Changes

Line 24: Line 24:  
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 
==YES==
 
==YES==
 +
The [[liberal]] bias produces an effect far more deleterious than one can account for merely by saying, "Oh, but people all over the world, not just the [[United States]], contribute to it." The dispute between liberals and [[conservative]]s is often a ''dispute of fact.'' When people cannot agree on the facts, debate is impossible. And if, for example, the [[United Nations]] were to pass a resolution saying that two plus two shall be equal to five, or that the value of "pi" shall be an even 3--well, I fail to see why the citizens of the United States--or for that matter the subjects of the [[United Kingdom]] or the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]--need accede to or comply with such resolutions.
 +
 +
Now about the objection concerning frivolous entries: Arcane British royalty is not the primary objection, nor should anyone pretend that it is. When I, for example, say that Wikipedia has certain entries that ill befit an encyclopedia, I am ''not'' talking about articles on, say, Prince Michael of [[Kent]]. Unhappily, the sort of articles that I ''am'' talking about, are on subjects that are not fit for discussion in polite, mixed company and especially not on a site accessible to minor children. In fact--and I am prepared to swear to this in a court of law, if necessary--some of the articles in Wikipedia on these "blue subjects" are directly copied from another London-based wiki devoted ''entirely'' to the particular "blue subject" in question--and without attribution, either, though the articles do give an external link.
 +
 +
Under the circumstances, Conservapedia has a definite mission and has every good reason to be proud of that mission.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
12,071

edits