Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Front Page"

Revision as of 00:45, April 21, 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"

Middle Man

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 main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

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? 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

Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--Roopilots6 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blashphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?User:Seekcommon

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page. Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderate here would call it propaganda.

Middle Man