SkipCaptcha
966
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 519:
Line 519: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 22:59, October 2, 2011
, 22:59, October 2, 2011no edit summary
::The start of this section sounds like trolling. I've seen my fair share of them in the [[User:JonG/Tribunal|Tribunal]] and on deviantART.
::The start of this section sounds like trolling. I've seen my fair share of them in the [[User:JonG/Tribunal|Tribunal]] and on deviantART.
::'''*hammers in a sign exclaiming, "Do not feed the trolls!"*''' [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:21, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::'''*hammers in a sign exclaiming, "Do not feed the trolls!"*''' [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:21, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
== Conservapedia Giving Itself a Bad Reputation ==
Andy:
I'm sure you are aware of the enormous uproar that has been going on about the behavior of administrator "Conservative", and, in particular, his creation and promotion of utterly horrid pages. I'm sure you are also aware of the uproar relating to your unwillingness to even recognize, much less do something about, this problem. People assume that your silence may be, in part, due to the web traffic that Conservative brings, and that you think this is a constructive result.
So I earnestly ask you to consider this: I Googled articles referring to the 2012 Presidential Election. I know that this is an article that you have made many contributions to, and seem to care deeply about. But I couldn't see any hits in the first 300 items. (That's as far as I checked.) Yet, when I search for atheism+bestiality, its talk page comes up as hit #7. So this is being widely discussed across the internet. Is this the outcome you want? Do you not care about the visibility of the 2012 Presidential election article?
(Edited from a "safe" IP at a college.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:19, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::No answer... This is getting frustrating--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Standard operating procedure. Aschlafly rarely comments on broad criticisms of the project or of longtime users. When SamHB has racked off as many edits and page hits as has Conservative, then Aschlafly might find his critiques worthy of attention.--[[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 17:02, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
If memory serves, the Bible mentions and condemns this practice 4 separate times and it does so in a non-salacious manner. For thousands of years the Bible has been taught to children with very beneficial effects. Conservapedia also condemns this practice and points out it being mentioned inapropriately by members of the immoral worldviews of atheism/evolutionism which denies the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for God's existence]] and Conservapedia's article does so in a non-salacious manner. The atheistic worldview has a history of mass murder (see: [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Abortion and atheism]] ). Question: Did Moses and God make a mistake by mentioning this practice in the Bible 4 separate times? If so, why? Also, the real issue is that the articles are further pointing out the immorality within atheism/evolutionism and Wikipedia and you don't like it, isn't it? If not, why not? Well, tough. There is no need to cater to liberal censorship in this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:48, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:So Conservapedia is better served by being known for having poorly written articles on revolting habits because they are mentioned in the Bible 4 times as opposed to being known for having scholarly articles on far weightier and relevant topics? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
We live in a new era - the [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/09/question-evolution-campaign-powerpoint.html Atheism and Evolutionism Whupping Era.] :) Get used to it as the whuppings are going to continue and with greater frequency and intensity. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:13, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Just as I have come to expect - ignore valid points, make veiled insult (insinuating I am an "evolutionist"), make irrelevant remark. I honestly don't know how you managed to stay here when anyone would have been banned long ago. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, you should know that you cannot expect rational answers from Conservative.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:17, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes but I will always give him a chance to respond: ''Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.'' [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:22, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::You do realise that now articles are being made linking revolting practices to individual countries right? Are you aware of just how many articles deal with this topic and how many long-standing serious articles like [[liberal]] and [[wikipedia]] are carrying the same terminology? Please end this farcical sideshow, Andy. Isn't conservapedia ''your'' site? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you want to be technical, that depends on how much you consider this site to be a pure wiki. (Note, pure wiki is my term for a wiki that follows the basic principle of not having a single leader, it might have people given more leadership than others, but in general rule of the land is pretty much all editors; sysop, beuro, new old are on equal footing, vaguely what wikipedia would like to be)--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Hello again Max. I think, whilst I agree with you and the others here, that we cannot change the behavior of User:Conservative. We should just attempt to make this wiki as best we can and choose to ignore the things we disagree with. Even though I find, and obviously a lot of you find, them hardly in the Christian spirit.[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 01:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::"Tertullian scornfully mocked those who advocate a Stoic or a Platonic or an Aristotelian Christianity" from The early church By Henry Chadwick. The early Christians were not shrinking violets. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:28, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Tertullian was also the guy who didn't think Christians should go to the circus or the theater. My guess he wouldn't be a fan of TV either. He also thought Christians shouldn't look upon things that they were forbidden to practice. Wonder how he'd feel about sitting in front of the computer writing about bestiality all day? BTW- Whose turn was it to turn off night editing? ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:20, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
Can I just say that Conservative's articles and additions comparing the UK to animal-sodomizing hellholes is both offensive and completely unmerited? Articles like [[Bestiality and Britain]] are completely absurd considering the only "evidence" of bestiality occurring is a single blurb from a Swedish newspaper that may or may not be talking about Great Britain (it doesn't say where the veternarians in question are located). I understand he has a strong viewpoint but good grief, you need more evidence than THAT. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 11:27, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Britain has one of the highest dog ownership rates in the world.[http://dogitchyskinsolutions.com/pet-ownership-statistics-%E2%80%93-very-high-numbers] Why would a British study focus on dog owners say in France? You are not using any common sense which is par for the course given that you are probably an atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:40, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::::*sigh* I was worried that you were serious there for a second. B/c obviously British studies only focus on British and Americans only study Americans. No one EVER does studies on other countries or on multiple countries. But no, that last comment revealed that you are, indeed, not serious. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:17, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure if you should assume he's joking. At least on Conservapedia, Atheism is often connected to a lack of common sense in the thought processes of the community. Unless you indeed are an atheist, you should probably assert your theism and common sense. I'm not trying to be mean to you; your logic is valid and I fully agree with you. I'm just trying to keep you safe. --[[User:SpenserL|SpenserL]] 16:14, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I personally do not believe that a mere human could comprehend God. Therefore, I am not a Christian, nor am I a member of any organized religion. In His almighty splendor, He is just too much for us to comprehend. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 22:20, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
As a compromise, perhaps Conservative should label all his bestiality articles as Essays, so he can protect them to his heart's content and no-one will be misled into thinking that they represent anything other than Conservative's personal point of view. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:32, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Conservapedia saw a significant increase in traffic since the debut of the articles according to Alexa. No doubt the traffic was due to conservatives who love seeing atheism skewered once again at Conservapedia. :) [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com] The atheists have always maintained that the atheistic Sweden was soooooooo above all other nations, but thanks to the help of Conservapedia now everyone will be able to better see they are a total disgrace as a nation! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry sadiq, but I think the rise in traffic is much more likely to be due to atheists having a laugh. Google for <conservapedia bestiality -conservapedia.com> to see what the on-line world thinks of your efforts - sorry to disappoint you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|300px|right|Disgraced!!!! ]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:Uh? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 20:20, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I cited a story on LifeSiteNews related to this practice being apparently on the rise in Sweden.[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406] They did a whole story on it. Do you feel LifeSiteNews is a family friendly website? Do you think any LifeSiteNews stories should be banned at Conservapedia? If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 30 September 2011 (EDT)