1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
→the agenda against Chomsky here
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander. There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here. I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him. All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander. There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here. I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him. All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}
Don't you understand? That is the point of conservapedia. Anyone to the left of Augusto Pinochet or who criticizes anything the US Christian Right stands for, especially Israeli policy, they are fair game to slander and attack. The founder of Conservapedia openly stated that the point wasn't to provide a "balanced" (as abused as that word is) source of information, it was to combat the perceived threat of liberalism from academia, science- the establishment. It is also a source of information for homeschooled children who are made to suffer the indoctrination from their parents. They must be kept inside a walled-garden where nothing the Religious Right authority says is questioned, so wikipedia is off-limits, and the founder had to create a bizarro-pedia, conservapedia. This isn't too unlike totalitarian governments who must provide their own bizarro alternatives to everything to keep the people from questioning anything.