Okay, okay. As anyone reading this blog would have worked out, I am a Liberal politically speaking. That is, a literal liberal, strongly believing in the rights and freedoms rather than the Australian political definition of Liberal, which is someone with loads of cash who thinks foreigners should be locked up as soon as they come here. And I feel honour-bound to point this out to make it clear that I am not saying what I'm about to say out of bias. Unlike those biased scum at Wikipedia!
Honestly, every time you look something up in the Wik, the disgusting political bais just flows over you like honey. As in, metaphorically, someone is pouring honey onto your naked body. And that's something we can all relate to, right?
*Wikipedia omits any acknowledgment of Benjamin Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.
*When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
*Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:
We all hate Jesus and America.
*The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent. Fucking evolutionists.
Hang on, this doesn't make any sense. Oh, right, these aren't my reasons for hating wikipedia, they're those of CONSERVAPEDIA! Yes! Finally there's an encyclopedia strictly for the use of Conservatives! And you can imagine how wonderfully informative and knowledge-crammed it will be, right gang?
To be honest, I think these guys have just gone and made it too easy for me to take the piss out of them. Say, you want to look up a notable entry to see what info they have on it so far, who would you pick? Kublai Khan? Lord Nelson? Nigella Jay Verkoff? Ben Chatham? Well, sure they're all big-ass peeps, but I thought the logical first-stop for a big shue had to be the incumbent President of the United States of America. Ten seconds later:
Is the president of the United States of America. Republican . Was awared the office of President by a narrow decision of the U.S. Supreme court in 2000 in a disputed election race against Democratic candidate Al Gore. In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of millions of votes, including a landslide victory in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate John Kerry quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.
For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some liberals continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud. When Al Gore went on a speaking tour in 2006 to promote government controls over industry in the name of global warming, many liberal fans greeted him with the belief that he had actually won the election in 2000.
There you go, flat listless writing, poor editing and wonderfully blunt and to-the-point sentences that work like blows to the head in terms of getting the message across. And I just love the derisive insults towards those dirty liberals at the end. After all, they don't belong here on conservapedia.
But that's only the start. The talk page is way better:
Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush...I believe the photo is one of Prince Henry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK
Yeah, I can see how you could confuse the two. Also, a discerning and highly dedicated conservapedian speaks up:
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry...how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media...Who were his good conservative judicial appointments?
Hey, pal, isn't ANY conservative appointment a good one? Am I right or am I right? No, I'm TOTALLY right, cos we're here on CONSERVAPEDIA.
Hey, but why be so parochial, what do the Conservapedians think of... Australia?
Australia is part of Oceania, and a largely secular nation.
'Largely secular'? That's always a statement that sends the warning bells off for someone who knows fuck all about my country...
The Australian aborigines (natives) exist to this day on the island, having their own culture that only began to change with immigration by Europeans in the past 200 years. The aborigines foraged (searched) for food and did not farm. Australians did not have agriculture until the Europeans arrived. (citation needed)
Gotta love that in-built thesaurus. Shows how much respect they have for their readerships' intelligence.
Okay, now, hard one... Sri Lanka!
Sri Lanka is the pear-shaped island (hehe, pears-shaped!) off of the southern coast of India, which obtained its independence in the 1970s. Sri Lanka has a Buddhist majority, and the Tamils are in a Hindu minority and have been fighting for their own independence
Man, I love these. It's taking me back to the days when I had to do geography projects in primary school...
What do they have to say about the noble and oldest sport of gentlemen... cricket!
There is no page titled "cricket". You can create this page .
For more information about searching Conservapedia, see Searching Conservapedia .
Showing below 0 results starting with #1.
Hmmm. No, that doesn't sound right to me. But, hey, don't listen to me. Listen to these guys. They really know what's going on here.