Greetings, ye who shall be punished to the third and fourth generations:
Yes, it has been a long time, but I have been busy, so just leave me alone. You have no idea how much work is involved in setting up a prayer chain when everyone around me is a pervert or a sodomite (SOMETIMES BOTH!!!). And each one needs to be set up individually, because I can never count on everyone to do the right thing. Sometimes I can get a person to rally against the public library, but his support just MELTS when it's time to leave flaming bags of dog poop in the librarians' cars. Don't feel sorry for me: this is just part of life here in the true remnant. There are only 144,000 of us, after all. I can't expect everyone to be as dedicated as I am when they are destined for an entirely different type of stinking fire.
And that's the main problem today. When I reviewed GodTube a few weeks ago, I promised to let you know about Conservapedia, which I thought would be a holy alternative to the godless Wikipedia.
Well! It turns out that conservatives are not so conservative after all. Now they are claiming that not all conservatives are Christians, and they don't want articles to state that miracles are true. I should have known this would happen eventually. The land will vomit them out.
For some reason, Conservapedia can only find 62 examples of bias in Wikipedia. What, did they stop for coffee and forget to finish?
The first seven examples are so-called "smears". HA! I smear people ten times before breakfast. Mentioning Mary Cheney's sexuality is child's play. Wikipedia couldn't do better than this? I doubt it. In fact, I'm sure that Conservapedia is complicit. Otherwise, they would have mentioned that Wikipedia associates Jerry Falwell with evangelicalism, states flat-out that Judas does not betray Jesus, and claims that the Great Commission is about baptism rather than making payments to people who convert others. In fact, my own entry mentions apocryphal, kabbalistic and occult works in the second sentence. This has got to be an error, and yet Conservapedia doesn't mention it. PAGANS!
Example #8 points out that Wikipedia's entry about Zach Johnson fails to mention the fact that the athlete credits God with his wins. Hmmm. I don't watch a lot of sports, but athletes thank God in every interview I've ever seen. So I checked Conservapedia, and -- what do you know? -- there were NO ARTICLES about John McEnroe, Magic Johnson or David Beckham. Who's biased NOW? This was a chance to spread the gospel, and they blew it! They disgust me.
In example #9, I am, as usual, infuriated that the opinions of experts in earth and life sciences would be relevant when discussing evolution. I think that the factual validity of evolution should be determined in the comments section of the Globe and Mail's website. I really could not care less what scientists have to say about the matter. This is beneath my Conservapedia.
Moving through the list, I see that Conservapedia accuses Wikipedia of anti-Americanism, points out that most Wikipedians are from Christian countries, and blames Wikipedia for making assertions that are not backed up by evidence. I ask you: When did the lack of evidence ever stop true believers from spreading their stories? We ought to be congratulating Wikipedia, not pointing fingers at them.
I am particularly interested in example #22. Yes, the one that points out that Wikipedia awarded "good article" status to an article that neglected to mention that the school in the article "converted its metal shop into a sex-based 'health' clinic". WHAT? I need more details before I can pass judgment. For example, in what way are the metals involved in the sex clinic? What kind of education goes on there? Who is providing the education? I need lots and lots of details, preferably with pictures of the underage activity, before I can pass judgment. Conservapedia: you bungled this one yet again.
And #23! Nobody ever told ME you could find pornographic images on Wikipedia! Clearly, the mainstream media has fallen down on the job yet again. What do I search for? In the interest of providing full and complete information to my readers, I need details. I am personally responsible for passing judgment on perverts; I can't do that if I don't have all of the information that could be available to me.
I don't think I need to go on. Conservapedia is a joke. We here in the true remnant don't take them seriously, and neither should you.