117
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 149:
Line 149: + + +
Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed? (view source)
Revision as of 01:30, December 19, 2007
, 01:30, December 19, 2007→No:
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)
==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==