Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 01:07, March 30, 2007

410 bytes added ,  01:07, March 30, 2007
→‎Ratio (again)
Line 98: Line 98:     
:::::I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:10 AEST.
 
:::::I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:10 AEST.
 +
 +
:::::: I've begged and pleaded with the liberal defenders of Wikipedia to give an alternative definition of a liberal quotient, and then calculate an alternative number of how much more liberal Wikipedia is then the American public.  But the more I beg for this, the less they provide an alternative.  Liberal quotient only makes sense as a ratio liberals to conservatives, and that is a six-fold difference.
    
== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==
 
== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==
Aschlafly
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
126,506

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/73909"

Navigation menu