104
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + +
The problem here is a "presumption of absolute truth"
:::Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::::First, I would like to apologize, my behavior was in poor form, and reflected poorly upon CP. To address your question, again, just like Wikipedia CP has a policy of "Ignore All Rules" when it comes to ensuring that the site is kept towards its intended target, a conservative encyclopedia by wiki. Contraversial pages are prone especially to liberals coming in, and asserting their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right, just as well conservatives go to WP, and assert their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right. Both sides presume to be speaking the absolute truth. The difference is where that absolute proof is placed. On the primarily liberal Wikipedia, that absolute proof is with science. However, on Conservapedia, that absolute proof lies with God, and his inspired words from the Bible. If a scientific principle disagrees with the Bible, then it simply can't be true, because the Bible is infallable. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:19, 19 December 2007 (EST)