Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 167 (388287)
03-05-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by kuresu
03-05-2007 1:55 PM


Re: tides and death
quote:
think Hale Bop (the name of the comet shredded by jupiter? that or Haley).
Shoemaker-Levy.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by kuresu, posted 03-05-2007 1:55 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 167 (388290)
03-05-2007 2:02 PM


The real question is... do you think we can get Ray to write them an article on the Great Pyramids?

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 03-05-2007 2:35 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 93 of 167 (388298)
03-05-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dan Carroll
03-05-2007 2:02 PM


for all their lunacy, I don't think they're that crazy.
but then, ray would probably declare them to not be true christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 2:02 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 2:50 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 167 (388300)
03-05-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kuresu
03-05-2007 2:35 PM


Funny thing is, I don't think they'll be able to keep the crazies off their site. Maybe not Ray specifically, but there are many more like him out there.
They've set themselves up as the place you can go to scream about Jesus because Wikipedia won't let you. It won't be especially stunning if the crazies start crawling out of the woodwork to go scream about Jesus.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 03-05-2007 2:35 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by CK, posted 03-05-2007 3:54 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 95 of 167 (388314)
03-05-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dan Carroll
03-05-2007 2:50 PM


It's the truth man ! you cannot handle the truth!
quote:
Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. [1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. [2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. [3].
In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version. [4]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_news
They also have their own version of youtube
Watch Christian Videos - Today's Popular Video
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-05-2007 2:50 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 167 (388326)
03-05-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Apparently you don't know much about conservativism. The fact that you're writing them a letter of disagreement will be sufficient reason for them to conclude that you're not one of their own, no matter what you say.
Does this mean you are adverse to me trying?
That's what happened to conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, after all. He's been all but excommunicated by conservatives for disagreeing with certain aspects of the Bush administration.
I wasn't aware of this excommunication. As far as I know, he is still one of the foremost conservative voices in America, and bar none, THE conservative voice amongst homosexuals.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so terse. Your post actually contains a fair bit of hope - the hope that you'll see how the qualities you've identified in Conservapedia, the qualities that trouble you - the echo-chamber atmosphere, the primacy of dogma over fact
My issue is that some of their facts are anything but. I also don't like how its geared toward a specific demographic. Facts are facts. There shouldn't be any kind of political or ideological spin nestled precariously within it.
Was anybody here surprised that "Conservapedia", in practice, would be a place where "facts" were determined as true not by how they matched the evidence but by how they matched conservativism? No, of course we weren't, because that's standard operating procedure for conservatives. What you see in Conservapedia, NJ, is what we see in nearly every media that's supposedly "balanced" towards conservatives.
That's fine. But Conservapedia does have a point, even though they hypocrtically did the same thing-- that liberal bias is overwhelmingly the majority view, especially in Western nations, like America, Canada, and England. Their approach would have been had it actually been balanced, and had their facts been glossed over by fact-checkers and editors.
Oh - I was going to suggest: If you want to communicate with the editors of Conservapedia, take advantage of the fact that
1) every article has a discussion ("talk") page to discuss its content, and
2) Wikis are universally self-referential. In other words - Conservapedia doubtless has an entry for Conservapedia (just as Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia). So that's probably a good place for you to voice your concerns about the project.
Yes, I had considered doing just that. I was hoping for something a little more private, but if that is my only avenue of communication, I have no other option.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 167 (388332)
03-05-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 4:51 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Does this mean you are adverse to me trying?
Not in the slightest. Knock yourself out. If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.)
I'm just making a prediction about the sort of person who goes over to create a "conservative wikipedia" simply to lock his ideological counterparts out of the debate.
As far as I know, he is still one of the foremost conservative voices in America, and bar none, THE conservative voice amongst homosexuals.
He's written about it pretty extensively. You'll notice that he wasn't one of the CPAC speakers this year; hasn't been on the panel for a while, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 4:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 9:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 167 (388333)
03-05-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Jack
03-05-2007 9:01 AM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
In terms of imposing Christain morality and advocating Christian based victorian style values the conservatives win hands down.
Your average well meaning 'teachings of Christ' type Christian may well be predominantly left wing but in terms of ramming overtly moralising political philosophy down the throat of the electorate the conservatives historically have little competition.
Tony Blair is probably the most vocally Christian Prime Minister we've had.
Tony Blair is probably the most right wing leader of the labour party we have ever had as well. And even he generally draws the line at overtly defining social policy on the basis of moral ideology.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 9:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 6:30 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 99 of 167 (388355)
03-05-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
03-05-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
In terms of imposing Christain morality and advocating Christian based victorian style values the conservatives win hands down.
Yes, that's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 5:32 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 167 (388357)
03-05-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Chiroptera
03-05-2007 9:07 AM


Re: Wiki bias
Interesting. I vaguely remember a former colleague (a teacher) who absolutely disallowed wikipedia as a reference in term papers she assigned. Maybe it was more an issue of primary vs. secondary sources. I don't suppose Chronicle is freely available on-line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2007 9:07 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 03-05-2007 6:45 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 102 by CK, posted 03-05-2007 6:54 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 103 by Omnivorous, posted 03-05-2007 6:58 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 03-06-2007 4:44 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 144 by Chiroptera, posted 03-11-2007 7:11 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 101 of 167 (388358)
03-05-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Wiki bias
I had a teacher who didn't like it either--but then, it may have been something to do with the fact that the wiki article on Allende argued that he didn't kill himself (as I recall).
He didn't have a problem with my friend's resource, which argued for the traditional view of Allende's death, though it was equal quality and perhaps less well sourced. He's also conservative (in a more trad. sense--gov't should stay out of your life, not dictate morality), which may have had something to do with it (since Allende was a communist)

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 6:37 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4205 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 102 of 167 (388359)
03-05-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Wikipedia itself (via the community) says it's not a reliable source for those purposes. (which is odd considering all the pages it has telling you how to cite it...).
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 6:37 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 103 of 167 (388361)
03-05-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Quetzal writes:
Interesting. I vaguely remember a former colleague (a teacher) who absolutely disallowed wikipedia as a reference in term papers she assigned. Maybe it was more an issue of primary vs. secondary sources. I don't suppose Chronicle is freely available on-line?
My She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, Dragon Lady Perfesser of Literature and Composition, will not accept encyclopedias as cited references in undergraduate research papers, though a bibliography entry for general background is no problem. That seems reasonable to me.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 6:37 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Quetzal, posted 03-06-2007 4:33 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 167 (388374)
03-05-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Jack
03-05-2007 1:53 PM


Moon Orbit
At the moment, yes, it's moving further from the earth. That will not last forever.
The moon is currently being accelerated in it's orbit by the tidal bulges of the earth - these rotate with the spin of the earth ahead of the moon, thus the gravity from these bulges attract the moon ahead of it's position.
This also means that the moon's gravity acting on these bulges is slowing the spin of the earth about it's axis (thus maintaining rotational inertia).
The evidence for this is recorded in daily growth rings within annual growth rings of certain ancient corals (dated by radiometric dating). In the Devonian Period the year was about 400 days of ~365*24/400 = 21.9 current hrs and in the Pennsylvanian Period the year was about 390 days ~365*24/390 = 22.5 current hrs.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html
quote:
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400,...
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385.
This could eventually reach an equilibrium point where the orbital period of the moon matches the rotational period of the earth. It could also keep going - I'd need an astrophysics maven to calculate the relative possibilities.
Personally I do not think that it would reach a point and then start collapsing back into the earth, but I could be wrong. It could well be at the point where the sun has expanded close enough to the earths orbit that solar effects start to take over.
Enjoy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box. RAZD's quality control seems to be really on the skids.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 1:53 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2007 8:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 10:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 167 (388376)
03-05-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
03-05-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Moon Orbit
quote:
Personally I do not think that it would reach a point and then start collapsing back into the earth, but I could be wrong.
Yes, once the earth's rotation slowed enough so that it, too, showed the same face toward the moon, then there would be no more tidal friction, and the system should be stable.
But I, too, once read that eventually the situation would reverse, and the moon would begin to approach the earth. I can't remember why (and I was a kid, so the explanation may have been lacking); it may have something to do with the sun exerting an extra perturbation on the system.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2007 7:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024