Page 2 of 3
Re: Conservapedia.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:22 am
by flashleg8
Arghhh!
This is so wrong on so many levels, but I can't help but keep looking through it
Maggie Thatcher:-
Lady Thatcher sold many of the nationalized industries back to private investors and made tax cuts. Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions,
thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries by breaking the power of the unions who had a stranglehold over these industries.
(
encouraging?! Destroyed more likely!)
Che & Osama:-
Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a martyr. Yasser Arafat and
Osama bin Laden are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader.
(
aye right, they left bin Laden alive on purpose!)
Its like a scab that you know you should leave alone, but you keep going back to to pick at.
Re: Conservapedia.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:52 am
by AlgyTaylor
flashleg8 wrote:Maggie Thatcher:-
Lady Thatcher sold many of the nationalized industries back to private investors and made tax cuts. Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries by breaking the power of the unions who had a stranglehold over these industries.
(encouraging?! Destroyed more likely!)
Che & Osama:-
Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a martyr. Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader.
(aye right, they left bin Laden alive on purpose!)
Its like a scab that you know you should leave alone, but you keep going back to to pick at.
Always thought it was quite funny (and at the same time sad) that
that Che Guevara image has been exploited so much by a capitalist society ... but anyway, Conservapedia. Have they ever wondered that perhaps the reason Wikipedia has a left wing/liberal bias because, um, reality has a left wing & liberal bias?
Makes me mad. Grrrr.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:15 pm
by Norse
I personally do not think that reality has a liberal left wing bias...
I know there are bad eggs everywhere, but you simply cannot tar everyone with the same brush as a piss-soaked chomsky whore.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:19 pm
by mr. incrediball
Iliad wrote:Yeah because this so isn't biased:
There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence
* Moral depravity:
* Superficiality:
* Error:
* State churches:
* Poor relationship with father:
* Division in religion:
* Learned times, peace, and prosperity:
* Negative experiences with Christians
How the f*ck isn't that so biased.
this thing's dead on! I didn't realise my atheism stemmed from a poor relationship with my father!
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:23 pm
by Norse
I certainly don't agree with the religous sentiments of this site.....
I hate the way that conservativism is maliciously attatched to christianity.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:27 pm
by mr. incrediball
searched pokemon, and found this little gem
conservapedia wrote:After an episode of the Pokemon cartoon where bright flashing colours caused epileptic seizures in a number of viewers, some fundamentalist Christians blamed the seizures on evil spirits (Luke 13:11).
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:33 pm
by unriggable
Norse wrote:I certainly don't agree with the religous sentiments of this site.....
I hate the way that conservativism is maliciously attatched to christianity.
Well a huge amount of christians (majoirty) are conservative.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:37 pm
by mr. incrediball
conservapedia wrote:Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[98][99] Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[100][101] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[101] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[101] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[102]
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:38 pm
by unriggable
mr. incrediball wrote:conservapedia wrote:Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[98][99] Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[100][101] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[101] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[101] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[102]
And then they have trouble explaining the nylonase...
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:41 pm
by mr. incrediball
unriggable wrote:mr. incrediball wrote:conservapedia wrote:Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[98][99] Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[100][101] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[101] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[101] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[102]
And then they have trouble explaining the nylonase...
going to sound stupid...
what's the nylonase?
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:46 pm
by unriggable
It's a bacteria that can eat nylon (nylon was invented in 1935 or something)
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:48 pm
by Norse
unriggable wrote:Norse wrote:I certainly don't agree with the religous sentiments of this site.....
I hate the way that conservativism is maliciously attatched to christianity.
Well a huge amount of christians (majoirty) are conservative.
Well, its all very subjective...
Conservative is a very broad word.
I see myself as a "libertine", not really bothered what anyone else thinks, but quite happy to live in peaceful co-existance with everyone, as long as they don't;
(A) Bring trouble to my door
(B) Rely on constant funding
(C) Expect me to change my way of living
(D) Try to alter my opinion
(E) Expect me to share occupancy with someone I don't want to.
If these aren't met, then I will be likely to lash out with full force.
It's called "The norse consensus"
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:16 pm
by got tonkaed
forgive me for being flippant sir....you realize someone made thoreau's axe for him right?
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:27 pm
by Norse
got tonkaed wrote:forgive me for being flippant sir....you realize someone made thoreau's axe for him right?
With that comment, you have earned a respect from me, that is literally a once in a decade moment.
well done.
I mean that too.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:54 pm
by Norse
"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone."
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:23 pm
by Iliad
I looked through the theory of evolution, big bang theory and atheism and that whole thing is such a joke. It is not trustworthy it's completely one sided.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:36 pm
by Norse
Iliad...who in the CC premier league has double the points of you?
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:37 pm
by Norse
In other words, who know's what they're fooking talking about?
Me
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:44 pm
by Neutrino
Norse wrote:In other words, who know's what they're fooking talking about?
Me
I'm not seeing the relationship between skill at risk and "knowing what they're fooking talking about".
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:51 pm
by Norse
Neutrino wrote:Norse wrote:In other words, who know's what they're fooking talking about?
Me
I'm not seeing the relationship between skill at risk and "knowing what they're fooking talking about".
Neurino, I'm not even going to bother explaining the dynamicies required to be in the fractional top 10 of the world within the premier league competition I have entered, but this is the fucking clubhouse...and what is the fucking club-houses moto?
Something about not being relevant to the risk game...
now get the f*ck at of my face, you peice of shit.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:53 pm
by Norse
Plus put your money where your mouth is? set up a couple of 1v1's...
lets see who the pussy is.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:13 pm
by Iliad
Norse wrote:Iliad...who in the CC premier league has double the points of you?
And when was the last do you think I even went on the premierleague site? I seriously can't be bothered about that game.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:16 pm
by Norse
Iliad wrote:Norse wrote:Iliad...who in the CC premier league has double the points of you?
And when was the last do you think I even went on the premierleague site? I seriously can't be bothered about that game.
The bitter whinings of a loser.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:23 pm
by Iliad
Norse wrote:Iliad wrote:Norse wrote:Iliad...who in the CC premier league has double the points of you?
And when was the last do you think I even went on the premierleague site? I seriously can't be bothered about that game.
The bitter whinings of a loser.
Actually the it' the random boredom of a person who can't give a shit about the fantasy premierleague
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:50 am
by Neutrino
I'm going to have to respond wth a resounding "...huh?"
How exactly does having double Iliad's points in a tournament indicate your political opinions are ultimately correct?