nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 624:
Line 624: +
→Questions: I guess there's /some/ point to it.
::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)