Changes

::No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

==Predictions: Andy Schlafly vs. Andy Schlafly==

==Predictions==

There's seems to be two users on this site both named Aschlafly. Both Aschlafly's like making [[Presidential election 2012|presidential election predictions]]. But they can't seem to agree with each other. One says it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959694&oldid=959693| Jeb Bush]. The other thinks it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=943924&oldid=943593| Newt]. One predicted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=938684&oldid=938671| Sarah Palin] wouldn't run. Meanwhile, the other ranks her [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959693&oldid=959011| fourth in line for the nomination]. So which Andy Schlafly should we be listening to? And is it possible that they ''both'' might be wrong? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

There's seems to be two users on this site both named Aschlafly. Both Aschlafly's like making [[Presidential election 2012|presidential election predictions]]. But they can't seem to agree with each other. One says it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959694&oldid=959693| Jeb Bush]. The other thinks it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=943924&oldid=943593| Newt]. One predicted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=938684&oldid=938671| Sarah Palin] wouldn't run. Meanwhile, the other ranks her [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959693&oldid=959011| fourth in line for the nomination]. So which Andy Schlafly should we be listening to? And is it possible that they ''both'' might be wrong? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Predictions '''''should''''' improve as new information is obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Predictions '''''should''''' improve as new information is obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::Correct. It's obvious that as new information is made available, it's only natural for your predictions to evolve. But at this moment, you are making two contradictory predictions. On this page you're making the case that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee, while at the same time you're taking credit for Conservapedia being proven right for predicting it will be Newt Gingrich. And as the convention nears I am sure that the actual nominee will find his way to the #1 slot on this page. Here's a prediction I have for you: That regardless of the eventual nominee, Conservapedia will be "[[sharpshooter fallacy| proven right]]" yet again. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:04, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::Correct. It's obvious that as new information is made available, it's only natural for your predictions to evolve. But at this moment, you are making two contradictory predictions. On this page you're making the case that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee, while at the same time you're taking credit for Conservapedia being proven right for predicting it will be Newt Gingrich. And as the convention nears I am sure that the actual nominee will find his way to the #1 slot on this page. Here's a prediction I have for you: That regardless of the eventual nominee, Conservapedia will be "[[sharpshooter fallacy| proven right]]" yet again. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:04, 9 February 2012 (EST)