Here's some ammunition/backup
Andy's been trying to prove himself on tennis since the Olympics of last year. Scroll down to "men's tennis". Oh look, Murray under-performs? Nope, and he beats Andy's favored Novak whateverhisnameis. And now, Murray won Wimbledon. What's left for Andy's shattered image of being right? Women's tennis. Snuggles! <3 NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Haha thank you! I really don't understand some of the recent sports claims; I'm not saying there are no political aspects of sport, and that you can't find instances of the media overhyping certain players - but I think it's nonsense to suggest that the media cherry-picks who to overhype based on the athlete's beliefs (the notion that it's some giant atheist conspiracy that keeps Tim Tebow down and Lebron James up is absurd).
- Furthermore, I think attempting to stretch the best of the public concept into the sports realm just doesn't work, these rankings aren't in the political sphere; too often I think we, Conservapedia specifically, tend to reason that the political sphere is infinite and encases every other sphere completely. I don't agree with that. (Granted I'm really not familiar with the best of the public concept. Conservapedia-created concepts were never my editing niche - I edited templates and articles on political figures and universities)--Iduan (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Here and here are a couple of strong critiques of Mandela and the memory-making about him that I would weave into our article on Mandela, if I thought bwe should have an article on Mandela in the first place, which I no longer do. Have fun. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey I'll definitely read those - and hopefully incorporate them at CP (although I had been trying to keep editorials out - as constraining as it might be - sometimes it's opening a can of warms, but it will have to be done eventually). But I can't edit the RW article- not when I'm like "maybe we should say one bad thing about his presidency since it's generally regarded as not the best", and the reaction is "okay mr conservapedia editor - so you let your guys favor the rich, but not our guy?". But if you want to point them to the Mandela talk page maybe a second voice will convince Osaka Sun. Still I appreciate the reading material! He's really a fascinating subject.--Iduan (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I, um, really doubt that those critiques are the kind of thing that will fly at CP, but it's not like Andy, Karajou or JPatt realy give a shit about the Mandela article, so you can prolly do whatever you want there. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Having read the second - which I enjoyed! - I think you're right. I also have to admit that the material I read suggested that Mandela wasn't in favor of Marxism because he considered it to be non-African - which isn't really addressed in the article, but would make me question whether the embrace of the SACP was really for access to the black masses. But no unfortunately this is one example of two sides having entirely different definitions - here is an article Conservative posted on MPR which provides the theory that Mandela was a socialist and that the view of apartheid as a capitalist system is incorrect. Fortunately I think I can do the article subject justice without going into that type of economic nuance. The article can state what he did without categorizing - or at least that's my partial goal.--Iduan (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)