Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hardcore

2008-05-01T18:11:21Z

BUPKIT:

'''Hardcore''' or '''hXc''' started as an underground form of [[punk]] in the early 1980s and began to gain popularity in the mid '80s. Typically it features lightning fast lyrics and guitar riffs, and heavy drums.

Bands such as: [[Black Flag]], [[Dead Kennedys]], [[Bad Brains]], [[Die Kreuzen]] and [[Minor Threat]] are considered hardcore. THEY PROMOTE AN AGENDA OF TOLERANCE WHICH IS AN AGENDA THAT I FOR ONE AM MOST ASSUREDLY NOT IN FAVOR OF NOR SHOULD YOU BE.

[[Category:Music]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2008-05-01T18:11:17Z

BUPKIT:

In regards to I AM ABSOLUTELY SICK AND INTOLERANT OF THE GODDAMNED HOMOSEXUALS. THEIR AGENDA IS AS SLIME-RIDDEN AND AS EVIL AS THE MECHANISM WITHIN THEIR DARK AND TWISTED SOULS WHICH CAUSE THEM TO FLAMBOYANTLY SPREAD THEIR SICKNESS AND PLAGUE ONTO THE GOD-FEARING RIGHTEOUS WORLD. THE TOLERANCE THAT THEY DEMAND CAUSES MY MIND TO RETCH AND CONVULSE UPON EVEN THE SLIGHTEST HAZY WHIM OF CONSIDERING THE THOUGHT. I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF HOMOSEXUALS, I AM SICK OF THEIR GOD DAMNED SINFUL AURA AND POLLUTED WORLDVIEW. THEY MOLEST CHILDREN, I AM SICK OF THEIR SINEWY RIPPLED BUTTOCKS AND THE WAY WITH WHICH THEY FLAUNT THEIR BODIES - GOD'S TEMPLE - AS IF TO TRY AND IMPLANT THE URGE WITHIN ANY RIGHT-THINKING YOUNG CHRISTIAN MAN SUCH AS MYSELF. HOMOSEXUALS ARE WORSE THAN SCUM. THEY ARE A DISEASE. THEY DO NOT STOP. NOT EVEN THE GOD-FEARING MEN OF THE PLANET CAN REFRAIN FROM TALKING ABOUT THEIR CURSED WRETCHED IMMORALISTIC PRACTICES. THIS SITE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF ITSELF AS IT IS JUST FURTHERING THE ILLUSION THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE A COMPONENT OF A RATIONAL WORLD, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE MOST ASSUREDLY NOT. I REPEAT: THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IS ONE OF SUBVERSION AND PERVERSION. BY GETTING US TO DEBATE THEIR CAUSE AND OUTSPOKEN SUPPLE WAYS THEY ARE ONLY PROVIDING OUR CHILDREN WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR SINFUL URGES AND LIFESTYLE. IT IS THAT KNOWLEDGE WHICH FURTHERS THE SPREAD OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN: THE MEDIA, THE NEWS PAPERS, THE ADVERTISEMENTS, THE PACKAGING, THE SCHOOLS, THE GOSPEL, THE SHOPPING MALLS, EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK AND SEE A MINCING PRANCING FAGGOT BECAUSE OF THIS AGENDA WHICH IS SPREADING THROUGH SITES SUCH AS THIS WHICH PROMOTE THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA OF EXISTENCE. GO TO HELL FOR SUPPORTING LIBERAL QUEERS. YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. the '''causes of homosexuality''', there has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to these matters.

[[Homosexuality Research|Homosexuality research]] in regards to the causes of [[homosexuality]]:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Longitudinal Study

2008-05-01T18:11:14Z

BUPKIT:

A '''longitudinal study''' is a study that involves the repeated observation or examination of the same set of subjects over time with respect to one or more study [[variables]], particulTHEY EVEN HAVE FAGGOTS IN THIS STOP TELLING US ABOUT FAGGOTS AND QUEERS I AM SO SICK OF THE NOTIONarly in [[medical]] research where the subjects are living beings. A longitudinal study is often desired because it follows changes in the same people. In contrast, a [[cross-sectional study]] compares results across different people, which can introduce undesired variables to distort the results.
[[category:medicine]]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-05-01T18:11:09Z

BUPKIT:

{{debate}}

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articals( the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and nowTHE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA OR DARE I SAY IT THE HOMOSINUAL AGENDA SEEMS TO BE ALIVE AND WELL-DOCUMENTED ON LIBER-SUBVERSIVE FLOTSAM SUCH AS THIS SITE WHICH MASQUERADES AS A PLACE ON THE WEB FOR GOD-FEARING RIGHTEOUS FOLK WHILE INSTEAD IT CONTINUES TO ASSERT THAT HOMOSINUALITY IS EXISTING AMONGST US IN AN EFFORT NO DOUBT TO CAST FEAR AND DOUBT INTO THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A LOVING GOD, VIA "THEY WANT US TO THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY/SINUALITY EXISTS ON THIS EARTH WHICH GOD RULES SO THAT OBVIOUSLY GOD CANNOT RULE BECAUSE WHY WOULD HE LET SUCH AN ABHORRANT PRACTICE FLOURISH" IS THE MECHANISM FOR WHICH THIS SITE AND OTHERS LIKE IT PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDAS. LET ME REMIND YOU THAT IT IS CALLED "QUEER" FOR A VERY PRACTICAL REASON. it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

Inspector in Charge

2008-05-01T18:11:06Z

BUPKIT:

A designated program [[employee]] who is in charge of one or more official establishments within a circuit and is responsible to the circuit supervisor or his/her designee. NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE HOMOSEXUAL AT THIS POINT IN TIME YET YOU CAN REST-ASSURED THAT SOME WELL-MEANING DOOLITTLE WILL FIND A GOOGLE THAT SHOWS THAT ONE CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN HOMOSEXUAL WHICH HE WILL DILIGENTLY MENTION IN THIS ARTICLE THUS FURTHERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA OF EXISTENCE RATHER THAN IGNORING IT WHY CAN'T THEY IGNORE IT YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK YOURSELVES WHY IS A SPARROW BROWN OR A BLUEBIRD SING.
==References==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]
[[Category:United States Government Word Definitions]]

Name day

2008-05-01T18:11:01Z

BUPKIT:

A '''name day''' is the day of celebration in lieu of a [[birthday]] by members of the [[Eastern Orthodox ChTHERE IS NO SUCH GOD DAMNED THINGurch]]. All those persons having a particular Saint's name rejoice WHY REJOICE IN A WORLD FULL OF HOMOSEXUALS.on the same day. Observing your name-day is considered to be spiritually important.

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Eastern Orthodox Church]]

Dennis v. Sparks

2008-05-01T18:11:00Z

BUPKIT:

In '''''Dennis v. Sparks''''', 449 U.S. 24 (1980), the [[United States Supreme Court]] allowed application of [[Section 1983]] against ''private'' parties who act in concert with a state officiNOTICE IF YOU WILL THAT THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT MENTION HOMOSINUALS IF ONLY MORE ARTICLES AND CONTENT COULD BE SUCH AS THIS WHILE DENNIS IS WHAT ONE MIGHT DEEM A QUEER NAME IT IS NOT ITSELF ABHORRANT OR MORALLY TROUBLESOMEal. Specifically, the Court applied [[Section 1983]] where the plaintiff alleged that private parties bribed a judge in order to obtain. The Court found that this could constitute [[state action]] under [[Section 1983]].

Lower courts have applied to ruling to uphold [[Section 1983]] against other ''private'' parties:

*''Moore v. Marketplace Rest., Inc.'', 754 F.2d 1336, 1352 (7th Cir. 1985) ("In order to establish a conspiracy, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the state officials and the private party somehow reached an understanding to deny the plaintiffs their constitutional rights.")

*''Fonda v. Gray'', 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983) ("To prove a conspir-acy between private parties and the government under § 1983, an agreement or 'meeting of the minds' to violate constitutional rights must be shown.")

*''Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Ctr.'', 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21726 (S.D.W.V. Oct. 27, 2004) (In this case, the complaint alleges that the defendants 'met and conferred' with the Board's prosecutor concerning Dr. Wahi, 'encouraged' the Board to pursue charges against him, and 'collaborated' and 'acted in concert' with the Board during the Board's investigation of Dr. Wahi. These allegations, taken as true, adequately state a conspiracy claim under section 1983.")
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Seminary

2008-05-01T18:10:56Z

BUPKIT:

A '''seminary''' is an institution of religious learning, where [[priest]]s or [[reverend]]s are trained to enter the [[clergy]]. Seminaries often confer a "Master of Divinity" degree, along with related doctorates. Seminary is a required step in the path to become a member of the [[Christian]] clergy. HOPEFULLY THIS PROPOSED AND PROMISING FORM OF EDUCATION WILL LEAD THEM TO BE UPSTANDING PRIESTS WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO FALL VICTIM TO HOMOSEXUALS BY PROMOTING THEIR CAUSE THROUGH THE NOTION OF EXISTENCE/AWARENESS, INSTEAD THEY WILL DO AS JESUS CHRIST THE FATHER SPIRIT DID AND TURN THE OTHER CHEEK IN THE FACE OF THEIR IGNORANCE AND SIN.

== See also ==
*[[Harvard University]]
*[[University]]
*[[Ohio State University]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Colleges and Universities]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Spectator ion

2008-05-01T18:10:53Z

BUPKIT:

A '''spectator ion''' is an [[ion]] which is present, but does not take place in a reaction. Spectator ions are commonly found in a reaction between a [[strong acid]] and a [[strong base]]. If the resulting [[salt]] created by the combination of the [[conjugate base]] and [[conjugate acid]] is soluble in water, then both the conjugate acid (IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALWAYS POUR AN ACID INTO A WATER AND NOT THE OTHER AROUND WAY) and conjugate base act as spectator ions.

[[category:chemistry]]