Well, I hope I am D & G before the dark ages return; I fear I will not be. On the other hand, I might well be burned at the stake as a heretic so I might have that to look forward to. At least I would gain a certain amount of notoriety.
Darn thing isn’t letting me create an account. 
I’m not surprised. Dubuque is notorious for being a hotbed of pinko secular humanism. The likes of you couldn’t possibly have anything truthy to contribute.
Maybe you should pick a different user name. Godisdead probably isn’t cutting it. 
I’m telling you, some day I’m going to get my black velvet painting of Jesus riding a stegosaurus and twirling a lasso. And on that day, I will be happy.
I also like:
That wascally pwesident!
Possibility #1: Conservapedia administrators know that “Little Bird” is Yiddish slang for a homosexual, which marks you as outside the pro-Christianity counterrevolution.
Possibility #2: Conservapedia administrators think that php is some sort of drug reference.
Notoriety, a warm feeling in the pit of your stomach, and a really great tan!
CMC fnord!
Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
My favorite quotes so far are in the Young Earth Creationism entry:
“Roughly 45% of the United States are Young Earth Creationists and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years. Among scientists, in the late 1990’s the fraction who are young earth creationist was much smaller and was by some estimates around 5% overall.”
Now, I’m not buying that 45% of Americans or that 5% of scientists believe in Young Earth Creation, but I love the juxtaposition of 45% of Americans belive in it and only 5% of scientists.
Lots of good information there…
It’s the old “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mindset.
I’m torn between starting pages on Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakkart and not caring about poking sticks at the mentally crippled.
What’s even creepier is that the description of Satan there is just flat theologically incorrect. The whole article smacks of dualism.
There’s a page on Oxford University. You could add something about the luminaries that are from there. Dawkins maybe…
They’re not currently allowing new accounts, so no fun for the masses. To give you an idea of how bad the place is, some of the authors, such as one that goes by the moniker “conservative”, actually make Schlafly look almost reasonable.
Did they ever, or is dressing it up as a Wiki just a ploy?
The kangaroo page is especially fun:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo
Ars Tech says this entry is in the middle of an editing war so the actual contents of the page may vary. I’m not interested in joining the wiki just to read the discussion page about it but it’s there for anyone with a disposable email.
They did, but weren’t able to keep up with the “vandals” (which they use to describe both people that mess with their site, as well as people who just attempt to post factual material that Schlafly and friends don’t like). There are several people there that I’m still not sure how to take. BillyBob, for instance, just screams parody. Of course, the site as a whole screams parody as well, but since it isn’t, it’s hard to know for sure with BillyBob.
They’ve a nice article on Ann Coulter’s trolling at CPAC this year.
They missed the damage control email put out by the American Conservative Union. But that was just out today. Maybe they’ll put it in tomorrow.
Heh. So they observed Wiki, an open encyclopedia, found that if everyone can edit an encyclopedia it turns out too anti-American and too anti-Christian, so they started a “conservative” open encyclopedia which anyone can edit and found that it turned out too anti-American and too anti-Christian.
It’s sort of like noticing that if you drop a weight from a position above your toes it falls on them, so you write “anti-gravity” on the weight, lift it up above your toes and let go.