Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
621 bytes removed ,  21:43, May 25, 2008
m
Reverted edits by GroupsAndFields (Talk); changed back to last version by Foxtrot
Line 1: Line 1: −
This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website.
+
This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testiment to the intelligence of this fine, fine website.
    
: Dude, you misspelled "testament".  Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.
 
: Dude, you misspelled "testament".  Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.
Line 6: Line 6:     
: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
 
: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
−
  −
  −
No, conservapedia doesn't care at all about mathematics. Why would they, though? All conservatives believe that we don't need mathematics, because surely God will do all of our necessary math. This site disgusts me, it really does. I really hope you don't force your children to read this excrement, because it'd be a shame for the next generation to be as idiotic as their parents'. And I'm sorry I spelled a word wrong, it really took away from the overall message of my comment. At least get a real mathematician to contribute to this site. I wish you the best of luck finding a quality, conservative mathematician.
 
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,565

edits

Navigation menu