43
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
==Modern Day Dinosaurs==
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]
==How absurd!==
What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?
Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?
Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?
I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)
== Courtesy ==
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)
== Anti-Christian Bias ==
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)
== Catholic links deleted ==
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been 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 don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)
==Edit by Sureal==
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
==Birds==
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!
== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==
In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.
In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.
In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.
Americans use "license" for both.
So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".
CAS
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.
== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.
Edit made.
AQ
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]
==How absurd!==
What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?
Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?
Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?
I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)
== Courtesy ==
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)
== Anti-Christian Bias ==
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)
== Catholic links deleted ==
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been 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 don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)
==Edit by Sureal==
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
==Birds==
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!
== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==
In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.
In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.
In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.
Americans use "license" for both.
So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".
CAS
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.
== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.
Edit made.
AQ
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)