XPost: az.general   
   From: "@cox.net   
      
   Michelle Steiner wrote:   
   > conservapedia.com offers itself as a conservative and Christian   
   > alternative to wikipedia.com.  There are a number of differences between   
   > the two:   
   >   
   > Wikipedia is open, with all points of view being able to be expressed.   
   > Conservapedia is closed; there's no option to register, so only those   
   > blessed by the management (who, by the way, is Phyllis Schlafly's son)   
   > can make any entries or edit or append to any existing entries.   
   >   
   > Among Conservapedia's complaints about Wikipedia are that articles in   
   > Wikipedia use British spelling (e.g., colour and labour) instead of   
   > American spelling, and that some articles use CE and BCE instead of AD   
   > and BC.   
   >   
   > It is very apparent that the management of Conservapedia does not   
   > understand the difference between "Conservative" and "Christian".  But   
   > tends to be true of the religious right in general.   
   >   
   > For an example of the objectivity of Conservapedia, I submit their entry   
   > for Unicorn:   
   >   
   > The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they   
   > are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1]   
   > which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having   
   > been in existence.   
   >   
   > In the original texts, unicorns go by the Hebrew name Re-em whereas the   
   > Greek Septuagint used the name Monokeros.[2] Unicorn itself is Latin.   
   > All three names mean "one horn".   
   >   
   > While popularly characterized as a horned member of the horse baramin,   
   > it is likely that the unicorn was actually quite unhorselike. One   
   > recognized theory is that the unicorn was actually the rhinoceros,[1]   
   > however a growing number of Creation researchers are theorizing that the   
   > unicorn was actually a member of the ceratopsian baramin.[2]   
   > Post-Noachian references[1] to unicorns have led some researchers to   
   > argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is   
   > likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.   
   >   
   > References   
   >    1.  1.0 1.1 1.2 "The Identity of the Unicorn"   
   >    2.  2.0 2.1 "Dinosaurs in the Bible", Genesis Park   
   >   
      
      
   I checked out their article on "liberal". I thought I might get some   
   insight into what they are actually trying to say when they use that   
   term. What I found was a reference to an American Heritage dictionary's   
   definition, one of which ad been illegally altered to include the words   
   "political system" where as the original did not contain those words. I   
   sent an email to American Heritage with the info. At the bottom of the   
   article they has a special note that their bastardized offering was the   
   most common in use today. That in itself was a "special" howl since the   
   definition that they chose to alter was an obsolete use of the word   
   which their alteration did not improve on! See for yourself if you can.   
   I'm not tech, but I know a crappie web site when I visit one. It took   
   forever to load (I'm on cable broadband) and I could not always access   
   it. I think the site was crashing when I tried it.   
      
   Why are right winger this way? They don't have to be. This is down right   
   deceitful.   
   --   
   *******************   
     Michael R. McAfee   
         Mesa, AZ   
   *******************   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)