LÖVE

Cool idea.
(Figured I put a little interesting code here to buff out my "Cool idea." post.)

Robin wrote:I think the tone of any conservapedia article on LÖVE would be between that of the one on communists and the one on homosexuals.

We've got to write it!!!

"LÖVE is a platform to brainwash our CHILDREN, an enabler for pro gay communist liberals to develop satanic games. Some libraries contain hidden messages on their names. for example: ANimations And Love, clearly a message that tries to relate and confuse our CHILDREN about the concept of sodomy, at the same time that attempts to relativise the message of our lord and savior Jesus Christ (Love)"

“Its roots in Godless liberal Europe, it teaches children sodomy is okay, as well as smoking pot, which is clearly the reason the site and engine prominently feature knolls with eyes. They allow anyone to edit their program, like HIPPY FASCIST Wikipedia, and corrupt good and honest Christians with their bright colors and giant sea-otters. Also, RUDE MAKES LOVE is an anagram of ERA VOUL DESK ME, which is clearly a satanic message.
Defense of LÖVE
Some people defend Love from accusations. However, they are all pot-smoking liberal communists and should not be listened to.”

I'm out of ideas. I never thought I would ever write this phrase, but I think I need to read conservapedia more often.

"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
OBEY"

O = 15
B = 2
E = 5
Y = 23
-------
45 * 14,8 = 666

Genesis 14, 8

"And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; "

Apocalypsis 14, 8

"And another angel followed, saying: That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

That won't make a good Wikipedia article.

Tesselode wrote:That won't make a good Wikipedia article.

I think it makes a damn fine Conservapedia Article jajaja, anyway, Bas van den Brink posted Not Tetris on the submitterator, we should go and vote it up (and leave comments), if it makes boing boing's front page, we are set with the "notability" thing for Wikipedia.

http://boingboing.net/submit/2010/08/no ... oogle.html

I am not sure if blog posts meet the notability guidelines:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

If the blogs are publicly known then yes.

bartbes wrote:If the blogs are publicly known then yes.

Yep, and in the time that it took you to research the notability guidelines, you could have clicked the link and clicked on the "+"

First, I knew that by head.
Second, I already did.