QUOTE(Warui desu @ Tue 7th February 2012, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 4th February 2012, 11:56pm)
There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Set"Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and B = \{a, b, c, e\}\, is merely \{a, b, c, d, e\}\,, while the union of a man, M = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and a woman W = \{e, f, g, h\}\,, is \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h\}\,, which is a broader and more diverse set.
Define "A" as the set of all false assertions, and "B" as the set of all the Bible passages. Since there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, the intersection between set A and set B is the empty set. "
O.M.G. I'd have thought that this stuff was inserted by trolls mocking Conservapedia, but ... see this
self-reverted change.. Ashafly appears to be God on Conservapedia. Then Aschafly added the section about traditional marriage. The passage that the editor thought to remove, then realized his Grievous Error, was
QUOTE
There is the set of unborn children who were [[abortion|aborted]], about which striking conclusions can be drawn. Given the large and diverse number of elements of this set, it would likely include many who could surpass existing athletic and intellectual achievements. Indeed, many of the world records and [[Nobel Prize]] achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set.
These are really funny.
Remember, this is a math article. Apparently anything will serve as a coatrack for Schafly.
My condolences to my conservative friends. Here's
a nice example of Schafly's work. I see that PhilipN added
citation needed tags. Schafly reverted. This is being discussed on the attached Talk page. Fascinating. If those are mostly conservatives, then there are some sane ones. Or maybe they are trolls, just pretending, or they will soon be only found in history there. Or not even there, Schafly is also an oversighter. Scary.
This is not an allegation of abuse. Haven't seen any yet, just silly stupidity. I saw some indications that Schafly permits criticism, and has protected critics, there are probably users here with much more understanding of the history there.
And in the other direction, the Conservapedia article on Wicca seemed decent, if a bit informal. The Conservapedia article explains what a "fluffy bunny" is, something entirely missing from the Wikipedia article. WP does have an article,
Fluffy bunny but it seems somehow more hostile, dark, whereas the Conservapedia article simply presents "fluffy bunnies" as enthusiastic newcomers. Perhaps we should start calling naive Wikipedians "fluffy bunnies." Cute little things, eh?