Thursday, February 22, 2007


For years homeschooled children have had to rely for all of their information on Wikipedia, which is full of dangerous ideas that homeschooling was supposed to prevent from seeping into the home. Now, finally, there is an alternative, which doesn't have any controversial ideas at all: Conservapedia. Conservapedia is based on good Christian values, unlike Wikipedia, which I gather from the name, is based on Wiccan. In Wikipedia, according to the founders of Conservapedia, "Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance." But Conservapedia gives Christianity its due for being so supportive of the work of Galileo and Copernicus.

"The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans." reads Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia (helpfully redirected from Wackypedia in case you mistype). "For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet virtually 100% of Wikipedia administrators accept it and will quickly censor factual material contrary to evolution." The biases in Wikipedia that Conservapedia corrects are all outlined in an article called "Examples of Bias in Wickipedia."

"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception" is the Number 1 Example of Wikipedia bias. Example 5 points out "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American." On Conservapedia less acceptable English spellings of English words are banned in favor of proper American spellings. "Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia," reads Example 8. "Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, 'She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming.' That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does." In fact, one of the reasons I stopped reading the National Enquirer is because I was tired of all the stories about Nina Totenberg's affairs and her latest stints in rehab. Conservapedia doesn't even have an entry on Nina Totenberg, much to my relief.

Another example of Wikipedia bias that Conservapedia cites is its unfair attack on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which must be particularly upsetting to Conservapedia's founder. Started in November 2006 "as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey" Conservapedia was founded by its most prolific writer Andrew Schlafly, the non-gay son of Phyllis Schlafly, who just happens to be the legal counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Schlafly is an outspoken critic of vaccines (which as someone who hates needles I fully support), has warned that abortion causes breast cancer, filed briefs on behalf of Terry Schiavo and revealed that junk science claiming a link between asbestos and cancer is what led to the World Trade Center's collapse.

I am astonished by all of the things I have learned already from Conservapedia. For example, I was unaware of something called the Law of Mass Conversation: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form." Now that I think about it, I have observed that often when you're in a conversation with a large group of people you sometimes think you have let a matter drop, but you end up rehashing the same topic over again in a different form. This happens a lot on the Internet, too. But I had no idea someone had written a law about it.

But that's just one of the many fascinating, unbiased facts I learned. After spending the day hitting the random search button I felt like a Renaissance man, the good Christian kind. Of course, since anyone can edit the Conservapedia, the entries are constantly changing, so the links go to the last version I saw. Feel free to register and add your own insights, although it would be difficult to improve on some of these entries:

Kangaroo: "Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood." (I'm sure skippy will be very interested to learn this.)

Theory of Relativity: "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity.…'All things are relative' became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity."

Gospels: "The greatest writing in the history of the world is the Gospel of John....This single book has done more to shape human thought and behavior than any other work. Our uniquely American First Amendment right of free speech is based on ministers preaching of the 'Word' of God as described in the first few verses of the Gospel of John."

George Washington: "Washington is perhaps the person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by voluntarily stepping aside as the ruler of a prosperous nation."

Scopes Trial: "Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version Inherit the Wind changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election - probably the only time a candidate has lost the Presidency due to losing his home state. If Tennessee had a high level of belief in evolution comparable to that of East Germany, then you can bet Gore would have won his state and the Presidency."

The Da Vinci Code: "Dan Brown is responsible for feeding millions of readers a pack of lies cleverly wrapped up as a historically accurate novel."

Holocaust: "The Holocaust was the massacring of the Jewish race during World War II. The Germans are not to blame for this but the Nazi are. Besides 6 million Jews dying, 3 million Christians were killed also along with many priests and nuns. This is a very touchy subject for the Jews and is not often discussed amongst them."

Communism: "Communists believe that if they share everything, no one will ever have to work."

Most of the articles in Conservapedia are scrupulously sourced. For example, the entry on Isaac Newton -- "Sir Isaac Newton was one of the inventors of calculus and the propsed [sic-whoops!] the theory of gravity (It should be noted that gravity, like evolution, is just a theory and has never been proven to be true). He was a Devout Christian whose discoveries were inspired by God." -- refers you to the Bible Code Digest, which proves that Newton was a devout Christian. Virtually all of the science entries cite books by Dr. Jay L. Wile, the respected author of homeschool textbooks.

Unlike Wikipedia, which is full of too much information that can easily confuse people, most of the entries in Conservapedia are refreshingly brief, giving us just the facts we need to know: "Sufi: Sulfism [sic]; the tradition of Islam containing the beliefs dedicated to Allah." Concise, accurate, to the point. Who said encyclopedic necessarily means "comprehensive," I mean, besides Webster's dictionary, with its well-known liberal bias.

But Conservapedia is not just a dry, factual compendium of articles. In addition to scholarly encyclopedia entries, the Conservapedia contains "Debate Topics" which pose a number of provocative questions: "Crusades... Good or Bad?" "Did Jefferson Copy the Declaration of Independence?" "Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?" and "Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?" which refers to Franklin Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. This last topic has led to quite a debate between some frequent contributors and Andrew Schlafly, who not only believes that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, buts thinks it was a good thing he let it happen.

Unfortunately, Conservapedia doesn't have an entry yet for Franklin Roosevelt or for other minor Presidents like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman or Theodore Roosevelt, although it does have very illuminating yet succinct entries for Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and William Henry Harrison. But the encyclopedia is still growing and with your help its 3000 or so articles based on incontrovertible conservative facts will soon approach Wikipedia's 1.5 million entries filled with liberal lies. However, there is one disturbing lack that both encyclopedias share: Neither of them has an entry about this modest blog.

Crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister

Update: Someone has finally corrected one of Conservapedia's most egregious inadequacies and added an entry for this modest blog: "Jon Swift is 'a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture.' He maintains a modest log on the internet ('weblog,' or 'blog') that is entirely factual, rational, and most importantly, conservative. Jon Swift is not funny and has no monkeys in his family tree." Here is a screenshot (click on it for a closer look):

Share This Post
blinkbits BlinkList digg Fark Furl LinkaGoGo Ma.gnolia NewsVine Reddit Shadows Simpy Spurl TailRank YahooMyWeb

, , , , , , , , , , , , OTA Weekend, Point Five Open Trackbacks, Church and State Weekend Open Trackback, Uncooperative Blogger Weekend Open Trackback, Bluestar Chronicles Weekend Open Trackback, Leaning Straight Up Weekend Open Trackback, Perri Nelson Open Trackback, DragonLady Open Trackback, Beltway Traffic Jam


Anonymous said...

More alternatives are always better, Fox News being a great example of this. The Conservapedia folks must take care, though, to not become a caricature of Christian revisionism, much as many liberal publications are blindly silly in their own ideologies.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Anonymous said...

These crazies have brought their reactionism to the Internets in more ways than one. Movement through the site is as if an ox and cart were being used to drag things through the tubes.

Good God, man. Where did you find the patience?

The Son of Man said...


Great article, great fun. Your writeup about Conservapedia reminds me of the blog entry I wrote a while back about my misadventures on a conservative fundamentalist Christian dating website. Their Terms of Service agreement contained so many unusual rules I couldn't even sign up, I met so few of their requirements. (Like, I had an IQ.) They stated that if they discovered you were actually married, they would track down and tell not only your spouse, but your pastor!

Sonny Mann

Dee Paolina said...

Are you familiar with "A Modest Proposal"? Worth a read.

Anonymous said...

On their main page today, Conservapedia declares triumphantly that there were "89,000 page hits on Conservapedia on Wednesday!

I doubt these rubes have a clue that Conservapedia is the laughingstock of the net this week and that the surge in hits is attributable to people who are laughing their asses off.

But think of all the poor little girls and boys who are going to make the mistake of using this site as a source when they need material for their school work.

... One possibility is that the two kangaroo ancestors of all modern kangaroos floated from the Middle East to Australia on mats of vegetation after the great flood. They drankenth seawater and ateth of the mats along the way...

Widow's Son said...

I signed up as a contributor to Conservapedia and added to their entry on George Washington that he was a Freemason. That oughta scare the willies out of them.

I just checked it, and either their system is doing it, or some other editor is doing it, but every sentence in the entire entry now ends with an exclamation point instead of a period!

Widow's Son!

Anonymous said...

I wonder if they're mod enough to be up to date on this stuff:

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the chopped links (and the primitive inability of blogger to render them without assistance)--the last one says it all, though

Unknown said...

again, thanks for the totally extraneous link.

those are the best kind.

Anonymous said...

You know how it goes: you stay on the track and your world just gets smaller and smaller. I wouldn't want you to suffer that.

Anonymous said...

In their entry on the Stealth BOMBER (which had been edited by Aschlafly himself) they have a photograph of the B-2 Spirit... but they claim it is a Lockheed built F-117!


Including this knee slapper: "Its "F-" label, usually reserved for fighters, may be for political purposes. The F-117A is not a fighter aircraft but is a "ground-attack" aircraft designed for precision bombing. However, the "F-" label is more politically popular and also may attract better pilots. "

Wouldn't it have been better to actually identify the Stealth Bomber as a B-2 Spirit designed in the 1980s by Northrop Grumman, but since only 20 were built it is the most expensive military aircraft to ever be built.

James Higham said...

You'll soon be lsited on both, Jon.

...Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise?...

Actually, I agree with this one.

Miss Cellania said...

Once again, thank you for putting in so much work on this, for my pleasure and edification!

Anonymous said...

Just to correct a slight mistake in your article. Wikipedia had no connection to Wicca. The entomology of wikipedia comes from software developed by American computer programmer Howard G. Cunningham called wikiwiki web. Wikiwiki in this sense comes from the Hawaiian for quick.

Confusing easily checkable facts like this can only make the reader dubious about other such comments such as only 10% of Americans believing evolution as taught in public schools. I for one would like to know the source of this data as it seems to contradict the voting patterns of even the Kansas School board elections.

Confusion abounds later when you comment on the supportive nature of Christianity to Galileo who spent his final years under house arrest condemned of heresy.

It appears that your confusion could be a result of reading this conservapedia which is also full of factual inaccuracies. One cannot imagine how the next generation of physicists will fare if instructed that the theory of relativity (Galileo) is useless and that nothing useful has ever been built based on the theory. Clearly the theory of Special relativity and the Theory of General Relativity (both Einstein) are built on the Galileo’s theory of Relativity. Both are demonstrated in use in today's GPS system which allows satellite navigation. The level of ignorance of the physical sciences necessary to conflate any of these theories with those that predict particles, not least theories of moral relativism, is staggering.

Deborah Newell said...

(My Word Verification scramble was: xombax. How cool is that? Must somehow work it into an entry at Conservapedia.)

Jon, you really ought to consider installing a translation utility on this blog, something to help those for whom irony isn't a second (or even third or tenth) language. Maybe a Babelfish link.

Excellent and deeply funny post. Also, I love that you've joined us at Shakes. Welcome.



Anonymous said...

The entomology of wikipedia comes from software developed by American computer programmer Howard G. Cunningham called wikiwiki web.

So you're saying that he's responsible for all the bugs?

Anonymous said...

James Highman: if AD 1 actually corresponded to the year that Yeshua ben Joseph was born, you'd have a point. Given that there are arguments placing the birth of Christ as early as 23 BC and as late as 12 AD -- and that right now, the nearest thing to a consensus in theological scholarship seems to have settled on 6 BC -- "Common Era" is in fact a more accurate term.

Anonymous said...

Can you please link to something that shows when Jesus was born?

Because from all the looking that I have done, I can't find a single reference to him from someone that met him. It was all second hand.

The earliest of the Gospels, Mark, wasn't written until after 70 C.E. so Mark never met Jesus.

No of the Hebrew historians from that era mention him.

So could you point me to some information?


Working Girl said...

It appears that the folks over at conservapedia have put the kibosh on new accounts! And I had such a lovely entry prepared for vagina!

Working Girl said...


The Jewish Roman historian, Josephus, mentions Jesus. And the letters of Paul are actually the oldest documents from the "New" Testament. Although Paul never met the dude, either.

Anonymous said...

Working Girl, Josephus was born in 37 CE, so he didn't know Jesus in person.
There's good evidence the Testimonium Flavianum was a forgery, so it's a moot point anyway. There are, in fact, no non-Christian sources for the existence of Jesus, and no primary ones even in the Christian material.

Snail said...

Some of our undergrads are keen on citing Wikipedia in their essays. I'm not looking forward to the day when the first reference to Conservapedia appears.

Anonymous said...

Daryl Cobranchi said...

> Nick,
> Are you familiar with "A Modest
> Proposal"? Worth a read.

Haven't read it. But I just loaded it into my PocketPC (if anyone cares, you can get it free on Project Gutenberg) and will read it tonight.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Anonymous said...


Well, I am simply in awe. This is one of your finer moments. As one who is unapologetically Christian -- even an evangelical -- I am nevertheless embarrassed at times and, as I said on my own humble blog, there are too many times when we are our own worst enemies. This, of course, is one of those times. Thank you for not letting the fine folks at Conservapedia get away with anything.

You rock, dude. Keep up the great work.

Phoenician in a time of Romans said...

Because from all the looking that I have done, I can't find a single reference to him from someone that met him. It was all second hand.

Oh, even better - the stories about the census and King Herod cannot be chronologically reconciled. The best explanation is that someone later wrote the bit about Bethlehem being Christ's birthplace in in order to "fufill" prophecy, needed a reason for Mary and Joseph to travel, and vaguely recalled a Roman census at *around* the right time. Only it wasn't.

Anonymous said...

I was looking forward to adding to Conservapedia's entry on patriotism, by mentioning this fine quote by Teddy Roosevelt:

"To announce that criticism of the president is allowable, or to fallaciously deny the infallibility of the president or his divine nobility, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

But it looks like the web site is not allowing new users to sign up for accounts. The system must be overwhelmed by atheist vandals.

laura k said...

Excellent post. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I was indeed gratified to read the correct origin of the kangaroo. And I was edified to learn that the kangaroo's legs were designed by God to help it jump. However, when I wanted to know if the eagle's sharp, curved beak was designed by God to rip the living flesh from little fluffy bunny rabbits, I was disappointed to find there is no entry for eagles. I was reassured, though, that an eagle is mentioned in the article on the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus.

I had never heard of tree octopuses, so I eagerly read the Conservapedia article that has been copied and pasted (but properly sourced) from Zapato Productions intradimensional -- a worthy organization that campaigns, among other things, for endangered amphibious cephalopods and independence for the Republic of Cascadia.

Conservapedia has done a marvelous job of improving the Zapato Productions article. The phrase "Adaptations its ancestors evolved" has been suitably changed to "Adaptations designed". And gone is the atheist sentence "Some evolutionary theorists suppose that 'arboreal adaptation' is what laid the groundwork in primates for the evolution of the human mind."

But why did Conservapedia delete "rodents" from the list of things that tree octopi eat? Are rodents evil? Or are they another dangerous myth invented by unpatriotic liberals? Conservapedia doesn't have an entry for rodents, so I just don't know.

The devoted care and consideration of Conservapedia is clearly demonstrated in the section on how the usually solitary Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus mates. The phrase "this is the only real social time in their lives" has thankfully been deleted. No loving parents would want their homeschooled child to read that.

Some unkind people on the Internet are claiming that the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus does not exist. I do not believe this, since 17,200 Google results, most of them pointing to blogs, surely cannot be wrong.

The Conservapedia article is dated 23 February, 2007. I think Jon Swift's admirable effort to help this important source of unbiased information to expand is working.

PoliShifter said...

Very Scary. I am extrememly worried about the future of this country.

D said...

The best part about this whole thing is that Conservapedia readers and supporters love to point out the bias of Wikipedia without acknowledging their OWN bias'.

This is a fundamental principle of most christian conservatives: everyone else is biased against me.

jurassicpork said...

Well, thank the Good Lord we finally now have a thoroughly documented and vetted alternative to hard, peer-reviewed science and popular opinion.

How can you revise what is written in stone, such as the 10 Commandments? Just because we cannot find this WMD of Christianity doesn't mean that it never existed.

jurassicpork said...

Check out this encyclopedia entry about Dear Leader, George W. Bush. Half of it's devoted to lambasting John Kerry, the liberals and the media that loves them.

Anonymous said...

Excellent stuff. I'm particularly grateful for the information about the Arboreal Octopus, a creature of which I was hitherto unaware.

I see from the Conservapedia entry on Bill Clinton that Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal, which seems wholly fair to me.

Anonymous said...

given their penchant for accuracy I was curious (but not enough to go there) about the kangaroo entry:
did they include the fascinating fact that female kangaroos have two vaginas?

A.R.Yngve said...

I still suspect "Conservapedia" is one big hoax.

(Then again, I could be mistaken...)

But hey -- any group or faction is free to display its convictions to the world. I'm eagerly awaiting other special-interest wikipedias! It'll be one laugh riot after another.

Anonymous said...

Hey jon,

I know you like this new wiki and all, but it has one huge problem:

Nobody can sign in to edit it!

That defeats the whole purpose!

Jon Swift said...

Regrattably, it appears that some mean-spirited liberals have been committing mischief at Conservapedia and administrators have been forced to shut down new registrations for the time being. It may take them a while to sort out legitimate entries, such as the article about the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus, from hoaxes perpetrated by liberals. All of the citations in my piece, however, link to versions by trusted conservative authors. You can also be certain that any version by Aschlafly, that is, the founder Andrew Schlafly, are genuinely conservative and of the highest quality.

Luis FIGUEROA said... is OK; I even wrote a piece there, for 9/11; but, Conservapedia? Gimme a break!

Chuck Butcher said...

In the spirit of searching for words I thought Jon might be interested in how oddly things "real" work. I get several word search (Google) hits per day for Jon Swift, wondering why, I Googled. My brief little article of review of this site is listed ahead of Jon Swift. Therefor a searcher is referenced to a reference to the actual - who is a fiction.

Batocchio said...

Wow. I think my favorites are the "Theory of Relativity" entry, the mention of Noah's Ark in the kangaroo entry, and the bit about Jews being "touchy" about discussing the Holocaust.

L said...

heh heh.... beautiful

Anonymous said...

It is most distressing to see the depths to which godless liberals are capable of sinking. Now conservatives like myself who have only just learned about the wonderful learning experience of Conservapedia, thanks to Jon Swift, cannot register and help.

I notice that one topic that is currently under discussion and modification is the entry for "Homosphere" which is now defined as "the portion of the earth's atmosphere, up to an altitude of about 50 miles above sea level" and not "everything on the internet having to do with homosexuality". For the first time in my life, I found myself confused. How can it be so hard to distinguish between depraved liberals and righteous conservatives? TrueReaganConservative's original definition sounds right to me, but is he really who he says he is? Or is Dpbsmith, who changed the article, a homosexual who does not want the world to know about his public displays of perversity?

Fortunately, my doubts about TrueReaganConservative were dispelled in the dinosaur section by his photograph of Jesus riding a brontosaurus. Unfortunately, an evolutionist has deleted this incontrovertible proof that dinosaurs were saved from the Flood by Noah.

There is some evidence, however, that my suspicions about Dpbsmith were well-founded. By conducting a discussion with himself entitled "Should Conservapedia be taken offline, or locked against editing, on Sundays?" he is clearly seeking to masquerade as a conservative. The title certainly had me fooled at first, since shutting down Conservapedia on Sundays would close down a prime time for liberal vandalism. Moreover, Sundays are a time for Church and reading the Bible, not reading and writing on the Internet.

However, Dpbsmith ends up disagreeing with himself and tells us that Conservapedia should stay open on Sundays in clear violation of God's command to Moses: "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31:15)

cy21 said...

Are you interested in exchanging links with my Blog? I place your link on my blog, you place my link on yours. here's my blog address: and my e-mail address is IF you are interested, please let me know.
Thank you,

Anonymous said...

This entry leads one to admire the Africa Korps tenacity, despite their belief in Darwinism:

"Africa Korp
The Afrika Korps led by the brilliant Nazi Field Marshall Erwin Rommel were very feared. They routed the British Army and almost took Egypt from the British. They were finally defeated when America launched Operation Torch and forced them to surrender in 1973. Embracing as they did the principles of evolutionism and Darwinism, it is unsurprising that they believed in the inferiority of their countrymen."

Anonymous said...

There's bias in everything, so we need many points of view. I applaud Conservapedia for stating their bias. Shame on Wikipedia for masking theirs.

James Higham said...

Jon, you've just been tagged at my site.

Anonymous said...

In case the liberals delete it, I've saved this fascinating snippet from the entry on Jesus to (free registration required):

In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.

I'm delighted to note, though, that the page is protected -- including this information -- to protect it against repeated vandalism (or it was last night, anyway).

Anonymous said...

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Anonymous said...

Brilliant! From the entry on the Da Vinici Code:

“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature.“

Androecian said...

I'm not sure whether anyone can edit CP. First time I clicked "edit this page" I was taken to a username/password entry page.

Anonymous said...

I think humans should explore space, find a nice quiet planet to settle, and send all you crazy fucktards there to worship a dead guy alone in the depths of space, for all eternity and away from the less deluded people of planet earth.

All animals...from noah's ark...are you shitting me?


James Higham said...

Isn't it interesting that the topic of Jesus still raises such passions so long after the event? Like the Dome of the Rock or the other one they've got there where, written around the walls of their mosque are the words that Jesus is NOt the messiah. That's al;most as interesting as the Scottish anthem railing gainst the English.

Milo Johnson said...

The "Law of Mass Conversation."

Must be that damned Conversapedia at work again...

Unknown said...

I literally "lolled" until my face broke!

Conservapedia really is the best idea. It offers the chance for some of the world's most logical, rational thinkers to come together and bash their heads util nuggets of what can only be called "God's True Fact Burps" (because we all know that Capitalization = Truth) fall out.

I particularly enjoyed the fact that "On Conservapedia less acceptable English spellings of English words are banned in favor of proper American spellings.". We all know that the English language originated in that all-so-british land of Americaland. Go Christ, Go!

I was visited by Jehova's Witnesses, only this Saturday past, and it overwhelmed me to learn of all the things they are against (extreme sports and blood donation to name but a couple)

If they return, I may well ask them if they're also against non-American grammar.

Anonymous said...

First thought after hearing/seeing Conservapedia... "Wow, these people are babies!"

Second thought after exposure to Conservapedia... "This should be called "Kookapedia".

That is all,


Anonymous said...

Well, you can't even link to without getting a 404 page-- must be because electricity is the work of the devil.

Being a person of faith, I have to say that people who insist on wrecking truth to back up their beliefs don't even occupy the same universe as faith.

If evolution is fact, that's it. Why should this fact interfere with your faith? Why should you insist on changing fact to realign it with your beliefs. It seems that the argument against evolution is more one of pride ("I ain't no monkey!") than it is of faith.

Look, the book of genesis was passed down as oral tradition for generations before it was finally written down. The people who wrote it had no concept of science, they interpretted the universe only to the degree that they were capable, so the whole thing wound up being one huge inaccuracy. Why should their misinterpretation mar YOUR faith?

Faith and fact have absolutely nothing to do with one another. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Just as I resent it when people use faith as a level to adjust fact (at times just like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima "adjusted" that city), I resent it that people of fact try to mar faith. They have NOTHING to do with one another. I can't understand why people believe that they should "disprove" faith-- faith does not need to be eliminated, the people who practice it just need to accept that just because they have a beleif it does not mean they have to force it onto other people.

THAT's the problem: "Oh no! Other people don't share my belief. Verily I must stompeth them down unless they accept MY God!"

Just plain sick.

Greg Laden said...

Nicely done. For a conservative.

Anonymous said...

I'm happy to report that this is going to be more fun than anyone dreamed. Note the editorial comment at the end of the entry for the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus (sadly, it has finally been discovered):
[Note by Admin: Although liberal blogs are sending people to this entry, none of them seem to realize that this entry appears to be a parody of environmentalists. For example, read the above sentence again: "Unless immediate action is taken to protect this species and its habitat, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus will be but a memory."--Aschlafly 15:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)]

Anonymous said...

"...unlike Wikipedia, which I gather from the name, is based on Wiccan.

A correction. Wiki is a Hawaiian word meaning quick. The Wiki in Wikipedia, as defined by
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English is:

"a collaborative Web site set up to allow user editing and adding of content"

Thought you would like to know. MPG

Anonymous said...

Being a person of faith, I have to say that people who insist on wrecking truth to back up their beliefs don't even occupy the same universe as faith.

Nothing personal, but it you're a "person of faith" you have by definition rejected truth in favor of superstition. So you're no longer allowed to use the word. Sorry, but I don't make the rules. I just enforce them.

Kevin Smith said...

Ivor - I disagree with you in regards to faith versus science. And I am an atheist.
I think it's near impossible for most people to reconcile the two (thus the Georgia voters that make all the noise about intelligent design making it into the text books or the obtuse belief that a theory is the same thing as a hypothesis), but there are indeed religious people that have no trouble accepting the precepts of science and reconciling them with their beliefs.
As the argument from "Inherit the Wind" went - so, one of those days (during the creation of the world) could have been a year, a thousand years, ten thousand years? We don't know...
Unfortunately I have found the rational and the very religious to be few and far between, but they are out there. We all have faith in something - it's just not always religion. BTW - love The Who reference.

Anonymous said...


I guess my point was that faith and truth cannot coexist, because faith is acceptance of a claim or alleged fact without consideration for the, uh, truthiness of same. Or maybe I was raving and had no point, and just wanted to give my fingers something to do. That occurs occasionally, but I have faith it won't happen again.

Kagehi said...

One wonders how long it will take for Conservapedia to link to some apologist article that indirectly quotes this:

And tries to claim all the water from the flood (which is way more than what we are talking about being found, even if you ignored the rather large and unsupported hole the earth would have in it without it there) was hidden by God under china...

I no longer use the terms liberal or conservative. The UFO nuts that think gluing magnets to each other and talking to the spirits of ancient atlantians have poisoned the term liberal and the nut that think the entire universe will bend like a pretzel if they force us, without **actually** forcing us, to be Christian by passing illegal laws, glue crosses to everything as magic talismans and talk to imaginary people have poisoned what it means to be a conservative.

The only difference between the two sides at this point is which rights they want to step on, what nutty BS they want taught, which sane and reasonable things they want banned for insane reasons, etc. I mean what the hell is really the difference between someone arguing that we shouldn't have HPV vaccines because it might "cause" more teen sex if they didn't have a risk for cancer, which they didn't @$$@#$ know was a risk in the first place, VS. some idiot that things Floride is a mind control drug placed in water systems by the CIA to control people? Oh, I forgot, the opinions of the former are actually heavilly protected and often respected by elected officials... Silly me. lol

Look, I am all for people being allowed to have "faith" as well, but, with all do respect to the one fool making a war on Christianity type remark about atheists and non-believers who want to "disprove" it, if he went back just three hundred years and tried to argue that **his** version of Christianity made sense to pretty much *any* priest he would have been tied to a stake and invited to a somewhat less than civil BBQ. Why? Because faith has changed, kicking and screaming all the way, into something completely different than what it was back then, precisely because evidence has *forced* it to change. Some of us just see the writing on the wall and realize that nothing short of a literal miracle is going to save it from turning into some flimsy sort of Unitarianism or the same sort of Spinoza's God style deism that a lot of the founding fathers had. One in which praying is as meaningless as wishing that Franklin had invented the LED light or expecting some force to intervene with some non-random, non-arbitrary and statistically explainable fashion in some major event in a persons life. A God that made just one watch and then got bored and did something else, or one that made thousands, and like K-Mart doesn't care is one of them goes a bit wonky, just so long as there are more watches to make.

The writing is on the wall. That people don't want to see it, and will in fact ignore **vast** amounts of information that strongly hints at this, and some that badly undermines any claims to the contrary, isn't our problem. And probably the biggest one was come up with in Greek times, when a philospher pointed out that if you can through reason, action and their effects, determine that a thing is "good" or "bad", you hardly need some god babbling about which is which, and that in fact, this sometimes just made things worse, since gods had an unfortunately tendency to change their minds on a whim. Not much in the Bible to suggest the current "real" god is any different.

I would have to say that 50-60 years ago I might have been a conservative. 30-40 years ago, a liberal. Now... I think just about every political party is chock full of nuts and this particular brand of nuts are both highly prone to causing allergies and in many cases lots of avoidable deaths. Not the same as "unneeded" mind you. Unneeded implies "One shouldn't have done what caused them to be threatened." I mean, "One shouldn't have done things **stupidly** that caused them to be threatened." ;)

Anonymous said...


Don't confuse liberalism with any party, or paint all liberals as Democrats. Yeah, most of us vote for the Dems because there's no place else for us to go. But in no way can the current clusterfuck known as the Democratic Party be blamed on liberals.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that's quite the encyclopedia. I wonder why they didn't call it Creationpedia?

Anonymous said...

"For years homeschooled children have had to rely for all of their information on Wikipedia..."

When an article starts off like this, how do you take it seriously?

Unknown said...

I like this example of bias:

Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof. Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

That damn Wikipidea, always promoting unrigorous (not to mention unchristian) mathematical claims.

Anonymous said...

Better than reading the articles on Conservapedia is reading the talk pages, particularly the talk page on evolution, where SYSOP "Conservative" tries to verbally duke it out with users who actually know something about evolution. He gets trounced and comes out looking like a looser.

Conservapedia is so horrendously right-wing biased, I'm almost inclined to believe it's a hoax!

Anonymous said...


They claim that wikipedia is biased, in their entry "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia."

However, all the bias I see is coming straight from Conservapedia.

Here is an example of bias taken from their own site:

"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America."

This obviously shows bias with statements like "we favor Christianity and America." If you favor something you admit that you have a preconcieved bias towards it.

Another huge example of the lunatic fringe bias:

"You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness'."

Concise answers free of political correctness? So they admit they are free of correctness?

The lunatic fringe goon squad tends to consistently place their misguided ideology over reality, remaining willfully blind to the fact that its ill-conceived from the start.

Of course, Conservapedia is hardly the only evidence that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Another giveaway is right-wing attack blogger Michelle Malkin, whose work has been repeatedly criticized for its cavalier attitude toward facts.

All this is bad news for the conservative movement, which will only become more marginal if it continues to embrace its lunatic fringe.

This does however bode well for the progressives who stand to gain the most from conservative's self-destruction.

While the lunatics are busy imploding we can get busy taking over running the country.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?"

Why of course, you just need a jigsaw, a tube of caulk, and some DIY skills. is surprisingly silent on the subject:

but I'm sure you can improvise!

Mareas said...

I love you - platonically, I admit, as the Bible would forbid otherwise - but I love you none the less.

Anonymous said...

Conservapedia got a new URL! Huzzah for 'merica!

Tony Gurney said...

You are going to be thrown out of the right-wing collective, you do know that don't you?

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have misgivings about this.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I finally got a chance to look at Conservapedia, and it was a big disappointment. To be fair, I know that gathering content on a collaborative site takes time. But I don't see where the quality and depth is ever going to be there, to the degree that it is on Wikipedia. Sure, you have to read Wikipedia with your brain turned on, but you should do the same with Brittanica.

A great example: #2 on their list of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" is

Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

So I went to the Conservapedia entry. Surprisingly, it too omits any crediting of Christianity, and says this:

The primary philosophy of the Renaissance was humanism, which favored the capacity of man to reason and think for himself.

Now, last time I checked with my fundamentalist friends, humanism was the enemy of godliness. So in fact, it sounds like Conservapedia is agreeing with Wikipedia on this one, their own fault-finding notwithstanding.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Paul D. said...


How can you poke fun at Conservapedia? Just look at the fair and balanced reporting about alleged evolution with the TRUTH of young earth creationism. Why if we had tis great resource when I was raising my kids, my son would have never gotten the idea to bleach his hair and totally botch his doo.

Yewtree said...

Hilarious. I laughed a LOT. Particularly about the kangaroo and the Arboreal Octopus (sadly that entry has now been deleted).

I mean, it's one thing having a special-interest wiki for people of various religious and spiritual traditions (and other special interest groups) - it's quite another having one specially to peddle idiotic nonsense about creationism.

Incidentally, the term CE could also be based on when the Roman Empire ceased to be a Republic, which happened at about the same time as Jesus' alleged birth-date. And the term was, I think, coined by occultists (e.g. Aleister Crowley used e.V., era vulgari, which translates as Common Era, after all dates).

<irony>I like the idea that Wikipedia is a Wiccan production (mwahahaha! we are everywhere, you cannot escape our tentacles of power) - never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

However, as wiki is a Hawaiian word, and the Feri and Reclaiming traditions of witchcraft are in part based upon Hawaiian traditions, maybe there is a connection.....</irony>

BB-Idaho said...

My attempt at evaluation was to look up the Thirty Years War, comparing Conserva to Wiki..3 sentences from the fundies, a detailed analysis (as expected) from Wiki. The concept is mildy
interesting, but looks like a failure.

Unknown said...

Sigh... I can't believe no one corrected this. The word "wiki" does not come from "Wiccan", it comes from a hawaiian word "Wikiwiki". I have no idea what this word means, however.

Anonymous said...

Like check out this thing on wingnutpedia on gays that is enterely one sided

Anonymous said...

Well, they finally kind of fixed the stealth bomber entry... EXCEPT they put in the wrong contractor!!!

(if anyone knows a tiny bit of aviation history they would know that Jack Northrop tried to develop flying wings... oh, and engineers at his aero engineering school learned the "left-hand-rule" instead of the "right-hand-rule")

Why do they get something as basic as that wrong when the information on things like the B-2 Spirit are easily available at places like:

Jaesoreal said...

Congrats on your conservapedia entry! Wikipedia from wiccan was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while!

Anonymous said...

You sir, are an idiot, I found your blog while searching for conservapedia because well.. I needed a good laugh.

You claim that media is "bias" yet you watch Fox, yeah nice logic there pal. Here's a suggestion, go to college, get an education, and get your head out of your ass.

Anonymous said...

Nice one Jon, it really is scary what some people will genuinely believe today. Refreshing to see someone taking the piss, not that there's a shortage of sites doing the same thing all over the internet. At least we'll be laughing our heads off when they're all burning in hell for their sins.

Anonymous said...

Jon - I love your site it's the funniest thing on the web tho conservapedia runs a close second. Check out this entry

Either Americans are crazier than I thought or this site is just a parody.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how you could be so foolish. It's the law of conservastion of mass! FSM your stupid! I want to scream at your stupidity and show you all your inaccuracies. I go to a christian school( Christian Brothers High School) and they don't teach us all the psycho babbe you are spewing. If there is a God, i hope he smites you.

here is some proof of "God"

Anonymous said...

Yay more conservapedia hate. You should come to it is a wiki populated by ex-conservapedians and we generally make fun of the site.

Anonymous said...


I wish all conservatives were like you.

--A liberal

Me said...

Are conservatives retarded? I mean seriously I am beyond the point of not offending, because this is the MOST ridiculous crap I have ever seen. Jesus Christ as a screenwriter buy am I sick of of the entertainment industry being referred to as the intellectual elite! I mean do you even watch movies? Apparently not. because conservatives are too busy indicting Hollywood of being full of intellectual elites. Well if the dumbasses in Hollywood are intellectual, then Good Lord the conservatives are brain dead.

Anonymous said...

Ugh. What a ridiculous article. But... god bless free speech.

Anonymous said...

This Conservapedia website has got to be one of the stupidest things on the web. It is just a small part of the perpetual cycle of ignorance and intolerance that unfortunately dominates much of contemporary American society. Now I would consider my political stance center-left, and this may disqualify me from criticizing this glorious invention of God, but it's primary purpose is to keep people (specifically children, who are likely to be sent here rather than the blatantly homosexual, pornographic, international, multilingual, crude, scandalous, and most of all, liberal (horror!) website known as Wikipedia) isolated from the real issues in the world.

Not only does this website label whole groups of people as sinful and blasphemous, such as atheists, gays, and socialists, but their membership is a whole other story. Of the 9.000 (that's how "nine thousand" is written outside of the United States, for the closeminded conservatives who never bother to consider other countries may embrace freedom as strongly if not stronger than the USA) people who signed up for membership, 4.000 ("four thousand") have been banned for "liberal vandalism." Is this putting a link to "L'Internationale" (the socialist anthem, for those who never bothered to find out) in place of "God Bless America"? Or just clarifying that the Canadian military was not present at the 2006 Democratic National Convention? I don't know. But the Conserva-Gestapo sounds like their doing their part in the PATRIOT Act to me...

Conservapedia was founded as a group of "advanced homeschooled students graduating high schools' written reports." "Homeschool"? Does that ring a bell with "isolation"? How about "propoganda"? If these mommy-taught teens would be allowed out of their houses and actually meet people who are different from them, the site could be a little more open. They say the site is real progress. I chose a random article: The Franco-Prussian War (Prussia was a big kingdom which became the German Empire in 1871, for the closeted conservatives who may be reading this comment. This war took place from 1870 to 1871, and was a loss for France. It was one of the causes of WWI). Wikipedia's article was a flowing patchwork of text, paintings, maps, etc.; everything for history. The article didn't even show up in Conservapedia. Heck, the article on Prussia was only 4 lines long, with not one image. Not even a map. I can't even edit the page without creating an account and giving away my email address, even if I were to write an unbiased response. Clearly, the focus of Conservapedia is USA! USA! USA! I am an American, but I am also a citizen of the world. Though the US may trump the rest of the world economically, militarily, and culturally, we still have to consider others.

How did I hear about this conservative brainwashing center? Liberal, Jewish, biased, evil comedian Lewis Black told me about it on Comedy Central, the blasphemous left-leaning channel. Hey, it made me laugh. Conservapedia didn't. We cannot keep people who view this site isolated from the current situation. When will these conservatives understand that the issue today is not gay marriage, or immigration reform; but thinks like keeping our communities safe from crime, the environment clean, the not-so-fortunate healthy? Their priorities are misplaced for today's society, and the online community cannot let these Christofascist online dictators continue to keep those who visit regularly uninformed.

P.S.-If you made it this far, you're probably liberal like me and feel what I mean. If you're conservative and got this far, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this rather lengthy message (it was the passion that was killin' me), and I'd just like to ask you to spread the word of tolerance, and think about what needs to be done today.

Anonymous said...

How can you, or anyone for that matter, claim that Conservapedia is factual and unbiased? There is obvious bias in many of the random articles that i have browsed over the last few hours. When considering that this site was designed with 'homeschooling' in mind, shouldn't there be accurate analysis within each article? Understandably, you are approaching this from a 'conservative-religious' perspective in most cases. However, when presenting articles on common educational topics ( like the presidents ) wouldn't it be wise to devote as much time and attention to JFK as well as George W. Bush. I point to these two examples in specific because of the obvious bias in how they are both written. In my estimate, 'Conservapedia' is in no way useful as a teaching tool as there are grand omissions of fact, use of conjecture, generalization, opinion, and 'spin' throughout many of the articles available.

Anonymous said...

Where does the name "wikipedia" come from? Well, actually, it's a word to describe collaborative software, uh, kind of like a blog. (You could be accused of engaging in witchcraft if you're not careful.)

The origin of the word actually comes from a Hawaiian word "wikiwiki" which means quick.

Hardly the work of wiccans.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how conservatives seem to have an uncanny ability to find liberal bias in almost every aspect of western society. They see it in media, schools, the scientific community, and even in completely democratized, open editing reference sources like Wikipedia. Is it really possible for a wiki driven site to have any bias at all? Oh yeah! Conservapedia manages to maintain its bias by blocking all left-leaning users and locking down ALL of their entries. It's just like Stephen Colbert said, "Reality is liberally biased."

Uchiha said...

Now that I've cleared up my own messes...

Some of Conservapedia's articles have improved since - or rather, the more frequently mocked ones have been patched up a little, and some of the parody removed. However, there's still no shortage of crazy going-ons, as illustrated by RationalWiki on Conservapedia. (Despite our unhealty obsession with the site, we do have other interests as well, such refuting the anti-scientific movement in general.)

Oh - and there's plenty of goat.

Uchiha said...

Anyway, Conservapedia has continued to grow in size, but internally its management is falling apart through corruption and turmoil. The site is still just as insane and hilarious as ever - and once again, all the inside info, crazy capers, embarrassing secrets, and epic fails are available here, at:

Mr Trail Safety said...

I woke up this morning with a pounding headache. The calendar on my home-schooled cave wall said it was 10,000 BC. I called in sick to Phyllis Schlafly, and promptly felt better.

Anonymous said...

You really are a deluded fool. I must say, this sentence really made me laugh for ages: "Conservapedia is based on good Christian values, unlike Wikipedia, which I gather from the name, is based on Wiccan."
Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words 'wiki' and 'encyclopedia'. A wiki, as I am sure you either don't know or conveniently ignore for the purpose of your arguments, is a Hawaiian word for fast. This word was first used on WikiWikiWeb, the first encylopedia of its kind - as the author "chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for 'quick' and thereby avoided naming this stuff quick-web." Oh, and here's one use of the theory of relativity (both the general and the special kind): satellite navigation - pre-relativity physics predicts that the time on a satellite is the same as that on earth, but relativity predicts that time on the satellite will run slower (which it does, you can drive to Denver to the GPS HQ and see for yourself).

Anonymous said...

Its name is a blend of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia.

Anonymous said...

"Now, finally, there is an alternative, which doesn't have any controversial ideas at all: Conservapedia."

Great post! I hate it when authors think they are being witty, but it's really just lame. You, however, have a refined Sarcasm that is difficult to catch on the first read. Thanks for the clever post!

Anonymous said...

This is either the funniest thing I have ever seen or the most stupid thing I have ever seen.

Anonymous said...

Conservadude, you suck! I will make sure to inform all that a new conservative propaganda machine now exists on the world wide web. I look forward to the day when the Rapture takes you nut-jobs off to heaven so I can take possession of your fancy cars and over-sized mansions in the suburbs. You won't be needing that Mac anymore, thank you very much! I dare you not to delete this post!

Anonymous said...

Good article and good fun. Jon Swift touch good points everytime..

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Geesh, people. Look at the blogger's name and take a hint.

viagra online said...

I think Conservapedia is a really good site. i like because it is based on christian values. that is great.

Unknown said...

When trying to identify a Coach bags
the first thing you want to look at is the outside. Look to see if the Coach Gallery
patterns are on the outside of the purse. They way you can tell if the Coach Hamptons
is fake is that the purse should have the CC pattern. Keep in mind that Coach Legacy
is always changing their purses.

Anonymous said...

Unknown said...

Compared with women, men are added agog appear replica Omega which not alone admonition them to bolt up with the trend or acquaint the exact time but aswell accord them beautiful looks. Besides, allurement for the agreement and acceptance that accredit you to actuate the amount of the acclimated timepieces is acerb recommended.

Tote Canvas Bags said...

I saw your post very much. Conservapedia is a really good site and useful for me. I love this very much. It is based on christian values. Nicely done. For a conservative. Thanks for sharing this great post so much.

hotels in honolulu hi said...

Such a wonderful post. there is a lot of effective info in this post! Thanks for sharing these info here.

Unknown said...

Hello .. firstly I would like to send greetings to all readers. Yahoo Fantasy Football Rankings After this, I recognize the content so interesting about this article. For me personally I liked all the information. I would like to know of cases like this more often. In my personal experience I might mention a book called NBA Rumors in this book that I mentioned have very interesting topics, and also you have much to do with the main theme of this article. Houses for Rent in Michigan

Unknown said...

شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض
تخزين اثاث
شركة تنظيف بيارات بالرياض
شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف موكيت بالرياض
شركة تنظيف فلل بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بيارات بالدمام
شركة تسليك مجاري بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام
شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام

jaring lapangan futsal said...

thanks for sharing..
please visit my blog
jaring futsal | jaring golf | jaring kassa / jaring polynet | jaring pengaman proyek | jaring pengaman bangunan | jaring pengaman gedung | jaring gawang | jaring paranet / jaring tanaman | rumput sintetis / rumput futsal |
tangga darurat | jaring cargo | agen jaring | jaring outbound | jaring truk | tali tambang

Doctors in India said...

Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!

Yellow Fever said...

Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!

Dr. Raja Mahesh said...

Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-)

mohamed said...

تصميم الفنادق بالرياض

مجالس نراثيه بالرياض

mohamed said...

شركة عزل صوت بالرياض

ASK CARZ said...

Thru Wall

Air Conditioner

Travel Trailer Air Conditioner Units
Auto Air



Air Conditioner Reviews


Window Air Conditioner


Window Air Conditioner

15 000 Btu

Air Conditioner

As Seen

On Tv Air Conditioner

Energy Efficient Air Conditioner Unit

Btu Air Conditioner

jewelrywholesale said...

ok,it is good
it can help me

simontok said...

Download Maxtube Terbaru atau aplikasi cabe rawit

viral indonesia said...

waw awesome information for helping us

foto bacol said...

Aplikasi bokeh | Aplikasi Simontok APK | Aplikasi Cabe Rawit

Simontok Bokep Terbaru said...

Simontok Bokep Terbaru said...

Resep and btc to eth

seiko said...

Bokep 12 Tahun | Bokep Bacol viral

mebel jati said...

Mebel Jepara | Mebel minimalis

stem cell therapy for liver cirrhosis in india said...

Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!

MedAcess Blog said...

Greetings and thank you very much for share

Anan Mathur said...

stem cell therapy in india |
العلاج بالخلايا الجذعية في الهند |
Terapia Con Células Madre En La India |
Thérapie Par Cellules Souches En Inde |

study abroad said...

I appreciate this blog your blog is vert help full for me i really enjoyed this stuff dude.
fake plants australia

Anonymous said...

kd shoes
yeezy 500
golden goose outlet
off white nike
off white hoodie outlet

The 2008 Weblog Awards