User talk:Gays r people

2007-03-23T14:52:59Z

Bflan:

I can't agree with blocking this username. I don't think it's ''per se'' offensive or against the site's intent, unless bigotry is the site's intent.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I didn't impose the block, but I completely support it. The user name is inappropriate--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: When I made the block I was torn because though the name is inappropriate, it could have been a serious user. I couldn't figure out how to block the username but not the IP. Is there any way to do that? Might be useful to know for future reference.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 10:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you uncheck the box that says block account creation from this IP or something like that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sweet, I hope his IP gets unblocked.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Done--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What makes it inappropriate? Let's say what we mean, and mean what we say. But not blocking the IP is a super idea. -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The user name implies that we think that gays "r" not people.--[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Does it? I don't think that logically follows. -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::It doesn't, and having a screenname on the site which says that gays are, in fact, people, poses no threat to them. If anything, it proves that they are willing to tolerate a diversity of views, are skeptical of content-based speech restrictions, and are interested in an open discussion of ideas. Given even a cursory exploration of this website, it's clear that the creators aren't really interested in any of these three things, so their choice to ban the name should come as no surprise.--[[User:Bflan|Bflan]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-03-23T14:49:31Z

Bflan: This says it all.

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Gays r people

Conservapedia talk:About