7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 230:
Line 230: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced? (view source)
Revision as of 01:47, July 7, 2007
, 01:47, July 7, 2007→No
Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
well 1st of all im going to introduce myself properly as to show that i am now in fact just some stupid person ready to rant on about a pointless endeacour behind a computer screen name when this is quite serious in the fact that it is stupid and obnoxius in all aspects of it sites creation
my name is john and i am from the uk and when i first heard of conserveadpia i automatically thought "this cant be true this is just stupidity and ignorance" and in all fairness to say its a site created by stron right wingest god worshpers it acctauly goes against that of love thy neighbour and that of turning the other check and forgivness as it was created out of spite and hate for wikipedia been so called biased
in all honesty i have not found wikiepdia to be of that category its fair and is alterd by the oublic world wide and can be accesed as a public dormain
the fact that that the "creator" has infact set that he/she can edit this at will is abit unnerving and in no right fair and just it is infact tyranical and cruel to the idealogy that not just america but all democraticatic countries have the right to freedom of speech it is infact this persons little world were he/she can rule with an iron fist and destroy anything that he/she disagress with like the internet nazi he/she is
like in the yes section where someone has basically snubbed someones comment for being in the wrong section of the page does that really matter? after all its a fair point to make and has its purpose here along with everybody else comments on here.
you may infact snub me becaus ei am british and not american on this site saying that my point is invalid because i am not american and there for my points are anti american anti christian and all the rest of it
but in all fairness isnt that just racism so if you do "mr creator" then i have to quesiton your faith on this matter and maybe your not the justice bringer you seem to intitle yourslef but more like an internet hitler where you are goin to "ethincaly cleanse" (used lightly) the internt of all form of debate and theorys that you disagree with
i would also like to stress that point
wikipedia has never nor will ever say it is right, it is a sight where people can post the theories that are documented, it has not ever said that " god does not exist it is a fairy tale and false hope" that maybe somebody else comment on the matter but not the creator of the site
this site is bigamest and obnoxious and above that condersending because it has clearly devided left and right wing in labeling left wingist "the liberals" suggesting that they are a breed of people or vermin of the planet
i am in all honest an aethist but that has nothing to do with my standing on the subject as i will not or will ever suggest that christiantiy is wrong it is a theory like evrything else not a positive fact
and if this site is to be a true informaitons centre then you cannot use opinion as fact you have to place both sides of the argument as to let people make up their own mind on the situation not just seeing one side and forced to belive
in conclusion this site is a mockery of what free speech and christianity stand for ( i amy be hypocritical in suggest that but i have studied ethics, philosophy and theology and am aware of the belifs of christianity and i am technically a christian as thats what i was raised i just streced my thought beyond that of the bible-not to suggest that anyone on here hasnt)
john atkinson-murderrose
== Is that a serious question? ==
== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.