User:Lorddragyn

I think it is hilarious that Conservapedia was created to counterbalance Wikipedia's "liberal bias", when all it does in actuality is create a strong conservative bias. By this I mean that it counts scripture as truth, anyone who uses Wikipedia as a godless heathen of some sort, and self-aggrandizes on numerous occasions. It also locks any accounted suspected of "liberal trolling", which I guess means registering for the website and not actually making an edit unless it contains facts, instead of allegations. I thought I would check it out to see if it was countering the "liberal bias" by not putting any bias at all and being purely about the facts, but when I see articles about women who get abortions having a higher chance of breast cancer, and the atheism article being a Jesus pitch ("The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident..." That's like saying that the writers of Lost saying it's the best show ever. They have a vested interest.) when it's not talking about atheists and their suicidal and homicidal tendencies. I'm surprised that every article on the site doesn't have a blurb about how it was created by god, and the biblical verse that proves it. I'm done ranting, for now.Lorddragyn (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Today I was labeled a prevaricator on Conservapedia for trying to fix an article with blatant lies and unsourced material. Apparently their definition of "facts" is different from mine. Maybe I will find a way to crack the conservative code, because I'd rather have a liberal, and factual, bias than a conservative, and bat-shit crazy one. But an encyclopedia with absolutely no bias at all would be fantastic, because only the facts would be given and I could interpret things in my own head instead of being spoon-fed an agenda by anybody. There's a reason that wikipedia is the first place I go when I want to figure out something. Well, that or imdb.Lorddragyn (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)