Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
→United Kingdom
I sympathise with your position, I really do, but the fact remains that the underdogs claim is sufficiently referenced to the Conservapedia standard for referencing. Unfortunately, the onus is on you to show if there are any exceptions to the accepted principle. Good luck. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:58, 7 February 2012 (EST)
I sympathise with your position, I really do, but the fact remains that the underdogs claim is sufficiently referenced to the Conservapedia standard for referencing. Unfortunately, the onus is on you to show if there are any exceptions to the accepted principle. Good luck. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:58, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:The Scotland team are underdogs. They never get beyond the World Cup first round and more often than not they don't even qualify. Nevertheless British fans support them. Their travel club for away games is filled to capacity and is not accepting new members. All this is (or can be) referenced. The original claim is not referenced at all. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 18:03, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:The Scotland team are underdogs. They never get beyond the World Cup first round and more often than not they don't even qualify. Nevertheless British fans support them. Their travel club for away games is filled to capacity and is not accepting new members. All this is (or can be) referenced. The original claim is not referenced at all. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 18:03, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::You make an interesting point. I suggest you take it up on the relevant page [[Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]]. It may be that the principle has need of some fine-tuning. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)