[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Any individual extremist may consider that true, and describing their views as blandly and generally as ‘everything we believe’ may foster the illusion of consensus, but try creating a community of such extremists - and have them talk details - and the cracks will begin to show.
[/QUOTE]
Well, now there you go bringing reality into it. What have we said about the biases inherent in reality?
I agree with you, but I don’t think it will make a lick of difference to the folks at Conservapedia. Once you reach a certain point, reality doesn’t stand a chance.
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
On second thought, this could be very interesting. Since theoretically it is open to non-evangelicals, you could potentially see some interesting cleavage planes develop on certain issues. I’ll be watching this with interest.
[/QUOTE]
Already started. Check the dinosaur page talk “Catholic links deleted”. It includes this gem: “…deleted by somebody named “Aschlafly” who deleted them with the comment “deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution” and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.”
I also love this comment from The Conservapedia Commandments Talk page (the topic is to discuss the style for units in scientific articles:
“I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.”
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Really? Is that the first time you’ve heard that joke? I’m sure there must be 100 jokes of exactly that formulation right here on the SDMB during the last calendar year.
[/QUOTE]
Well, then I stand corrected… I will also no longer laugh at guys who get hit in the nuts doing something stupid. That’s not original either.
[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
Well, then I stand corrected… I will also no longer laugh at guys who get hit in the nuts doing something stupid. That’s not original either.
[/QUOTE]
You better not stop laughing at that you son of a bitch!
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
We ran from religious persecution, didn’t we?
[/QUOTE]
The Puritans were upset that the British government wouldn’t let them persecute anyone for their religion. Calling it persecution themselves, they ran away to a far-off land where they could freely persecute others for their religious beliefs.
That’s my belief, anyway. It matches up too well with the prevailing RR mindset in America.
The thread title should read: “‘Conservapedia’: The Right’s answer to Demopedia”. Funny, I did a search and I seem to be the first person to ever mention Demopedia on this board, but there’s two threads in a month hammering Conservapedia.
Conservapedia is shit on white toast and deserves scorn and is justifiable to laugh at, but it should be noted that the lefties have a crappy encyclopedia out there as well.
[QUOTE=Asylum]
The thread title should read: “‘Conservapedia’: The Right’s answer to Demopedia”. Funny, I did a search and I seem to be the first person to ever mention Demopedia on this board, but there’s two threads in a month hammering Conservapedia.
Conservapedia is shit on white toast and deserves scorn and is justifiable to laugh at, but it should be noted that the lefties have a crappy encyclopedia out there as well.
[/QUOTE]
Uhh, because Conservapedia itself claims,
not an alternative to Demopedia, which only claims to be
Nope, not buying it. If you have Wikipedia what’s the point of having Demopedia (or Conservapedia for that matter)? The only answer I can come up with is so that radicals have an online encyclopedia that confirms to their opinions and discourages dissenting opinion. Since both Demopedia and Conservipedia seem to be crafted in this mold I hold that they are “answers” to each other.
And also the absurd lack of detail in most of the articles. Saddam Hussein’s entry is three paragraphs long and mentions his execution, but omits any reference to either Iraq war.
Slobodan Milosovic’s article reads, in full, “(1941-2006) President of both Serbia and Yugoslavia.” Huh. He must have been a pretty boring guy.
Hitting the “random page” link over and over provides oodles of hilarity, as does searching for subjects that are sensitive to conservatives. For instance, in running a search for “Kennedy,” I found a whole article on Chappaquiddick, but no entry at all for a certain president who shared that surname.
[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
Well, then I stand corrected… I will also no longer laugh at guys who get hit in the nuts doing something stupid. That’s not original either.
[/QUOTE]
Well, really, who can help but laugh at a good shot to the seeds?
Maybe I’m just hopelessly stupid but for the life of me I can’t figure out how to create an account on either Conservapedia or Demopedia. Focussing on Conservapedia, the FAQ says “Click on the Log in / Create Account button on the bottom-left of the screen.” but I can’t see one anywhere. I’ve tried clicking on the log in/create new account button in the top right of the screen but all that does is take me to a standard login page which is useless to anyone who doesn’t already have an account!
Demopedia is even worse. I try to create a new account but I’m told to fill in a “simple form” which just doesn’t exist, at least not as far as my computer is concerned.
George Kaplin, I do believe that Demopedia is currently locked. And even if it wasn’t you had to be a member of the DU at some point in 2004 to have the ability to edit.
