While the David Hicks item is true, they'll delete it since it' source to wikipedia. Source it to a news org and it should be fine. Crackertalk 07:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the tip. I have only just stumbled across this site and am absolutely flabbergasted. They criticise Wikipedia but on that site if there is a mistake it can be corrected. On this site, many important pages are just locked so the obvious mistakes cannot be corrected. Godlives 07:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Yup
Try this
I saw that. I have checked through quite a few 'articles' now on topics I am somewhat familiar with and I have noticed many which while inaccurate are being posted by people who are sending up the site, aqnd some which are genuinely funny. I presume the sysops don't know enough to correct these articles and may even believe they are accurate. It seems that a sites as biased as this will never generate the respect necessary to attract sufficient numbers of quality contributors. Try this to get a relevant page started: Major bias in conservapedia Godlives 07:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I guess it was fun while it lasted. they'll likely BAN you for such subversiveness.Crackertalk 07:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- They ban people for far less, so it seems like Godlives isn't going to live very long.
==John Howard==
Hey man. I read with interest your article on John Howard. Very interesting, good read :-) Inspired, i've started one on Kim Beazley - because i don't think people here know enough about the australian presidency. Babygotbook 09:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)