Essay talk:Conservapedia:Opposing POV

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Well, if you're going to put an obvious lie in the first sentence, why should we go along with the rest of it? --Kels 17:09, 14 December 2008 (EST)

What? You don't believe me? --Uncle Ed bug me 17:16, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Given your track record and what you wrote there, I don't have much reason to. --Kels 17:18, 14 December 2008 (EST)
I'm curious. You state:Opposing POV or alternate viewpoints are actively being sought on Conservapedia (I guess this is what Kels was referring to.) I must admit that this is a surprise to me. By this do you mean gay, atheist, Muslim etc? Do you mean on talk pages or only on article pages? And what would the format be? A separate section for lesbian comments for instance? Another for Mormons? Do tell.--Bobbing up 14:49, 15 December 2008 (EST)
It doesn't help much to solicit other views from those who are categorically blocked for being socks. As soon as we create another account to get around our 5 year block, we're blocked again before making an edit. Once we do make an edit (assuming someone with an itchy ban finger isn't on), it is removed and we are blocked. In order to take this as anything approaching serious the first steps by CP would be:
  1. Stop blocking for "inserting liberal stuff" in pages
  2. Stop blocking people for trying to reach a consensus of what the views (or facts) are on a talk page.
  3. Stop removing "liberal stuff" in pages and instead label it (template to make it blue? Dunno... whatever...)
  4. Write it down as a Conservapedia policy
  5. Unblock those editors (and ranges that the editors edit from) who where blocked for being liberal.
Then maybe... maybe one can say "yep, CP is looking for other points of view." Until then, there is no reason to even pretend that Conservapedia is soliciting opposing views. --Shagie 15:01, 15 December 2008 (EST)
May I add #6: Stop blocking people based on amount of time spent debating viewpoints. If you want different views, allow people to argue for them on the talk pages. --Whyhow (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Ed (if that's your real name,) if you actually believe this, you're only fooling yourself. If by some bizarre cosmic joke you are serious and Andy lets you get away with this, unblock one of my accounts, and I'll give you guys all the alternative viewpoints you could want. --Gulik 16:03, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Looks like he ran away. Figures. --Gulik 17:09, 25 December 2008 (EST)
Hopefully he didn't surrender, the last thing we need is him waving a white handkerchief. --Kels 17:18, 25 December 2008 (EST)

UPDATE:Bull confirmed for bull... again. PacWalker 07:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)