Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cptstubing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cptstubing (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:August, you have been around here long enough to see the lies, the half-truths, the vandalism, and the attacks that come from libs. We post facts and truth here, and both hurt as far as they're concerned. This website will remain conservative. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:48, 27 February 2015 (EST) | :August, you have been around here long enough to see the lies, the half-truths, the vandalism, and the attacks that come from libs. We post facts and truth here, and both hurt as far as they're concerned. This website will remain conservative. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:48, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ||
::::So, why did you even bother to ask "Cptstubing" to prove the obvious? It doesn't make sense to start an argument about facts all of us agree on. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:01, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ::::So, why did you even bother to ask "Cptstubing" to prove the obvious? It doesn't make sense to start an argument about facts all of us agree on. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:01, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::Because if he's going to edit in a wiki - in any wiki - he's going to respect the website and the people in it ''first''. If he sees something wrong, he can be sensible in identifying it, then offering a solution to fix it. Comments such as ''"this article is so flawed it makes my head spin"'' does nothing to help at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:36, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ||
::Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ::Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ||
:::Bias on itself isn't problematic. It just seems to be superfluous to ask for sources for the obvious. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:39, 27 February 2015 (EST) | :::Bias on itself isn't problematic. It just seems to be superfluous to ask for sources for the obvious. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:39, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism]] and [[homosexuality]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST) | Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism]] and [[homosexuality]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oh, this really stands out. Under the heading "Atheism and pornography" in the topic Atheism. I just glanced at this topic for a minute and saw this. | ||
| + | Sources for this? Are there studies that show that atheism and pornography are correlated? | ||
Latest revision as of 14:35, July 8, 2015
And your sources to prove we have a bias? Plus, your sources that proves the liberal side of the fence is all lollipops and cuddly animals. I would love to see them. Karajou 05:48, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- It seems to be absurd to claim that Conservapedia has no bias! Karajou, you yourself wrote about the Conservapedia Bible Project:
- "It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. Karajou 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT) "
- So, if there is a conservative claim and a liberal claim, Conservapedia will side with the conservative position, as the liberal position is compromised per se. That's pretty much a textbook example of bias. --AugustO 07:17, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- August, you have been around here long enough to see the lies, the half-truths, the vandalism, and the attacks that come from libs. We post facts and truth here, and both hurt as far as they're concerned. This website will remain conservative. Karajou 06:48, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- So, why did you even bother to ask "Cptstubing" to prove the obvious? It doesn't make sense to start an argument about facts all of us agree on. --AugustO 07:01, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- Because if he's going to edit in a wiki - in any wiki - he's going to respect the website and the people in it first. If he sees something wrong, he can be sensible in identifying it, then offering a solution to fix it. Comments such as "this article is so flawed it makes my head spin" does nothing to help at all. Karajou 08:36, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- So, why did you even bother to ask "Cptstubing" to prove the obvious? It doesn't make sense to start an argument about facts all of us agree on. --AugustO 07:01, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? Karajou 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- Bias on itself isn't problematic. It just seems to be superfluous to ask for sources for the obvious. --AugustO 06:39, 27 February 2015 (EST)
Throwing down the gauntlet
Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia atheism and homosexuality articles. Conservative 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST)
Oh, this really stands out. Under the heading "Atheism and pornography" in the topic Atheism. I just glanced at this topic for a minute and saw this. Sources for this? Are there studies that show that atheism and pornography are correlated?