Difference between revisions of "Debate:Was the media attention needed?"

Revision as of 20:57, March 21, 2007

I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --Eiyuu Kou 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia

I'm sorry... the what? Myk 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it just made YEC viewpoints get mocked further. Look at the articles, who could blame them. --AmesG 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The word that Gospel is from in the greek can mean "good news" as well, so it's not necessarily a bible thing :-). "It was needed to spread the good news of Conservapedia" --Ymmotrojam 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I am uncomfortable with the word Gospel. The word today is viewed in a religious context. Gay means happy, but would people find it offensive to call the site Gay Conservapedia? Of course.

The attention was needed

It should have only been mentioned, not covered

No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here

Sulgran 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages

why do you have to " protect" anything, just provide facts, not spin and you should be okay.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 == Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages ==
+why do you have to " protect" anything, just provide facts, not spin and you should be okay.