User talk:Orwell

From Conservapedia

As you haven't been banned under this user ID yet...

However, I put that there as much as anything to point you to some things that you should read. I'd like you to be welcome here, but that will depend on whether or not you are here to be constructive or otherwise.

Now I'm off to reply to your claim that I didn't address something.

Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Bias

While Wikipedia supposedly strives for a non-biased viewpoint, it fails to achieve that, and allows biased viewpoints to predominate in some areas. It does not represent all prominent views on an issue fairly. This site admits its (conservative) bias, but nevertheless strives to be accurate and fair.

Do you have examples? I don't meant to put you on the spot, I would just like to see what you mean. By the way you seem like a nice guy, so I apologize if I offended you earlier.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orwell (talk)

It's a while since I've looked, but Evolution and Design Intelligent Design would be two. The first, from memory, reads as though evolution is true and only tokenly, if at all, mentions alternatives such as creation and Intelligent Design. The second is basically an article explaining why Intelligent Design is wrong, rather than an article explaining Intelligent Design.

As far as offence is concerned, if you are referring to this, no offence was taken.

But please sign your posts to talk pages. The page history can be used to find out who said what, but it's much easier if one doesn't have to do that. All you need to do is click the signature button on the editing box toolbar, or type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Philip J. Rayment 05:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)