User talk:This website is no better than conservapedia

Care to elaborate on this rather amazing assertion? --Gulik 14:02, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Sure it is. They have narrow-minded Young Earth creationists and Roger Schlafly. We have long-eared jerboas and goats. We win, hands down. PFoster 14:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

"About time somebody point this out" Its been pointed out various times before, never with a good argument to back it up, though. Want to be the first? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 14:15, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * It may depend on what definition of "better" is being used.--Bobbing up 14:21, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * "You claim to be 'tolerant', then act all INTOLERANT of intolerance, stupidity, and pseudoscience!" would be my guess, but hey, maybe he's got something better. --Gulik 14:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * Perhps they may be right, Conservapedia has more articles than us. But ours are much better quality - even the stubs. Perhaps if all our socks wrote the same articles here then we would be better.  I would hazard a guess that 30% of the articles on CP have actually been written by RW members. Also there is generally a lot more fun generated on RW, which you won't find on CP. And the fun on CP is normally RW authored in the first place. So yes we probably are better after all. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 15:25, 16 February 2008 (EST)
 * We have better food. And the seats are bigger.--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 15:49, 16 February 2008 (EST)