
Bill D 02 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM
Alec 02 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM
Grab 02 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Mar 07 - 09:58 AM
Amos 02 Mar 07 - 09:44 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM

According to Conservapedia, abortions cause cancer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM

... and I thought they were experts...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:07 PM

Sure as hell looks like it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

Should be labelled "Evangelicopedia" IMO.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:51 PM

"RE: BS: Conservapedia?"

Rewrite of history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Alec
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

Genuine query. Please define wiki-winger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

But you can read ABOUT it here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM

here is the Google cache


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Conservapedia?
From: Grab
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM

Nothing to stop the conservatives putting their views on Wikipedia too...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 24 May 11:41 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.