Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Conservapedia proven right (view source)

Revision as of 19:17, July 7, 2013

307 bytes added ,  19:17, July 7, 2013
→‎The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics".: No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they of
Line 333: Line 333:     
What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a age, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
 
What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a age, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
 +
 +
:I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this.  No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the [[Wimbledon]] results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,936

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1060056"

Navigation menu