Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn

From RationalWiki

How can something that is invisible have color?--¿ Sta’le ? 23:53, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Heretic!69.216.99.159

To Know in Faith is All that is required - obviously. Blasphemer! human^{be in} 23:58, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I thought it was Invisible pink unicorn. Totnesmartin 14:51, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Call me just plain stoopid, but last night I was describing my UXB and the image to a friend, and corrected myself from purple to pink. And so I knew exactly what you were going to say when I saw the edit summary ("which one's pink?" HAHAHA) The article should be moved. The I-Purple-U is her gay brother, equally revered by some, but not the same creature down before whom all should prostrate themselves. Or, at least bring some tasty oats. PBUH, human^{be in} 14:55, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

The fact that the invisible unicorn has colour is a mystery. It's a bit like the trinity - something that only be fully understood by true believers.--Bob^{bing up} 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Heretics!

True believers know that the Herselfness, actually has two horns, as can clearly not be seen in the picture. CЯacke® 16:16, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

For me, explanations of parodies are unneccessary.^{— Unsigned, by: 83.144.95.66 / welcome this user / contribs}

Does this qualify for tax exemption ? Apparently (according to Richard Dawkins) only monotheistic religions attract charitable status, so the introduction of an Invisible Purple Unicorn as Her brother could seriously jeopardise our tax position. Should we start a war? Dreadnought 19:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

As long as Her followers understand the mystery that Two are One and that One is Two, there should be no untoward tax ramifications. human 20:14, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Plenty of polytheistic pagan groups get the church tax status, at least in the US. Researcher 20:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)

So no war then, huh ? Dreadnought 12:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)