Conservapedia: A place for the intellectually incurious

I admit, I like to play with the conservatives from time to time. It just reinforces in me that they are the intellectually incurious; they refuse to look at the world for what it is, and instead make up their own facts and own reality. When I heard about Conservapedia.com, I just had to participate.

I found their reference to the election of 2000. I read it, and it just seemed to be lacking something; namely, the facts. So, I went and added a paragraph to the page. It read:

A consortium of eight different newspapers did recounts of the Florida vote under many different scenarios. Under the scenario that Gore decided to pursue, it is indeed noted that Bush won the popular vote of Florida, and thus the presidency. However, under the more likely scenario where all of the ballots in Florida were counted, Al Gore actually won Florida, and thus should have ascended to the presidency. The United States Supreme Court prevented all votes from being recounted, thus insuring Bush’s victory in Florida.

That lasted all of a week or so. Then someone noticed it, and couldn’t handle the actual facts, so they removed it. Well that didn’t sit well with me, and the rest of the evidence based reality group, so I added it back. It got removed again! When I noticed it was gone yesterday, I added it back.

Cut to this morning. I went, and low and behold my edits lasted all of about 90 minutes. The text was again stripped, but this time I got a nice little warning stating:

Walter, you have been reverted now 3 times by 2 different contributors and the reasons have been spelled out for you in the Talk section as to why your edit is inappropriate. If you continue to disrupt by re-inserting this information, then you will be blocked. Please try to be constructive.

Wow. Telling the truth is inappropriate, and I’m being disruptive by doing nothing but telling the truth. Conservapedia, you guys really need to get a reality based life!

ads by google