Page 1 of 3

Conservapedia!

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:06 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/

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.

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:18 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Judicial_Activism

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:

1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:22 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Nazis

Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ party . The group was formed when Adolf Hitler came into power by promising that there would be more jobs, Germany would be a better place and poverty would end. His power was increased when his followers used intimidation and violence to win a majority in the German Parliament. Once in power the Nazis became anti-Semitic (hating Jews) blaming the Jews for the trouble in Germany. They made laws against Jews and they required Jews to wear a Star of David on their clothing. The Jews were mistreated, persecuted and killed by the Nazis.

All Nazis are atheists. However, in fairness, it should be noted that not all atheists are necessarily Nazis (for example, some are Communists).

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:24 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Carter

Jimmy Carter was the 39th President of the United States. He was a democrat who served from 1977-1981, after being the governor of Georgia. Unfortunately, his method of leading was not compatible with Congress, as a result he couldn’t get things done. During his presidency he experienced many trying problems such as inflation, energy crisis and worst of all the taking of American citizens as hostages by Iran. In 2002 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace.

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:26 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Mallard_Fillmore

Mallard Fillmore is a newspaper comic strip with a conservative point of view, by cartoonist Bruce Tinsley. It appears in about four hundred U. S. newspapers. The title character is in fact a mallard duck. It first appeared in the Charlottesville, Va Daily Progress, but was dropped when Tinsley refused to tone down its conservative politics; it was subsequently picked up by The Washington Times.

During the week of June 10, 2002 the strip dealt with the success of home-schooled students.

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:10 am
by Rspaight
Yay, a new signature!

Ryan

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:52 am
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

Most viewed pages

Main Page [1,903,820]
Homosexuality [1,551,970]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis [516,934]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity [420,431]
Homosexuality and Parasites [387,927]
Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [355,914]
Gay Bowel Syndrome [348,034]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,265]
Homosexuality and Mental Health [281,470]
Homosexuality and Syphilis [265,242]


(via Atrios)

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:50 pm
by lukpac
http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience. Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2008 election, campaigning to the left of Hillary Clinton. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:58 pm
by Rspaight
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.


So he and Bruce Tinsley have something in common.

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:59 am
by Rspaight

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:36 am
by lukpac
Rspaight wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog


This is utterly bizarre:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Lenski

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:58 pm
by Bennett Cerf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Elitism

Elitism is an attitude or belief in one's superiority based solely on membership in a particular group or community. Elitism can be seen, for example, in the delusion that being a celebrity or a gatekeeper of the mainstream news media in itself imparts sufficient wisdom to justify airing one's personal opinion on an issue.

During his ministry Jesus attacked the religious elitism of the Saduccees and the Pharisees which led them to manipulate the ruling Roman governor into executing this populist upstart.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:39 pm
by krabapple
lukpac wrote:
Rspaight wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog


This is utterly bizarre:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Lenski


Dr. Lenski politely and thoroughly ripped that ignorant little creep a new asshole, and Schlafly's still smarting from it.

The scienceblogs have been piling on ever since

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... a_a_le.php

meanwhile, the right wing loonies situate themselves ever more firmly in bizarroland

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservape ... ski_dialog

What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most professors are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like Particle/wave duality theory and the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation. Drochld 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:05 pm
by lukpac
Heh.

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:DinsdaleP

(Someone deleted my last talk page so I guess I'll try again...)

I'm just a person who believes in fairness, and that a conservative encyclopedia is not the same thing as a conservative blog. Encyclopedias, especially "trustworthy" ones, can represent a conservative perspective without relying on bias and opinion more than fact.

I believe that a conservative encyclopedia on the internet is a worthwhile project, and that instead of complaining about aspects of Conservapedia I have issues with, it's better to be a contributor and make a positive difference instead.

I promise to stick to the Conservapedia Commandments, even when this may annoy others here who follow them selectively or not at all. My edits will always be fair, cited to valid sources, and constructive.

I also believe in the value of examining both sides of an issue instead of suppressing the non-conservative points of view. You don't learn how to think for yourself unless you can consider viewpoints you may not agree with, and arrive at your own conclusions based on the merits of each position instead of relying on the words of others.

What I appreciate most on this site are the edits and Talk-page comments from people who take the time to present conservative topics in a well-reasoned way, and defend the conservative side of controversial topics with respect and academic integrity. I remember a tribute to William F. Buckley's passing by a liberal journalist, who met first Buckley as a young reporter, and had asked him a lame question in front of others because he was so nervous. He expected to get a withering, embarrassing response, but Buckley showed class and respect, and actually answered the question in a way that gave the reporter a new insight. If this project can provide an outlet for future William F. Buckleys then it is well worth the effort.

What depresses me most about this site are:

- Nonsense articles like "Professor Values" that have no educational value, and belong in a weblog instead of an encyclopedia. One or two examples does not typify a class of behavior, and claiming that one or two counter-examples cannot disprove a generalization is hypocrisy.

- People who create articles that are nothing more than the expression of their opinion, and when challenged to provide supporting references claim that the burden of proof is the reponsibility of others.

- People who rely on questionable staistics to support a premise, and then dismiss or remove challenges to those statistics, especially when the refutation is objectively correct to anyone who reads it.

- The ability of Sysops to censor edits and editors because they offend their views, especially when the edits in question cannot be refuted in an academic manner. This is intellectually dishonest, and just bullying by any other name.


Comments like the ones above tend to get censored, and I may be blocked again for them, but I'd rather hang in there and make positive, respectful contribuitions than sit on the sidelines and complain. Lets see how long I get to stay around.


We'll see if it sticks around.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:10 pm
by lukpac
http://www.conservapedia.com/Professor_values

* Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.--Goodman 18:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

* When challenged to provide data, professors who support evolution evade the question [8]