Colbert Report Viewers - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful */Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: certianly → certainly, olypmics → olympics, defintion → definition, understnad → understand, wikipedia's → Wikipedia's (3), better then → better than (2), to to → to

2016-07-12T18:32:30Z

Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: certianly → certainly, olypmics → olympics, defintion → definition, understnad → understand, wikipedia's → Wikipedia's (3), better then → better than (2), to to → to

CPalmer: cat

2011-08-03T11:05:40Z

cat

DanielPulido: Undo revision 776535 by KHero (Talk)

2010-05-07T20:15:07Z

Undo revision 776535 by KHero (Talk)

Eoinc at 12:59, December 16, 2009

2009-12-16T12:59:21Z

Conservative: /* Wikipedia is not helpful */

2009-12-16T06:27:55Z

Wikipedia is not helpful

Conservative: /* Wikipedia is not helpful */

2009-12-16T06:24:37Z

Wikipedia is not helpful

Linkmeup2003: /* The most logical book ever written */

2009-12-16T05:53:36Z

The most logical book ever written

Linkmeup2003: /* The most logical book ever written */

2009-12-16T05:32:50Z

The most logical book ever written

DerekE: /* Wikipedia is not helpful */

2009-12-15T21:24:22Z

Wikipedia is not helpful

DerekE: /* Wikipedia is not helpful */

2009-12-15T21:22:25Z

Wikipedia is not helpful

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''
-If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's.  Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO<sub>3</sub>.
+If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, Wikipedia's.  Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by Wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO<sub>3</sub>.
-In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....
+In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by Wikipedia....
 [[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 	I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
-The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.
+The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better than a dictionary.
-	The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
+	The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certainly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understand only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
 	For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?
-	Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
+	Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the definition of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
 It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.
@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.
-It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better then I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.
+It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better than I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.
 I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
@@ Line 183: / Line 183: @@
 :"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia.  You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like.  It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn.  I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did.  I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
-Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olypmics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
+Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 :Ah, so you're just here to argue then.  Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded.  Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded.  What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)
-All of it!  You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question.  You can question it and decide that it was correct after all.  The openness is in the ability to to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you.  Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence.  Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it!  My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it.  That's closed.  Asking if that may be true or not is open.  Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)
+All of it!  You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question.  You can question it and decide that it was correct after all.  The openness is in the ability to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you.  Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence.  Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it!  My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it.  That's closed.  Asking if that may be true or not is open.  Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 :Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, August 3, 2011
Line 270:		Line 270:
	:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)		:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)
	::::I've also written an [[Essay: Logic and The Bible\|essay]] on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. [[User:Eoinc\|Eoinc]] 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)		::::I've also written an [[Essay: Logic and The Bible\|essay]] on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. [[User:Eoinc\|Eoinc]] 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)
		+	[[Category:Conservapedia]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, December 16, 2009
Line 269:		Line 269:
	Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)		Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
	:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)		:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)
		+	::::I've also written an [[Essay: Logic and The Bible\|essay]] on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. [[User:Eoinc\|Eoinc]] 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, December 16, 2009
Line 268:		Line 268:

	Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)		Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
−	:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible ~~the most~~ logical ~~book ever written~~?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)	+	:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, December 16, 2009
Line 268:		Line 268:

	Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)		Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx\|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
		+	:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible the most logical book ever written?]] [[User:Conservative\|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:15, May 7, 2010
(No difference)

@@ Line 241: / Line 241: @@
 "Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.
-== The most logical book ever written ==
+--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)== The most logical book ever written ==
 My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as
@@ Line 262: / Line 262: @@
 :::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
 ::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
-:::::::@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan." There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why: "In the beginning was the Word,  and the Word  was with God, and the Word  was God."
+:::::::@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan." ''There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why:
-(John 1:1)
+:::::::"In the beginning was the Word,  and the Word  was with God, and the Word  was God." (John 1:1)
- The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.
+:::::::The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)
 ::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 ::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."'''  Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites.  Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)
 :::::::::::::I think your Google tubes got snagged on something during its search. I just tested this (Googled: "thank you conservapedia") and received 37,800 results. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:22, 15 December 2009 (EST)
+:::::::::::::Doh. Nevermind. I just put the quotes around it... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)