NationStates Jolt Archive

Tired of those wikipedophiles at wikipedia insisting on "facts" and "sources" for their articles? Try this site.

http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page

Hasn't someone else been hyping this site too?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There's more lulz at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

http://www.wikiality.com/Pastafarian

Furthermore, these blasphemers do not accept the Bible as absolute truth, which is unfortunate, because if they had read the Bible, they would realize that it is, because the Bible says that the Bible is absolute truth, and as mentioned earlier in this sentence, the Bible is wholly true.

As is to be expected, these godless monsters cannot follow this logic.

:p

I like Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).

unintentional humor is better. that's why i prefer Conservapedia: A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

unintentional humor is better. that's why i prefer Conservapedia: A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

You really have to want to use Conservapedia, though, it's astonishingly slow! :p

You really have to want to use Conservapedia, though, it's astonishingly slow! :p

*lets cheap shot go unspoken*

anywho, i suspect that that's because it's been making the rounds in leftbloggostan, and thousands of people are pointing and clicking and laughing.

btw, did you know that faith is a uniquely christian concept, and was invented on february 2nd?

*lets cheap shot go unspoken*

anywho, i suspect that that's because it's been making the rounds in leftbloggostan, and thousands of people are pointing and clicking and laughing.

btw, did you know that faith is a uniquely christian concept, and was invented on february 2nd?

That wasn't a cheap shot, just an observation. You could very well be right about why it was dog-slow coming up.

I did find it interesting that faith is a Christian invention, yes, and I'm sorry I missed the anniversary. I also liked the invitation to add to the information about how it doesn't exist "on" other religions, too.

That wasn't a cheap shot, just an observation

nah, i mean there was an obvious thing i could have said based on "Conservapedia...it's astonishingly slow!"

nah, i mean there was an obvious thing i could have said based on "Conservapedia...it's astonishingly slow!"

Oh. :D The article on faith was a disappointment. I did the "Random Page" thing and landed on a short article on Thomas Paine's book The Age of Reason, one of the most fervently anti-established religion book written. Funny.

Oh. :D The article on faith was a disappointment. I did the "Random Page" thing and landed on a short article on Thomas Paine's book The Age of Reason, one of the most fervently anti-established religion book written. Funny.

well i just learned that,
"President Ronald Reagan finally ended the Cold War in 1989 because he caused the Soviet Union to fall."

well i just learned that,
"President Ronald Reagan finally ended the Cold War in 1989 because he caused the Soviet Union to fall."

He probably kept staring at Gorbachev's port-wine birthmark until the poor guy resigned in shame, and then, well, the entire edifice of World Communism just fell apart, because those people have no faith, y'see ...

"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
*Giggles*

And their page on the Declaration of independence highlights the 'Nature's God' clause. As though it suddenly provided beyond any kind of doubt that America should be a Christian Iran.

unintentional humor is better. that's why i prefer Conservapedia: A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W._Bush

This doesn't sound very conservative to me... Is it unauthorised?

unintentional humor is better. that's why i prefer Conservapedia: A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

I like how Wikipedia is anti-American for not using American spellings...

I thought they just meant that Wikipedia admits when America did something wrong, until I read that.

I think someone needs to make a parody "Christian American" encyclopaedia - with facts such as "terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein crashed WMDs into the Twin Towers".

"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
*Giggles*

And their page on the Declaration of independence highlights the 'Nature's God' clause. As though it suddenly provided beyond any kind of doubt that America should be a Christian Iran.

Their article under "Otto" is about two sentences on Otto I, the Holy Roman Emperor. Wiki gives you a longish disambiguation page when you enter "Otto".

All the biology articles I found are also one, maybe two sentences and all refer to Exploring Creation Through Biology by one Dr. Jay Wile.

Convenient Truths

Global Warming is composed of two words: global and warming.

* global

from the words 'glow' and 'ball'

* warming

-from the words 'warm'

(who doesn't like warm things like puppies and blankets?)

-and 'ming'

(as in Ming The Merciless)


* Sounds pretty good so far, doesn't it?


* Oh, it gets better.


* Global warming will raise worldwide sea levels,

bringing the romantic canals of Venice right here to America.


* And why all the concern about retreating glaciers?

-A glacier would have no qualms about crushing a baby,

if that baby were placed in front of it for a century.


* Luckily, global warming will prevent that glacier from being a

-Godless Baby Crushing Machine.

funny site...:D

"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
*Giggles*

Aw, people who think Yeshua was born in 1 CE are cute. They're just so adorably naive.

Aw, people who think Yeshua was born in 1 CE are cute. They're just so adorably naive.

People who think they can know the true birth year of a figure who was most likely an amalgam of historical and mythical persons constructed by the Romans over a hundred of years after 1 CE are naive.

I have to quote their article on the Theory of Evolution (don't worry, it's not very long):

The Theory of Evolution, introduced by Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, published in 1859, is a scientific theory that explains the process of evolution via natural selection. The basic principle behind natural selection, states that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage, increasing the representation of their particular traits over time.

But the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs--that would be macroevolution. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.

One of the common misconceptions concerning the theory of evolution is that there are six "types" that together form the theory scientific theory of evolution. The misconception can be described thus:

Cosmological evolution, Stellar Evolution, Chemical evolution, Planetary evolution, Microevolution, and Macroevolution. Cosmological evolution refers to the hypothesis that the entire universe was once contained within a small dot which exploded approximately 15 billion years ago, as evidenced by observations such as the cosmic background radiation. Stellar evolution is about how stars form from collapsing clouds of gas. Chemical evolution refers to the "primordial soup" containing the building blocks of the the molecules characteristic of life. Planetary evolution is the process by which the Earth, as well as the other planets of the solar system, formed from the left-overs of the gas cloud which formed the Sun.

In biological evolution, the distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution is used to differentiate between changes within a kind (microevolution) versus changes to a new kind (macroevolution, shown to be impossible above). Nobody denies microevolution - it is observed all the time by scientists experimenting on fruit flies, orchid growers creating new variations, and even dog breeders as mentioned above. Micro-evolution is responsible for the multitude of differences between species that are observed now after Noah saved only 2 of each kind.

Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support. They switch tactics when pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution by stating that evolution is "only" a theory. Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways. They claim scientific support when none exists, and they claim it is only a theory when the theory straddles them with outlandish, impossible conclusion that violate scientific truths.
No references, no external links, not even to creationist sites.

People who think they can know the true birth year of a figure who was most likely an amalgam of historical and mythical persons constructed by the Romans over a hundred of years after 1 CE are naive.

Nah, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the birth year of Yeshua ben Pantera, the main influence. He was active around 200 BCE, I believe.

Nah, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the birth year of Yeshua ben Pantera, the main influence. He was active around 200 BCE, I believe.

However, I've heard that the birth story itself bears striking similarity to that of figures from other religions, such as the Hindu Krishna.

EDIT: OK, I don't think that's actually relevant to what you posted, but I'll leave it anyway.

There's more lulz at Encyclopedia Dramatica.
ED is nothing but a shock site. Uncyclopedia FTW.

In the interest of full disclosure, I (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Allah) have (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum) written (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/The_Gay_Credenza) several (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Africa) articles (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hammer) for (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bullshit) Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fatties). But my point still stands. Encyclopedia Dramatica is made of fail.

From conservapedia:

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

*snip*

28. Wikipedia articles are - or at least aim to be - true, while at Conservapedia we proudly aim to disregard facts we do not appreciate and instead present a correctly biased encyclopedia.

OWNED!

From conservapedia:



OWNED!

Man, that place is getting vandalised horribly, isn't it.

I have to quote their article on the Theory of Evolution (don't worry, it's not very long):

...

No references, no external links, not even to creationist sites.

I don't normally use this internet shorthand stuff, but:
OMFG
It would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that some people do genuinely believe that evolution is just something a heathen scientist made up one day.

Micro-evolution is responsible for the multitude of differences between species that are observed now after Noah saved only 2 of each kind.
...

...

I... I... I am speechless. I was literally sitting here with my jaw dropping from the sheer incredibility of it all.

And then, the coup de grâce:
Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support. They switch tactics when pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution by stating that evolution is "only" a theory. Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways. They claim scientific support when none exists, and they claim it is only a theory when the theory straddles them with outlandish, impossible conclusion that violate scientific truths.We are the ones who say "Evolution is only a theory"?!?

Holy fucking crap.



And now I shall take my blood pressure medication and write 100 times I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries...

...

...

I... I... I am speechless. I was literally sitting here with my jaw dropping from the sheer incredibility of it all.

And then, the coup de grâce:
We are the ones who say "Evolution is only a theory"?!?

Holy fucking crap.



And now I shall take my blood pressure medication and write 100 times I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries, I must not read conservative "encyclopedia" entries...

Yeah, "holy fucking crap" pretty much says it.

Man, "God" now redirects to "Fictional Characters" or something like that. That site is getting smashed.

Man, "God" now redirects to "Fictional Characters" or something like that. That site is getting smashed.

Hehe, yeah. The entry for God (http://www.conservapedia.com/God) now reads:

God is pretty popular, but judging by God's blog (http://www.blogofthegods.com/), and several thousand years of human history, He's kind of a dick.

John Galt is generally a bit less popular, but he's got more sex appeal.

:p

I got bored. I'm now trying to change everything to the British spelling.

Man, "God" now redirects to "Fictional Characters" or something like that. That site is getting smashed.

And what's with the big color photo of the British (I think) soldiers?

Man, "God" now redirects to "Fictional Characters" or something like that. That site is getting smashed.

LOL. I'm trying to get REAGAN SMASH! on the Reagan page.

Wow. From that same page, on Nancy Reagan.

She maintains to this day to not be a "back door kid of gal."

And what's with the big color photo of the British (I think) soldiers?

Dunno. It's in at least one other article.

Dunno. It's in at least one other article.

It was in the "George W. Bush" article, where I saw it first.

At first I though nobody had gotten to the Abortion entry yet...

Abortion

The word abortion, in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."[1] Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to induced abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother. They believe babies should be murdered within the first few years after they're born, especially if God orders the hit.

... but someone had. :p

I'm keeping that account and destroying them for hours.

Damn, it's running slow for me. Did it get slashdotted or something?

Damn, it's running slow for me. Did it get slashdotted or something?
Working fine for me.

Modern liberals are treasonous [1] and generally hate America [2].
cute.

I like Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).So do I. Recently, I have been spending much more time at its smaller, more nonsensical cousin Illogicopedia (http://editthis.info/illogicopedia/Main_Page), though.

Damnit, it keeps going down.

Damnit, it keeps going down.

No, now, a conservative site would not "go down" ... except maybe Rev. Haggard ... :eek: No, wait, I mean ...

Okay, the Gravity article is awesome.

Okay, the Gravity article is awesome.

One might even say ... weighty?

ha!

The Law of Mass Conversation (http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Law_of_Mass_Conversation)


the second edit is the best

ha!

The Law of Mass Conversation (http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Law_of_Mass_Conversation)


the second edit is the best

That had better not be for real....

You really have to want to use Conservapedia, though, it's astonishingly slow! :p

it's not like NSG is much faster though...

http://www.wikiality.com/David_Beckham

lol

That had better not be for real....

the original appears to be

That conservative one is too slow for me to have fun with it, I don't have the attention span.

although 'random page' is coming up with some lulz

http://www.conservapedia.com/Ann_Coulter

This one is awesome. The guy who made it also redirected a bunch of articles to Democrat.

It won't let me create an account. *mopes*

If anybody is bored, would you mind going to their Abortion entry (http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion) which has been sitting woefully unattended and replace their despiccable breast cancer fearmongering with the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis) as found on wikipedia?
And anything else you want to change, really, apart from that beautiful edit in the first paragraph.

Womankind shall forever be grateful for your services. Thank you.

I love the lecture sections. Sheer hilarity like "Was Washington great? Why or why not?"

It looks like someone went through and replaced their ACLU entry with the normal Wiki entry... ;)

It won't let me create an account. *mopes*

If anybody is bored, would you mind going to their Abortion entry (http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion) which has been sitting woefully unattended and replace their despiccable breast cancer fearmongering with the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis) as found on wikipedia?

Sorry - I can't create an account either. I'll try again after work. If anyone can attend to it in the meantime, I was thinking about making this alteration:

"The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.[9] This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation because it's her own fault for having had sex. This includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake..."

Sorry - I can't create an account either. I'll try again after work. If anyone can attend to it in the meantime, I was thinking about making this alteration:

"The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.[9] This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation because it's her own fault for having had sex. This includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake..."Excellent.
Of course, the really bad thing about that page is that it's so inane that you can hardly tell the real entries from the satire.
I'm not sure many Conservapedia disciples would even notice your edit...

Tsk tsk! You should all go to your rooms and/or turn your computers off and think about what you've done! This is censorship on your part, and unless you support censorship, you are now a censoring hypocrite.

*shakes head in shame*

I thought I raised you better. :(

Excellent.
Of course, the really bad thing about that page is that it's so inane that you can hardly tell the real entries from the satire.
I'm not sure many Conservapedia disciples would even notice your edit...

Glad you liked my idea. For my money, the truly bad thing about it would be the Cons muppets who noticed and then wished they'd thought of it first.

Add: Ruff, they've created an open forum, we're using it. It's not censorship to, for instance, annotate a book. Besides, it's funny.

Add: Ruff, they've created an open forum, we're using it. It's not censorship to, for instance, annotate a book. Besides, it's funny.

Bahhumbug!

Has Georgie's page been hit?

Bahhumbug!

Has Georgie's page been hit?

Oh yes.

Oh yes.

Linky linky linky!!

Linky linky linky!!

Currently unvandalised, but still inaccurate. (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&action=history)