?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2007-02-27 11:23
Subject: Why I love conservatives
Security: Public
Tags:funny, politics, religion
Conservapedia on dinosaurs.
Post A Comment | 21 Comments | | Flag | Link






Kevin Roche
User: kproche
Date: 2007-02-27 20:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You know that look a dog gets on its face as it is working very hard to get the peanut butter off the pill you just gave it and simultaneously spit out the pill?

That's what my brain did while I tried to read that article. bleaurgh.
Reply | Thread | Link



Danny Adams
User: madwriter
Date: 2007-02-27 21:09 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I just had a merry goose chase!

I decided to look up the article's reference to the assertion that some dinosaurs may still be alive today, so I clicked on it to find myself looking at an article in Creation magazine. I was intrigued by the notion of a fresh duckbill dinosaur jaw being found in 1987 on Bylot Island, so I looked down at its source of info--to find the magazine referring back to itself.

So I did a Google search and found...the original article and various other religious forums referring back to or reprinting that article. Finally I found a webpage for Bylot Island itself--but though they mentioned the bone find, there wasn't anything to indicate that it was "fresh".

Now I'm dizzy, but unsurprised.
Reply | Thread | Link



juliabk
User: juliabk
Date: 2007-02-27 21:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Whoa, there's a whole lotta delusion going on in there. That's... that's just the most absurd thing I've ever read in my life.

Their server sucks, too.
Reply | Thread | Link



juliabk
User: juliabk
Date: 2007-02-27 23:27 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Your eyes will bleed.

But you'll be laughing the whole time.

Unless it makes you cry for the sheer misery caused by these kinds of bozos.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Bob
User: yourbob
Date: 2007-02-27 21:44 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
My major complaint is that they call them "lizards". If you're going to mock science, at least get SOMETHING right.
Reply | Thread | Link



juliabk
User: juliabk
Date: 2007-02-27 21:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Silly yourbob. They get extra points for every fact they get wrong.

They're going to win, you know.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



russ: quo vadis
User: goulo
Date: 2007-02-27 21:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:quo vadis
Haha, I like how with no sense of irony they say:
A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.
...
Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America.
...
You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

They wouldn't have to look that hard to find plenty of conservatives at Wikipedia. But I guess since Wikipedia doesn't casually refer to the Bible as "the Good Book" and say that the Bible mentions dinosaurs, that proves that Wikipedia is biased against Christianity and conservatism.
Reply | Thread | Link



Janet Chui
User: marrael
Date: 2007-02-27 21:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Can't load the page. :< What lousy servers.

Was there mention of dinosaur flatulence and global warming?
Reply | Thread | Link



russ: quo vadis
User: goulo
Date: 2007-02-27 21:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:quo vadis
Haha, http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia has some really wacky stuff besides the obvious Christian fundamentalism nonsense.

E.g. they are really xenophobic and bothered that Wikipedia is not America-only. "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American." Horrors! (I wonder if their assertion is even true about the number of English speaking users.)

And they complain that Wikipedia has a lot of fluff articles, ignoring the fact that even if you only look at the substantive articles, Wikipedia is still a huge resource (far larger than Conservapedia).
Reply | Thread | Link



juliabk
User: juliabk
Date: 2007-02-27 22:13 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And with working servers, too. Y'know, the fact that their servers can't handle the load is obviously a sign of God's displeasure with them.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Paul Weimer
User: princejvstin
Date: 2007-02-27 23:47 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I daresay that more people in India speak English than in America.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



russ: quo vadis
User: goulo
Date: 2007-02-28 05:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:quo vadis
Possibly (although much fewer people in India speak English than is commonly believed in the West, a subject for another thread! I have found estimates of as low as 2% or 3% of Indians... much depends on the definition of "speaks English"), but their assertion was about the number of English speaking users (of Wikipedia), not about English speakers in general.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Brian Dolton
User: tchernabyelo
Date: 2007-02-28 15:21 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yes, I particularly liked their assertion that "Although Wikipedia claims to contain more than 1,500,000 articles, there are 1915 articles about "Moby and music". Uh, actually, there are 1915 hits on a search using the words "Moby" and "Music", which is not quite the same thing... but, hey, try telling them that...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



elgrande
User: elgrande
Date: 2007-03-07 21:36 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
"E.g. they are really xenophobic and bothered that Wikipedia is not America-only. "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American." Horrors! (I wonder if their assertion is even true about the number of English speaking users.)"

Even if their statement were true, there wouldn't be a contradiction or a proof of bias. If a non-American minority uses the spelling they use every day, it makes perfect sense that there is "often" non-US spelling. (Why this is supposed to be "foreign spelling" is not clear, though, unless wikipedia is thought of as American.) It's amazing that even in cases of such minor details those conservative people expect conformity with the majority - for no real reason whatsoever.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: elizaeffect
Date: 2007-02-27 22:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:omfg bill
I have heard some vague rumors to the effect that Conservapedia developed a severe case of anything-but-conservative trolls pretty much as soon as it launched, and that they are doing their best to make up the most retarded nonsense they can think of and camouflage it in hyper-fundamentalist-right-wing-bullshitese to slip it past the overwhelmed mods.

On one hand, I mildly disapprove of defacing an online resource, but on the other hand, it's awfully hard to tell sarcastic silliness from utter seriousness when your entire site's a joke to begin with.

(I can't load the site right now, but see: Pacific Tree-Dwelling Octopus)
Reply | Thread | Link



juliabk
User: juliabk
Date: 2007-02-27 22:35 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Did you read their "commandments"?

Yes, they don't have "guidelines" or even "rules for posting", no they have "commandments". *That* didn't come from trolls.

I wonder how many of us could slip something in under their radar? :-)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



J Erwine - writer/editor
User: jerwine
Date: 2007-02-28 00:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I keep hearing that this whole thing is satire, but I couldn't find anything to verify that. After all, there really are people out there that believe things like this...
Reply | Thread | Link



Gary Emenitove
User: garyomaha
Date: 2007-02-28 03:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I just want to thank all of you, all of you who live somewhere other than Nebraska. Thank you for reinforcing my belief that I'm not nuts, it's the people around me who are -- those who would nod in agreement with Conservapedia. Thank you for responding to this web site the way I would respond, and not the way my neighbors might.

Yes, we've been trying to leave. Why do you ask?
Reply | Thread | Link



dinogrl: UFO's vs T-Rex
User: dinogrl
Date: 2007-02-28 08:44 (UTC)
Subject: Do they have an entry for "pornography"?
Keyword:UFO's vs T-Rex
But...I love the picture of Jesus on the Apatosaurus. It's so, um, out of proportion. Along with the rest of the article.

And yes, there are dinosaurs around today. You can call them BIRDS.

It is amazing the degree of cranial-rectal impaction the people who edit this site have.
.

.

And they all vote.
Reply | Thread | Link



Brent "Chip" Edwards: happywolf
User: chipuni
Date: 2007-03-09 04:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:happywolf
Me, I'm in love with the Talk:Dinosaur page.
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances