Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>
What Conservapedia needs
... is a good dose of creativity (as distinct from Creationism), regular doses of the 'more interesting, 'Er What?' and lurid' chapters of the Bible, BibleCelebrityGossip (tm), irony traps, and exposure to the inherent contradictions in their arguments, until until they get into a mirror maze and vanish/undergo spontaneous combustion. — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs
Where's Conservapedia's true quote that says "sentences should not be facts."?
Where is the citations of Convervapedia's quote that says "sentences should not be facts? I can't find it in this article because there is no citation for it. Please, cite or give proof that this is Conservapedia's true quote "sentences should not be facts". Cite the proof here:
Conservapedia's "news" blog section
- Why don’t you do it? Acei9 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to advise that this section is not correct, I am able to view the site from an IP address which the article states will return a 403 response code. i.e the site returns a 200 code and the appropriate webpage as normal. — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- CP crashes from time to time for reasons unknown. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Most wikis are 'the go to site' for one area or another (Wikipedia - point of first resort; Ganfyd - medical things; Uncyclopedia - silliness).
What is Conservapedia the go to authoritative site for? (As distinct from 'if a statement of fact, verify elsewhere; if a statement of opinion take any views to taste that are in opposition to the position.') Anna Livia (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)