Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Front Page"
Seekcommon (Talk | contribs) (→What quotation?) |
Seekcommon (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] | [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] | ||
| − | Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? [[User:Seekcommon]] | + | Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]] |
Revision as of 21:51, April 20, 2007
Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? User:Seekcommon
I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.
Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)
To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine. The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.
I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.
So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"
What quotation?
I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--Roopilots6 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Before Mr. Cho posed on the front page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.
Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. User:Seekcommon
