[WikiEN-l] Is Conservapedia an attack site?

[Thomas Dalton]

> > > No, as advertised, it is biased.
>
> If I didn't know they were actually for real, I'd think it was a parody. :)

Calling it biased is suggesting that the views put forward are
mainstream conservative views. I don't think the majority of
conservatives are stupid enough to say the kind of things I've seen on
Conservapedia. It may not be a parody, but it's not a genuine
expression of conservative views, it's an expression of the views of
some bunch of idiots that call themselves conservative.

Try this paragraph from "Liberal quotient":

"The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal
quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self
identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to
1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by
constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large
increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one
conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group
having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal
quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold
would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient, so it is easy to
see why liberals would support this metric. The proponents of the
LQ=L/(L+C) metric claim that it is "fair and balanced.""

They don't seem to realise that you can just swap "conservative" and
"liberal" in their example and it gives the exact opposite conclusion.
Trying to use mathematics to support your argument when you have no
mathematical understanding is a very common way of making yourself
look like an idiot. Brilliant entertainment for the rest of us,
though.